I definitely 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 difficulty 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.