Tradition. People are taught it growing up and never question it or change Bibles to one that wasn't altered by one man for political purposes.

The language - phrasing etc. - is regarded by some as particularly fine. It has certainly contributed enormously to the development of English. It is particularly liked by those with a taste for sonorous ritual.

I am an Adult Sunday school teacher and for my class I use the NIV. But for me I prefer the KJV. When I quote scripture it is from the KJV. The 23rd Psalm is usually always said from the KJV. Now I prefer this because it requires study. I do not want people to cut my meat for me. I read, study and learn. Also, I am old and was raised with only the KJV but the way it reads is so lovely and the words flow like poety.

There will be those that disagree with this answer and that is fine...unless you have read the book you are only going on hearsay....But Gail Ripplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions" can answer your question quite well. Many Reject Ripplinger because she does not have all the theological letters behind her name and discount her research because of that. Anyone can do extensive research if interested in a subject enough and have the resources to do the required research. I have read her book and although somewhat difficult in some places to understand the research is very good.

a lot of the King James translation came from his translators using the translations of William Tyndale...as he was so accurate and close they adopted most of his..but his translation is as close and simple and understanding as i can get.Tyndale had 1 goal in mind ,and he died for it....personally...i SEE much more with the Living Bible....Tyndale...

The King James was good for its time, although there are some errors in it. When reading the KJ, you can tell what was an addition by comparing other scriptures on the same subject that contradict. Fortunately, today we have so many modern translations to compare. I think that it is more tradition than anything else as to why so many prefer the KJ. The Bible was written in the common language of the people. When the commonly used language changed, the language that the Bible was written in changed, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. For us who do not speak Latin or 17th century English, we need translations in our language, like many of the 1st century Christians used the Greek Septuagent. For years the Catholic Church only wanted people to use the Latin Vulgate, Muslims say that only the Quran is in a pure language, Mormans use the King James "as far as it was translated correctly", alot of my family say the King James is the only correct Bible, but the language had changed so much with meanings of words like shambles and others, and so many other manuscripts have been found that modern translations were needed for truth seekers. King James was the King. He made 15 rules that the translation committee had to adhere to. Article 3 basically forbed them from using the word Congregation as William Tyndale had done and required them to use "the Old Ecclesiastical Words" such as Church. Compare Phil 3:6 in William Tyndales translation, congregation, to King James Version, Church. According to the King James, those believing would handle serpants. (Mark 16:17,18) Most modern translations will tell you that Mark 16:9-20 was added into a late manuscript and not in the older, more reliable manuscripts. The King James does not tell you that which is why some churches handle snakes.