There is a huge difference between updating language and changing the Hebrew and Greek texts behind a translation and producing a new translation from new texts.Why are you so dogmatic on Bible translations? Why bow down to traditions??? I'm sure the Latin Vulgate would be the only translation available if powers at that time had their way. Modern translations make the word far easier to understand as MOST do not speak nor write in 16th century english anymore.
Most KJVO I know of use it only because of their traditions, not because they have actually thought their position over a little. I am not attacking the KJV, I am just saying that language has changed and God's word should be easy and really available for people of our generation in a language they can understand.
Numerous books for you to read but one comes to mind is called The KJV Only Controversy by White.
This is what happened in 1881, when the R.V. was translated it was just suppose to be an update of the KJV.. at least that was what they were originally appointed to do, but Wescott and Hort slowly subverted the translation committee from the inside out and they completely overthrew the Greek text behind the KJV, this was not what they were originally commissioned to do. This is where you modern bible versions come from, they all build on this original Wescott and Hort text. The issue is the original language texts that are behind modern translations.
It's really a straw man to portray those of us who use the KJV to just be against change or anything new.
Seriously.