I've been curious about the Bible versions issue for many years now. I have tracked down a copy of "Which Bible?" (abbreviated WB) which was edited by David Otis Fuller. I am not sure if this book is still in print, or not, or if the book in print now has the same text in the original book. I tracked down the second edition from the mid 1970s.
WB is the foundation of the modern movement that insists on the continued use of the King James Bible and deprecates modern translations. Most of the talking points that have grown up around this movement are taken from WB, including the "good" and "bad" manuscript traditions.
At least half of WB is a reprint of Benjamin G. Wilkinson's book "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated". The original book can easily be found online now, so it's easy to compare the text of WB to the text of the original. Notably, WB never mentions who Wilkinson is. Wilkinson was a Seventh-Day Adventist, the Dean of Washington (D.C.) Missionary College. (Which is now Columbia Union College, www.cuc.edu.) The text of the book has been edited, most notably in the removal of the footnotes where Wilkinson cites Ellen G. White on several occasions. (It is my understanding that an earlier book by J.J. Ray was simply a reprint of Wilkinson's book, but I have not tracked this down.) I could talk in great detail about what Wilkinson introduced to the movement to continue using the King James Bible, and how his material altered their views significantly. But I don't have time to get into it now. In a nutshell, before WB, the main argument was against the English translations themselves (such as the RSV); but after WB, the objection shifted to the underlying Greek texts. Wilkinson introduced concepts like the larger-than-life caricatures of Westcott and Hort as anti-Christian arch-enemies, the two streams of texts from Antioch and Alexandria, and other concepts that have defined the movement since the 1970s.
I admit I am baffled by how much of a grip these concepts have on some Christians. Look at it this way: What if Christians found out that the doctrines of a Seventh-Day Adventist had been brought into fundamental, evangelical Christianity through someone who intentionally tried to pass off the SDA as a Christian, and altered his text? In any other situation, this would be unacceptable. But for the Bible text issue, it's taken as a matter of course. Where is the outcry? The same pastors who will denounce the SDAs as a cult will turn around and uphold using the KJV for reasons advanced by Wilkinson. How strange this issue can get: the heavily Calvinist KJV Bible is defended by Independent Baptists who roast John Calvin and his doctrines, and do not believe TULIP; but the Reformed believers take up this material and use it to defend the correctness of the KJV's doctrine, even though both groups disagree on what correct doctrine is.
I know there is a KJV defense beyond Wilkinson, but without Wilkinson's contributions, it isn't enough of an argument to call for the rejection of modern conservative translations like the New King James and NASB. The people who want to use the KJV want to use it and nothing else. There are very valid points about dynamic equivalence translations (I wish I had time to review the translator's comments about a modern edition of Les Miserables I found to show how translators sit in judgment over a text), but they're not enough to completely rule out the NJKV and NASB.
Even the staunchest KJV defender needs to take a look at the SDA roots of the movement and have some sympathy for the person who comes to the movement and does research and digs this information up, which is not hard to do. I find that, too often, believing the entire KJV defense's arguments is a prerequisite for orthodoxy in many cases. Please understand why reasonable people will disagree on this topic.
I'm still looking at this issue, and wish I had more time to get into it and explore it and write about it. But, unfortunately, I don't right now.