I have spent 12 (count 'em) *12* years in Catholic schooling. I know the Bible quite thoroughly, much more than you do, without a doubt, because I excelled in my twelve years of religion classes. Even if I disagree with some of the doctrine, I *know* it. I know that the Tanakh was written in Hebrew and the New Testatment was written in Greek. They were then translated into English. You stated that King James translated the Bible, a statement which is completely and utterly *false*. I corrected you. To state that I am misinformed when I know more about the subject than you do is just foolish. Unless you have a degree in Divinity or Theology, don't play the "You're not a Christian, you wouldn't know" game with me. I may not be a Christian, but it is a mythology I know a lot about.
So what says that part (or any part, for that matter) is correct? Lots of holy books claim that they are the only valid religious canon. Aleister Crowley's Book of the Law for Thelema claims the same thing. We have two mutually exclusive holy books. If you trust everything you read, you'd believe two things that cannot possibly logically coexist. Thus, you would need to select one. Libre al vel Legis is not the only such holy book, either. Many others claim that they are the only valid religious text.
OK, what prophecies? The book says that things came true, but the book was written several thousand years ago. A lot of novels claim that the imaginary came true also, so why do you think this novelised epic is anything special? What real evidence is there that Charles Dickens or another famous author didn't write the Bible?
I believe in God, the same God that you believe in. The God of the Christians, Jews, Muslims and, yes, Wiccans. I'm not a Wiccan, but I understand what the religion is about.
Don't condemn what you don't understand. That's just being an ignorant bigot.