[jps098]

Some people might find it easier to learn 50-100 archaic words than Greek or Hebrew. I know of a language expert that has found hundreds of errors in the Greek text of many ancient translations when compared to the bits and pieces of ancient, though not "original," texts.

[jude24]

As a pastor, the more I have checked the Authorized Version against definitive language tools like Vincent's and Keil and Delitsch, the better it has fared as opposed to so-called, "modern translations."

Why do either when there are perfectly servicable newer translations out there like the NASB, ESV, or NET, which all have "essentially literal" translation philosophies?

Bear in mind: what version of the Old Testament did the Apostles read? Most of them probably couldn't read much, if any, Hebrew. Most Jews at the time of Christ used the Septuigent or an Aramaic translation of the OT. The NT cites the Septuigent. Now, we know that the Septuigent was a little fast and free in certain areas (especially the psalms and the prophets), yet the Apostles used it anyway.

[jude24]

I meant to quote this from you:
Some people might find it easier to learn 50-100 archaic words than Greek or Hebrew.

My apologies, a prior quote was still in my clipboard. Mea culpa.

[Gingersnap]

"Some people might find it easier to learn 50-100 archaic words than Greek or Hebrew."

I was laughing in agreement with you here! I read the KJV every day and don't find it difficult. Reading every day is probably the key here. Like anything else, practice and familiarity overcome most obstacles eventually.

I feel the reverent tone also helps me understand the text better. As for all the arguments about versions, surely the Holy Ghost will guide us to "rightly divide the Word" whatever the version. (I hope so , anyway!)