The following was my thought process that helped me come to a conclusion on the King James Only controversy. If you are undecided on this issue, try the following:
1. Before addressing which version is perfect, the definition of "preservation" must be resolved. When we have two different ways of defining preservation, we will never be able to move forward to the deeper questions like which one is the "preserved" Word of God. If you define preservation as simply maintaining the fundamental doctrines of the faith, than yes, all modern versions could be considered acceptable. Sadly, many lose such finer points as the virgin birth (changing the word "virgin" to "young woman") or the Deity of Christ (changing the reference to Jesus as the "Son of God" to calling Him "God's Servant"). Many say that these are of no consequence, but I would argue that for a new believer, they may skew his/her doctrine. If you seriously want to come to a decision for yourself, I would suggest starting with deciding, based on your own study of the Bible, to what standard God promised to preserve His Word. The conclusion you come to will be a good starting point for further study.
Matt. 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
2. If you decide that you believe God promised to preserve His Word forever, and that means every word (not just idea or doctrine) than the second thing you must decide is which version has the preserved Words of God (since all versions differ, only one can be correct, right?).
The King James Version Only crowd didn't just pick their favorite, they picked based on a specific criteria. There are two different underlying manuscripts. The KJV is the only English translation in mass production today that comes from the Textus Receptus (for a quick explanation of the Textus Receptus, visit The Answer Book by Sam Gipp). The other modern versions are based off of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. When boiled down to which underlying manuscript is the most accurate, the issue becomes much easier to wade through. Scientifically, non-KJVO's claim their manuscript holds up better under textual criticism, however KJVO's claim they can trace it back and see alterations by men who did not fear God (the Catholic Church played a big role in producing these corrupt manuscripts). The truth is that we don't have the "original autographs" (original writings), and are using around 6,000 different fragments to create our English Translations. Many modern day versions are based on the corrupt texts that Wescott and Hort compiled from the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, and therefore have many passages missing, changed, or corrupted when compared to the Textus Receptus (click here to view their ommissions).
3. If you decide that you agree with using a Bible that has been translated from the Textus Receptus, than you can reaffirm your decision by looking at who is in each camp. On one side we have those who say that the King James Bible is the only preserved, inerrant Word of God for the English speaking people, and on the other side are those who say that all English versions are acceptable. If you believe point number one (that God preserved every word) than you can only be in one camp. There is nobody that claims that the NASB is the preserved Word of God to the exclusion of all others, nor the NIV, the NKJV, etc.
This is my simple yet effective thought process in wading through the information overload that is out there on this issue. I continue to study, read, and discuss the finer details, however I do so knowing that when God makes a promise, He will keep it.