That's not King James that's a more modern translation.

KJV:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I really like the use of the word "thine" here. In the Scandinavian languages it's translated to "din" (singular) or "dine" (plural) (with an ee sound like in leek, instead of ay like in fine dining). It means yours. In the Scandinavian languages "min" (also with ee pronunciation) means mine. So the thing can either be thine or mine. It's very familiar language to us Nordic types, albeit archaic.

Very interesting. My understanding is that even when the KJV was being written these pronouns were becoming archaic. If it wasn't for the Bible and Shakespeare I wonder how many English speakers would recognise them.

These pronouns were adopted by groups like the Quakers for a long time after the KJV was made. they didn't refer to a single person with "you" because it is a kind of "royal we" where you ascribe plurality to a singular person (when they believed that only applied to God).

When the KJV uses thou or you (it uses both depending on plural vs singular pronoun references), that is because the underlying text is implying something different. Translations without this distinction are losing some of their meaning.

It's, for lack of a better term, "High English." It is meant to sound grand, and thus the grander old style was used. Which is entirely appropriate; IIRC the original Hebrew uses grander language for poetic passages & the words of the LORD.

Thou = singular second person

You = plural second person

It uses them because there is an actual difference. In modern English, you cannot tell if "you" is referring to one individual or a group without examining the surrounding context and adding your own judgement (a translator looking at the original text will have much better judgement).

Even in Shakespeare the use of them is pretty inconsistent grammatically but makes perfect sense as a stylistic choice.

The English in today's King James Bibles isn't even King James' English. It was originally written in King James' English in 1611 but was updated in 1769: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Standard_te...

From Wikipedia: "The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 are given below.

    [1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

    [1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."

The ESV (English Standard Version) is considered the modern equivalent.

    [2016] 1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Cool, so it ought to be Early Modern English akin to the language of Shakespeare then?

You've mentioned “concepts, analogies, and metaphors of that era are now of no relevance to the common happenings of the present day” before you edited your comment. I think it is the grave error that results in the rest of your conclusions about “malfunctioning brains” (which is one of the hopelessly obsolete “concepts, analogies, and metaphors” still so common in the present day).

It totally possible to post the same quote as some kind of proto-Anarchist slogan. “Never let any earthly power control what you should do”, and so on. Whoosh, and Bible becomes hip. Of course, it would be incorrect, but who cares?

The paradox is that most actual is most often most transitory, and most ignored and overlooked is most often the most solid. “Philosophy is untimely”, etc.

I edited it several times. I was using GPT to generate old English to try to convey the difficulty of encoding information. I ultimately removed those paragraphs and went with the more interesting point about pushing thought in a way that causes the brain to work harder or deadlock.