With all due respect, the argument that should be on the table is "Which is the best of the original language texts?" Any and all translations must take those original ideas expressed by the writers and move them into a then-current language framework.
Translation is not complete, or accurate, unless the pictures formed in the readers' minds are the same as those intended by the writers. And, frankly, there are several remarks in the King's English that are no longer understood the way they were in the 1600s.
Thank you for being committed to accuracy, which is commendable. However, that is what i find fault with in new translations, that of too much paraphrasing (and usually without identifying supplied words as the KJV often does), and or relying upon the supposedly better mss, going so far as to exclude the end of Mark as being in the original text based upon about 1% of mss missing it.
But the primary thing is that we heed the basic Truth in any translation.