AV, you said that you compare the modern saints to the saints of "the good ol' days." Those saints, you say, were hlier, and this is evidence of how the KJV is better for holiness. Let's walk through this.
Premise 1. People 100 years ago used the KJV, and some of them were holier than the best we have today. [1] [<-- that's a footnote, by the way. See the end of this post.]
Premise 2. People today use various versions, including the KJV, and none of them can match the holiness of the "cream of the crop" of previous generations. [2]
Premise 3. The KJV was what caused the holiness of previous generations, and modern versions are what cause the decadence of today's generation.
But, I would reply,
Since people still use the KJV, why is it that we don't see them being holier and better Christians than other Christians who use other versions. People used to use only the KJV, and people today use various versions. People used to be holier when they used the KJV, and people today who use various versions are "punier" Christians. Surprisingly, even KJV-users are punier Christians! [3]
Of course, other things have changed in the past 100 years, so why couldn't it be one of those things that has made Christians weaker? It would seem that this is the case, since even the KJV-using Christians of today are weaker. [4]
Anyway, I think you're shutting your eyes to the evidence. If the KJV makes for better Christians, then let's see that correlation. KJV-users should be holier on average than non-KJV-users are on average. I don't see that as the case, and for the reasons I've said, I find unconvincing your argument that previous generations are the ones we should compare to today's non-KJV-users. There are lots of other difference between those two groups, as I touched upon.
The ball's in your court, friend.
________________________________________________
[1] We can't speak as to the average saint, because those ones wouldn't be famous enough for us to know about. And we do know that the people you mentioned did certainly battle carnality among Christians. So I don't think that your everyday Christian was any better than today's regular Christian.
[2] This is arguable. It's hard to compare the quality of Christians across time. Shucks, it's hard to compare the holiness of Christians even when they are both right in front of us. We can look at the works they do, and that may give us some measure, although God did say something about how we tend to look at the outward appearance while He looks at the heart.
Further complicating the problem is the fact that what we know about the actual
lives (not writings) of previous heroes of the faith comes in biography form. When admirers are writing about the life of a person, they tend to glaze over the bad parts and emphasize the good parts, usually in the process exaggerating the greatness of the individual. Biographers tend to make heroes look like superheroes who have no weaknesses.
[3] As it turns out, you're using a form of reasoning that I don't recommend:
post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
[4] In fact, it looks like to me that the Christians who are closest to God are the ones in persecuted countries (in general, of course). They don't have all the pleasures of this world that distract them, and in fact, they have to be in hiding from persecutors while they worship. They are making real sacrifices for their faith. I think that it is enmity with the world is friendship with God. Some persecuted Christians don't even have any Bibles at all, but their faith would probably beat most anyone here.