One factor that rarely seems to come up within this type of discussion is with the particular version that your home congregation might be using. If they are still using the old KJV then there will undoubtedly be a lot of quiet pressure for you to use this version, so you might want to use the KJV for church use and another version for private devotions and study.
This implies that all churches that still use the KJV are KJV Only and will "pressure" members. An overbroad smear.
By now you would have probably been told that there are two types of translations, where one is Formal Equivalence such as with the NASB and KJV and the other is Dynamic Equivalence such as the NIV.
The problem with this is that all Bible translators understand that this is either a fallacy or at best an over simplification as there is no such thing as a Formal Equivalence (or word-for-word) translation outside of the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures. If you were to look into either the NASB or the KJV you will find that they regularly employ numerous English words for the same Hebrew or Greek word as it is impossible to undertake a word-for-word translation from what is called an original donor language such as Hebrew, English or French into a receptor language such as English or any other language – it simply cannot be done.
At best, the various translations will adopt one of two principles where they will lean more towards the principal or ideal of formal equivalence or toward dynamic equivalence. A good example of two versions that have adopted the principle of formal equivalence are the NASB and KJV, whereas most other versions have employed the principle of dynamic equivalence.
Firstly, your view regarding formal vs. dynamic equivalence is a quibble. All proponents of formal equivalence readily admit that an exact word-for-word translation is impossible, however, we aim for it as an objective, and the KJV is a very reasonable attempt at this. It is not ideal; I for one really wish they had used the LXX rather than the Hebrew/Aramaic MT, but it is a good, solid translation, that uses formal equivalence to the fullest extent possible. However, where dynamic equivalence is required, denominational biases do tend to creep in on the margins, and it would be naive to suggest that the KJV is not driven in part by the political will to supplant the low church Geneva Bible and the high church Bishops' Bible with something more broadly accessible.
Secondly, you should clarify your post to say
most modern versions. Older translations like the KJV, Douay-Rheims and so on tend to favour Formal Equivalence to the fullest extent possible. The one interesting exception to this in ancient times comes in the form of the Aramaic Targumim.
Speaking of Aramaic, I find it a huge red flag that your post refers to Hebrew and Greek, but not Aramaic, given the large amount of OT material written in that language.
The Amplified Bible, which by the way is still a favourite ‘aid’ for many KJV users, where this paraphrase is at the extreme edge of dynamic equivalence where it has been the favourite aid for KJV users since it first came out as most KJV users do not want to openly admit that they really struggle to understand the archaic language of the KJV.
The "archaic language" of the KJV remains the norm in the English liturgies of traditional Anglicans, the Eastern Orthodox, and other groups. There are relatively few genuinely archaic passages in the KJV, and where these are not explained by footnotes, which they ought to be, by the way, a quicl Google can provide answers.
If you are looking for a devotional Bible, then maybe keep to what I said in my opening paragraph, but if you are looking at serious study the old KJV certainly has a number of limitations other than with its difficult and outdated archaic language.
"Serious study" requires recourse to the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts.
For serious study, the Greek text behind the KJV was discarded by most scholars over a century ago
Not by the majority of Orthodox scholars, who continue to work with the Byzantine text type or translations of it, for example, the Peshitta. The Orthodox comprise the second largest "denomination."
Yes, there is a great deal of new manuscript evidence, whoch is useful. It should however be noted that textual criticism has limits; it cannot answer questions about the doctrinal value of a text or its accuracy in historic or theological terms. For example, the Adultery Pericope in John is most likely an interpolation, however, we have other evidence suggesting a lost Hebraic text contained a version of the story, furthermore, where would we be doctrinally without "go forth and sin no more"? Hmm?
Holy scriptures exist to serve the Christian Church, not vice versa. One must remember the earliest Christians did not even have a New Testament per se.
and it would be a brave publisher (maybe a foolhardy one) who would dare publish a commentary that was based on the KJV as they know that it would only have a very small market.
There are in fact a number of commentaries, KJV study bibles, and other utilities written for the KJV; it remains wildly popular and is the most common English language translation, to the continuing fury of liberal and postmodern theologians. I say this as someone who personally prefers the Douay-Rheims.
I use the NIV for devotions but my preference for study is with the NASB whereas the KJV is simply not a serious option. Of any version, the NIV certainly has the best support of both the commentaries and with the extensive range of Hebrew and Greek lexical aids that Zondervan have produced. My favourite lexical aid (which I do not suggest that you buy) is the Greek Interlinear New Testament (NASB/NIV) which has the NIV down one column and the NASB down the other with both an Interlinear and Reverse Greek Interlinear in the centre column.
The NIV is actually one of the worst choices one could make, owing to the restrictive copyright status, the extreme dynamic equivalence, and the influence of a liberal/postmodern editorial bias, particularly in the latest edition, which incorporates many of the asinine PC changes initially made in TNIV; it has become a 21st century English language Targumim that interprets the original text according to a contemporary political ideology, as opposed to a balanced, scholarly translation based on the current state of the art of lower criticism. Indeed, the influence of liberal higher criticism on the work basically renders it corrupt.
I prefer translation to interpretation, for the base text. Interpretation should be in the form of commentary.
