Yeah you heard me. There is the need to translate ancient forms of English into contemporary,natural English. It can be done with dignity. Just because a version is in modern speech does not mean it uses debased English. Aside from notable exceptions like The Message and Cotton Patch Gospels, most modern English translations do not use much slang (which becomes dated very soon). A good English Bible translation needs to be in common English parlance. This OP is not specifically directed toward KJVOs. How much time is spent by preachers who use the KJV --in unraveling the complexities of that translation? In other words, the ministers of said version have to translate the translation before getting into the meat of the Word. That wastes time. A 40-minute sermon actually might be half that time in the real substance of the message. How much more practical and profitable would it be to preach from a vulgar version? LOL! Before application there must be understanding. I have the distinct feeling that a KJV preacher in the course of explaining a text will often use phraselogy very much like that of the NIV if not the NLT! How ironic. If I was a wagering man I would bet that some KJV preachers might translate somewhat like the following: "Brethren --that means you sistern too! Ha Ha.Brothers and sisters is what the text means." "Waxing confident has nothing to do with the kind of waxing we do on our cars. It simply means becoming confident." "It is meet means it's right for me." "She painted her face and tired her head means old Jez slapped some makeup on and arranged her hair --in 21st English." I am sure many of you can think of other ensamples --examples! LOL! Why go through all the hoops --taking undue sermon time to unscramble old-fashioned lingo when there are fine Bible translations in the vernacular? They get to the heart of the matter using modern,natural English while remaining faithful to the original autographs.