Bible isn't defined

The KJV uses the Masoretic and Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is also known as the majority text, because there are 7000 manuscripts which agree exactly.

Modern translations use the Alexandrian text, a single manuscript discovered in Egipt. The argument is that because the manuscript is older(which is debatable) it therefore is more accurate, which is a non-sequitur(conclusion doesn't follow logically).

Thus the term Bible isn't defined because it is not clear to which manuscript is being referred to.

There are no translations of the Textus Receptus manuscript today published in modern day English, only 400 year old English. Like with the monkey Common Ancestor debate there is a game with words that obfuscates the following facts:
 * The English of the KJV itself isn't the issue but the manuscripts used in translating the KJV, which were the majority text only and specifically not the Alexandrian text.
 * Modern day English translations(NIV, RSV) are more readable but they incorporate the Alexandrian manuscript.

In other words, the primary issue isn't the type of English a manuscript was translated from, but what did the actual manuscript contain. Some modern translations are therefore an accurate representation of the Alexandrian, while the KJV is the only publication that accurately expresses the majority text and not the Alexandrian text.

The problem with the Alexandrian is that it leaves out key passages about the deity of Jesus Christ as the son of God and contains outright contradictions. This problem is a separate issue from the version of English one wishes to translate it in.