In the Emphatic Diaglott, the second paragraph under the heading "To the Reader" states:
But can it be fairly said that such is the case with our present English Version? We opine not. Though freely acknowledging that it is sufficiently plain to teach men the social and religious duties of life, and the path to Immortality, yet it is a notable fact that King James' Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the Original Greek in which the books of the New Testament were written. There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; besides others which are now obsolete, through improvement in the language. Besides this, it has been too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of full and implicit confidence being placed in it as a genuine record. In the words of Dr. Macknight, "it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions of predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, and kingly rights, and these it is probable were also the translators' opinions. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect." And according to Dr. Gell, it was wrested and partial, "and only adapted to one sect;" but he imputes this, not to the translators, but to those who employed them, for even some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by "reasons of state." [bold mine]
Is there any historical record as to the veracity of this statement about the wording of the King James Version?