The KJB - God's Standard of Absolute Written Truth

That would be inaccurate. For today's English (AV) means "Archaic Version"...

Of course for the "KJV Only" crowd that would be considered blasphemous...1000 pardons please!

Just out of curiosity, which version of the KJV is inerrant?

This article tell why the KJV is no longer the best translation and probably doomed to fall even further.:

VANCOUVER, Wa. — July 1, 2011 — The King James Bible still represents a huge percent of Bible sales. Why does this translation command such loyalty? After 400 years of scholarship, translation theory, and new manuscript finds, can we say the King James Bible is still the best scholarship can do?

The translators of the King James Bible in 1611 would likely be humbled that their work has endured for such a long time. Their original challenge was to make a good translation better. Miles Smith in the preface The Translators to the Reader of the KJB writes, “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one …, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one,….”

Bishop Bancroft put forth fifteen major rules that governed the translators’ task. The first of these rules stated the translators were to follow the Anglican favored Bishops’ Bible (1568) with comparisons from Tyndale (1526), Mathew’s (1537), Coverdale (1535), the Great Bible (1539, and Geneva (1560). While the rules encouraged the translators to consult the Greek and Hebrew original texts, they were revising an existing translation with the help of previous works.

Although not one of the listed fifteen rules, they sought to provide an English equivalent word for every Greek and Hebrew word. If a phrase or word needed explanation, they placed it in the margin. If a foreign word needed English clarification, the additional words were printed in the text in Latin type rather than the old English letters (see photo).
No one questions the academic or spiritual qualifications of most of the 52 translators. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. However, a number of issues demonstrate modern versions may exceed the value of the 400 year-old KJV.

The 1611 edition was revised on a number of occasions. In 1617, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 multiple revisions changed the appearance and readability of the KJV. The changes made in the various revisions included updated spelling, correcting printers’ errors, adding to marginal notes, and in some cases punctuation. The Shakespearean and Jacobean English language in 1611 reflected English of the 16th century.

By choosing the 1602 Bishops’ Bible as the base version, King James guaranteed the new translation would employ the language of the 16th century. The language of the early 17th century was in transition. The Bible text settled on “thee,” “thou/ye,” and “thine” reflecting 16th century forms. Modern English would say “you,” your”, and “yours.”

The translators did not feel comfortable changing the forms to reflect current English. But in the preface they recognized current usage. Numbers 32:14 is quoted, “You are risen up in your fathers [sic] stead.” The actual KJV translation reads, “Ye are risen up in your fathers [sic] stead.”
The KJV revision of 1769 is the edition one buys today when asking for a King James Bible. While it reflects more modern spelling, Latin fonts and extended marginal notes, it retains archaic verbal forms such as (“thou givest, she giveth” for modern forms: “you give” and “she gives”).
The goal of translation is an accurate transference of meaning from one language to another. Modern linguistic theory notes the near impossibility of translating a concept from one language to another by using word-for-word translation. The complexity of languages (no matter how seemingly backward the people) and the intricacies of the culture make that transference of meaning highly complex.

The King James translators sought accuracy of the original languages. Their goal was direct transference by using an English word for each Greek and Hebrew word—a word-for-word translation. They were however, unaware that the language of the New Testament was Koine Greek (common language of the people). They were under the impression the language has many so called “Holy Ghost” words. In the late 19th century Adolf Deissmann discovered early papyrus documents that used the common words formerly thought to be a special language.

In addition, the KJV translators did not have the advantage of modern manuscript discoveries. It is debated as to the value of these recent finds by some supporters of the KJV and yet praised by modern textual critics.

Is the King James Version the best modern scholars can do using modern linguistic theory? While thousands today are sold on the value and accuracy of the KJV, many believe it can be improved.
The New King James Version published in 1982 eliminates the weakness of some of the out-of-date language, but continues to ignore the latest textual critical finds and modern linguistic theory. But it continues to be a popular choice today.
Other readers recognize the need for a modern English translation which takes into consideration modern scholarship, new manuscript evidence, and 21st century language. Little wonder the New International Version now dominates the Bible sales market andother contemporary versions continue to be the choice of many.

Is the King James Bible the best English translation? | Washington Times Communities

This is a rough looking site but it makes some great points about the KJV that the "KJV Only" types hope you don't know.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

Hi ebed. It is obvious you yourself do not have nor believe in the existence of ANY Bible that IS the complete and infallible words of God. Before you get all huffy and 'offended' and tell everyone that I am bearing false witness against you, all you have to do to show us you are not a bible agnostic and that you really DO believe "the Bible" is the complete and infallible words of God is to SHOW us this infallible Bible you apparently want us to think you believe in. Will you do that for us? Thanks.

As for the silly site you gave us here, I have seen it many times.

I seriously doubt you really want answers at this point. You are not looking for answers but for errors. But if anyone else reading this wants answers. here is How to address these typical anti-KJB sites like the one you just gave us.

Answering the Typical Anti-King James Bible Only Sites

Answering anti-KJB sites - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

It's far more beautiful and, therefore, inspirational and uplifting. It's by far the best known translation in the world. If it were suddenly to disappear from everyone's mind, dozens and dozens of expressions and terms everyone--even the unchurched--use every day would be lost from our culture. As was said before, it was the translation that "won the world" during the great days of world evangelism. It's the most ecumenical translation to the extent that no other translation is so often used by Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic Christians alike. No other translation can point to such a record.