You have, quite conclusively, proved that I was right and you wrong - well done and thank you!
Hope - please note! Your confederate has just screwed you oiver!
END OF!
No he hasn't, Matt because, whilst the language you are referring to
is obsolete in the 21st century, it was current at the time that the version of the Lord's Prayer we are talking about was translated from the original languages.
There is another issue with your argument. The language that we are debating was used so that the ordinary people of 17th century England and other parts of the British Isles could read the Bible in their own language; after all, most of them didn't read, let alone understand Greek or Latin. In much the same way, most of the newer versions have been produced so that people in the 20th and 21st centuries can "read the Bible in their own language" - we all know that Shakespearean English (the English that the King James Version is written in) is very difficult for 20th and 21st century Britons to understand properly.
It is interesting that whenever folk want to criticise some Biblical passage, they always seem to use the KJV rather than more modern versions; is this because they don't know about the more modern versions? Is it because they were brought up at a point in time when the English language was developing far faster than it had over the previous couple of hundred years.
It is also worth noting that over the last 150 years or so, more examples of ancient documents have surfaced than over the previous 4 or 500 years providing a greater range of comparative material for scholars of Biblical and other studies to use in translation work.
