Man brother, we can start a whole other thread on your suggestion.
I love the KJV and NKJV. Some translations are better than others.
The Spirit should talk to us and when there is something we don’t understand we need to ask for understanding.
A humble ask for guidance usually produces knowledge.
Food for thought.
The Bibles I use and read are probably not what someone would normally think of someone using. Yes, I got my King James, but I also got a 1599 Geneva, and digital copies of the Miles Coverdale and the Matthew's Bible.
From the studies I've done I found that anything produced AFTER the KJV was done using the Hort-Wescott translations, and they based their translation off what was known as the "Alexandrian" manuscripts, which are basically anything came out of Egypt, the Codex Sinaiticus which had over 30,000 errors and is the codex that Constantine Tischendorf was said to have found at a monastery being used to burn in their furnaces for heat, and the Codex Vaticanus. Hort-Wescott primarily used the Sinaiticus because they said it was the oldest known manuscripts discovered to date, though there is lots of debate back and forth on that issue. But overall most knowledgeable scholars say that those manuscripts weren't to be trusted. I know this will make my Catholic brothers and sisters upset, and I'm sorry for that, but this is what I found to be true.
Overall, I do not believe most, if not all, current bible translations can be trusted because they were/are based off corrupt translations. But if you use bibles that came out prior to, and including the KJV, you'll have bibles based on what are called the Majority Texts, which basically includes 97% of all known bible manuscripts, excluding the aforementioned Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and other Alexandrian texts. That's why I prefer the Geneva first, then the King James, then the Coverdale and Matthew's bibles.