Featured Bible Reading Comprehension Tests

Yes, it is mind boggling to read that people go along with additions without italics, removals without ellipsis, and altering word meanings outside of the historical/grammatical pallet.

 

There may be some sound reasons that explain why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count than some present English Bibles such as the NKJV, and those reasons would have no direct bearing on whether or not it is actually easier to read and especially on whether or not it is easier to understand.

For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another English translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word.

Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “father in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “high way,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “some time,” “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ “mad man,” “free man,” and “cart wheel.” There may also be other such words. While later KJV editors changed or corrected a few of the uses of “lift” in the 1611 edition for the past tense “lifted,” there are other times where a present KJV has “lift” while the NKJV may have “lifted.” Sometimes the NKJV may have an adverb spelling which may add a syllable while the KJV has an adjective spelling used as an adverb [for example, “more frequently” in the NKJV for “more frequent” in the KJV]. The KJV may present numbers with more words with fewer syllables [for example “forty and three” in the KJV where the NKJV has “forty-three”]. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because several of those words divided in the KJV are much more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those divided words do not actually make the KJV easier to read and easier to understand. By the way, some present KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. Many times the 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count than a present KJV edition.

The KJV could perhaps have as many as several thousand uses of the one-syllable word “and” where the NKJV does not, which would also lower the KJV’s syllable count. This would not actually make the KJV easier to understand.

More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present English equivalents. Some examples could include the following: “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “coasts” for “borders,” “host” for “army,” “wood” for “woods” or “forest,” “table” for “tablet,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “awaked” for “awakened,” “jeoparded” for “jeopardized,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “ware” for “aware,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “grave” for “engrave,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ “strange” for “foreign,” and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand. The KJV's archaic language may help give the KJV a lower syllable count, but it does not actually make the KJV easier to understand. The archaic language in the KJV may mislead present-day English readers and make it harder to understand correctly.

 

I think that the last paragraph is a duplicate post. Tongue for language is not so difficult as the Spanish word for language is tongue. I am not sure that vale is archaic, nor is host or wood. Oft is commonplace. I think that the KJV is just as easy to read as some of the newer translations and perhaps easier to read because it was written by the English, who certainly know the language better than anyone else.

 

Now you would might think so, but what the KJV did was help standardize the spelling, grammar, and punctuation for the English folks.

But, the English that is not American English is certainly not as good as the American "tongue."

The American English is such a wonderful blend of many other languages, that it is easily discerned as American. Even the KJV folks realized that and had two different Bibles printed under the KJV - one for those islanders, and then we that are spread out so large as to have two separate oceans on our shores.

Besides, I am waiting for a translation that is for Texan folks. A tongue that is really more than what is eaten.

Seems to me that all others are inferior in comparison to a good Texan. Others may be cheap imitations, but there is that Texas vernacular that is just good plain spoken without all the trappings of some north of the Red River slobber. It is recognized throughout the world. Well, that and Georgia folks.

We Texans are
.
.
.
.
.
well
.
.
.
.
Texans.

Why our reputation of bigger, better, larger, largest, and obliges all others to take notice.

Who did the Yankee call out when in trouble? "Houston, we've had a problem."



(This post is not to be taken in any manner other than far less than serious. It is poking fun at the puffery of Texans)

 

Logos 1560,

I continue to read your posts. They are quite valuable.

Do you have any opinions about some the online, apps, or printed KJV dictionaries/glossaries available for contemporary readers of the KJV?

 

The 1769 edition. The 1611 did not.

Changes in the King James version

 

While the 1769 Oxford edition may have helped standardize some English spelling, it did not standardize all spelling in the KJV.

An examination of a 1769 Oxford edition revealed that it has several inconsistent and non-standard English spellings, including some cases where the same word was spelled two or more different ways.

The 1769 Oxford used both “razor” (Num. 6:5) and “rasor” (Jud. 16:17, 1 Sam. 1:11, Ps. 52:2, Ezek. 5:1). It has “sycamore” or “sycamores” at some verses such as 1 Kings 10:27, Psalm 78:47, and Amos 7:14 but “sycomore“ or “sycomores” at others such as Isaiah 9:17. It used both “scepter” (Gen. 49:10) and “sceptre” (Heb. 1:8). The 1769 Oxford has both “vallies” and “valleys” along with both “flotes” and “floats” and both “scroll” and “scrowl.” It has the spelling “yern” but the spelling “yearned” for the past tense. The 1769 Oxford has “ax” at Matthew 3:10 and “axe” at Luke 3:9. It has “wonderously” at Judges 13:19 but “wondrously” at Joel 2:26. The 1769 has “heavy loaden” at Isaiah 46:1 but “heavy laden” at Matthew 11:28. It has “hungred” (Matt. 4:2) and “hungered” (Luke 4:2).

Some examples of inconsistent or non-standard spellings in the 1769 Oxford include “houshold“ (Gen. 18:19), “falsly“ (Gen. 21:23), “ews” (Gen. 31:38), “foles” (Gen. 32:15), “housholds“ (Gen. 43:33), “yern” (Gen. 43:30), “fole” (Gen. 49:11), “lothe” (Exod. 7:18), “waggon” (Num. 7:3), “grashoppers“ (Num. 13:33), “travel“ (Num. 20:14), “milstone” (Deut. 24:6), “befal” (Deut. 31:17), “befel” (Josh. 2:23), “dunghil” (1 Sam. 2:8), “expresly” (1 Sam. 20:21), “bad” (1 Sam. 24:10) “shamelesly“ (2 Sam. 6:20), “falshood” (2 Sam. 18:13), “perversly” (2 Sam. 19:19), “vallies” (1 Kings 20:28), “flotes“ (2 Chron. 2:16), “loath“ (Job 7:16), “noisom“ (Ps. 91:3), “wholsome” (Prov. 15:4), “grashopper” (Eccl. 12:5), “milstones” (Isa. 47:2), “sope“ (Jer. 2:22), “dunghils“ (Lam. 4:5), “waggons” (Ezek. 23:24), “seeth” (Ezek. 24:5), and “carelesly” (Ezek. 39:6).

Over 200 to 300 spelling changes have been made since 1769 in many post-1900 KJV editions. The 1769 Oxford still has the spelling “Judea” in its New Testament instead of the spelling “Judaea” in many later KJV editions. There are other spellings in the 1769 Oxford that remained in many later KJV editions that could properly be considered inconsistent, non-modern, or non-standard English spelling today.

 

I would see us as being smarter in the sense of having more knowledge and tech and scientific facts, but not as smart as in in the sense that education system pretty much made a mess of the learning process!

 

Yes, as in the Esv vrs Niv debate!

 

Like as in publishing companies promoting their pet translation projects?

 

For their time, but we no longer follow their way of speaking and understanding English!

 

far better to read a translation such as the Nkjv and know what is being stated and said then read the Kjv and come away not knowing!

 

There were some books in the 1800's that explained some archaic words and language in the KJV.

While KJV-only advocates generally attempt to suggest that the KJV is easy to understand, some of them have made dictionaries for archaic words in the KJV which would seem to be in contradiction to what they try to claim.

A Bible Word List. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, n. d.
Cloud, David (ed.). Concise King James Bible Dictionary. Port Huron, MI: Way of Life Literature, 1996.
Daniels, David W. The King James Bible Companion. Over 500 Archaic Words Defined. Ontario, CA:
Chick Publications, 1999.
Goddard, Barry. King James Bible Built-In Dictionary. Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications
Knox, James W. By Definition--A Reader's Guide to the King James Bible. Sixth Edition.
Deland, FL: James Knox, 2005.
Smith, O. Ray. King James Bible Dictionary of Old English Words, words which have changed meaning,
spelling changes. 1996.
Vance, Laurence M. Archaic Words and the Authorized Version. Pensacola, FL: Vance
Publications, 1996. 575 pages
Waite, D. A. (ed.). The Defined King James Bible. Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today, 1998.
White, Steven J. White's Dictionary of the King James Language. Volume One A-E. 2004.
White, Steven J. White's Dictionary of the King James Language. Volume Two F-H. 2010.
Williams, Michael L. King James Old English Word Definition Guide. Wisdom4Today, 2008.

 

See, that makes no sense.

 

In some cases, a word is still in use with certain meanings, but it may be used in the KJV with what is now considered an archaic meaning. The word itself may not be archaic, but its meaning as used in the KJV could be considered archaic.

For example, wood today is commonly used to refer to pieces of a tree or to something made from a tree.

Wood [singular] in the KJV is sometimes used with the meaning of the plural form of the word --"woods" [a growth of un-cut trees, usually greater in extent than a grove and smaller than a forest]. Perhaps some people may understand the word "wood" to refer to the woods, but I have never heard the word used that way in regular present-day English.

2 Kings 2:24
two she bears out of the wood

Psalm 80:16a
The boar out of the wood

Psalm 96:12c
all the trees of the wood rejoice

 

Yeshua1,
This is an interesting comment.

Can you give us an example of a publishing company promoting a pet translation project?

 

Logos1560,
Once again you show that you have more than a few answers on a question.
Thanks.

 

This is just a rehash of another thread, as you know. KJV is modern English according to all scholars. Maybe we should say that American English is a dialect, a subset of the English language and that dialect omits certain vocabulary and usage because that dialect is used mostly for mundane commercial transactions. Or maybe Americans have closed minds.