BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Home › Forums › A Red Herring, "The Readability of the KJV"
General

A Red Herring, "The Readability of the KJV"

S
sermonindex

The chief justification of every new Bible version published is the "READABILITY LIE".

The Facts. . .

We “scientifically and grammatically” compared the ESV to the archaic, hard-to-understand King James Bible.
The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, by D.A. Waite, Jr.

Note: To prove and validate our results. Anyone with a PC, a Bible Program, and WordPerfect can easily (in less than 30 minutes) duplicate the following tests.

Utilizing Quickverse Bible software, we copied the complete New Testament text of the King James Bible and the ESV into text files. With no modifications, no editing, but exactly as they came from Quickverse, we opened the KJB and the ESV New Testament text files in Corel Wordperfect. We then simply performed the Grammar checking function within WordPerfect.

Note: The WordPerfect Grammar checking function uses the authoritative and industry-standard Flesch-Kincaid readability scale formulas. Rudolf Flesch is the pioneer of Readability studies and author of several readability books, including the best-selling "Why Johnny Can’t Read". Without question, Dr. Flesch is the recognized authority in this discipline.

And what was the result? The King James Bible literally “blew the doors off” the ESV! The following verifiable scientific results do not lie.


DESCRIPTION ......................................KJB.. ESV
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Lower Easier to Read) 4.32 8.22
Sentence Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) .........29 ..61
Vocabulary Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) ........2 ..10
Short Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........10342 3441
Simple Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........5728 2301
Big Words (Lower Easier to Read) ................7020 13478
Average Words per Sentence (Lower Easier to Read)8.78 18.82


As you can see from our easy to verify results, the readability statistics of the much aligned "hard-to-understand" King James Bible clearly knocks the ESV out of the park!


The Bible for Today published an interesting and revealing book titled, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, by D.A. Waite, Jr. Using computer readability software (Grammatik 4.0, Grammatik 5.0, Word for Windows) Mr. Waite, spent hundreds of hours, lasting over three years, analyzing every word in the King James Bible, the American Standard Version (ASV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New American Standard Version (NASV), the New International Version (NIV), the New King James Version (NKJV) and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).


The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version is an exhaustive and serious study. It contains very detailed tables, charts, documentation, analysis of every conceivable readability tests known. The King James Bible outscored the new versions in virtually every test.


Some of Mr. Waite’s analysis:


"According to the F-K [Flesch-Kincaid] formula 74.3% of the books [in the KJV] are on or below the sixth grade level, and 94% are on or below the seventh grade level! . . . And the FRE [Flesch Reading Ease] rated 97% of the KJV books as Fairly Easy or Easy! These were all first place statistics!"
(D.A. Waite Jr, The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, p. 80)


Mr. Waite summarizes his extensive analysis:


"If any of these seven versions is authorized to boast about its success in these rigorous readability contests, it is the Authorized Version. [KJV]. If any has the right to flaunt the crown of victory, it is the KING James Bible."
(Ibid, p. 80)


Dr. Rudolf Flesch’s book, The Art of Plain Talk, he makes the following noteworthy statement about the King James Bible:


"The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 100 words) is the King James Version of the Bible: . . ."
(Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Plain Talk, p. 43)


Several times in his book, Dr. Flesch praises the King James Bible for its ease of reading. And may I remind you, this is from the leading authority on the subject.

Do you want examples?

www av1611.org/kjv/kjveasy.html

A777


T
That-guy0010

That is a very interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what version do you prefer and do you use a hard copy of the bible or do you have a smart phone or i pod that you have a bible app on. I ask this not to ridicule you or anything, I am just curious.

S
sermonindex

I have everything that you mentioned.

I prefer the easiest one to read. KJV

The KJV is the best TEEN BIBLE to read.

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
KJV, 2 Corinthians 3:12

As a fitting comparison, notice the NKJV and the NIV (as do the other new versions) lack the "plainness of speech".

NKJV
Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech;

NIV
Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

The national bestseller, The Story of English, writes of the simplicity of the King James Bible:

"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113)

The Norton Anthology of Literature, selected the King James Bible as one of the finest examples of writing style in existence. (cited in New Age Bible Versions, p. 212)

The Story of English crowns the King James Bible as, "probably the single most influential book ever published in the English language." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 109)

One of the amazing personalities of the King James Bible is it’s poetic beauty. Nothing ever penned in the English language can match it’s sound and rhythm. For a work of it’s volume and serious subject matter – the poetic splendor defies human logic. The very sound of reading of the King James Bible bears the resemble of a music concerto. It’s timbre grabs you, as it’s melody sings God’s word. What an amazing book!

It’s worth noting the emphasis the King James translators placed, not only on the readable text of the King James Bible, but also it’s sound. Before the King James Bible was published and after the initial translation work was completed, a re-working took place, The Story of English describes this unique process, "they were to go through the text, re-working it so that it would not only read better but sound better, a quality for which it became famous throughout the English-speaking world." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 112)

The words of Romans 10:17-18 comes ringing through:

Romans 10:17-18, KJV:

17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
18 "But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."

Notice how the NIV completely loses this melody in the "sound" of the "words". It’s now simply a message and a voice.

NIV, Romans 10:17:

17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
18 "But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world."

There is a wonder and amazement at the majestic words of the King James Bible. They literally capture you with their beauty and awe: Former President Ronald Reagan, during one of his famous radio addresses, spoke on the God News for Modern Man Bible in comparison to the King James Bible. Mr. Reagan describes the difference:

"The sponsors of the ‘Good News’ version boast that their bible is as readable as the daily paper—and so it is. But do readers of the daily news find themselves moved to wonder, ‘at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth’"?
(Reagan In His Own Voice, Cd Audio, Disk 4, Track 2)
(Reagan In His own Hand, p. 409-411)

If the new versions are so much "easier to understand and read" — why is it that according to surveys by Barna Research of people who read their Bible on a daily basis, "The King James Version is more likely to be the Bible read during the week than is the NIV by a 5:1 ratio."(Barna Research, The Bible survey.

Why do people, including teenagers, ACTUALLY read the King James Bible FAR more than any other Bible?


A777

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

I studied at the university level for more than eight years and I will be the first to admit that I STILL have problems with some of the early 17th Century vernacular of the KJV. I certainly understand it better than most people that I know (given my amount of experience with it). My wife, who also taught university classes, has an extremely difficult time with King James-era English language.

Why?

Much of that language is no longer "common." This is akin to the fact that the English language of 1211 would have been somewhat difficult to understand for people in 1611. So, readers are often required to consult other sources to explain words for us.

You really need to stop using the forums of this ministry as a place to make audacious and ultimate public proclamations that even declare personal opinions to be "truth" or a "lie." It seems that you are calling people "liars" if they express that they have some difficulty with understanding the language and usage of the KJV.

Perhaps it would be best if you limited your KJV agenda arguments to a single thread? After all, this is NOT the focus of this website. Moreover, such repetitive topics tend to drown out other topics that people might want to discuss.

W
White_Stone

I studied at the university level for more than eight years and I will be the first to admit that I STILL have problems with some of the early 17th Century vernacular of the KJV.

Worldly knowledge is not the KEY to reading the KJV. A child can read it and understand. It is a heart issue. God opens or blinds the readers eyes in His Wisdom and according to his Words. "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find."

By the way, brother anonoymous777 did not start this thread, a forum moderator started it. Certainly he should have been able to foresee the direction it would/could take.

white stone

O
Oracio


Examples of the "hard-to-understand" issue regarding the KJV:

In numerous passages the word "conversation" is used and it no longer has the same meaning today. Back then it meant behavior or conduct, today it means speaking with someone. Two completely different meanings.

OBSOLETE WORDS IN THE KJV
Part 1

By Robert A. Joyner

There are many words in the KJV today that do not convey the meaning to the modern reader that the original writers intended to express. When the KJV came out in 1611, it was sixteenth century English at its best. Through the years many words and expressions have become ambiguous or misleading. There are hundreds of them. In this chapter I will point out samples of them. I believe the reader will find archaic and obsolete words are a much bigger problem than you would think.

ARCHAIC EXPRESSIONS

In the KJV you run into outdated expressions which the modern American could never understand without help. Of course, all of these examples I will give are updated in the NIV and the NASB.

In I Samuel 30:31 the KJV says, “Where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.” Five times the KJV uses the expression, “Fetch a compass” (examples: II Sam. 5:23; Acts 28:13). In Matt. 27:44 it says, “They cast the same in his teeth.” In Mark 9:18 the KJV says, “And pineth away.” In Gal. 4:24 it says, “Which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” In James 1:21 we are told to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.”

The reader will never know what these obsolete expressions mean unless he looks them up in another source. The NIV or the NASB makes them all simple enough so a child can understand them.

To those who argue for the beautiful and lofty language of the KJV, I will challenge you to go out in public and talk in King James English today. You will soon see how odd and outdated it is. Try it. I dare you! Of course you will not do it because you do not want to sound silly. But you don’t care if God does.

Now let us focus on some of the words in the KJV that have changed or taken on new meanings through the years.

ARCHAIC WORDS

ADMIRE, ADMIRATION was used in 1611 to denote wonder or astonishment, without any implication of praise or approval. That is why John in Rev. 17:6 looks at the great Whore, which is the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and “wondered with great admiration.” Of course, John did not admire this wicked woman, but he was amazed and wondered. The NIV says,” I was greatly astonished.” The KJV conveys the wrong meaning here and in other places where these words are used.

AFFINITY means nearness of kin or mutual attraction today. The Hebrew word translated “affinity” by the KJV means, “relationship by marriage, especially by a father and a son-in-law.” In 2 Chronicles 18:1 Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab.” In Ezra 9:14 the KJV says, “Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations.” The NASB says “intermarry” or “allied himself by marriage.” The reader of the KJV will miss part of the meaning in these verses while the NASB makes it clear.

AGAINST today means opposite or confronting. Notice how it is used in the KJV. In Genesis 43:25, “against Joseph came” and Exodus 7:15 it says, “against he come” and in II Kings 16:11, “against king Ahaz came.” In Numbers 25:4 it says, “Take the heads of the people and hang them up before the LORD against the sun.” Over and over the KJV uses the word “against” when another word would give a clearer meaning for the modern reader. The NIV and the NASB usually say “for” or “before” in these passages.

AGONE is an outdated word for “ago.” In I Samuel the Egyptian said, “Three days agone I fell sick.”(30:13) The NASB says, “I fell sick three days ago.”

ALLEGE today means merely to assert. In the sixteenth century it meant to produce evidence and to prove. In Acts 17, Paul for three Sabbaths reasoned with the Jews out of the Scriptures. Verse 3 says, “Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead.” Does anyone believe that Paul only asserted but did not prove and give evidence for what he said? The NASB says, “Explaining and giving evidence.”

ALWAY appears 23 times in the KJV and “always” 62 times. Today we always add the “s.” In Titus 1:12 Paul said, “The Cretians are alway liars.” Matthew 28:20 says, “Lo, I am with you alway.”

ANGLE meant “fishhook” to the KJV translators. “All they who cast angle into the brooks” means “all those who cast a hook into the Nile.” (Isa. 19:8 NIV) The KJV turned around and translated the same word as “hook” in Job 41:1. “Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook?”

ANON means “soon” or “presently” in my dictionary today. The Greek word translated “anon” means “immediately” or “straightway.” The KJV can be misleading here. For example, in Mark 1:30, when Jesus entered Peter’s house they immediately tell Him about the sick mother-in-law. However, the KJV says that “anon” they told Him. This makes it sound like they waited awhile. The stony ground hearer, in the parable of the sower, heard the word and “anon with joy receiveth it.” (Matt. 13:20-21) The Greek says he received it immediately while the KJV makes it sound like he might have waited awhile. I realize this is no big deal. But the point I want to make is that throughout the KJV, in small things as well as the big, the reader is being misled.

APOTHECARY appears six times in the KJV. The word means one who prepares and sells drugs for medicine. However, the Hebrew word means “perfumer.” The NASB always says “perfumer.”

ARMHOLE is used for “armpit” in the KJV. In Ezekiel 13:18 it says, “Sew pillows to all armholes.” In Jeremiah 38:12 it says, “Put now these old cast clouts and rotten rags under thine armholes under the cords.” The NASB says, “Now put these worn-out clothes and rags under your armpits under the ropes.” Anyone can see that “armpit” is better than “armhole.” I am not sure what an “armhole” is, unless it is a hole in your arm.

AT is used in an obsolete way in Exodus 19:15. It says, “Come not at your wives.” Numbers 6:6 tells the nazarite, “he shall come at no dead body.” The Hebrew means don’t come near your wives or near any dead body. I give only two examples here, but many times the KJV uses “at” in the obsolete sense.

AWAY WITH is an old expression used in Isaiah 1:13. “I cannot away with.” The Hebrew means tolerate or endure. The NASB says, “I cannot endure.” This expression, which we never use today, makes it harder for the reader to see that God cannot endure false religion.

BAKEMEATS is used in Genesis 40:17, where the chief baker was carrying “all manner of bakemeats for Pharaoh.” This simply means all sorts of food prepared by a baker, (which usually contained no meat). It has little to do with the modern conception of baked meats.

BEAST is used in the KJV as a general term for all living creatures other than man. The word “animal” is not used in the KJV. The word “reptile” does not appear, since it is was not in current use then.

The word “beast” is used in the book of Revelation to refer to the holy living creatures around the throne of God. (4:6,7,8) Remarkably, the same word is used to refer to the wicked “beast” that rises out of the sea, and the “beast” that rises out of the bottomless pit. (13:1,11; 17:8) There are two different Greek words used in these passages. One means “living creatures” and the other means “wild beasts.” The KJV makes no distinction. The NASB does.

BESOM is an outdated word for broom. In Isaiah 14:23, God says of Babylon, “I will sweep it with the besom of destruction.”

BETHINK THEMSELVES is used in I Kings 8:47, “Yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land.” The NASB says, “If they take thought in the land.”

BETIMES means early or in time. However, the Hebrew word the KJV translates as “betimes” actually means diligent or persistent. In II Chronicles 36:15 when the Lord sent messengers “betimes,” it means He sent them persistently. In Proverbs 13:24 the KJV says chasten him “betimes.” It actually means to “discipline him diligently.” This word “betimes” in the KJV, misled me in my early Christian life. The reader should research every verse where the word is used before he assumes he knows the meaning of it.

BEWRAY is an obsolete word which meant to reveal or disclose. In Matthew 26:73, Peter was told, “thy speech bewrayeth thee.” The NIV says, “Your accent gives you away.” I believe “bewray” is used about four times in the KJV.

BLOW UP is used in the KJV sometimes instead of simply “blow.” In Psalm 81:3, it says, “Blow up the trumpet.” Today “blow up” means to explode or inflate.

BOLLED is used in the KJV in Exodus 9:31. It says “the flax was bolled.” The Hebrew word means bud or bloom. Of course, the NASB or the NIV brings this out.

BOTCH, as used by the KJV, is an archaic word that means boils or sores, as the “botch of Egypt”, etc.

BOWELS is used 28 times in the Old Testament. Sometimes the word is used literally as we would use it today. In II Samuel 20:10, Joab cut out the “bowels” of Amasa. The NASB says, “inward parts,” which sounds better.

Also, the KJV uses the word “bowels” to denote the womb and the male organs. This can be mis-leading. In about 10 instances the word “bowels” is used for feelings and emotions. Examples: “My bowels are troubled.” (Lam. 1:20) “My bowels were moved for him.” (S.S. 5:4) The KJV says of Joseph that “his bowels did yearn upon his brother.” (Gen. 43:30)

In eight passages in the New Testament the KJV uses “bowels” in the sense of affection or compassion. The Greek word does not refer to the intestines specifically, but to the “inward parts.” It is much like the word for heart, which can mean your blood pump, or it can mean “inward affection” or “sincere emotion” (As, “I love you with all my heart.”) In the English language of 1611, both “bowels” and “heart” had this double reference to physical organs and to emotions of which these organs were supposed to be the seat. Today only the word “heart” retains the double meaning.

When Paul tells the Philippians that he longs for them “in bowels of Jesus Christ” (1:8), he means the affections of Jesus Christ. In Colossians 3:12, Paul talks about “bowels of mercies.” In I John 3:17 the KJV says, “shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him.” The book of Philemon uses “bowels” about three times. This book will mean more if you put “heart” in the place of “bowels.” In fact, most passages where the word “bowels” is used, will mean more if you will read them in the NIV or the NASB.

The word “bowels” was a good word in 1611, but I would not recommend that you use it in polite society today. It is a very crude word now. It should be updated.

BULLOCK is used today only of bulls that have been castrated. In the KJV the word means a young bull. To use the word “bullock” today is a blatant mistranslation because the word means something different than it did in 1611. The Bible says the bull had to be without blemish to be offered to the Lord.

CARE, CAREFULNESS, CAREFUL are words that can be misunderstood by the readers of the KJV. They appear in the sense of anxiety or worry. Martha was “careful and troubled about many things.” (Luke 10:41) This means she was worried and upset. Paul told the Corinthians, “I would have you without carefulness.” (I Cor. 7:32) This means that Paul wanted them free from worry or anxiety. God does not want His children to worry. (Phil. 4:6 NASB) The reader can miss some blessings unless he refers to another version where these obsolete words are not used.

CARRIAGE in the KJV means that which is carried. Today it means a vehicle by which persons or things are carried, such as a horse and carriage. I still remember as a young Christian, I read, “we took up our carriages and went to Jerusalem.”(Acts 21:15) I did not understand then, “that they took up their baggage.”

CERTIFY today means to attest or declare by a formal or legal certificate. The KJV uses the word “certify” when the meaning is simply to tell or to make known. Examples: “Esther certified the king thereof.” (Esther 2:22) In Galatians 1:11, Paul says, “I certify you brethren.” In neither case is there any implication of formal attestation. The Greek means “to make known” or “I would have you to know.”

CHOLER is an outdated word that once meant anger. In Daniel 8:7, “He was moved with choler.” In 11:11, “The king of the south shall be moved with choler.” The Hebrew word means he was enraged or moved with anger. We do not use the old word “choler” today. If you did, no one would know what you meant.

CLOSET is used several times in the KJV. The word once meant a private room but this is not the meaning today. Sometimes the KJV translators use “chamber” for the same word. The Greek word for “closet” means private room or storeroom. “Closet” is ambiguous in Matthew 6:6, where it says, “enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret.” The reader is misled in all other places where the word closet is used.

COLLEGE is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word which means the second quarter or district. The KJV says Huldah the prophetess “dwelt in Jerusalem in the college.” (II Kings 22:14; II Chron. 34:22) The NIV says, “in the Second District.” The word “college” has misled me before I learned better.

T
That-guy0010

If I personally have insulted anyone, I want to apologize now. I also want to say that yes, the KJV might be easier for people with a better understanding of this type of language. I personally was brought up reading and hearing the KJV for the 17 years of my life, and I will admit that sometimes I do have trouble understanding some of the passages, but the more I read them, the more I get a basic understanding of what it is saying. I also want to say that it doesn't matter to me what version you read. I would rather someone read the ESV version than no version at all. To me, it is still God's word no matter if it is in old English or new English.

M
makrothumia

Here is a little copy and paste from a website very pro King James, it's a dictionary help site. They seemed to feel there were a few words that readers might not easily understand :-)

Is the King James Bible full of hard to understand, archaic, obsolete words? Do you know the meanings of "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"? The King James Bible can be difficult to understand for many people who are not accustomed to its vocabulary. Using the King James Dictionary you can now learn the meaning of all those obsolete, extinct Bible words, like "concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist"...

The King James Dictionary is a software program that will increase your knowledge of the King James Bible.

Have you ever been puzzled by a word in the King James Bible and tried to look it up using a regular dictionary like Websters or the American Heritage Dictionary? Don't despair... Go directly to our handy dictionary containing over 860 words deemed archaic and find its definition quickly...

makrothumia

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi White_Stone,


Worldly knowledge is not the KEY to reading the KJV. A child can read it and understand. It is a heart issue. God opens or blinds the readers eyes in His Wisdom and according to his Words. "Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find."

Did God supernaturally teach you to read?

I am not saying that the KJV is unreadable. However, it is difficult to understand the language of the KJV for MANY people -- including sincere believers.

It is easy to "pass the buck" as if it were God's responsibility to supernaturally teach us the meaning of 17th Century words, usage and rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the rest of us who read the KJV sometimes use dictionaries, Bible dictionaries and study aids to help elucidate the meaning of words that are no longer "common."

It is inappropriate to accuse anyone who experiences some difficulty with the language of the KJV as a "lie."


By the way, brother anonoymous777 did not start this thread, a forum moderator started it. Certainly he should have been able to foresee the direction it would/could take.

Anonymous777 was the first post in this thread, so I assumed that he started it.

S
sermonindex

Whitestone,

I did start this thread.

I think you are thinking about the Post that was started by SermonIndex on KJV people using the KJV to control others and keep them in the dark.

I don't know what the REAL purpose of posting that was.

I had to get off that thread fast. Unbelievable!!!

For the record, I find the ESV, NIV, NKJB, TNIV very hard to understand. And hard to read becausje they are way too wordy. OY VEY!!

I can't believe how dumbed down we are today. We even have verse by verse comparisons on these versions on the Internet that anyone can view to see for themselves that the newer versions may be "easier" to read, but they are HARDER TO UNDERSTAND because of the "big" words they use.

That is what I was referring to as the "READABILITY LIE". If people keep saying the same thing over and over, then the masses eventually believe it. But no one will ever lift a finger (literally a finger to press Enter) to check into this on their own.

And I think that is indicative of a far greater problem within Christendom. We take the words of so-called "experts" and "scholars" and "theologians" rather than doing our own research.

I will not go into all the problems with ESV.

GOOGLE "the truth about the english standard version"

DO SOME RESEARCH before making statements that only show you have DONE NO RESEARCH.

Now, if you don't mind, I have to get back to some people that I am controlling and feed them some darkness from the KJV.

Frustrating!!

A777

R
RobertW

Wondering how we can tone this down a bit. I don't think it is helpful when things get going like this. I'm very much KJV personally, but also understand the limitations. This subject has been dealt with in great detail by well learned men in the SI forums over the years. Perhaps doing a search and reading through some of them would help clear up a lot of the issues here.

When the topic starts to generate more heat than light we are not edifying one another. Hoping we can tone things down a bit.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss


For the record, I find the ESV, NIV, NKJB, TNIV very hard to understand. And hard to read becausje they are way too wordy. OY VEY!!

I can't believe how dumbed down we are today. We even have verse by verse comparisons on these versions on the Internet that anyone can view to see for themselves that the newer versions may be "easier" to read, but they are HARDER TO UNDERSTAND because of the "big" words they use.

That is what I was referring to as the "READABILITY LIE". If people keep saying the same thing over and over, then the masses eventually believe it. But no one will ever lift a finger (literally a finger to press Enter) to check into this on their own.

So, we are "dumbed down" for admitting some difficulty with the readability of the KJV -- but you are not for having difficulty with the ESV, NASB, NKJV or NIV?

By the way, it isn't the "big" words in the KJV that people have difficulty with. It is the "archaic" words that have long since changed their meaning or departed the common English language that many people have trouble with. Do you "know" what I mean (and I am not talking about the KJV "know" found in places like Matthew 1:25)?

And I think that is indicative of a far greater problem within Christendom. We take the words of so-called "experts" and "scholars" and "theologians" rather than doing our own research.

This is a strong contradiction to what you were saying in one of the other Bible version threads. Previously, you defended the fact that you didn't need to research the sources in order to validate the claims that were presented to you in those websites and books. Research that is confined primarily to KJV-only websites and books is not very good research.

More importantly, this ministry is not the place for you to constantly proclaim your opinions about the KJV (and all other versions) or to accuse anyone who says that they have difficulty with the words, usage or rhetoric of the KJV as propagating a "lie." I think that it would be more helpful if you include your opinions about such matters in one thread...rather than creating multiple threads on the same subject.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss


Wondering how we can tone this down a bit. I don't think it is helpful when things get going like this. I'm very much KJV personally, but also understand the limitations. This subject has been dealt with in great detail by well learned men in the SI forums over the years. Perhaps doing a search and reading through some of them would help clear up a lot of the issues here.

When the topic starts to generate more heat than light we are not edifying one another. Hoping we can tone things down a bit.

Thank you, brother Robert.

S
sermonindex

Agree brother agree. This issue is becoming too polarizing. I rejoice if someone reads the word and is changed by it. We are living in an age of Biblical ignorance. Such heated debates will not promote an interest in scripture. Also the reading of the word will promote revival. Is that not whatt this ministry is about?

S
sermonindex

Very much agree, brother Robert.

A777

W
Wordizlife

Be submissive to one another and consider others better than yourselves.

That's all that came to mind when I read this thread

S
sermonindex

I don't recognize that scripture. What is the reference?

M
makrothumia

Yo no pienso que esta es muy significa en muchas otras linguas. Dios les bendiga.

W
Wordizlife

Phil 2:3

Ephesians 5:21

google for the win

edit: "for the win" statement is my way of saying: thank God for google cause otherwise I would have spent a long time searching where I read those verses.

S
sermonindex

I don't recognize that scripture. What is the reference?
Let me assist:

Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Philippians 2:3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

(Still catching up reading here.)

S
sermonindex

Thank you AtG.

S
sermonindex

Thank you AtG.
Actually, someone beat me to it. You may like to read back.

To Oracio,

I ploughed through about half of that list of archaic words, and it seems there the author genuinely believes ALL of them cannot be effectively guessed at - whereas I would disagree on a number of them. Now, immediately let me say that's because we still use some of them over here.

For instance, 'angle' is automatically associated with a bent piece of metal, or a strip of metal that has been folded to a degree. Don't go 'at' your wives is specifically about abstaining from marital relations, but in the case of dead bodies, from necromancy. An apothecary is a chemist, or one who works with chemicals in their application to health or medicine (pharmacist). To make them ALL 'perfumer' is very limiting therefore. In the context of the uses of the word 'apothecary' which he quoted - to make sweet scented oils, yes it was for perfume - but that's not all they do. (That's a few examples.)

In numerous passages the word "conversation" is used and it no longer has the same meaning today.
I counted twenty. Is that 'numerous'? The clever thing is, once one grasps what it does mean, it works the same way in all twenty instances.

Having said that, I began to look at the two versions, to see if my claim is true. Well first of all, there is no use of the word 'behaviour' in the NASB. They chose 'conduct'. But, it doesn't match only the twenty 'conversation's I found, but there are five uses of 'conduct' before the first use of conversation. Then, the second 'conversation'/'conduct' is missing completely from the NASB, because they chose the word 'order' instead. Now what interested me about this one example, is that the NASB also leaves words IN, which the KJV leaves out. Like this:

(KVV) Psalm 50:23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth [his] conversation [aright] will I shew the salvation of God.

(NASB) Psalm 50:23 "He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; And to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God."

In other words, 'order' in modern English does not imply RIGHT order any more.

This comparison not only shows the introduction of 'aright' to the text, where the KJV left it as 'order', it shows that 'glorify' has been changed to 'honor', which I wasn't expecting, and could give a reader the impression they mean the same thing.

Just for a double check, I'm looking at a verse in the KJV says to honor one's wife:

(KJV) 1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

(NASB) 1 Peter 3:7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Well, just a personal opinion here, I think that moving the 'honor' changes what it says. The NASB moves the honour from her status as a wife and weaker vessel, to her status as an heir of life. I'll leave you to check the Greek, to see which one the apostle intended.

But so, is it the same to 'honor' the Lord, as to 'glorify' Him? It turns out that the word the KJV translated 'glorifieth' has to do with thanksgiving and praise. Remember, the verse began 'Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me', compared with 'He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me' (NASB). So now, the NASB has had to add 'sacrifice of', qualified by thanksgiving. [Sigh.] I'll leave the comparison there. All it shows is that things are not as they appear, and a closer study of the original text is always worthwhile!!!


R Joyner also commented that the KJV was 'wrong' in its choice of words, implying some fault on the part of the book, whereas WHO would pick up a piece of writing four hundred year old, and assume they could be sure of understanding every word of it? One only needs to follow the additions of new words every year to a dictionary, to know that that ATTITUDE to an old text, is unreasonable (however appealing).

S
sermonindex

I was reading the NKJV a while back to check on some things and came across the word "SATRAP".

I had no idea what that word was. In the KJV it is Lieutenant. Ezra 8:36

"Satraps" is not easier from me to understand.

In my opinion, "satraps" is obsolete (if it ever was in popular use).

What is "offal", "rockhyrax", "ascent of Heres", "pirn", "sistrums", "retinue", "verdant" "terebinth" "syrtis sands"??

These words are easier for "young people" today? I don't think adults even know them.

NKJV said they just got rid of the thou, thine, est, eth, but it looks like they changed whole words and made it more difficult.

Just my observation.

What think Ye? (translation - What do you think?)

A777

S
sermonindex

I was reading the NKJV a while back to check on some things and came across the word "SATRAP".
Oh! You mean that SCRABBLE word? That and words like 'dost', 'doest', 'hadst', 'livest', 'wast', 'wouldst', 'wert', have all been retained in the international Scrabble dictionary. I know what you mean about satrap though. I had to get one of my children to explain it to me. It might be something to do with globalisation, rather than making the Book easier.

T
TimmyJoe

Well in all honesty I think if you have to run a computer test to try to convince people which one is easiest to read your going about the wrong way just to convince someone your favorite version is best. If you want to know which one is easiest to read simply pick them up and read them. I personally find the NIV much easier to read than the KJV, and have grown leaps and bounds in my understanding of God's word since switching from KJV.

A simple test would be to ask some teenagers to read some of the same passages from a few different versions and ask them which they understood better. Based on my experience with youth my guess would be any version other than KJV.

In love,
Timmyjoe

S
sermonindex

LOL (in the Oxford Dictionary now), you're funny.

If we didn't find some humor and irony in all these changes that are supposed to make reading easier we would surely be crying.

A777

S
sermonindex

Interesting that you would say that.

George Barna did just what you recommended. He took a poll.


"Religious behaviors that surprised us: 16

A larger percentage of born-again adults have been divorced at sometime during their lifetime than have non-Christians (27% vs. 23%)
\t
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is 5 times more likely to be read during the week than is the New International Version (NIV).
\t
58% of adults believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches. We would have expected this to be about 40%."

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Do you have a citation for this particular "poll," anonymous777?

I went to Barna's website and couldn't find it via their search feature. I did find your quote in a few websites, but their citation included a link to Barna for a page that didn't really exist.

Is this something that you read from Barna (firsthand), or did you this quoted somewhere else? Did you test the claims or the link?

By the way, I wish that you would change the title of this thread and remove the word "lie" -- since it is simply untrue for many, many people.

Thanks,
-Chris

S
sermonindex

I personally find the NIV much easier to read than the KJV, and have grown leaps and bounds in my understanding of God's word since switching from KJV.
Timmyjoe, I agree completely, but it didn't last. I had to go back to the KJV to keep growing. By then my confidence with a Greek interlinear, Strong's, literal versions (and so on), which means my methods of Bible study had also grown. There comes a point when one wants the word as rich as possible, because that's when one begins to see the deeper connections.

My 2c.

S
sermonindex

AtG,

Here are some more "scrabble" words for you.


Take the NKJV and NIV vocabulary test.

You may be able to recognize and define many of these words, though you too would probably fail a vocabulary test, but try giving this list to the average high school student today and see how they do.

NKJV Vocabulary Test:

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

NIV Vocabulary Test:

Proponents of the modern Bible translations claim that the King James Bible's vocabulary is too antiquating and hard to understand. They make these accusations against the King James Bible in an attempt to justify publishing "newer" and "easier to understand" Bibles. As you will quickly discover below, the New International Version (NIV) is NOT easier to understand. "New" is not always a better thing. In the case of the NIV, it is much worse!

Below is a sampling of difficult words found in the New International Version.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that you can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; “The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished.

A777

S
sermonindex

i know what a "satrap" is.....a Persian governor, or district administrator.

What is "offal", "rockhyrax", "ascent of Heres", "pirn", "sistrums", "retinue", "verdant" "terebinth" "syrtis sands"??

offal is a gut pile. (you hunt?) my guess for rockhyrax would be either a mountain badger or wildcat. Heres seems to some Greek divinity or placename. pirn, dunno, sistrums, dunno...retinue would be a royal procession, or court, verdant means fertile and green, terebinth is a type of oak (booyah! i love oak firewood) syrtis sands...dont know, but my guess would be tar sands, like bitumen.


that was fun....you know Trip Seven, this world is going to hell in handbasket might quick, can i get an amen?

you can see the signs too...so many in fact, i dont have the energy to list them. i really believe that we, who live in Faith and by Faith, should really have more fun together.

i'm not speaking of being empty headed, frivolous, or without gravitas, but as much as we can, we should embrace Joy, Joy in the Lord, Joy in fellowship, Joy in those small precious moments.....i really believe if we model that, walk and live that Joy, thats what will attract many to the Ministry of Jesus...where they want, what we got, an envy of so Great a Salvation. to wit, "look how they love one another".

just my two mites, neil

G
ginnyrose

I am a tad bit put off by the energy expended in defending a particular Bible translation.

The reality is that language changes over time. It is constantly evolving.

I so happen to be bi-lingual - my first language is not English. When I used to travel with mom and Dad we would speak both, switching back and forth between the two - you may start a sentence in one and end up with the other! The reason is because some adjectives are more colorful, descriptive in one the other. And depending on where you are from, it may be spoken differently, different accent...one of our daughters-in-law speak the same dialect but I despair speaking to her in it because she speaks so differently. So, lets just talk English!

So, it is with Bible translations....

An observation: if the KJV is so superior, easier to understand, why is that in the past people still understood its meaning differently, came to different conclusions all the while using the same translation?

S
sermonindex

I will pay $$$ to have this thread locked!
Wait there is another way to lock it.... Charles Finney!

S
sermonindex

Ginnie,

It's called educating people.

Some are very thankful.

Neil, I do agree with you about joy, and I hope your inference is not that anyone who reads the KJV does not have joy. (is that a double negative, oops).

Well, here you go for a good laugh (and maybe a tear or two).

Using the New International Version (NIV) Bible, answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the Bible verse (not from footnotes but from the text).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

2.According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon? a. ______ b. _______

3.According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth? _______________

4.According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name? ________

5.In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV. ________________

6.In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________

7.According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear? ____________

8.According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name? _____________

9.In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know? _______________

10.In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do? a. _______ b. ________

11.In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus? ___

12.According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written? a. _______ b. _______ c. ________

13.In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish? ______________

14.John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man? __________

15.What happened each year as told in John 5:4? ____________

16.In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus? _______

17.In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism? _______

18.What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6? _______

19.Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34. _______

20.Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command? a. _______ b._______ c. _______

21.Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV. _____________

22.First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh? _______

23.In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do? a. _______ b. _______

24.Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7? a. ___ b.___ c. ___
25.Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"

Sadly,
A777

G
ginnyrose

Wait there is another way to lock it.... Charles Finney!

LOL

S
sermonindex

That is true. The other day a brother mentioned in jest that the thread would be locked because of Charles Finney and not a few minutes later the thread was locked.

I was stunned at his prophetic call.


R
RobertW

I will pay $$$ to have this thread locked!
Wait there is another way to lock it.... Charles Finney!

Many discussions have taken place over the years involving Charles Finney. I have participated in many of them. You may do a search of this site and find several. None of them ended up locked though there was sharp disagreement between the parties discussing. Threads generally are locked for personal attacks or approaches that are not edifying to the body of Christ.

As a suggestion I have found that it is better to slow down and try to discuss the subject prayerfully rather than to debate so as to make winners and losers or try to wrestle down a person into submission to a position or belief. A godly, wholesome, Christlike dialogue is very necessary for finding the truth together in these forums. If a person is allowed to think through what is said in a non-threatening environment they are much more likely to come to an understanding than to draw swords. Just a suggestion.

S
sermonindex

A777, you have clearly demonstrated that the readability of the KJV is nothing other than a red herring, and that the reasons that it is discarded or at least set aside must be something other than its readability.

With all these fancy new fangled "readable" Bibles on the market one would expect we would be inundated with "super Christians" in the English speaking world, but lo, here we sit smack dab in the midst of Laodicea, with each of us playing our part in its lukewarm pathetic-ness. Clearly there is something other than the red herring of mere readability at play here.

OJ

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Actually, Joe, there are MANY people -- believers and non-believers -- who have some difficulty with the archaic 17th Century language and usage found in the KJV.

Anonymous777 can argue that some words are difficult to understand in other versions...but there are plenty of English speaking people who just have a difficult time with the KJV language and usage as a whole. Of course, there aren't too many charts pointing out all of the difficult-to-understand language found in that version. This is probably because the conspiracy theories that strain out such things typically come from the KJV-only crowd.

I personally read the KJV everyday. However, I have familiarized myself with the old language in the version, so it isn't as difficult to understand as it used to be. My wife has tried...but she prefers the NIV and a couple of Spanish translations. Still, there are plenty of others reasons (in addition to readability) for which I have been blessed by God with other versions -- like the NASB and NIV.

I praise God every time that I find someone seeking God through His Word -- regardless of whether that person is using the KJV, ESV, NASB or NIV. I am so glad that God's Word is NOT confined to a single published version (or one of its many revisions) that was first published in 1611 and taken from many sources.

S
sermonindex

A777, you have clearly demonstrated that the readability of the KJV is nothing other than a red herring, and that the reasons that it is discarded or at least set aside must be something other than its readability.


Old_Joe,

I am beside myself. That someone would actually risk ridicule and admit what his eyes and mind are telling him.

Thanks,
A777

S
sermonindex

Chris

Did you know that the KJV is not really 17th century English, it is actually 13th century English. The English used was outdated by 400 years when they translated it. Do you know why that was? Because 13th century English could give better representations of the sense from both the Hebrew and the Greek. Some of the better educated people of the day picked a language that was already outdated by 400 years to get the gospel in the hands of the illiterate, who as history has shown have fared very well with it. In fact the KJV Bible is the first English book to go into nearly every country with a language different than English. It was this book that many people learned to speak English from, making it clearly an easy to learn form of English, almost the third world "Dick and Jane" if you will.

I am sorry that the uber-educated here have so much difficulty with the book, but as demonstrated, that clearly is not because if its readability. There is obviously something much larger at stake.

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Joe...


Did you know that the KJV is not really 17th century English, it is actually 13th century English. The English used was outdated by 400 years when they translated it. Do you know why that was? Because 13th century English could give better representations of the sense from both the Hebrew and the Greek.

Actually, Joe, this is only partially true. There is some Middle English language used in the KJV. Much of that language was actually "borrowed" from previous translations by the KJV translators. However, the actual "flow" of the language of the KJV is still early 17th Century vernacular. To demonstrate the difference, you can easily compare some ancient 14th Century writings of Geoffrey Chaucer (e.g. "The Canterbury Tales," etc...) with the writings of William Shakespeare (who died five years after the publication of the KJV). There is a very big difference between the two languages -- which is why they are often identified as "different stages" of language.

As for the statement that the KJV has been used to teach English to non-English speakers: Perhaps that was true 300-400 years ago. I suppose that someone could learn that version of English by reading it (or any old English book). However, I don't know if there is a version of the KJV in Spanish, German, and other languages by which a person would properly gain a word-for-word or dynamic equivalence of the version/stage of English used in the KJV. My wife has translated documents (and even tracts) into a foreign language. I think that it would be extremely difficult to teach English to non-English speakers via an archaic language stage.

This is true even of more simplistic Latin-based romance languages. While attending grad school, my wife studied abroad in Salamanca, Spain. The current quasi-Castilian language of Spain is very different from the Spanish that eventually morphed in Latin America. At first, it was difficult for my wife to communicate with her professors and the locals because of a language barrier (between two types of Spanish). This is coming from a language that diverged into stages much more recently (in the last couple hundred years). Many consider the language of Spain to be an entirely different stage or type from what is spoken in Mexico, the US and elsewhere. In fact, Microsoft identifies this when you attempt to use Microsoft Word to write papers. You must signify which type of Spanish that you are writing in for spell and grammar check to work properly.


I am sorry that the uber-educated here have so much difficulty with the book, but as demonstrated, that clearly is not because if its readability. There is obviously something much larger at stake.

I don't understand how you can deduce that the "uber-educated" are having difficulty with it and then claim that it has nothing to do with readability. Like I said, I read the KJV on a daily basis. I understand it quite well -- much better than most (I think). However, I am willing to admit that I have a problem with some of the words, language and usage of the KJV. From time-to-time, I have to consult other books (dictionaries), versions of the Bible (like the NASB) or the Blue Letter Bible in order to determine the meaning of certain words or phrases. This is much more typical than when I read the ESV, NASB or NIV. Moreover, it is the "flow" (via the wide usage of Old English) of the KJV's language that is somewhat burdensome. While that old language sounds "poetic" or even "magestic," it is due to the fact that it is an archaic form of English. As a younger believer, I often found myself having to read a verse or passage 3-4 times just to try and understand it. It wasn't because I was having difficulty with the concept...but the language.

When our Lord walked the Earth as a man, he spoke in words that even little children could understand. Those children didn't have to run to dictionaries (a much more modern invention), pastors or to experts to have those words explained (or interpreted). They heard the Lord's words...and simply believed. I have no trouble with a version of God's Word that is written in the language that is commonly understood. After all, this is what the translators of the KJV were attempting to do.

G
ginnyrose

As I am thinking about this thread the deep emotions it evokes, I thought of a few things...

The Bible is a vehicle God uses to speak to people. The NT has four Gospels, all different, yet most of them will relate the same stories, but a tad bit differently.

Most of us can quote the Lord's Prayer as recorded in Matthew. But what about the version in Luke 11:2? I do not know it verbatim and I would guess most people don't. But that does not destroy its reliability, does it?

The Scriptures are used by God to bring men to himself, but not all respond. We have an atheist in our town, an old man, I mean old, who knows the Scriptures real well but remains an atheist still.

There are many testimonies of people who came to the LORD without ever having seen a Bible! But once they get one will treasure it like it is a personal letter to them from God, which is the truth.

This debate about Bible translations reminds me of boys who will debate the value of cars, which brand is the better and why. The bottom line is that automobiles are used to transport a body from here to there. Which car is used is irrelevant as long as it gets you there, be it Buick, or Toyoda or a VW Beetle or whatever!

BTW, it is not just highly educated people who do not prefer the KJV, I never attended college and I prefer the NASB! (Oh sure, I went to Bible School, but the KJV was used back then.) I suspect the level of education means nothing in the choice of translations..

My understanding and opinion....:-)

I am just grateful we have the WORD in a language I can understand and that I do not have to learn Greek or Hebrew to read it. Now that would be a trial .....!

S
sermonindex

Joe,

Back to why "The Red Herring of Readability"?

The transition from the Authorized King James Bible to
a recent version is usually based on the contention that the KJV is old and difficult to understand. The real gap is one of distance between God and man, not a lapse between us and ‘Father Time’.

Did everyone truly understand the Lord because of the "language" that Jesus used? Absolutely Not!

Since the fall (Genesis 3), man has moved off to a corner of the universe,out of reach of God’s voice. Now powerless to penetrate God’s spiritual realm, he moves madly through man-made word-mazes, in version after version, defiantly determined never to look up to God or delve within his own misdirected heart.

The spiritual chasm is so vast that even those close to Jesus could not understand him. He was not speaking archaic Aramaic to Mary and Joseph yet, “they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.”

Obsolete words were not the obstacle when he asked Peter, “Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand?” Later, Peter again fell under the darkening spell of sin saying, “I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.”

God tells us man’s inability to understand the bible has a number of causes, none of which is a limitation in his vocabulary.

The bible is not difficult to understand — it is impossible — unless God’s criteria are met.

A777

S
sermonindex

Ginny,

All I can say is the deep emotions it evoked in me when I found out about this is that I felt betrayed, because I saw it as God's Word being stolen from me.

I gave a list in this thread of difficult words in the NIV and NKJV. So, the end result is that you have to look up some words whether KJV, NIV, NKJV or any other translation. There are some really difficult words in these new translations, too.

The thing that should trouble people is not the "readability issue", but the MISSING VERSES and CHANGED MEANING ISSUE.

And that is why the READABILITY issue is a RED HERRING and gets all the PRESS. So that these other ommissions and additions can be added safely without anyone suspecting
anything. It certainly seems important by someone to make this a READABILITY issue and FOR WHAT REASON? What is our attention being deflected from? Let's take a small look.

Ginny, what you should be upset about is that someone has tampered with your Bible (below).

Matt 9:13 in your NASB? What did Jesus call sinners to do? It's not there.

Or maybe, Matt 18:11. For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. But this one is not even in your Bible. (OMITTED in the footnotes, cast doubt).

Mt 19:17 Why callest thou me good? (Your meaning is much different). NASB: Why do you ask me about what is good.

AV (King James)
Mt 25:13 Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

NASB
You do not know the day nor the hour.

KJV
Mk 10:24 .how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

NASB
.how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!

KJV
Lk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother,,,

NASB
His father and mother. (this is very important when speaking to a Catholic. Jesus had no earthly father)

Lk 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

NASB
Man shall not live on bread alone. (Who is it that does not want you to live on the Word of God?)

KJV
Lh 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan.

NASB
OMITTED

KJV
Jn 6:47 He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

NASB
He who believes has eternal life. (Believes what or whom?)

KJV
Jn 8:9 And when they heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out.

NASB
.when they heard it, they began to go out one by one.

KJV
Jn 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me.

NASB
We must work the works of Him who sent Me.

KJV
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one

NASB
I and the Father are one.

KJV
Ac 2:30 that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

NASB
.he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne.

KJV
Ac 8:37 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NASB
OMITTED footnote casts doubt (some editions just omit it)

KJV
Ac 23:9 Let us not fight against God.

NASB
OMITTED

KJV
Rom 13:9 Thou shalt not bear false witness.

NASB
OMITTED

KJV
Co 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

NASB
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (What happened to the blood?) Very important idea is removed.

KJV
1Ti 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh.

NASB
He who was revealed in the flesh. (Can't witness to JWs without "God was manifest in the flesh")

KJV
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

NASB
is omitted "from such withdraw thyself"

KJV
1Pe 1:22 Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.

NASB
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls. ("Through the Spirit" is a very important meaning because we cannot do apart from the Spirit)

KJV
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.

NASB
And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. (come in the flesh, very important concept, gone)

KJV
Re 5:14 Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

NASB
.the elders fell down and worshipped.

KJV
Re 20:9 Fire came down from God out of heaven.

NASB
Fire came down from heaven.

KJV
Re 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.

NASB
And the nations shall walk by its light. (are saved is missing)

Ginny, version by version, more verses and meaning will be removed. Many modern versions are getting very close to the Jehovah Witness Bible. The TNIV is virtually a carbon copy.

Does this not bother you? I realize some people don't know about these things and when they do they are rightfully incensed.

The readability issue is being used to deflect anyone from seriously looking into these "problems".

Kindly,
A777

S
sermonindex


I don't understand how you can deduce that the "uber-educated" are having difficulty with it and then claim that it has nothing to do with readability.

The uber-educated have been taught by men, to think like men, they live on the trolley tracks of the thoughts of other men, and have a near impossible time to get off these tracks. The education of God cannot come from other men, it must be personal between man and God, it is this that frustrates the uber-educated and keeps them from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 1) Re Dan Barker.

The uneducated have less bias against things they don’t necessarily understand, and are more willing to learn the things of God (1 Cor 1) It is not that the uber-educated can't understand the thee's and thou's, it is just that they would rather refer to God as "Hey you" or maybe just "Hey" like the new text language. The illiterate generally still have a level of respect because they understand and admit their position, and want to offer the best form of communication they can. If you were to find yourself addressing the POTUS as he is commonly known, would you address him as "Hey POTUS" because that is the common everyday language, or would you raise your level of English to something like "Hello Mister President Sir"? 'Thee' and 'Thou' are English terms that offer higher respect than a simple 'You', and neither is too hard to understand. Modern English though would have us do away with such things, because languages always degrade over time, and modernists would have everyone buy into the degraded English because they have a lesser respect for God.

I think that it would be extremely difficult to teach English to non-English speakers via an archaic language stage.

What you or I think matters not when we look to see that this has actually happened in many third world countries. People who have never seen a book before were taught to read by the English of the KJV.

OJ

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Joe...


The uber-educated have been taught by men, to think like men, they live on the trolley tracks of the thoughts of other men, and have a near impossible time to get off these tracks.

I think that you have misunderstood what an "education" actually is. A university does not teach you to believe what professors tell you. In fact, I have never had a professor tell me to take his word for something. Rather, instructors at a typical university will teach you how to test the things that you have read or been told. This is usually taught in your "freshman seminar" classes.


The education of God cannot come from other men, it must be personal between man and God, it is this that frustrates the uber-educated and keeps them from the kingdom of God (1 Cor 1) Re Dan Barker.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. I can pretty much guarantee that EVERY translator for the KJV was "educated" (or even "uber-educated") in ancient foreign languages, proper English grammar/usage, ancient texts, and analysis. I have never read a single account that any one of the KJV translators claimed that God supernaturally gifted them with immediate understanding of the various Greek, Hebrew and other languages that they consulted when translating. In other words, they were educated men who were trained in their endeavor.


The uneducated have less bias against things they don’t necessarily understand, and are more willing to learn the things of God (1 Cor 1) It is not that the uber-educated can't understand the thee's and thou's, it is just that they would rather refer to God as "Hey you" or maybe just "Hey" like the new text language.

I think that you are going a bit too far with this. No one is saying that they want the Bible to say "hey you" or "ya'll." No one is saying that they want the Bible to be written in slang at all -- regardless of the language. Rather, we are just saying that the Bible should be translated into the language that is correct and understandable. Outside of a few sects or literature/poetry classes, few people use the terms "thee," "thy," "thine" or "thou." Those terms were were commonly understood by the literate and illiterate during the time of King James.

Today, they just aren't used or are confusing for normal usage. Yet, there are many words outside of the obvious that have also changed their meaning. No one uses the word "know" to describe a sexual union. There are many other words that have changed over time -- in EVERY language. The original language spoken by Jesus, the apostles and the prophets was quite clear -- enough to be understood by children.


The illiterate generally still have a level of respect because they understand and admit their position, and want to offer the best form of communication they can. If you were to find yourself addressing the POTUS as he is commonly known, would you address him as "Hey POTUS" because that is the common everyday language, or would you raise your level of English to something like "Hello Mister President Sir"? 'Thee' and 'Thou' are English terms that offer higher respect than a simple 'You', and neither is too hard to understand. Modern English though would have us do away with such things, because languages always degrade over time, and modernists would have everyone buy into the degraded English because they have a lesser respect for God.

To be illiterate means an inability to read. None of us participating in this forum are "illiterate" -- although many people throughout history have been. Someone taught you to read and write. Thus, I don't think that we should portray "education" in such a negative light. The apostles and prophets were educated enough to have been able to write such things as dictated by God. Yes, God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise -- but God also told us to "study" and to refrain from having a "lack of knowledge."

I also think that it is important to understand that modern English is not "degraded." The language has simply changed over time. The language of the early 17th Century (at the time of the KJV) is very different than our language today...and very different from the language of the 13th Century (which is why I suggested that you look at the 14th Century works of Chaucer as an anecdotal comparison). I believe that it is quite a "stretch" to imply that the English spoken today by nearly all English speakers is part of some conspiracy to foster "lesser respect for God."

As for the POTUS: I think that President Obama's children do not use some formal form of the English language when talking to their father. The same is probably true of all past presidents as well. Moreover, I doubt that President Obama speaks to his daughters using some sort of formal rhetoric that they wouldn't readily understand either.


What you or I think matters not when we look to see that this has actually happened in many third world countries. People who have never seen a book before were taught to read by the English of the KJV.

Do you have evidence for what you are saying? I am sure that there were probably some people who learned to read using a KJV as a study aid at one point, but the language of that version is old enough that it would be difficult to continue such a practice today. In fact, I studied Spanish for several years in high school and another four as an undergrad. I did use a Spanish version of the Bible as a reference help during that time (as a comparative study aid), but at no point did I just pick it up and start reading Spanish because of a Spanish Bible translation. In fact, I quickly realized that I needed to make sure that I wasn't using the Reina Valera Antingua (1569) -- because some of its language is as archaic to modern Spanish speakers as the KJV is to modern English.

After having traveled to several countries (including some third world countries on missionary trips), I can say that I have never heard an English-speaking foreign believer ever use a "thee," "thou," "thy" or "thine" when speaking with me. I am not saying that God cannot (or will not) teach someone a foreign language by study of the Word of God alone. I am just saying that it is not typical.

S
sermonindex

here we go again.

actually, it gave me an idea for a thread.

religion can be fun!

I
InTheLight

here we go again. actually, it gave me an idea for a thread. religion can be fun!

Hehe, thank you for keeping it real brother Neil. I think it would be quite something to know you in real life. Sadly I guess I'll have to wait til the next life. The Lord bless you.

In Christ,

Ron

S
sermonindex

Brother, the Lord bless you too, abundantly!

why wait till the Heavenly Jerusalem?

the Lord done blessed me so much! i finally got to realize a dream, a prayer, my own lil "Hernhutt" on a ridge in the Driftless Region of SW Wis, and i've always wanted to go to an old fashioned "camp meeting", havent you?

Where we all mean to transact Business with God, deep in prayer, ask Jesus to Pastor the meeting, no list of "speakers", but anyone with a Word is free to speak as the Spirit leads, no "time Schedule", the Lord will tell us when to break, and certainly no video camera's, we can decide if we should fast for a few days, or when to break the fast, in order for the wonderful blessing of eating together in fellowship and love.

how long?...i dont know....folks have to work, but my outside guess would be 5 days, say Wednesday thru Sunday, next summer, God willing. (i need to get the place ready for winter)

but i've come to know a few brothers and sisters on this site, and would love to get to know others in the Lord, via travailing prayer, and a camp meeting. i know Frank (appolus), talked to Greg, i know Mike Compton, Alive-to-God...this would not be some "exclusive" thing...not at all....i'm just throwing this out there, so PM, if you want my number....i'm still in "Jerusalem", but will be closing 15 May, God willing.

and i know Greg is careful about an "SI" event, but as far as i'm concerned, i'd rather have him, or Brother Frank, or you be the nominal "human" leader of such a camp meeting, though it be on the land the Lord gifted me with. Coz i am definitely not qualified for leadership, though i am qualified to make the stew, and pancakes, morning coffee, wash feet, etc.

just food for thought, neil

S
sermonindex


I've been thinking about this:

Luke 2:33
NASB His father and mother. (this is very important when speaking to a Catholic. Jesus had no earthly father)
Later in the same KJV chapter:

41 Now HIS PARENTS went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not [of it].


There is a world of difference between giving Joseph credit for the work of parenting he did for Jesus as his earthly father, and implying that Joseph had FATHERED him biologically.

There are many doctrinal reasons to emphasise that Joseph was not Jesus' earthly father. Jesus was adopted into Joseph's family, just as we can be adopted into God's. Neither of these adoptions cast doubt upon the birth of Christ from the womb of a virgin.

S
sermonindex


Brother Neil,

Didn't want this to get missed in your post last night.

'.. my outside guess would be 5 days, say Wednesday thru Sunday, next summer, God willing. (i need to get the place ready for winter)

but i've come to know a few brothers and sisters on this site, and would love to get to know others in the Lord, via travailing prayer, and a camp meeting. i know Frank (appolus), talked to Greg, i know Mike Compton, Alive-to-God...this would not be some "exclusive" thing...not at all....i'm just throwing this out there, so PM, if you want my number....i'm still in "Jerusalem", but will be closing 15 May, God willing.

and i know Greg is careful about an "SI" event, but as far as i'm concerned, i'd rather have him, or Brother Frank, or you be the nominal "human" leader of such a camp meeting, though it be on the land the Lord gifted me with. Coz i am definitely not qualified for leadership, though i am qualified to make the stew, and pancakes, morning coffee, wash feet, etc.

just food for thought, neil'

Sounds yummy.


Seriously, sounds like a wonderful opportunity for declaring the glories and goodness of God to one another - Psa 22:22 style.

M
MrBillPro

Natan4Jesus...here we go again.

I really have no idea why this topic keeps coming up, who or what this edifying? You could preach to probably 99% of the folks here until your blue in the face, and your not going to change their view on the Bible version they enjoy and understand the best. These threads are getting to seem like with some folks it's more of an agenda, this is the way I am taking it, I guess I just don't understand the why, or is a why even justifiable.

S
sermonindex

(feels strange adressing you as "ATG")

just food for thought, neil'

Sounds yummy.

to my leading for an old fashioned 5 day long camp meeting...outstanding! Bless God, several brothers i've communicated with, are equally as encouraging.

i told one brother, that one of the first non-canonical books i read in 2002, was Frank Bartleman's "Azusa Street", and i just loved his recounting of various camp meetings.....and before i came to Jesus, i saw "The Apostle" (which did play a significant role in my apprehension of Jesus)...there was a scene where "Sonny" preached in a"Holy Ghost Revival" tent meeting, loved it...how could i not? we wandered the Sinai for 40 years in tents!

so it's very wonderful that you too, would gravitate to such a ministry, maybe you could pick up our beloved sister Dian in Tenn....after all, this would be Summer of 2012......when is that foolishness about the mayans and the world "ending" in 2012?

foolishness, The Lord Jesus Himself doesnt know the time and some mayans divined this?

fleshing this out a bit more, and i dont mean to sound dictatory, but i really believe that we should humbly implore Jesus to Pastor the Meeting, overseeing one or two nominal human "leaders", we all agree on, in unity....and i really also believe that that we shouldnt have "scheduled speakers". meaning "from 1-2 pm brother XYZ speaks, then 2 to 3, Pastor So and So will teach".

Oh yes, we should have speakers!, but it'll be Jesus Himself and God the Holy Ghost Who tells such burnt out to self saints, when its time to stand up, and to testify, exhort, prophesy, rightly to divide the Word....and one might ask, "well, wont that leave the door open to confusion and chaos?"

to which i say, "if we truly give Jesus sway to Pastor this meeting, in God there is no confusion". You wouldnt have any saint interrupting another, because they wouldnt dare want to grieve the Holy Spirit, especially when the speaking saint is unspooling a Message from the Throne, from the Heart of God.....lets throw out the clock as well.

for those not fasting, there should be a breakfast, lunch and supper break, but what if one of our brothers or sisters decides, they want to go out to the woods to spend some time on their face before the Lord, dying out to flesh? There is freedom in Christ, and clocks have this ability to push people along on man's time, not God's.

same with video cameras, brings out the flesh, wanting to perform and be seen....and YOU know, i know better than most the seductive nature of the camera, get rid of them, i suggest.

"But what about the saints on the website, who couldnt come and would want to share the blessing?"

and i love them all, but in my opinion, we want to move away from "business as usual", and transact some very serious and sober Business with God, and to allow any flesh into such a ministry, might dilute it, possibly destroy it. Why cant two or three saints write testimonies for the website, much like what was done in the early 20th century with Holiness and Methodist periodicals?

this is all the wheat germ of an idea, that's all. i know that Greg is very careful with the banner of "Sermonindex", as well he should be, too many unclean hands "steadying the ark", can spell disaster. But i believe Greg would have a wonderful time in the Lord, there are so many saints on this forum i would love to pray with, in a camp meeting setting, laying face down in the straw, dying to self, and while i was laying facedown, i'd love to hear "King Jimmy" in the Holy Spirit, give a ringing exhortation...because he thinks i always disagree with him, whihc i really don't.

one last thing, i;d bet that any one of the many lukewarm main line denominations have an old 40x40 tent laying around, in those parts!

its a very comforting thought, neil

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
First
1 of 54 posts
Last

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate