Let's say there is a remote South American tribe that speaks a laguage called Zackwini. The Bible has never been translated into the Zackwini language. You are in charge of translating the Bible for them. Are you going to translate the Bible into the way this tribe spoke in 1611 or the way they speak today? You would translate it into the way they speak today of coarse, because languages change. Now back into our world. Sure, we spoke English in 1611 and we speak "English" today, but they are different languages. They just have the same name. You might as well call them English 1.0 and English 2.0. Or for the sake of my example, let's call 1611 English Bobobian and 2006 English Larrian. They are completely different languages and could benifit from a different version. The KJV is a wonderful Bible and perfect for the Bobobian language, but Americans do not speak Bobobian. They speak Larrian. Sure, their are simmularities. Languages often borrow from other languages. But they are different. It is possible to have an inerrant, infallible Bible in more than one language, wouldn't you agree? You can have a perfect Bible in Spanish and a perfect Bible in French. Then why not a perfect Bible in Bobobian and a perfect Bible in Larrian? Shouldn't the people of 2006 get a chance to experience the word of God in their own tongue?