The Revised Standard Version.
 

I do read other translations and versions other than The KJV.
Is the Revised Standard Version ok to use ,or is it something to stay away from ?

The Manual of the UPCI officially declares the "disapproval" off the RSV. This dates from 1953. The primary concerns centered around "changes" in the Bible's language in a very few passages like Isaiah 7:14, where the Hebrew word
העלמה
is translated as "young woman" instead of as "virgin."

Language studies are always evolving and the RSV rendering was probably pretty good for its time but never really caught on. So we denounced another fad that came and went and still carry the denounciation in our public documents even though most people can only scratch their heads over it.

The RSV itself pretty much failed to catch on. Most folks who are not KJV partisans will tell you that the NASB is the best English language translation available for word studies and such.

The NIV doesn't attempt to be a "word for word" translation, but "thought for thought." This makes somethings easier to understand in the NIV, but it's harder to work with some of the common language tools using the NIV, so the NASB is prefered.

I'm old enough to remember when the RSV came out in the early nineteen fifties. It was welcomed and used by many churches who were considered "modern" or "liberal" or part of the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches. The fundamentalist (funny mentalist) churches took exception to it. Like someone stated previously, there was a furor over the use of young maiden in the prophecy of the birth of Jesus in Isaiah 7:14. However the RSV does use the word virgin when it quotes the passage in Matthew chapter one.

I remember reading articles and seeing pictures in the newspaper and/or a news magazine of a preacher denouncing the Bible and publicly dropping a copy of it into a tub of lye on his church platform. Another preacher had his picture taken with the RSV in one hand and a blowtorch in the other with the quote that the RSV was "like the devil, it doesn't burn easy." Back in the 50's they just burned the Bible but if they could they probably would have burned the translators and publishers like some did in much earlier days of history.

There is now a NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) but I'm not sure what the copyright date is.

I understand it is based on the Alexandrian Texts. There are a few key verses that are different. It would be better than no Bible at all.

I think (I may be wrong) but just about all Bibles available today except for the KJV and NKJV use those texts.

I am of the Majority Text persuasion. King James, New King James, World English Bible. Other than that The Aramaic.

I mostly read the KJV,but my other faves are the NKJV,NASB,ESV,NIV and occasionally for study I use the amplified.
I like to compare the texts of different versions.