The KJV1611 Translation is best to use in the English Language

I left a comment on this debate asking whether or not I should forego my last round (not forfeit, but post "no round") in order to balance out the arguments, so depending on how that goes, I may have an extra round. Just so all the voters are kept up to speed. Anyway, this is a refreshing topic. I don't think I've seen this around. Sometimes it's nice to get to those topics outside the norm. My Burden: As my opponent said, I'm going to be proving that KJG1611 is currently inferior to other versions. I'm not going to argue that it's less correct than other versions, just that it's less practical in the modern era. Being impractical will justify it as inferior since the purpose of the Bible is for people to know God and His will. My Constructive Argument: First I believe I need to cover the English language. As with any language, English becomes harder to read the further you go from the point that it was said. Let me give you an example. This is from a text written in English about 600 years before the KJV1611. HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum, þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon! oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah, egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð [1] Can you read that? A little before KJV1611 was written, that may have made some sense. It was their sort of ancient English. These days you would never know what that says without the help of someone who studies old English or an online source created by that same person I just mentioned. This is the story of Beowulf written around 1,000 AD [2]. For the curious at heart, I'll post the site that had the ancient English and old English versions together [3], but it's only necessary if you need an illustration beyond what I just did. KJV1611 was published in the same year as its last four digits: 1611. For those who weren't counting, it's 2017, over 400 years later. We can still understand it if we slow down and really read it, but remember that Beowful was written only about 600 years before KJV, and 500 before the Geneva bible. Do you see where I'm going with this? The point: We know that KJV was the text used classically in America, but does that mean we should use it? The Geneva translation was used for generations before King James ordered the creation of a new translation. You may be wondering out of curiosity how the Geneva Bible reads when compared to the King James Version. Here's a verse from each [4]: Geneva: Then the eies of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches. KJV1611: Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Throughout both texts, they readly quite similarly, but ther are certain things that make the Geneva Bible less understandable than KJV such as the spelling of "eyes" and the transition from the word "breeches" to "aprons. So from my side we can say that the KJV is superior to its predecessor, because at least when we read that verse in the KJV we know what it means. But do we always know what it means or does the classical dialect make the KJV more solid a version than modern versions? To respond to this, I need to answer two questions: do modern translations differ significantly from KJV and why was the writing in KJV chosen to be the way it was? On Modern Translations: While the KJV and even the NKJV follow the original manuscripts at an impressive accuracy, the accuracy doesn't mean much if we still don't understand it. Here's Hebrews 2:17-18 in the KJV [5]: “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.” And in the NIV [5]: “For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” To the average English reader, the latter choice is far more understandable, and that's what we want right? We don't want people to look at the Bible and shut it after the first sentence. We want them to keep reading. Making our translation more outdated makes our faith seem just as antique, but our God is here right now. He communicates with us in this time, and he's still alive. He didn't just come down 2000 years ago and stop talking to us. So the fact that we use more modern language in newer translations doesn't hinder us from knowing God. In fact, the examples I provided mean the same thing, but one of them just doesn't cause headaches to the average reader. That one should likely be preferred. On Old English: KJV was written in the modern tongue of 1611. They did attempt to keep to the strict wording of the manuscripts, but they did also translate it into their contemporary English. Those are the reasons they chose for their translation of the Bible. Accuracy: For accuracy in translation in the New Testament I go to the Mounce Reverse-Interllinear New Testament. The Greek was translated the only way Greek can properly be translated into English, and he keeps the original Greek words under the text so you can see what the original word meant and what it could've meant and even how it was used other places in the Bible. It tends to be the most accurate translation of the New Testament (but alas, the Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew, so the Greek translation doesn't work for that). I'm going to compare a passage from Mounce and a passage from KJV, which we know is an incredibly accurate translation. Mounce - Luke 4:3 [6]: The devil saidtohim, “Ifyouare theSonofGod,tellthisstone to become bread.” KJV - Luke 4:3 [7]: And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. I'll note the differences. The first glaring difference is that the KJV didn't use quotation marks, which in modern English would be a grammatical error. The second difference you may notice is the phrase"thou be" replacing the phrase"you are." The third difference is that we intertchange the words "tell" and "command," which is, again, a choice of the times. The fourth difference is that we have the word "become" in place of the phrase "that it be made." This may look silly to you. Why does it look silly that I'm pointing out these differences? They say the exact same thing using different words, and now you have arrived at the point. They don't mean anything different. They don't even really say anything different. But one of them is slightly easier to read. You may look at the single sentence and say "it's not that hard," but imagine reading the longest book you can find in every motel south of Missouri all in that speak. Most modern readers would become annoyed or bored with it just because of the language. However, modern generations reading it may prefer Mounce. Afterall, this is as accurate as you get. If you click on the link, you'll see the Greek underlining the English. The bonus is that it's incredibly easier to read for extended periods of time. Plus it's fun. The original Greek translation of the New Testament is beautiful. Anyway, I'm getting off topic there. The point again is that we don't forfeit accuracy for the sake of modern language. But we would sacrifice avid Bible readers for the sake of a classical translation if we were to prefer the KJV. It would be a shame, because people should read the whole Bible. The Bible just makes so much more sense when you read the whole thing.Study:For the purpose of study, it's best to read several translations and scholarly sources anyway. So while studying the Bible the KJV should be a part of that study, but not the most signficant part. Just something used to help broaden ones understanding.Conclusion:Just as we cannot read the original text of Beaowulf, the KJV's English is becoming increasingly outdated and harder to read. So why still consider it superior? More modern translations are far superior for getting a good understanding of the Bible as far as readability goes and such. We may even find that in 200 years, the KJV will look as foreign as Beaowful's text does now, and the NIV or another modern translation will be their version of the KJV.It's not bad that this is happening. It's still the word of God, and it still means the same thing. It's just more practical and thus, superior. Sources: [1] http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.heorot.dk... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] https://www.ucg.org... [6] https://www.biblegateway.com... [7] https://www.biblegateway.com...