I definitly think the King James is an excellent translation
But
as you look at the original 1611 introduction you will see they were
also very humble and realized the great difficutly of translations, they
did not belittle the other translations either. Language is always
changing. They also had much opposition. The Puritans and Pilgrims
avoided it and relied on the Geneva bible. King James persecuted the
Puritans because the looked to God as the ultimate authority, not the
King!
It would be good to take a look at bible history and
understand it better. Then you will appreciate the many scholars prior
to and after the King James
It is not an easy task.
From ''The King James Only Controversy"
The
KJV translators faced the same arguments that are hurled at the godly
men who worked on other translations. "Wasn't the KJV good enough for
you? Hasn't God blessed it? Why prepare a new translation?" Note their
reply!
This language is from the original text so it might be a little difficult
From that you will realize that the current version had to be revised because the language has changed much.
Many mens mouths have bene open a good while (and yet are not stopped)
with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals
of Translations made before: and aske what may be the reason, what the
necessitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceived, say they,
all this while? Hath her sweet bread bene mingled with leaven, her
silver with drosse, her wine with water, her milke with lime? (Lacte
gypsum malè miscetur, saith S. Ireney,) We hoped that we had bene in the
right way, that we had had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and
that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complaine, yet
that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but
winde in it? Hath the bread bene delivered by the fathers of the
Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is
it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certaine
brethren. Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat
in Nehemiah, mocke, as we heare, both at the worke and workemen, saying;
What doe these weake Jewes, &c. will they make the stones whole
againe out of the heapes of dust which are burnt? although they build,
yet if a foxe goe up, he shall even breake downe their stony wall. Was
their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not
good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the
Catholicks (meaning Popish Romanists) alwayes goe in jeopardie, for
refusing to goe to heare it? Nay, if it must be translated into English,
Catholicks are fittest to doe it. They have learning, and they know
when a thing is well, they can manum de tabulá. Wee will answere them
both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome,
Damnamus veteres? Minimè, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod
possumus laboramus. That is, Doe we condemne the ancient? In no case:
but after the endevours of them that were before us, wee take the best
paines we can in the house of God. As if hee said, Being provoked by the
example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it my
duetie, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may
be profitable in any measure to Gods Church, lest I should seeme to have
laboured in them in vaine, and lest I should be thought to glory in
men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S. Jerome
may be thought to speake.