- "...said and really meant you would rely on a more accurate translation of the Bible than the KJV."
KJ bibles are not arguably without some flaws still, as they can scarcely be fully 100% perfect wording arising in English language. For correction, what could KJV be compared to, other than what best evidences can be arrived at after careful sifting by comparison of the most ancient texts available --- by comparison with those extant texts which can be considered faithful reflection of their own sources (other than where they can be reasonably proven to be not in agreement with others, the generally slight "difference" and dubious disagreements each needing be traced as to the how & why of such occurrences) begs the question; what translation is a more accurate translation? Tell us.
Personal preferences, or argument of "authority" (by those whom did not in the slightest themselves "author" the works directly) at the end of the day, are only that, being not firm enough in foundation of and by themselves. As to OT, a re-approacchment to the Hebrew texts of the time of Christ is in order (as Jerome saw in his time) yet that be an arduous task, for such works as the intermediate hexapla which Jerome possibly consulted or referenced, survives less then complete. As the chart shows however, Jerome is thought to have closely followed the Symmachus translation of the Hebrew into Greek, then himself translating into Latin.
After you have produced or at least pointed towards translation alleged to be superior, THEN in side-by-side comparison, point out precise differences, and precise theological implication or variance which is significant, and how those may apply to that which the man is saying. OR --admit the issue raised here is a little fishy, as in little red herring.
The Mormons play the same card, but not as reservedly. The Islamics attempt to trump with their own Koran (even as it can be shown to have suffered revision, regardless of Islamic horn-tooting to the contrary but thank God it is doubtful here that anyone will require me to prove this last point, for the moment --- these issues are complex enough as it is.
Otherwise;
In comparative analysis, do know that Douay-Rheims had it's own problems too. But then again, it was much influenced by Tyndale, so let's blame it on him perhaps, provided we could put his ashes together again, being as the RC church (more or less) had the fellow burned at the stake for all his considerable effort, with the real kicker being the distaste authoritarians had for his opinions;
Elsewhere, however, the English wording of the Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale in 1525; though the base text for the Rheims translators appears to be the revision of Tyndale found in an English and Latin diglot New Testament, published by Miles Coverdale in Paris in 1538
which leaves the modern DR; even after some adjustment by Challoner (whom in some places is said to have rather imposed his own sense upon the text, also) ---and whom himself much relied upon the King James to help iron out places where the DR, in following the Latin too closely, even as to word order/placement, rendered itself opaque or obscure --- still being much more a work of "Protestant" influence than not.
So which bible, again? A return to the Latin, perhaps? If so, which version of that? Certainly not one which contained [ahem] "copy error" pertaining to Gen 3:15.
Without some sufficient proofs, evidences, comparisons, etc., vague allusion to "accurate" bible translation is just so much pompously pious fancy-pants hand waving.