The inaccuracies, obfuscations, and outright blunders of King James, noted here by me and Kosta, are as compared to Textus Receptus.
See 967, 984, 1194. I should add that 967 are valid observations by Cronos, but the translations as offered by King James are permissible as far as I can tell. Both 967 and 984 equally apply to Douay-Rheims.
Without actually intending to, those translators produced a literary milestone. We can still celebrate both the superb translation of the Bible they intended to create (emphasis added) and the classic work of English literature that was an accidential, yet most welcome, outcome. Our culture, has been enriched by both aspects of the King James Bible. Sadly, we shall never see its equal-or even its like-again (The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture, Alister McGrath, p.310)McGrath is a general editor of the NIV Themetic Study Bible.
'Inaccuracies, obfuscations and outright blunders' are not found in the King James, they are found in the modern 'bibles' and the corrupt critical texts that they are translated from.