Frank,

But why stick with the KJV?  Especially as it contains some mistranslations. 
Certainly, many people can learn to understand the KJV, but why make them 
cross the extra hurdle in order to hear the Word written?  Heck, most people 
can't understand the sense of Scripture in contemporary English, they 
butcher it's meaning in the KJV!

Also, when you set aside slang and colloquialisms, our language isn't nearly 
as much in a flux as is sometime suggested.  People can read and understand 
a 1920s novel as easily as they can one written in 2006 (though they may not 
have the patience for the former's pace).  Similarly, the RSV is as 
understandable today as it was when first translated.

Now, I think the Church ought to reserve an imprimatur for Bibles used in 
the liturgy.  There are dreadful translations out there from both ends of 
the spectrum.

Finally, we have to be ruthless in our adhering to the principal of 
preaching the Gospel.  Anything that get's in the way of the clear 
presentation and explication of the Gospel must be chucked out or else it 
becomes an idol.  As much as I love the KJV, appreciate it's cadence, and 
esteem it's place in the history of our language, in 2006 it has become a 
relic.  Like other relics, we may bring it from it's reliquary from time to 
time for adoration (I still use it for Christmas Eve service), but, in my 
view, it's role in promoting the Gospel is done with.  But, hey, 400 years 
wasn't a bad run.  Even the Vulgate didn't make it that long without 
revisions!

Mark+