The translators followed a set of 15 principles that guided their work. Some of which aren't unique and other translations also follow (they were mostly guidelines for scholarly standards and such). But this is the one that no other translation has followed since then:
>When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
>
Anglicans of the 1600s still had a little bit of what the Orthodox call the "phromena" (mind) of the Church. At least as far as the first four councils and patristic studies were concerned. They were not inclined to novelty or the notion that anyone has "new insight". And this isn't necessarily because they were men of their time. Even Luther failed in this. His own translation has plenty of novelty. For example, he translates Galatians 3:28 with "faith alone" when the word "alone" doesn't exist in the Greek. And even though the KJV translators are greatly indebted to Tyndale, Tyndale was also keen on novelties, like reframing "baptism" as simply immersion (which is literal, but it has already taken on further ecclesiastical meanings for centuries), calling church "congregation", and the like. But modern translations take the cake. The whole scholarly world revolves around novelty. What new "discoveries" are to be had (such as extra manuscripts) or what new interpretative stance appears in this month's journal or how to be more sensitive with gender language. Biblical scholarship is a cottage industry where everyone's trying to make a name for themselves (much like any other academic field really), and it shapes bible translations eventually. Everything's in flux. Time honored readings can be pulled out right from under you, even in otherwise "literal" translations. None of these people even care to ward themselves with the phromena/mind of the Church.
Scripture itself tells you to guard yourself from it: "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." - Proverbs 22:28
I'm not a KJV Onlyist. I'd like nothing more than to see an update to it's language. But no one follows this one principle. Not even those that come *really* close like the NKJV. For example, 2 Thess 2:7:
"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."
Their inclination to capitalize pronouns completely ruins it. The NKJV itself suffers from novelty - and a little leaven rises the dough, as the Lord would say. The main editor was a dispensationalist and read the "He" there as God. This was never taught in the ancient church. Dispensationalist is a cultish belief from the 18th century. More writers from then interpreted the restrainer and restrained as Rome and Nero, if anything.