I have always found this interesting. Those who use modern versions often condemn the vitriol of KJVO advocates. Fair enough. Sometimes such men may be obnoxious in their presentation of their position. Personally I love the Authorised Version, I believe it has never been bettered, and at this stage I don't believe it ever will be. I once attended a seminar in which a sitting member of the NIV translation committee acknowldged that no other version could compete with the accuracy of translation evident in the KJV. Yet the whole tenor of his lecture was on why the KJV should be abandoned in favour of the NIV. I find that peculiar. Why is he not calling people away from the Good News Bible, or the NASB, or the Revised Version or whatever? Why is he singling out one version, which he acknowledges the accuracy of, and ignoring a myriad of others, all of which are IMO inferior in every way to the KJV? I have read many of the arguments pro and con KJV and MV's. My problem is this, why do those who want to use a myriad of versions never poke holes in other Modern Versions but constantly attack the fidelity and veracity of the KJV?