I don’t think there’s any necessary preference for the translation.
I generally quote the King James Version (Authorized Version) because, as you say, the language is wonderful. And also, it was the Bible used, quoted, and referred to by just about every English writer for hundreds of years.
I grew up Episcopalian and converted to the Catholic Church, but I still have a personal preference for the KJV. Realizing that there are just a few minor places where the translation wasn’t quite right—but not really enough to worry about, IMHO.
When I taught the Bible as Literature at NYU, I used the Revised Standard Version. It’s based on the KJV but slightly modernized, and a few minor corrections. Plus, the translation was agreed to by a panel of Catholic and Protestant scholars, with a few notes added to explain disagreements. And including the Apocrypha, with a note explaining that those books are considered part of the Catholic Bible.
Unfortunately, the RSV was updated by the NRSV, which is a piece of cr*p. Politically correct, and full of stupid and misleading changes. I really missed using the Oxford RSV for my Bible course, with its very helpful notes at the bottom of the page, including many citations from the Church Fathers.
I was told same thing by a trusted friend.
RSV is very good, but hard to find now, NRSV is very bad
The English Standard Version (ESV) is in many ways the old RSV, with a few more notes.
I grew up with the RSV. The pacing and wording of the ESV is close enough that I do not have any issues with it. There was supposed to be a Catholic version, but I know that got held up because the US Bishops wouldn’t have held the copyright.
The NASB sucks. Just sucks. My brides priest admits it sucks.