In their books, KJV-only authors have claimed that archiac words should be left in the text and that accuracy will be sacrificed if they are changed or updated. It is clear that the KJV translators did not follow the opinion of Samuel Gipp, who wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). H. D. Williams asserted: "The few archaic words in the King James Bible do not require change" (Pure Words of God, p. 13). Edward Hills suggested that "perhaps the best way" ["to handle this matter of obsolete words"] "is to place the modern equivalent in the margin" (KJV Defended, p. 218). Hills added: "This will serve to increase the vocabulary of the reader and avoid disturbance of the text" (Ibid.). Likewise, Peter Ruckman commented that "any 'archaic' words could be printed in the margin without disturbing the text" (Christian's Handbook, p. 180, footnote 13). Ruckman suggested that "the 'archaic words' could be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents" (Alexandrian, Part One, p. 21). Laurence Vance asked and answered: "Does the AV contain archaic words? Certainly. Should we therefore replace it with something else? Certainly not" (Archaic Words, p. 390; see also King James, His Bible, pp. 147, 152). In his publication O Timothy, David Cloud commented: "Actually there are only a few antiquated words in the KJV, and these can be explained in the margin or in a small lexicon in the back of the Bible" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 1). Is it in effect being claimed that the KJV translators should have left all archaic words that they found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles in the text of the 1611 and that the KJV translators sacrificed accuracy if they updated or changed any such words in the pre-1611 Bibles? Does a consistent application of the documented KJV-only claims above imply that the KJV translators were wrong to update any archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Did the KJV translators disturb the text of the English Bibles of their day [the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible] by updating or revising words in them?