Puritan Board Junior
The Kings Bible was not the "language of the common man," it came from and appealed to the highest ranks of society.
But this was not the case with the originals. If God revealed himself in the language of commerce and everyday life, shouldn't our translation of that revelation maintain that style? What is to be gained by lofty prose with a Shakespearean feel? The authority is in the words, and it is recognized by the Spirit. The style does not lend any authority to it whatsoever, and if it attempts to or seems to, then that is a problem. While he was not averse to high style, Paul made it clear that his message's power was not dependent on its style.
It just seems to me that it would be better to have the word of God readily accessible to all. The many retorts about slang usage don't carry much weight, in my opinion, since the vulgar tongue is what is found in commerce, in the media, in the classroom, -- not in the locker room. Nobody's arguing for a locker-room version.
Why should our version come from and be written to, as Thomas says, the "highest ranks of society"??? Why not to the guy who cuts the grass along the freeway? Why not to the struggling High School student? Why not to everyone. Your attack on democracy, Thomas, when coupled with this statement, smacks of an elitism that is foreign to the Bible itself, and no less dangerous (in principle) to the church than the use of Latin.