One thing the KJV has in common with Burton's translation is a certain deliberate archaism -- its language was rather old-fashioned when it was published in 1610.
There's (obviously) absolutely nothing with liking deliberately archaic, slightly high-flown language.
Personally I find it rather annoying in Burton but like it in the KJV, but different people have different tastes.
Though ... A lot of people who read the KJV are doing so not so much for the enjoyment of its literary style, but because they believe it to be the Word of God; unfortunately this means that many people are seeking divine enlightenment from a translation that (1) in many cases they don't understand well just because its language is hundreds of years separated from what they're accustomed to speaking and reading, and that (2) is based on now-outdated textual scholarship and therefore does a suboptimal job of reporting what the allegedly divinely inspired writers actually wrote. That seems unfortunate.
There's (obviously) absolutely nothing with liking deliberately archaic, slightly high-flown language. Personally I find it rather annoying in Burton but like it in the KJV, but different people have different tastes.
Though ... A lot of people who read the KJV are doing so not so much for the enjoyment of its literary style, but because they believe it to be the Word of God; unfortunately this means that many people are seeking divine enlightenment from a translation that (1) in many cases they don't understand well just because its language is hundreds of years separated from what they're accustomed to speaking and reading, and that (2) is based on now-outdated textual scholarship and therefore does a suboptimal job of reporting what the allegedly divinely inspired writers actually wrote. That seems unfortunate.