Although it is harder to comprehend in some ways, the KJV definitely has a more colorfully descriptive way with the language.
Check out the NIV version of Leviticus 21:18-20:
No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.
I prefer the KJV of the same passage:
18For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
Hath his stones broken? Are you kidding me?!!! I love it! What a great way to get the point across. Is this the Bible or Jim Rome's radio show?
"Damaged testicles", while descriptive I guess, is so clinical. "Hath his stones broken" is not only descriptive but it makes one shudder.
While the manner of speech and some of the words are archaic, the directness of the KJV is awe inspiring. That's just telling it like it is.
There's no attempt to soften the meaning in the KJV. It was a 17th century world and times could be harsh, something my 21st century sensibilities have to struggle to grasp.
By the way, what ever happened to Chris Snyder?