Many KJVOs often accuse MVs of using too many equivalents, while overlooking the myriad of such examples in the KJV. Nothing wrong with using them for better understanding between English and the ms languages. But according to the KJVO double standard, it's OK for the KJV to have done it, but NOT OK for any other English BV to have done so. Here are a few examples where the KJV modernizes some Hebrew musical instruments: "Dulcimer" was familiar to 17th C. England while"cuwmpownyah" was not. It's still uncertain what this Hebrew word really meant. They knew what a psaltery was(It resembles a zither), but not a "nebel", which also means a jar or container. "Cornet" was familiar, while "shofar" was not. Actually, the shofar is a valveless instrument made from a ram's horn, while the cornet is a valved, trumpet-like instrument made of brass. "Sackbut"(a medieval trombone) is NOT an accurate translation of the Hebrew "sabbaka", which was a stringed instrument, often called a trigon by the Greeks because of its triangular shape. Those English knew what an organ was, but not the Hebrew "uwgab", which was a flute, pan pipe, or something similar. Some KJVOs criticize MVs for simply reading "the band" in Daniel 3, but wasn't the KJV taking the same liberties by using the names of instruments that were modern in their day? Thing is, there's NOTHING wrong with using some dynamic equivalency for clarity where necessary. This is just another lame KJVO argument.