KJV is a perfectly good place to start, but make some searches of any particular paragraph that puzzles, and find other translations, including orthodox versions and scholarly interpretations. Sometimes the wording boils down to the change of one word. Methodist or Evangelist versions often try to simplify or modernize -still fine for establishing the main concepts. How do Huguenot or Protestant versions change it? Their intention was to root out the corruption that had manifested through secrecy. What is the symbolism, especially, when a different word is introduced - and yet they become very strict. What was the condition of the translators at the time? Persecution.

King James had a pure desire to gift the bible to the common Englishman. He hired intellectuals and Scholars of Ancient Greek and Roman to do it. The agenda was pure IMO. However, the Roman Catholics may disagree - the question then is why? To me, this becomes an issue of decentralisation by offering translation for those who want to read the bible in their native tongue. For the Catholics in the 17th C, this meant that Latin was the lingua franca, which had a centralising order. However, this sort of thing has issues, just as any Order has (Think New World vs Old World) and English was the natural step to secularizing. When there exists a power struggle, and there is an executive quibbling about which language a book should be written in, one must question the symbolism AND the propaganda. In this context, the KJV is villified, IMO.