The K.J.V I would say .
Because it used the Majority (Textus Receptus). Meaning the majority of other manuscripts found in any century agree with the manuscripts used in the K.J.V.
Modern translations are stated as using Minority text. We don't really know what Manuscripts are used today in new versions really . ( maybe you should study this ? )
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus or Alexandrian Manuscripts of Westcott and Hort ; would be considered "Minority text" which many Bibles have used today, which ones ? Minority ,meaning they don't agree completely ,with what is said in the majority text, but parts may be used anyway, in new versions .which parts?.
K.J.V. used text that agreed with the Majority manuscripts .
Also new translations do try to translated more to the Hebrew or Greek or whatever they are using, for their new Versions. Some times they are accurate some times they muddy what was already a good rendering . And other times, they opt to drop the language & thus meaning ; in the manuscript, for the sake of fluidity in the English.
I rather have a choice, and know all the words , and primes in the manuscripts for what was translated into the English.
The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the K.J.V. Bible gives you the Hebrew, Greek ,Aramaic ,whatever , from the mss. yourself. For that reason there is no need for new Bible translations. We have what's needed .
If you want the most accurate combination :
"The Companion Bible: by E.W.Bullinger " ( Kregel publishing ) ( Because he contributed, this is why it bares his name).
It is Not a new translation.
It is Not an amended translation.
It is Not a commentary .
If gives facts etc.. It uses the Masoretic text of Ezra–Nehemiah - ( successfully )
etc. It is a K.J.V Bible, with scholarly side notes.
Used with : The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible ( KJV ). ( I'll have to find u the right publisher ) With that you can look up the original Hebrew , Greek ,etc. meanings/words.
And a Smith's Bible Dictionary .
there are a few others, but these are key.