Probably the most effective means by which the new version promoters "deceive the hearts of the simple" (Romans 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
See All...) is by describing the King James Bible as a book filled with archaic words that no one uses or understands anymore.  This argument is designed to keep a naïve person from purchasing that Book.

In addition, that same argument is then turned against the Bible-believer by arguing that the insistence of only using a Book filled with archaic words prevents folks from understanding what God said.  A list of words is often supplied to support this argument.  Many of these lists are "borrowed" from a book published in 1960, reprinted in 1994, and coauthored by the head of the translation committee for the Revised Standard Version, Luthur A. Weigle.  By the way, that corrupt perversion is noted for attacking the virgin birth of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
See All... by replacing the word virgin with the phrase a young woman.

One of the words cited in that book is the word bruit which, according to Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th edition), is an archaic word that means "clamor" or "rumor."  It occurs exactly two times in the word of God (Jeremiah 10:22Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.
See All... & Nahum 3:19There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?
See All...).  Since it is classified as an archaic word it is assumed that it is undecipherable to virtually all English-speaking Americans without a college degree in English Literature.  Unfortunately for the Bible's critics, their criticisms of that Book often prove to be unfounded.

A blog, of course, is not a scholarly piece of Renaissance literature which might pose a problem for the average 21st century Americans.  I recently read one dealing with the restrictions placed on items taken on airplanes in carry on luggage.  Here's one line from that blog: "All the while, bits and pieces of the story were bruited about in a strange game of 'telephone':  'I heard it was nuclear weapons!'"  How is it that a King James Bible reader would have trouble understanding a word that appeared in a blog on a popular internet site (http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/08/a_whole_new_way.html) designed to attract American readers?

What's the moral of the story?  The King James Bible's critics are either careless and lazy or deliberately deceptive in their haste to rid the world of that Book.  It's always best not to take them too seriously!