I agree with you. I don't find King James' version of the English language that difficult to understand. What I do find difficult to understand is "today's" version of the language that you'll find in text messages and the like. While I understand the desire to be brief, I find it more important to be understood.
Beware of false certitudes, however — not noting existence of historically significant manuscripts doesn’t mean they did not exist.
(The example of “alma” isn’t a manuscript problem. The New American Standard, and the following revisions which dropped the pious thees and thous where God is addressed, take the orthodox meaning of this passage, and still note the variant manuscripts in other places.)
U dnt wnt a Bbl n Txtese? :-)