One of the fundamental deceptions being promoted by modern Bible publishers is that the new Bibles are merely "updated styles of writing," or that they are simply "easier to read" than the KJV, and that nothing has been removed or changed in God's word. I fell prey to this deception for over a decade of my Christian life!!
You've heard the old saying, "the proof is in the pudding." Well, in this situation, the proof is in the changes. Take a look at just a few of the changes between the Textus Receptus translation (KJV) and the translations (NIV, NASB) based upon codices Sinaiticusand Vaticanus. It will astonish you.
Do these verse charts in some way prove that the KJV is perfect? Of course not, and they are not meant to. The KJV does have errors, some of which are corrected in modern versions such as the NIV (e.g. Acts 12:4, where the KJV erroneously has "Easter," while the NIV and modern versions, and the Textus Receptus, have "Passover"). What these charts will do is stir you to study. When you see glaring differences between Bible versions that create shrouds of doubt surrounding the veracity of "sola scriptura," you should want to know why these differences exist.
Personally, I do believe that the very nature of the differences can convince someone that the modern Bibles are based on corrupt manuscripts, as they make Christ less than equal with God (and even talk about Joseph being his "father"), they lessen the atonement, and they remove the need for repentance and walking in the Spirit. But that is not the primary goal here. The goal is to prove to you that all Bibles do not say the same thing.
Why is this important? It is simple: if two books say different things, or if two books say inherently contradictory things, or if of two books one says more than the other, they cannot both be God's Word.