“I believe your treatment is colored by your desire to set aside the difference between the task of translation versus the burden of finding meaning to the translation...”
Actually, KING JAMES ordered the translators to take that approach, and based it, as he said, on “No Bishop. No King.” That is a matter of historical record. If they were going to translate, they would do so in a way that supported the divine right of kings. Per King James.
In Acts 19, “It began with Demetrius, a silversmith who had a large business manufacturing silver shrines of the Greek goddess Artemis. He kept many craftsmen busy. 25 He called them together...” It turned into a riot, but it started as simply a MEETING. An assembly of people. Which is all the word means.
But King James needed it to be a hierarchical structure, which is what “church” meant in the 1600s. So he rejected using “congregation” as Tyndale had because it would fit his political purposes.
NOTHING to do with translating. Pure politics.
Another word fraught with misunderstanding doctrinally is "believer" which does not discern whether the person in view is regenerated or merely in agreement with Christian principles but not wholly committed to Jesus as Lord and Sole Owner of him, body, soul, and spirit.
Regarding James Stuart's influence on bending the translation to fit his preferences, I would be gratified if you could supply a verifiable citation of the instances regarding "church" and "bishop" that back you up. and the text thereof, especially if it appears on line.
In fact, I very much doubt that the translators could or would have been influenced by James, to lay aside their integrity individually or as members of the centers of knowledge. This was a time when people, even peasants, gave up their lives in flames for their beliefs.
At this point, I don't feel that I can rest on your opinion alone; and I always attempt to provide backup for mine.
Don't forget that the KJV translators (and there were many in the consortium) were generally more highly accomplished than most of the authors of today's versions, and that is a matter of record: Here are just a couple of examples that typify what I have said about them:
Lawrence Chaderton (click here)
If The Stuart was to try to influence one of these men of high integrity, he would have had to influence them all, because they stood together on their consensus that the goal was to make that which was already good just a bit better, a Bible fit for adoption as authorized for use throughout the whole British Commonwealth; the official supreme basis for English integrity, not just a nice study Bible to have around when it agreed with one's own opinion as to which was best.
What you are dealing with here is a whole bevy of such learned men, and their national product governing the conduct of the official religion, no matter who was king or queen.
I do not think you do them justice in your tale of their corruptibility.