“but to look backwards to what earlier translators had done.” Earlier translators whose only concern was to translate the Bible literally”
Somebody missed the boat, here. The translators of the KJV were not that worried about what prior translators had done as being worried about using the current vernacular.
To those who stubbornly cling to the King James English, I point out that the Greek of the New Testament is NOT classical Greek. There were over 100 words which did not even appear in classical Greek. Until the late 1800’s Biblical scholars defended the notion that the difference was that the Bible was in “Holy Spirit” Greek. Then some archeological finds demonstrated that the Greek of the Bible is closer to “street Greek”; i.e., the Greek spoken by the common man. Thus it is now referred to as “koine” or common Greek.
So the writers of the New Testament chose to pen their letters and books in language which would be well understood by the man on the street, which included a large part of the population surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.
Arguments that the base Greek texts used for the translation of the King James version may, or may not, have merit. But I believe that there is adequate evidence that the Bible should be maintained in the vernacular of the times.
I am also not defending the use of paraphrases. But translations done in good faith, like the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, and even the English translation of the New Jerusalem Bible are all probably superior to the current use of the KJV.
All of my memory work is done in the KVJ, but I will have to “translate” for my grandchildren. :) So I, personally, have a lot invested in it, but I will not put that “millstone” around the neck of new believers.
If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul it’s good enough for me. :)