Is the KJV too difficult?

[Anthony Pritchard]

Is the KJV too difficult?

Fifty‑four men were appointed at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 to produce a translation of Scripture for the English churches. Their work has been read, preached, memorized, and lived in for more than four centuries from a text two thousand years old.

I am curious how difficulty is being measured.

~Tony

 

[Logos1560]

Some KJV-only authors try to measure difficulty of reading and understanding by average syllables per word.

Michael Hollner claimed: “People have been conned into believing the lie that the new versions are much easier to understand” (King James Only Debate, p. 291). Michael Hollner wrote: “The King James Version has a 5th grade readability level and is EASIER to read and understand than the modern versions” (Ibid.). Pierre Coovert asserted: “Anyone who is honest will say that the words in the KJV are easier to understand” (Why I Don’t Use the NKJV, p. 20). KJV defender R. B. Ouellette claimed that it would be a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand than modern Bibles” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, R. B. Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count, making it more accessible to a beginning English reader than the newer Bibles” (Ibid.).

Gail Riplinger claimed that the NKJV “and all new versions use many, many, many more words and letters to say something than the KJV does” (In Awe of Thy Word, pp. 269-270). Gail Riplinger asserted that the KJV “says things using fewer words than any of the corrupt new versions” (p. 270). Gail Riplinger declared: “The razor’s edge pen-points of the [KJV] translators trimmed off any unnecessary ‘weight,’ so that the words ‘come right to the point’ and are penetrating and pointed” (p. 269). Gail Riplinger maintained that “the KJV averages less syllables per word” (Language of the KJB, p. 159). Gail Riplinger claimed that the KJV’s average was 1.310 syllables per word and that the NKJV’s average was 1.313 syllables per word (p. 160).

 

[JonC]

Is the KJV too difficult?

Fifty‑four men were appointed at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 to produce a translation of Scripture for the English churches. Their work has been read, preached, memorized, and lived in for more than four centuries from a text two thousand years old.

I am curious how difficulty is being measured.

~Tony

The language of the KJV is no more or less difficult than antiquated formal forms of other language is to speakers of that language.

The language of New Testament is a good example. It was not written in Attic Greek (the equivalent of the language of the KJV to more modern English). Instead it was written in the common language of the people (Koine Greek).

It is not just difficulty (many of the words are no longer used or have a different common meaning). It is also about misunderstandings.

Recently I heard John 3:16 once again misrepresented because they were using the KJV (it was not a mistranslation of the KJV but a shift in how we speak today).

 

[Logos1560]

Mark Ward observed that reading-level “tools measure a word’s complexity by syllable count, but that’s not a reliable way of judging whether a word can be understood” (Authorized, p. 54). Mark Ward also noted: “Reading-level analyses run by computers do not yield reliable or useful results when applied to archaic English” (p. 59). Mark Ward asserted: “Archaic vocabulary is a significant problem for readability” (p. 55).

 

[Salty]

Could be that part of the situation is the dumbing down of American Education
(I will not speak for Canada or the UK)
In addition, language has changed over the years.

So, I do have a question, why don't we use an earlier English version:

• Wycliffe Bible — The first widely circulated English version, translated in the 14th century by followers of John Wycliffe, was based on the Latin Vulgate and was outlawed in 1408 due to concerns over heresy.
• Tyndale Bible — Translated by William Tyndale in the early 16th century, this version was significant for being the first to translate the New Testament directly from Greek and the Old Testament from Hebrew into English.
• Great Bible — Published in 1539, this translation was authorized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and was based on Tyndale's work, making it the first English Bible to be placed in churches.
• Geneva Bible — Released in 1560, this translation was notable for its extensive marginal notes and was the first to use verse divisions, becoming popular among English Protestants.
• Bishops' Bible — Published in 1568, this version was an attempt to create a more authoritative translation for the Church of England, serving as a response to the Geneva Bible's popularity.

 

[JonC]

Mark Ward asserted: “Archaic vocabulary is a significant problem for readability” (p. 55).

I think the main reason for KJVO (not that this is the topic here) is superficial sacredness.

I also believe it is significant that God could have used the formal form of Greek to have His words communicated but instead choose the common way of speaking.

Reading level really has nothing to do with it. The language of the KJV is simply archaic. It has nothing to do with reading today's English. A nuclear engineer reads at an advanced level (hopefully) but may not know the language of the KJV.

God gave His word in the common language of the people rarher than the formal and antiquated Greek also used at that time.

I believe we should be faithful to that principle.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So, I do have a question, why don't we use an earlier English version:

Those earlier English Bibles are part of the same preserved stream. The KJV is one that stands within that stream as its mature culmination. They are still extant and can be used if one wishes.

 

[Logos1560]

Those earlier English Bibles are part of the same preserved stream. The KJV is one that stands within that stream as its mature culmination.

It has not been proven that the KJV has a better and more accurate rendering of every original-language word of Scripture in the preserved stream than any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

In at least some places, another pre-1611 English Bible may have a clearer, better, or more accurate rendering than the KJV has when compared to the same preserved Scripture texts. One clear evidence of this is the fact that some renderings in the original 1611 KJV edition were later changed or corrected to match renderings already found in an earlier pre-1611 English Bible.

The KJV translators left uncorrected the error of the name of the wrong group of people “Amorites” (1 Kings 11:5) that is in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, which could make them responsible for this error of fact being found in the 1611. At 2 Kings 24:19, the 1611 edition has the name of the wrong king “Jehoiachin,” introduced from the 1602 edition’s “Joachin.” If the KJV translators had noticed this error of fact at 2 King 24:19 in the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, they failed to make sure that the printers at London corrected it since it remained in editions of the KJV printed at London in 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1633, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, and 1698. The 1560 Geneva Bible already had the correct rendering at these two verses, and later KJV editions were later corrected to match that correct, accurate rendering of the Geneva Bible.

 

[JonC]

We also have to remember exactly why the KJV - initially rejected - became so popular so quickly. England made it illegal to print any other translation.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

It has not been proven that the KJV has a better and more accurate rendering of every original-language word of Scripture in the preserved stream than any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

I asked a question: “Is the KJV too difficult?” That’s the topic. I did not say anything about the KJV having better or more accurate renderings than every pre‑1611 English Bible. I said that "The KJV is one that stands within that stream as its mature culmination." "Within the stream". Let’s stay on topic shall we?

 

[Salty]

I asked a question: “Is the KJV too difficult?” That’s the topic. I did not say anything about the KJV having better or more accurate renderings than every pre‑1611 English Bible. I said that "The KJV is one that stands within that stream as its mature culmination." "Within the stream". Let’s stay on topic shall we?

for some people YES!!!

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

for some people YES!!!

Thank you.

 

[SovereignGrace]

It was written in the language English speaking ppl spoke at that time. Fast forward to today and I believe (and it’s solely my opinion) having bibles written in the way we speak English today, is more beneficial.

 

[Deacon]

I asked a question: “Is the KJV too difficult?” That’s the topic.

One of the first bibles I purchased as a new believer (back in the early 1970's), was a multi-version NT.
If I remember correctly (and I certainly could be wrong) it had four columns including the KJV, NRSV, a NASB and the Living Bible.
An older believer/friend also gave me a nice black leather Scofield Reference Bible which I still have in my bookshelf.

Memorizing Scripture was easier using the KJV, although I substituted many individual words from the other versions to make the passages more understandable to me.

I got in the habit of studying and keeping notes in my Scofield KJV, but reading from other versions to get the gist of what it was saying.

I would never give a new believer or a young person a KJV.
In my experience, other versions communicate God's words better.
The difference in language structure and vocabulary, as well as the "Thees and Thou's" are an unnecessary distraction.

Rob

 

[Logos1560]

BibleI asked a question: “Is the KJV too difficult?” That’s the topic. I did not say anything about the KJV having better or more accurate renderings than every pre‑1611 English. I said that "The KJV is one that stands within that stream as its mature culmination." "Within the stream". Let’s stay on topic shall we?

Claiming that it is "its mature culmination" is in effect suggesting that the KJV would have the most accurate renderings of the preserved text. Thus, my comments were directly on topic to your assertion. If the KJV does not have the most accurate renderings of each and every original-language word of Scripture in the preserved text, it logically would not be "its mature culmination."

 

[Logos1560]

Concerning the KJV, KJV-only author James Knox wrote: “You will be surprised by how many words do not mean what you thought they meant and how much truth is to be found by taking the time to look up the real meaning of the English words” (By Definition, p. 10).

D. A. Carson noted: “Far trickier are those [words] that remain in the language but change their meaning” (Exegetical Fallacies, p. 34). Edward Andrews wrote: “The readers of the King James Version believe that they know and understand what they are reading but they are really failing to understand it fully” (King James Bible, p. 98). Mark Ward wrote: “I say gently that it’s not clear to me that everyone who reads words that they don’t understand notices that they’re not understanding” (Authorized, p. 118).

Samuel Garcia wrote: “False friends are words that are assumed to be modern, but actually have archaic definitions” (How to Find What Any Word in the Bible Means, p. 43). Mark Ward asserted: “The biggest problem in understanding the KJV comes from ‘false friends,’ words that are still in common use but have changed meaning in ways that modern readers are highly unlikely to recognize. Many words and phrases in the KJV are still in use but meant different things in seventeenth-century England—and yet what they now mean makes sufficient sense in context that most readers don’t notice the change” (Authorized, p. 31). Mark Ward noted: “You can teach people to look up unfamiliar words, but the issue here is not words you know that you don’t know; it’s words (and phrases and syntax and punctuation) you don’t know that you don’t know—features of English that have changed in subtle ways rather than dropping completely out of the language” (p. 49). Mark Ward noted: “Truly understanding the KJV demands that you spot all the ‘false friends’—words (and punctuation and syntax, etc.) we don’t know we don’t know, because language has changed over time” (Bibliology, p. 68).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

It was written in the language English speaking ppl spoke at that time. Fast forward to today and I believe (and it’s solely my opinion) having bibles written in the way we speak English today, is more beneficial.

Thank you.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

We also have to remember exactly why the KJV - initially rejected - became so popular so quickly. England made it illegal to print any other translation.

Who rejected the KJV, and when? And how does that relate to the question of difficulty?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thank you.

So, what are your thoughts on my assertion? Do you agree or disagree with it?

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

So, what are your thoughts on my assertion? Do you agree or disagree with it?

I understand the preference for modern English, but my assertion is simply that the Word of God is worth the effort to learn the vocabulary and categories Scripture uses. Difficulty is not a defect. It is an invitation to grow. The early English Bibles are not too difficult; they are simply more precise than the flattened English we use today. So I do not agree that ease of reading should determine which Bible is ‘more beneficial.’ Scripture deserves that we elevate our understanding to meet its language.