1. The argument that Satan, from the beginning, has had an agenda to twist the very words of God and to challenge them.
2. The argument that God has promised to preserve His words perfectly, and that the preservation of those words seem unlikely to be present only within a variety of versions that disagree with one another.
3. The argument that modern versions use corrupted manuscripts whereas the KJV uses only the pure, preserved manuscripts.
As with all my posts, I also don't want to pretend to be any kind of an authority on the subject. I simply want to express my feelings and engage the minds of my readers to search their feelings on particular subjects. Lord bless you for taking the time to read this article. I hope that it brings honor to His name and no dishonor.
Now, I don't believe that a certain level of comprehension of the English language is the crux behind the Bible version controversy, but I believe this is a very fair and reasonable question to ask. Therefore I want to give a few points that lay out my feelings in regards to any answer I might give to this question.
1. No one is "fluent" in any language
I just read a great article by a teenager that taught himself 20 foreign languages and was considered "fluent" in each of them. He explained how he learned these languages by listening to music, watching movies, and spending time around people who spoke those languages. The point of the article, however, was that no one is actually fluent in a language. I tend to agree.
2. An older form of English is not another language.
I will agree that "Old English" is incomprehensible to English speakers today. For example, here is a copy of Beowulf in Old English
"Whan that Aprill, with his shoures sooteThe droghte of March hath perced to the rooteAnd bathed every veyne in swich licour,Of which vertu engendred is the flour;Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breethInspired hath in every holt and heethThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonneHath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,And smale foweles maken melodye,That slepen al the nyght with open ye(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimagesAnd palmeres for to seken straunge strondesTo ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;And specially from every shires endeOf Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,The hooly blisful martir for to sekeThat hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke."
We are not just talking about a different font or typeset, this is not even really readable for us today. However, even if you go back to 1611, when the Authorized King James Bible was first completed, it was written in what we call "early modern English." Other than a few changes in grammar, spelling, and the definition of some words, the language remains the same.
3. If you trust that the KJV is God's words, who do you trust to update those words?
A commentary on the Bible is one thing. That is why a modern "paraphrase Bible" or a "devotional Bible" is not as big of an issue to me as long as it is clear that it is NOT the word of God. It some cases, they are slightly more than Hollywood movies depicting Bible stories. However, I would be very careful not to shape my belief system off of a man's "artistic license."
However, a word-for-word translation is quite another issue. If these are claiming to be the very words of God, I would want to be very careful who I trusted concerning the revision of those words. For hundreds of years, the KJV was basically the only English translation of the Bible available for the common man. The KJV was used in a mighty way in spreading the gospel, making disciples, and evangelizing the world. It wasn't until the 1940's that men found it necessary to revise the words, and as a result many would argue that the words have been watered down, it's beauty marred, and it's purity sacrificed.
It is for the above reasons (along with other reasons not spelled out in this article) that I recommend everyone learn a little bit of "King James English" and study a King James Bible. If you come across words that are confusing, ask your pastor or teacher to explain them. If they are not sure, they can study and get back to you. You can even learn how to conduct the same word studies your pastor does through the use of Old dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and by "comparing scripture to scripture (in other words, the Bible interprets itself in most cases)."
In closing, if I understand right, schools are now teaching Shakespeare's works in modern translations. I agree, that is a totally different subject, but it is sad to me. So much is lost in modernizing that which is timeless, whether it is music or literature. All other arguments aside, teaching people to appreciate the King James Bible is not advocating that they learn a different language in order to understand the Bible (I don't even necessarily advocate learning Latin, Greek, or Hebrew). If for no other reason, teaching people to appreciate the King James Bible is teaching them to appreciate History and Culture.