Dr. Rice was KJV preferred, too. So was I until, the rancor and slaying over the "only" became a point to where I just moved away from the KJ to prefer the NASB. That way I stand apart from that whole controversy. 
If I recall correctly, Icon is also KJ preferred.
I am not certain that I agree with those who consider God is apathetic to all things emotional as some of the extreme teach of the "doctrine of divine impassibility." For one cannot express love, anger, ... in the divine sense nor does the Scripture present God as "impassible" when it comes to how God interacts with the creation. Mark and Matthew both state that Christ was "moved to compassion." Some would view Christ as experiencing that which God does not, but John's account of the relationship of the Son and Father would not allow such an expression to be factual. Christ certainly did experience pain and sorrow so does the Father. Hunger and thirst are human aspects of which God gives as an attribute of sustenance, and not pointing to His attribute. So, when Christ hungered and thirsted, in the physical sense, that was not something that God would experience, but rather a human need for sustaining bodily functions, (same with the heart beating, the inhaling and exhaling, ...)
Then there is the connection in "the doctrine of impassibility" that concerns whether God's emotions and expressions of passion are voluntary or involuntary.
On that point, I would consider it rational that God does nothing "involuntarily." For then He would become subject to the impulses of what drove the "involuntary" and not as sovereign ruler over all creation and Himself. However, there are certain key driving forces that Scriptures conclude are not separable from God. Such passions as Love, Joy, Peace, Justice, and other attributes that are to be part of the believer, also.
If I recall correctly, Icon is also KJ preferred.
I am not certain that I agree with those who consider God is apathetic to all things emotional as some of the extreme teach of the "doctrine of divine impassibility." For one cannot express love, anger, ... in the divine sense nor does the Scripture present God as "impassible" when it comes to how God interacts with the creation. Mark and Matthew both state that Christ was "moved to compassion." Some would view Christ as experiencing that which God does not, but John's account of the relationship of the Son and Father would not allow such an expression to be factual. Christ certainly did experience pain and sorrow so does the Father. Hunger and thirst are human aspects of which God gives as an attribute of sustenance, and not pointing to His attribute. So, when Christ hungered and thirsted, in the physical sense, that was not something that God would experience, but rather a human need for sustaining bodily functions, (same with the heart beating, the inhaling and exhaling, ...)
Then there is the connection in "the doctrine of impassibility" that concerns whether God's emotions and expressions of passion are voluntary or involuntary.
On that point, I would consider it rational that God does nothing "involuntarily." For then He would become subject to the impulses of what drove the "involuntary" and not as sovereign ruler over all creation and Himself. However, there are certain key driving forces that Scriptures conclude are not separable from God. Such passions as Love, Joy, Peace, Justice, and other attributes that are to be part of the believer, also.