We are at a point of history where we may gather and reap of what all came before us. Just as the translators were able to get the KJB right in 1611, so we should be convinced from, say 2007, that they actually did get it right. (That is, that God ensured that the right men at the right time with the right learning etc. all came together for the KJB, but also that the right things have all come together that we now be confident in the English Bible as it stands today. This is called practical faith in the providence of God.)

There are those who do have this confidence in the KJB as the word of God, who do not follow you into the belief that therefore there is never going to be a need for the occasional updating of words. Such changes if correctly done are not changes in God's word at all, merely the provision of a new container for God's word. (Perhaps Will Kinney wouldn't like my use of his metaphor, I'll have to read more of his writings.)

So, the English is final. The meaning of the God's Word is there in English. The certainty is there in English. We don't have to go anywhere else to find the "real" meaning. We don't have to harbour any uncertainty as to various textual or translational questions at any point. In fact, the whole battle of comparing to modern versions is really won. (I walk by faith, not by sight.) We shouldn't be reacting to modern versions, because we are on the rock and we cannot be moved. Modern versions are dashing themselves in vain on this rock. Thus, our triumphalist position is to hold the victory that we actually have God's Word, and not that we are still trying to find it (as many seek in all the wrong ways and places).

I do not see why we cannot hold to the position that we do in fact have God's Word, and that there is nothing more to seek for, while yet also believing that some of the old English terms have lost their value as containers for God's Word and should be replaced by terms that people recognize today. The old terms were perfect containers in their day, correctly chosen new terms would be the same for our day.

This argument that if we think any such change is necessary we are therefore rejecting the KJB as God's Word or seeking God's Word elsewhere is not valid.

Strictly speaking, this is off topic, so I don't want to pursue it beyond this post, but as long as this keeps being asserted I feel I have to answer it. This position that rightly-done changes in the English are changes in God's Word itself is probably the most alienating idea I encounter in the KJVO camp. Even now I myself can argue against making any changes whatever, but I can only argue this on practical grounds at this point. That is, I can argue for it on the ground that it would be impossible to get together the right men for the job who would all agree on which changes are necessary; I can argue for it on the ground that any new edition would be lost in the confusion of all the versions; I can argue for it on the ground that people can be taught the meaning of any old words that confuse them; I can even argue for it on the ground that it would shake the brittle faith of the KJVO people who place their faith in the letter of the text rather than in its meaning. But I can't argue for it on the ground that the English of the current text is perfect for our day. It might be that Steven Avery or Will Kinney could convince me of this, but Bibleprotector's way of talking about it leaves me unconvinced.