I have heard many times from KJVO advocates that the KJV is much easier to read than the other English translations and that readability tests have already proven it. The only problem with this statement is that it’s not true. At best it’s ignorance passed off as reality. At worst it’s just a flat out lie. But KJV websites all over still keep making this claim. Here are just a few.
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/isnt_the_king_james_bible_too_antiquated.html
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/isnt_the_king_james_bible_too_antiquated.html
https://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm
http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/AVhard.html
So where does this claim originate and why do KJVO advocates keep repeating it? It all came from a “study” someone did, using the Flesch-Kincaid test, to prove that the KJV is easy to read…. which just on it’s face is silly. If it was easier to read then this debate would not be happening. You don’t need a scientific study of word construction to know if something is hard to read. Just ask the person reading it. Either way, below I will explain why the study they conducted was deeply flawed and why it does not demonstrate that the KJV is easy to read.
About The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Scale
The Flesch-Kincaid reading scale basically calculates scores based on how many words are in a sentence and how many syllables are in a word. The more syllables in a word and the more words in a sentence then the higher it ranks on the “hard to read” scale. So, this test does NOT take into account many items that could make something hard to read.
It totally ignores the issue with vocabulary. Obviously if a person does not know the definition of a word it doesn’t matter how many syllables are in the word or how many words are in that particular sentence. This is the #1 complaint for people reading the KJV. It’s language is outdated and many words are no longer in the common vocabulary.
This formula also leaves out issues with sentence structure and word ordering. This can be overlooked a bit but it should be recognized that sentence structure over the last 400+ years has changed in certain ways.
KJV Vocabulary Issues
Let us first agree that words like wence, agone, bewray, hath, anon, or ere, have little recognition in today’s English. I would be surprised if even 5% of English speakers knew these words. I would be willing to bet that almost no 5th graders would even know the definition of just one of these words. So, what exactly is the argument for not updating the words? Why would we want to continue using words that no one knows anymore? (More outdated words at end of article).
Ironically, this was exactly why the KJV was written in the first place. They wanted a Bible in the language of the common people so it would be accessible to all that could read. The preface to the 1611 KJV even states…
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?
Now, the KJV is in decently fine English for the 1611 time period. It was a big deal in 1611 since most Bibles were in Latin back then. But the principle is still the same; if the text is no longer understandable then it needs updated to the common tongue.
Additionally, what most people don’t realize is that the KJV being read today has already been updated a handful of times since the 1611 version was released. So why is it now a sin to update it again? Here is a passage from the 1611 version.
I protest by your reioycing which I haue in Christ Iesus our Lord, I die daily. (1 Corinthians 15:31 KJV 1611)
Notice how certain letters are being used in ways that we would never use them in today. Here are some basic updates from the 1611.
- I = J
- U = V
- V = U
- Sometimes Y – I
If it was acceptable to update the KJV 300 years ago then it should still be OK to do so today. After all many revisions were made before our current versions which is based on the 1769 version, not the 1611.
The original 1611 was riddled with mistakes and errors. Updates were released to correct those issues and then later updates were made to revise words and phrases that were outdated. A list of revisions and changes can be read here –> KJV revisions
KJV Sentence Structure Issues
Just as our English vocabulary has changed over time, so has the way we form sentences. Here is just one example below…. the same passage that was quoted above.
I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily (1 Corinthians 15:31 KJV)
I protest by your reioycing which I haue in Christ Iesus our Lord, I die daily. (1 Corinthians 15:31 KJV 1611)
I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. (1 Corinthians 15:31 NIV)
These passages are really saying the same thing….. it’s just that only one of them is readable. The KJV is full of difficult sentences. Here is another.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (Romans 2:1 KJV)
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. (Romans 2:1 NIV)
I could go on but I think you can see the point.
Summary
To be clear I do not want to prevent people from reading the KJV. I merely want to point out that claiming the KJV is easier to read than modern English versions is simply ridiculous. If it were easier to read then people would be reading it. That is the #1 requirement for nearly all Bible readers. Ask any non-KJV reader why they don’t read the KJV and that is why they don’t read it.
Even more, using a the Flesch-Kincaid formula to prove readability of an outdated vocabulary is perhaps the most ridiculous attempt ever to justify such claims.
For further reading on this matter
https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2015/02/23/the-reading-level-of-the-kjv/
Justin,
When I became a born-again follower of The Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the first Bible I purchased was a King James Bible, because I have always been a lover of Shakespeare. I was given an NIV Bible a little while later, and also read that quite a bit, but always loved the KJV best. It wasn’t until years later, while perusing a web site for Christian tracts that I became aware that there was even any issue with people thinking other translations were inferior to the KJV.
That being said, in the intervening years I have come across a plethora of material purporting to explain just WHY the KJV is supposed to be the best translation, while finding virtually nothing written which attempt to explain why any OTHER single translation is the best translation – only information about why the KJV is NOT the best translation. I am still trying to keep an open mind about the issue, and was happy to find this page about grade reading levels for different translations – mostly because you are so prompt and thorough with replying to just about every post (and I see at least one that was pretty recent).
To my layman’s eye (although I do consider myself fairly well read), regarding the question, “Is the King James Version a better translation then any of the more recent ones?” the argument in favor of the KJV (and I have read quite a few articles written defending the more recent translations over the KJV), appears to make more logical sense, given that its supernaturally inspired origins are unlike any other book in history.
But, like I said, I’m still trying to keep an open mind about the issue, and not become a dogmatic “KJVO” jerkface. It is in that vein that I am taking the time to write this comment.
I have a few questions, and while I understand (if I am correct) your specialty is Old Testament, my questions are all only about New Testament translation issues. I hope that is ok.
(1) Do you believe that the original New Testament autographs were perfect?
(1a) If no, you need not answer any more questions, that’s all I need to know. The rest of the questions assume you are a Bible believing Christian.
(1b) If yes, do you believe GOD is able to perfectly preserve HIS word through the ages?
(1b1) If no, can you explain why you believe HE would not be able to do that?
(1b2) If yes, see next question.
(2) Do you believe that there are any “perfect” English translations?
(2a) If so, which one?
(2b) If not, what do you believe is the MOST accurate English translation?
I have a list of the men involved with the original creation is the King James Bible. Their credentials are impressive, but what’s even more impressive is that all of them (or at least the VAST majority of them, but perhaps all of them) believed that Jesus was God made flesh who was crucified, died, was buried, and then rose from the dead, showed Himself to numerous groups and individuals, and was then bodily raised up into Heaven — also that the Bible is GOD’s perfect inspired Word to mankind.
(3) Can you provide a list of the men who translated whichever English Bible you believe is the MOST accurate translation? I would like to look them up and see what their beliefs are/were regarding Jesus and the Bible.
Ron Hoy mentioned “two reprobates,” and you (I believe correctly) assumed he was referring to Wescott & Hort (Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort). You then also assumed he did not “know anything about them … other than the KJV talking points found on the internet.” I do know something about them, and I can provide the citations for each of these (in their own words) if necessary:
HORT
— He did not believe in Eden, The Fall, or Original Sin.
— He believed in Darwinian evolution, not Biblical creation.
— He used to believe in Hell, but no longer did, and confessed to living “godlessly.”
— He did not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, and further, thought that even if there were a blood atonement of Jesus Christ, it was more believable that Satan accept the payment, than GOD the Father.
WESTCOTT
— He didn’t believe Genesis was true history.
— He didn’t believe in miracles.
— He didn’t believe in a physical second coming of Jesus Christ.
— He didn’t believe in Heaven.
I’m not trying to be “smarter than thou” with the above information, but I wanted to set up this next question,
(4) Do you know of a modern translation, which you consider a good translation, which was produced with absolutely no influence from either Westcott or Hort, nor with any references to any work produced by, or contributed to, by either man?
My point regarding those men is simply that they did not believe in the authenticity of the Bible, so how am I to believe that they would care about whether or not it comes close to the original inspired words of God. based on what I know of their beliefs it is easier to believe that they would actively work to try and subvert the Bible. I’m not saying they did, but they both also did not want anything to do with the Textus Receptus. (citations available upon request)
Well, thank you for your time. I sincerely look forward to reading your reply.
The problem with this…
I’m from South Africa and recently was filling in at a rural christian school where the traditional children have to learn English upon arriving at the school.
By grade 4 they’re fully capable of understanding & using the KJV after beginning to learn from it at Grade 2.
These children are seriously disadvantaged & overcome the language ‘problem’
Your criticism is proven false by what I’ve physically seen myself.
To me… all I see are excuses.
Certainly if you teach non-English speaking children an archaic version of English….. they will learn that version of English just fine. What you’ve stated is just silly. I never said that Middle English is hard and people can’t learn it. I said, it’s incompatible with modern English speakers. People who grow up in English speaking countries do not learn 17th century English; they learn modern English……which is why they use modern English Bibles.
And let’s address the “excuses” you speak of…
Excuse for what? Are you suggesting that Biblical scholars simply don’t want to read the KJV and so they need to make excuses? Are you not aware that we read the Bible in the original languages? Why would I want to use a flawed English translation when I can read the original?
Maybe you should stop making excuses, learn the original languages, and then study the ancient manuscripts for yourself, so that you can speak from experience rather than repeating worn out talking points that are not based in fact.
They learn English PRIOR to using the KJV.
Nevertheless.
If you pick up any instruction manual, or book, or whatever… you have no problem learning it’s big words…
Why not the most important book in all history?
The excuses (I believe) are for sin. If one wants to find an excuse… they can simply pick up another bible with a variation of text that allows wiggle room.
You’re logic now requires that the people of today need to learn the ‘original languages’ for God’s Word…
I have 2 questions for this:
What is the worldwide common language of today? English or the original languages?
Where can I find your ‘original texts’ that are superior to the KJV?
Note: I am making the claim that the KJV is inerrant, perfect and pure… defendable.
If you’re going to criticise it… that would mean you’re obviously in possession of something that is even ‘more’ infallible and pure, and technically it should be defendable as such.
If you pick up any instruction manual, or book, or whatever… you have no problem learning it’s big words
Why would anyone want to do that when we have better English translations in the modern vernacular?
Why not the most important book in all history?
I agree. That’s why I learned the original languages and translate for myself, rather than repeating old talking points that not based in facts.
The excuses (I believe) are for sin. If one wants to find an excuse… they can simply pick up another bible with a variation of text that allows wiggle room.
Calling people you disagree with “sinful” rather than engaging them in good faith shows that you can’t actually hold up to the intellectual rigor of textual criticism. Criticism of the person and not the ideas means you can’t defend your position.
You’re logic now requires that the people of today need to learn the ‘original languages’ for God’s Word…
No it doesn’t. We have dozens of fine modern translations. Only Biblical experts and teachers really need to learn the original languages. After all… it’s the most important book in history. Don’t be lazy.
What is the worldwide common language of today? English or the original languages?
This is a logical fallacy. American modern English is only barely understood in the rest of the world. That is why the read Spanish Bibles in Mexico, etc.
Where can I find your ‘original texts’ that are superior to the KJV?
Easy answer. There are no originals. They no longer exist. All we can do is collect all the manuscripts available and try to determine what the most likely rendering was. This is called textual criticism and it was something was perfectly acceptable to the KJV translators who said that they KJV would need corrected and updated in the future. It was, in fact, corrected and updated over the first 200 years of it’s existence. Unless you’re reading the 1611 (which I doubt you are) you’re reading an amended version.
Note: I am making the claim that the KJV is inerrant, perfect and pure… defendable.
Too bad you’re wrong. There are dozens of easily proven translation errors in the KJV. I’ve documented some of them here.
https://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/category/king-james-bible-kjv/kjv-translation-errors/
If you’re going to criticise it… that would mean you’re obviously in possession of something that is even ‘more’ infallible and pure, and technically it should be defendable as such.
You’re setting up a false dichotomy that a perfect version exists and that all others fall short. Unfortunately nothing is that simple. We don’t have a perfect translation and we never will because we don’t have original manuscripts. Even if a perfect translation existed, it would be a perfect translation of imperfect manuscripts since the manuscripts don’t agree.
Thank you for a very well thought out discussion. One thing that gets me are those who believe if you are not KJO – then you are anti- KJV. That is so far from the truth- I often use my KJV as well as several others as well. Once again, many thanks for a great article. Pastor Bob
Thanks for reading Bob. I actually own a 1611 KJV reprint and I love it. It has useful marginal notes for translation questions and really interesting quotations before various books and headings. It’s a great Bible. But it sure ain’t grade-school reading level.
An intellegent ignorant is still an ignorant. What a waste of brain cells.
I forgot to add that the Sinaiticus was not found in a Roman Catholic monastery…. It was Eastern Orthodox.
Yes , if we were as educated as you we could read Greek and Hebrew, and wouldn’t need you to tell us what God really said in the “originals” ( which no one has seen in 2000 years). I’m glad to see that your Scholarship level exceeds that of the Royal panel that translated The KJV . The 47 out 54 original scholars who working in 12 panels doing the translation entered college at an average age of 15 or 16 and they were fluently speaking Classical languages before they were admitted to University. Classes were taught IN Greek Latin and Hebrew, not English. So you’ve set yourself a pretty high mark. Your arguments would have some weight if the Bibles you endorse actually came from the same texts as the KJV. But Go ahead and promote Sinaiticus and Vaticanus ( which come from a monastery rubbish heap and the Roman Catholic church) and put money in the pockets of publishers and Academics who due to copyright issues have to have different readings in “their” versions in order to copyright it, and make money off of it. Which makes them harder to read due to the use of more difficult vocabulary words, that get more high brow with each new translation. If you modern scholars are so great why do you keep putting out new versions every year? I’ll give you some reasons #1 Greed # 2 Pride # 3 Satan. NO ONE has yet to update the Bible. What we have had is a taking away of the majority text and giving the people a Bible approved of by Rome. IF you were truly interested in making The Bible read easier a retranslation from different texts would not be necessary, nor would a new copyright be needed . The original Swindle in this whole debate began when the Anglican church requested a modernizing of it’s Bible , and put the job in the hands of two reprobates who were about as Christian as Madame Blavatsky. Who they were enamored with as well . What the Church wanted in the RSV was a updated Bible, what they got from Wescott and Hort was a completely different book from completely different manuscripts . A very underhanded switch If I might add. And I can already hear you say ” But the newer Greek texts come from older manuscripts than what the KJV translators had access to”. Older doesn’t mean better. The Vast majority of surviving manuscript fragments agree with the KJV reading. That is how the KJV panel operated. And even though much of the manuscripts they used were lost in the great fire of London in 1666, Still yet if you took every ancient scrap , fragment and codex in existence and compared them to the TR and Sinaiticus or Vatincanus they line up with the TR , including the dead sea scrolls for The Prophet Isaiah . And the English of the 1611 version or the 1769 if you want to split hairs. Is not the English spoken in 1611, but rather closer to the 16th century English of William Tyndale whose early english readings were aready familiar to the People of England and they associated the more ” classical” readings with the reverence for God . Strangely English language scholars consider the KJV text to be some of the best prose the English language has ever produced. If the text is flawed then God is a liar and we are in doubt of our salvation and the very existence of God , since he claimed his word was forever settled in heaven. Jesus would be a Liar also since he said not one jot or tittle would pass away.
Your lengthy comment is full of inaccuracies and myths. For starters, the 47 translators were not fluent speakers of classical languages before entering. Also, you just made a blanket statement that every university/school that these scholars attended taught their classics in the language of origin. While this is fairly common in universities today (and even in my high school German classroom) there is no evidence to support the idea that all of the various schools that the 47 translators attended were an “immersion” style classroom.
Were the translators of the KJV very smart and learned men? Of course they were. Did they make mistakes like every other human? Not only did they do so but they openly admitted such mistakes.
I am curious to know where your education came from concerning the manuscripts used in creating critical editions of the Old and New testament. Because most people who know anything about biblical translations know that using a mere few manuscripts like the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is not at all how biblical translations work. Critical editions of the old and new testaments take into account ALL of the manuscripts known to exist, even in cognate languages and copies found in liturgical texts. They don’t choose to use or not use any manuscript unless it has been proven to be fake (meaning not of any ancient origin).
Furthermore, the fact that you think the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both discovered together in the trash tells me that you are more about repeating mythical talking points than discovering the truth. They were not found at the same location and neither of them were found in the trash. I know this because the account of how the sinaiticus was discovered was recorded by Tischendorf who was the guy who made the discovery. You can read his account on any number of web pages or text books if you google him.
On the matter of the many new translations, of course some publishers only do them profit but the idea that the new translations are harder to read is just silly. No new translation is more difficult than the KJV or else everyone would still use it. Also, if we are taking motives into account, you are being a bit of a hypocrite. King James had a whole lot of bad motives behind the creation of the KJV.
I assume the two reprobates you were referring to are Wescott and Hort and based on the rest of your comment I am going to assume you don’t know anything about them either, other than the KJV talking points found on the internet.
On the matter or manuscript agreement…. the manuscripts that you are referring to are almost all medieval or later which by the time of the KJV were abundantly copied because more resources were available to copy and better technology. Just because a lot of copies were made of a certain thing it does not mean it is the best. Also, the copies of the Old Testament that was found in the so-called garbage manuscripts match the LXX much closer than the texts used by the KJV. Keep in mind that nearly ALL of the OT quotes found in the NT come from the LXX, not the Hebrew manuscripts used by the KJV translators. Even the many scrolls found in Hebrew in the DSS collection agree with the LXX and the non-majority text manuscripts. Does older automatically make them better? Not exactly, but we know that the LXX was the accepted text in Greek by Jesus, Paul, and most of the Jewish world at the time that the NT was written so the manuscripts that are closer to the LXX have often been given some extra weighting in deciding which manuscripts represent the most accurate to the original.
The idea that the majority of the extent manuscripts line up with the TR is bogus on a few accounts, namely that the TR only accounts for NT manuscripts. You’re still missing half of the Bible. I assume you are unaware of this fact because you don’t really know anything about the subject matter you’re speaking on. The DDS cannot confirm the TR since they are OT scrolls and the TR is only a Greek edition of the NT. However, the DDS do on some occasions support the MASORETIC texts used in the making of the KJV OT, but in other places it disagrees with the Masoretic and agrees with the LXX or other old manuscripts. That is why scholars spend a lot of time studying all of the manuscripts to decide which reading is likely closest to the original…. because we don’t have the originals.
On the issue of Biblical inerrancy, I surely hope your salvation is based on something stronger because the Bible and the manuscripts are not inerrant. Rabbits don’t chew their own cud, Chronicles and Samuel are constantly disagreeing on details about David, and NT quotes from the OT are drastically different from what actually appears in the OT. Perfect example of a relatively easy quote being botched is below…
Acts 7:14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all.
Genesis 46:27 With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all.
Was it 70 or 75?
At best, the Bible is only inerrant in the original manuscripts which no one has. There is no one single preserved Bible in any given language. Trying to force such a thing requires a lot of mental gymnastics and lies.
I know Im mad late cause you published this in 2016 but just wanted to say, thank you! Not only for this but for many of the articles on your page. Super helpful!
I appreciate your reading!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto
Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False “theologies of hope” and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.
The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine “spiritual” experience and aspiration.We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so.
As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.
Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation.
In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized.
you should read the whole thing, our colleges have been infiltrated by these secular humanists to bring about the changes they want to see through education, one generation at a time.
replacing the Truth found in the KJV with the corrupted alexandrian texts is just part and parcel of the changes they wish to make through education transforming our society little by little very subtly over time.
I read the original Greek and Hebrew. If you did also you’d know why seminaries don’t use the KJV.
my understanding is that many are the foes of the KJV they are modernists, with modernist cemetery diploma’s and degrees who have been indoctrinated by the Bible college cemeteries into believing that the alexandrian texts are the best. so having spent a nice chunk of change and time to get their diploma or degree they accept what they were taught by their liberal professors as truth because they spent a big chunk of change and time to get their edumacation and it never dawns on them they were lied too. so they join the growing chorus of liberal modernistic KJV bashers defending the highly corrupted alexandrian codex who to believe, the “other side” or who you paid a big chunk of change and time to some bible cemetery? it is a well known fact that the secular humanists plotted to take over our schools to advance their secular humanist agenda sadly you young whooper snappers don’t know much about that.
Your understanding is incorrect. In fact, most seminaries don’t spend much time on manuscript traditions. That study is usually for doctoral studies. However, it’s clear that you have not spent a whole lot of time studying them either because you falsely believe that all modern Bibles are based solely on the Alexandrian text type. This is completely false. They usually rely on a critical Greek and Hebrew apparatus. That is a fancy title for a collection of texts that have been compiled into one singular body. The manuscripts that are used to make up said apparatus include thousands of manuscript not known to the translators of the KJV and the Alexandrian text types are only a fraction of the manuscripts that are considered. In fact, the Alexandrian texts don’t even include the OT books, so clearly more manuscripts are needed.
The other manuscripts that are used are the Byzantine text types, Ceasarean text types, Western text types, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and also a number of texts from other languages that are early time periods, such as the Peshitta and Septuagint. Other manuscripts found in unusual places are also considered, such as Bible verses that were copied into liturgical documents, instruction books, or legal memos. Literally any manuscript that contains what appears to be an authentic copy of the biblical text is used to create our critical apparatus’.
It’s funny how little KJVO advocates actually know about biblical translations yet how readily they accept lies they are told by others who also don’t know anything about biblical translation work.
I can’t believe how bad I was put own by a Pastors wife for saying comprehension was an issue with me reading the KJV. I have 17 yrs of schooling and a 128 IQ LOL It just doesnt flow with me then I have to stop and try to decipher what was said. I read the ESV. If I have suspicions I can always check my KJV. I was told by this woman that KJV is a 4th grade reading level, and basically that Im lazy. That the devil is getting in my way etc…. I’m not sure they will be leading many to God with those insults .
People who repeat these lies and insult people who disagree are not really concerned with the truth. They worship their own ego, not truth.
KJV has less syllables and is easier for memorization.
Memorizing verses has nothing to do with syllable length. But even if it was true, how does ease of memorization have anything to do with reading level? Hebrew has shorter words than English so should we just make all Bibles Hebrew?
May I share this article on my blog? I believe that this is much needed to be passed on.
Just credit me and go ahead! Glad it was helpful.
This is a fair discussion but you focus on the negatives and not the positives. Suppose I wrote a post about why I should divorce my wife and get a younger wife, more compatible with the times we’re living. Suppose I went to her and said, “Honey, you have been faithful and reliable to me for so many years, but I find your use of jargon like “whence” and “wherefore” 2 B incon. wit 2day kidz” (See what I did there? :)
I know marriage and biblical translations are not the same, but I think you can appreciate my point that verbiage and sentence structure alone shouldn’t be the only cause.
Moreover, there is the recognition that Jesus is a little about tradition. That is, we are instructed to “Traine vp a childe in the way he should goe: and when he is olde, hee will not depart from it” Pr 22:6. So there is the idea that, yes, these words are hard and don’t read well, but that’s what elders and deacons and preachers and teachers and godly men are for. To be the man and teach their families. They should do so with passion and fire so as not to be spit out of the mouth of God for your lukewarm, new age Bible teaching.
That is to say, “For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb 4:12 KVJ 1611. It is not redone, revamped, updated, tweaked for newfangled gender neutral, self-identifying, bible shenanigans you forgot to mention here.
You should not just dismiss the Bible, the true KJV 1611 Bible, because it is hard. That’s a weak excuse.
Steve, let me first say that your opinion is always welcome here.
I would like to now point out that this post isn’t about whether or not the KJV should be used. It’s mainly just an examination of the popular KJVO claim that it’s easier to read than other translations and then ultimately KJVOers always point out this one time the Flesch system was used against it.
I am merely pointing out that it’s a misleading and false argument. It’s clearly not easy to read which is why people make up bogus arguments to defend its readability.
I would also point out that the KJV is riddled with translation errors and is anything but perfect. I have already written on this topic if you’re actually interested in matters of translation. I don’t dismiss the KJV because it’s “hard”. I do because it’s full of errors and I prefer to read the actual Greek and Hebrew.
Unless you’re prepared to discuss the original languages I would suggest that this is not a website that your KJVO position will hold up very long for.
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the interaction. First let me say, I’m replying here because this is where the dialog is. If there is a better place/post I’ll be glad to comment on each post. I’ve seen several of your posts about KJV translational errors. I would have commented on each, but easy-to-read seemed to be the best starting place. Would you like to discuss in each forum?
Here are some points of contention with your position:
1) KJVO was good enough to teach, rebuke, train for hundreds of years. I don’t say that full of ignorance of modern discoveries and education, I say that to the testament of what we have. Are we really going to assume that what we know now may be so dramatically different that those who wrote, studied, and prayed over scripture from 1611 may never have known the true word of God?
2) If we begin accepting differences now, what happens in 400 years when our archaeology, historical understanding, and updated Rosetta stone tell us something else? Could it possibly take us back to KJV 1611? Maybe. It certainly can’t bring us to a modern translation becuase we are allowing changes to the sacred text.
3) We don’t have original documents. We have copies, and that’s OK. The more copies the better we can understand the original. But, we also need to accept the current with understanding of the past. What documents did the original 1611 KJV have that we do not? Are there any? Of course there are. 1611 was closer to the original and therefore more reliable.
4) Original Greek, yeah, I know a few words. Turns out many of them have multiple meanings. Take the word Hos which means ‘Who’ or ‘Which’. The word does not mean “He” but in 1 Tim 3:16, when talking about God, “Who” was manifest in the flesh. He doesn’t fit, it was a “modern” tweak–much like many other places.
5) KJVO people are better than non-KJV’rs *wink*
Steve, I think that we should open a forum topic on this one. I feel like it’s going to be a long discussion. I’ll post a link on here in a little while to the forum thread and my response to your comment. Thanks for interacting with me in a polite and respectful manner.
Ok Steve, here is the link to the thread I created for this topic. Looks like we are in for a fun discussion.
http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/forumpress/?vasthtmlaction=viewtopic&t=116.0