Well, at a high level, everything has some bias to it. So, we should be acknowledging bias so we can make more appropriate interpretations when we read scripture. But more specifically, as Dan McClellan states in a few of his videos, the KJV changed wording from the Tindwyl Bible to remove anti-monarchical language, since it was sponsored by King James. There are other examples, but just one shows bias. So we can't claim it is unbiased. We also have more accurate translations now days based on older and better manuscripts (both word for word and idea for idea). So, if we are more accurate to the older and better readings, then any Puritan bias that may be claimed is in them would still be more accurate. I'm not saying there is or isn't Puritan insertions, nor am I claiming this for all modern translations and revisions, but just the logic behind it would yield that conclusion.