Considering this debate, it must be realized that all translations can only be considered the word of God insofar as they accurately determine the original wording of the texts penned by the apostles, and correctly translate the same into the English language. The KJV is not the standard to use to judge the accuracy of the newer translations, but is rather one translation among many which made a judgment call as to the reading of the original autographs. All translations must be evaluated in light of all the manuscript evidence available to us today, and not the evidence in light of the translation. Too often debates over translations degenerate into the complete discrediting of one, and unconditional acceptance of another, elevating the latter to a near-inspired status. This is an intellectually dishonest stance to take.
All translations have their pros and their cons, as well as unique translational errors.
No translation is without flaw, or should be accepted without question. Every translation must be evaluated critically and individually based on the available evidence. We should not canonize one particular version because it is old and tested, or new and popular, but must evaluate the evidence behind the translation to see if the translation accurately reflects the word of God given to the apostles and prophets of old. With this sort of evaluation we may come to believe that one particular translation is to be preferred over another, but we will not fall prey to blindly labeling some translations as perversions without examining the critical issues. The passages which are affected by variant readings do not affect any major doctrine, and do not change the message of the Gospel.