Why would the KJV translators consult a moral pervert like Shakespeare?

Absolutely! The idea is total rubbish. But can't you just imagine the reaction from these same bible correctors if you and I tried to release a modernized version of Shakespeare????? It would range from avoidance to outcry. . . the very response they are getting from us for their modernizations of the Lord's word.

Many times those who attempt to utilise (usually to mock) Bible English fail on all sorts of levels. This is because they have no actual understanding of the complex rules of Biblical English. And they have very little idea about meter and other such factors: they are almost wholly ignorant of the Biblical use of punctuation. I am certain that only the Bible is in Biblical English, and that if we unconsciously or consciously follow it, we are merely following what is good literary style. But there is a whole gulf fixed between this and the actual wording of Scripture.

Isn't it true that Shakespeare and King James were friends?

If they were, what would that have to do with the King James Bible? His writings or style of writing had nothing to do with the translating of the KJV.

I know it wouldn't have anything to do with the KJV, but it would prove that the KJV was translated when the English language was at it's best state. If anything the English language today is degrading, not getting better. All the mvs out there if anything contain a form of the English language that is worse than the KJV.

I agree - the KJV was translated at the height of the English language.

I believe that's the reason that when the Bible was a (the?) staple of education people's language skills (and everything else) were greater. But now instead of trying to reach the standards of the Bible we're trying to "dumb down" the Bible to our standards, and our downward slide never seems to end.

I don't want to pick, but below is a more accurate rendering of your paragraph into King James English.

If thou dost desire to shew how practical the King James Bible is in high school, thou shalt practice the language thereof. Thou shalt hand in reports to thy teachers bearing witness to the beauty thereof. When thou dost give reports before the class, thou shalt suffer thy peers to see thy love toward the King James Bible by thy words.

Want means lack in Elizabethan, either desire or list is the word you are looking for, desirest is second person and desireth or listeth is 3rd person. Listest is not found in the KJV but I suppose is the proper second person of list. Doth is third person for does, but dost is second person. If you use doth or dost before another verb, the second verb needeth not be conjugated. Hence, you would say "dost desire" or "desirest" but not "dost desirest." So also hath is 3rd person and hast is second person. Shalt is 2nd person, shall is first and third. Art is second person, are is third.

Thou is singular nomative, thee is singular accusative. Ye is plural nominative, you is plural accusative (and nomative too it seems). Nomative simply refers to name and means that you use this form when addressing a person or persons as the case might be. Accusative means it is the object of the verb. So, you would say "Thou art my friend" and never "Thee art my friend." Also, you would never say "I will give this to thou" but rather "I will give this to thee." So also, "I will give this to you" and not "I will give this to ye." However, both "ye are the people" and "you are people" seem correct.

"you are people" would only be (hypothetically) correct grammar in the following way:

"and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6).

But I think that all attempts to utilise Bible grammar outside the Bible, or to try and "correct" it now is an exercise in futility, vanity and error.

1. The KJB was made a time when English was at its height.

2. The men who made the KJB were at the apotheosis of scholarship.