While it makes good copy, this made-up story is completely misleading because it is based on a false premise, and employs a false dichotomy.
The truth is that the KJV was translated from printed Greek editions, which were in turn constructed from very few late and incomplete manuscripts. There are far more manuscripts available now, there is better scholarship, there is broader knowledge, and the modern translators don't answer to the theological whims of an English king.
Further, many of the words in the KJV are truly archaic (when was the last time you used "trow" or "wimples" when you weren't reading or referring to the KJV?) and many have commonplace meanings today that they simply did not have in 1611.
The KJV is not the standard by which all translations are judged. Arguments based on the premise that it is are inherently flawed and often self-refuting.
The truth is that the KJV was translated from printed Greek editions, which were in turn constructed from very few late and incomplete manuscripts. There are far more manuscripts available now, there is better scholarship, there is broader knowledge, and the modern translators don't answer to the theological whims of an English king.
Further, many of the words in the KJV are truly archaic (when was the last time you used "trow" or "wimples" when you weren't reading or referring to the KJV?) and many have commonplace meanings today that they simply did not have in 1611.
The KJV is not the standard by which all translations are judged. Arguments based on the premise that it is are inherently flawed and often self-refuting.