The following derives from another blog I maintain.
On April 23, 2011, Charles McGrath's "Why the King James Bible Endures" appeared in the online New York Times. In the article, McGrath argues that a major cause of the text's endurance is specifically in its removal from everyday language. He comments that the language chosen by the fifty-four member group that initially produced it chose wording that was deliberately archaic--though accessible to the readership of the time--so that even on its first printing, the text would have been different from the presumed common speech of the readership. McGrath also voices annoyance at the tendency of more recent English transliterations of the Bible to assume a conversational tone, commenting that "Not everyone prefers a God who talks like a pal or a guidance counselor." The article effectively articulates and provides support for one view of why the KJV endures, although more could be done to support its assertions and there is certainly room for debate.
Archaic /âr*kā'ĭk/ (adj.)- after an older pattern, style, or model no longer in common use, often several decades or more out of common use