I am sure the KJV is a decent translation, with the exception being the deleted books. However, I'm not sure how it can be claimed that it is "God honored".
There's nothing wrong with the KJV, as far as it goes.
The English of the KJV translation is antiquated, and difficult for modern readers to understand without quite a bit of education. Literacy is not a requirement to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and having had a class in Shakespearean English certainly isn't!
There are many translations of the Bible which are very scholarly and in more modern English. Also, when the KJV was translated, they had the Vulgate, they had some copies of the Greek textus receptus. They had the Masoretic Text of the Hebrews. But they did NOT have the advantage that modern scholars have of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are almost 1000 years older than the oldest manuscript of the Masoretic Text (which dates from the 900s AD). They didn't have the hundreds of ancient manuscripts that have been uncovered in the intervening four centuries.
Still, there's nothing wrong with the KJV as such, and if someone absolutely INSISTS on using it, then I am more than willing to do so - provided we use an original 1611 version, which contains the Deuterocanonica (the so-called "Apocrypha"). Alternatively, we can use a modern KJV for everything else, but have to get the Deuterocanonica from a Catholic Bible. If we want the language to be comparable, I guess the Douai-Rheims translation from the same time period as the KJV will suffice. Some folks just love those "Thees" "Thous" "Ye" and other archaisms. I usually give them a little test and ask them to conjugate certain verbs in King James' English, just to see the extent to which they really comprehend the meaning of "thou" and its grammatical place in the language; to wit: it is NOT a term of respect, but the contrary, it is a term of extreme familiarity which is OFFENSIVE when used to another human being to whom one owes respect. It is the equivalent of "Tu" in French, which will get you beaten up by the police if you use it today. Some folks know, but most that I have done my little test with can't conjugate verbs in Shakespearean English, and think "Thee" and "Thou" are more respectful than plain old "You".
Anyway, conceding the point and using the KJV is perfectly fine by me. If using any other Bible is a stumbling block for some folks, then we'll use the KJV and that forecloses a whole line of utterly superfluous argument, such as the one that was the subject of this thread. The guy JUST wants to use the KJV? Great. We'll use it when talking with him. It doesn't change anything substantive, at all, if we use the 1611 version anyway. Then we can get down to the matter of content, and he'll still prove to be wrong.
"Even the classic temple chumash, The Pentatuch and Haftorahs by the late Rabbi JH Hertz references The King James version as a source in his translation from the original Hebrew."
With all due respect, and I trust this isn"t the booze talking as I juat returned from a great party at my koumbaros' house, the KJV is a translation of the OT which was written specifically to oppose the then new Christian witness which is preserved in The Church you see today as Holy Orthodxy and the Latin Church and those Eastern Churches in communion with Rome. Frankly, I think the Protestants should be ashamed of themselves for using such a transparent attack on Christianity as their OT.