"the King James version, which is generally considered by most Christian fundamentalists and literalists to be the One True Bible"

This is something of a nit-pick, Don, but I do think that is something of an exaggeration, at least in recent years. It was very true a few decades back, when the Revised Standard Version was fiercely condemned as a liberal perversion. There are still more than a handful of fundamentalists, and small denominations, for whom it is true; there are at least a scattering of officially titled "King James Bible Churches". But quite a few fundamentalists now accept the "Living Bible" translation, which is based on rather thin scholarship and carries a bias toward dispensationalism. A substantial number of fundamentalists now also accept the "New International Version", Which is actually based on a lot of honest scholarship. But I don't know that there is more than marginal advantage in applying rigid literalism and authoritarianism to a sound Bible translation as opposed to a shakey one.