The King James Version of the Bible (dubbed the Authorized Version by the Church of England) has without question been the most read, quoted, and recognized English-language version of the Bible since its creation in the first decade of the 17th century.
The KJV was first commissioned by James I of the England in order to create a universal English-language text of the Bible that would conform to the doctrines and theologies of the Church of England. James intended to create a translation that would not only "compete" with the Latin versions used by the Roman Catholic Church, but which would also pay homage, theologically, to the concerns of new Protestants in England, most notably the Puritans. James wanted a completely "de-catholicized" version of the Bible. The work was begun in 1604 and was completed in 1611.
Unfortunately, despite its popularity - particularly among conservative Christians - the King James Version is one of the most error-prone translations available in English. The texts used by the translators are known and have been known almost since the time of the translation to have been inferior and full of scribal mistakes.
The KJV translators relied solely on one Greek manuscript for the New Testament. This manuscript is known as the Textus Receptus. It was put together in the early 1500's by a Dutch scholar named Erasmus. In putting together the Textus Receptus, Erasmus used only a handful of sources, and all of these sources date from the 12th century or later. Furthermore, only one of his sources came outside what is called the "Byzantine" texts, which were a group of texts all copied in and around a specific geographic region (i.e., Byzantium). Scholars recognize that the Byzantine texts are full of scribal errors and do not conform to other earlier textual groupings, such as the Alexandrian texts.
Bart Ehrman, a textual scholar, who studied under the most pre-eminent textual scholar in the world Bruce Metzger has said that Erasmus' text was based on "one of the worstmanuscripts that we now have available to us."
So the Textus Receptus was the only source used by the KJV translators, and this source was itself based on only a few sources, all of which came from the Middle Ages or later, the majority of which came from only one geographic region, and all of which are known to be inconsistent with earlier texts and textual groupings.
What this means is that the New Testament in the KJV is based on very late manuscripts, which are known to be full of textual errors and wild variations.
Add now to this the fact that the KJV is literally fraught, almost from beginning to end, with Puritan doctrinal and theological bias. Examples include translating the Old Testament word for grave - "Sheol" - as "hell" whenever the context was related to a bad person or an enemy of the Jews or God (hell, as a concept, was unknown to the ancient Hebrews - it was very well known, however, to 17th century Puritans); translating the words of Jesus in John chapter 3 so that it appears that Jesus is asserting that folks must be "born again" in order to attain salvation - what the phrase actually says is "born from above" (again, the idea of being "born again" was deeply-entrenched in the Puritan mindset, and "born from above" might have caused theological issues and conundrums for Puritan congregations, so the translators simply put words into Jesus' mouth that the original text does not contain); and using the word "mansions" in Jesus' famous statement of "In my father's house are many mansions..." when in fact the word was simply "rooms" or "dwelling places" - Jesus was not promising everyone would live in the lap of luxury in heaven - this was a Puritan ideal, not an assertion of Jesus.
These are just a few examples; there are countless others. Furthermore, as I have already alluded to, it is an established fact that when James I commissioned the translation, he specifically ordered his translators to ensure that the new English text conformed directly and specifically with Anglican doctrine and theology. This was done to ensure that this English translation supported the Church of England, and not the Church of Rome. So it was known from the very start that the text was theologically- and doctrinally-biased. It is not surprising, then, to find evidence of this in the text.
To recap, here is what we have with the KJV:
1. The New Testament of the KJV was based on only one source (as opposed to modern translations which use hundreds of sources). This one source was itself based on only a few very late sources, which are known to be error-ridden and full of scribal variations.
2. The KJV was specifically commissioned to conform to Anglican theology, Puritan interests, and to be the Bible for the Church of England, specifically against the Church of Rome. As such, it was openly theologically-biased, and this can be demonstrated in countless places in the text itself, where words, phrases, and passages were translated inaccurately in order to conform to specific Church doctrines and beliefs.
These things are more than enough, by themselves, to cause anyone to shy away from using the King James Version for studying the Bible. However, there is yet a third issue, one that is probably the most obvious: the King James Version was written in Shakespearean English. Since we no longer speak this kind of English, it makes the KJV very difficult to follow and understand for modern readers. For example, Galatians 4:9 in the KJV: "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" What exactly is being said here? Of course, if one is reasonably intelligent and educated, one can read it over several times and figure out what the point is, but studying the Bible is difficult enough without also having to dig one's way through highfalutin 17th century English. And when one considers that many folks in small, rural Pentecostal and evangelical churches are not typically well-educated or well-read, the problem multiplies tenfold.
Newer translations, like the New Revised Standard Version, are based on hundreds and hundreds of the most reliable early manuscripts and they also take into account a lot of new knowledge that modern scholars have about ancient Hebrew and Greek knowledge that folks like Erasmus and the translators of the KJV did not have. Furthermore, we have far more early manuscripts available to us now than the earlier translators had this allows us to get a better idea of how the original texts probably read. Finally, versions like the New Revised Standard in addition to being highly accurate and true to the original words are also written in plain, modern English. These reasons are why scholars both conservative and liberal alike tend to recommend the New Revised Standard Version for English readers of the Bible. The KJV is probably the last version any modern English speaker needs to read, unless they are simply reading it for the beauty of the words and the literary quality of the prose.
As a Christian, should one want to read what is comfortable and most familiar, or should one want to read what is accurate and most clear?
I would most certainly choose the latter, and that is why I choose the New Revised Standard Version over the King James.