[cuban leaf]

You can still find that definition listed as archaic in current dictionaries:

---

Key word, “archaic”. Which is the problem with the KJV. Since we moved to KJV bible country, on two separate occasions, in two separate churches, the pastor had to “translate” the modern meaning of one verse or the other. In BOTH cases they translated it to be word for word what was in my wife’s NIV bible.

It’s very difficult for a culture where a lot of people have a hard enough time reading simple English to have to re-translate an “archaic” language into the language they actually speak. It is a barrier.

We don’t need barriers.

[Pelham]

I was replying to the claim that KJV wasn’t accurately translated, not whether modern readers are inconvenienced by changes in English usage over 400 years.

The KJV was accurately rendered. Moderns need help following it the same as they would reading Shakespeare. Both continue to be admired for the beauty of the language. Shakespeare is probably the more difficult.

A King James Only movement arose in the 1950s because of controversy over how the Revised Standard Version translated some passages.