Apoligies for Biblefagging, but you did ask!
There are two distinct issues - one is the textual base in terms of the original language, and the second is the translation.
There are various approaches to translation, lying along a continuum from word for word literalism through to dynamic equivalence. There is something to be said for any approach. Human language is replete with idiomatic constructions that do not translate literally. Word order is certainly not consistent between languages. Literal approaches can lose sense. Dynamic equivalence approaches can mask the often beautiful literary constructions of the original.
Some people make far more of both textual base and translation than is warranted. Of the NT manuscripts, the differences are largely a result of scribal errors, with a few exceptions in John, Mark and Acts. Despite what certain people say, no issues of theological or doctrinal significance hang on the textual variants. The Good News is the Good News!
Any translation whose objectives are to make the original languages clear to a reader not familiar with the source languages, and is readable in the target language, should be counted a valid effort at translation. I, personally, have no time for "inclusive language" approaches, which are motivated more by political correctness rather than truth. But, for example, the word "adelphoi" does not mean "brothers" in a male sense, but does mean brothers and sisters. Care is always needed with ancient texts that were created in a culture far removed from that of the reading audience. The text alone is seldom enough to bridge the gap in understanding, which is why scholars and expositors spend their entire lives immersed in both text and originating cultures.
The NIV from 1984 is a fine translation and it's the one Q has quoted. Later revisions have more inclusive language infection. It is based upon a critical text base.
The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, which is essentially from a late stage of textual transmission and has its issues. But the translation itself is exceptional, for those comfortable with what is the language of Shakespeare.
The most important thing is to read a version that is intelligible, recognizing that the intertextual nature of scripture means that a ready guide if often helpful in appreciating the references and deep significance of the text in front of you.
To someone starting out in reading the Bible in English I recommend the ESV Study Bible, as it's a conservative middle of the road (in a good sense) translation and has good historical and textual notes.