Is the AV1611 written at a 4th grade Level?

Nice smoke screen
The thread is attempting to state that the KJV is difficult to understand; my point is that the MVs are equally as difficult. Both need further study and explanation at times.

BTW, how did you do on the test?

 

I didn't do your "test." I saw what you had in that post and immediately went to my parallel one.

 

Of course not;it would prove that the buisness of "the KJB is hard to read" is nothing but tripe.

 

[personal attack deleted] If I took that guy's test on NIV words that are not within the average speaker's voacabulary, that would "prove" nothing about the difficulty, or lack of it, of reading your Anglican Bible.

[ May 01, 2003, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Bob the Younger ]

 

But it would prove that the NIV, as well as the other MVs contain language that, although not "archaic," is still not the everyday English like it is held up to be. The "harder to understand" charge holds no water with me whatsoever.

So, grade level is not the issue. Understanding the text is the issue. Can one understand the KJV? Yes, but some explanation is necessary for unfamiliar terms. Can one understand the NIV? Yes, but some explanation is necessary for unfamiliar terms.

I see nothing but an unfounded accusation against the KJV.

 

But why are they difficult? That's the key. Is it a matter of theological comprehension or is it a matter of grammatical comprehension? The MVS are likely the former, while the KJV is more of the latter. And the latter affects the former, which is one reason why the KJV is inferior.

And as for your list of words, the ones I checked were proper nouns. You're comparing apples and oranges, friend.

 

I liked your post, I was reading it, learning things I hadn't heard explained so well before....until I got to this part. I am who you are speaking of. And may I say...Ouch!
In Christ,
Laurenda Winkler
Mother of 7
Saved in 1974 at the age of 12. </font>[/QUOTE]Back up there Sister, I never said you had a potty mouth. I haven't attacked anybody on this forum. I attacked the Living Book. The thing puts the words Son of a B__ch... in the text. I don't see anything good about that. When I said that somebody used it, I didn't mean that they had to have a potty mouth. But I know I would if I quoted the thing.

It also uses the word Bastard as does the KJV. The only exception is, the KJV refers to someone being without father and the LIV. is calling someone bad names. I believe that is in John 9.

Anyway, accept my appology if I didn't quite word the statement right.

But I make no appology for kicking the liv.book.

In Christ, Truth
P.S. You said you couldn't make a lot out of the KJV. I couldn't either when I first got saved, but I prayed and read until God opened my eyes. Its a spiritual book. Not a novel. God wants to make sure you are honest and that you really desire the truth before he starts showing you things. I could have quit and got me a new translation. But I wanted to Study to shew (myself)thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15

 

Don't get that started, we're liable to find out that none of us are writing on a very hi level...

 

You mean to tell us Pastor Larry that the word begat is why you threw out the word of God. That is pretty shallow don't you think? Not to mention the NIV has words that most adults don't know what they mean that are a lot bigger.

Is the AVKJ1611 Harder to Read? Did they update the language with the NIV?

1. II Chronicles 13:22 uses Story in KJV
2. NIV uses Annotation
3. II Chronicles 15:4 Voice
4. NIV uses Acclamation
5. Genesis 40:6 Sad
6. NIV uses Dejected
7. Job 8:2 Strong
8. NIV uses Blustering

So in the AVKJ1611 you might have a Sad, Strong, Story
But in the NIV you’re a Dejected, Blustering, Annotation

Now of course this is just a little bit. If most of you would have quit watching the hellivision and stopped listening to all the adds Zondervan was doing about easier to read, you would realize it isn't. Just for the fun of it I threw in something on Job.

Job 6:6 Can that which is unsavoury be eaten without salt? or is there any taste in the white of an egg? KJV
Job 6:6 in RSV says Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?

All this up to date language. With over 200 Bibles printed since 1885 they are telling us that the English language needs updating every 10 months. All these added words and changing the meaning of definitions Brother Larry is what is letting all the liberals misinterpret the Bible and make up things that the True word of God doesn't say.

Pray about it. Ever done that??

In Christ, Truth

 

Well said. I just threw it in because this is what Bob asked for to begin with. The fact is, it is perfect to the letter. Its God's Holy word and it wouldn't matter if no one could understand it. God doesn't need anyone helping him out on his grammar or updating the Bible for Him.

In Truth..

 

Well said. I just threw it in because this is what Bob asked for to begin with. The fact is, it is perfect to the letter. Its God's Holy word and it wouldn't matter if no one could understand it. God doesn't need anyone helping him out on his grammar or updating the Bible for Him.

In Truth.. </font>[/QUOTE]Have you read the translators' letter to the reader?

Haruo

 

I never met a child that didn't understand, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Theres the Gospel. Not only that but when a person gets saved they do so by conviction of the word of God after hearing THE WORD OF GOD.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If you didn't get saved by hearing the word of God, then you don't have BIBLICAL salvation. Plain and simple. Notice: 1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

You must not be much of a soul winner. I hit it every week. I've led many people to Christ and all with a KJV. I don't sit and reason and give them the phsycology junk. I simply show them Jesus Christ dying for their sins. Any man or woman that tells me they have to use some man made book to lead a child to Christ is not honest.

The second to last time I preached a 13 year old boy got saved and I didn't even preach on salvation. How did that happen??? The same way I got saved at 16. A preacher was preaching the word of God (KJV) and the Holy Spirit told me I was going to HELL because I killed Jesus Christ. My sins put him on that cross. So I got saved real quick like, because the Holy Spirit made the truth abundantly clear.

Yes and they get it from a KJV. I never met one that couldn't understand Romans 10:13 or Eph. 2:8,9 or Rom. 4:4-5. But I tell you what will matter, when you convince them to get down and repeat a prayer because you gave them mans reasoning and told them they could go to heaven and they just said why not and repeated after you but didn't get a HEART felt conviction and die and go to hell thinking they are OK&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All because you didn't use the word of God.

I'm KJV only but I'll say this...There is enough left of the Bible in a NIV, NKJV to lead a man to Christ, but the LIV isn't even a translation. Its a paraphrase with dirty language in it.

TRUTH

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]Have you read the translators' letter to the reader?
Haruo [/QB][/QUOTE]

What do you think. Let me guess, you are going to try and use them to prove that God didn't inspire the Bible. Let me ask you something. What if God had let them know that He was inspiring the text and told them it was perfect and they wrote that down??

Do you think we would have ever gotten it. NO&gt; Somebody would have burnt them as heretics with the Bible next too them.

Use some common sense.

Truth

 

Ah,I see. When it comes to trying to support ones views about the MVs they always drag the KJB translators into it;according to them,they are the best thing since sliced bread.If they are wanting to downplay the KJB;the KJB translators are nothing but a bunch of baby sprinkling,Baptist persicuting,Anglican puppets.Why is this??? This seem to be a double standard.

 

Familiarity.

When the Gospel first went out it was in the "koine-common" Greek language not the classical language of Greek to the "common" man.

Did God change His mind in 1611?
Elizabethan English is not the language of the common man.
Like it or not this is how the Scriptures are framed, in the common language familiar to the common man of the prevailing culture to whom it is given.

To say that the Scripture has to be "regal" or even "dignified" is (IMO) a well meaning but false piety inherited by the Church of England from its heretical mother the Church of Rome.

The Church of England fell into the same trap as the Church of Rome with this idea that God must speak in a lofty and regal manner to the point of enforcing a "heavenly" language edict: Latin.

Year after year the Word of God will be slowly lost to the English speaking world as the same thing happens to the KJV as did with the Latin Vulgate and is in fact manifesting itself today.

Italian developed out of Latin and after several centuries the common man was left without a clue as the Word of God was transformed from the language of the common man to the mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus of the RCC.

As a matter of fact the term "hocus-pocus" comes from the Latin mass when the priest says "hoc est corpus meum" (this is my body) quoted from Matthew 26:26 of the Latin vulgate.
This is the Scripture which (so says Rome) transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
When the priest says it quickly it sounds like "hocus pocus".

The KJV is moving in the direction of this extreme. At very least the KJV needs to be returned to the original premise: The Word of God in the common "koine" language familiar to the common man (and also cleansed of "churchianity" both romish and Anglican).

My opinion of course.

BTW I am TRO.

HankD

 

I didn't tell you that. I have not thrown out the word of God. In fact, just this morning, I enjoyed 10 chapters from the book of 2 Chronicles. I am getting ready to study from the book of Titus for this week's morning message. So don't make stuff up. I don't know of any in this forum who have thrown out the word of God.

Yes.

[/q]Yes

Is this the best you can do??? This is perhaps the silliest thing I Have seen yet and I have seen an awful lot of this stuff.

If you would read it, you would realize it is. I would imagine that if you would pour yourself into the NIV for 30 days, you would never go back. It would take a little getting used to, but it would be like the light was just turned on.

The word in question is chalamuth. You know what it means?? Just for kicks, I copied the HEbrew Lexicon here: name of a plant, with thick, slimy juice, purslain (fig. of insipid and dull discourse); the ref. is to Job's suffering, rather than to the unpalatable words of his friends. (pg 321). So the RSV is the only literal translation of this verse. The others aren't literal. The white of the egg is an understanding of it.

Not true. The liberals are making stuff up because their minds reject the authority of God's word. Keeping God's word from the common man by keeping it in an outdated language has made it easier for them. If people had God's word in a language that they easily understood, the false teachers would have a much harder time because people would be learning more.

Long ago and the matter was settled.

 

In my world of ministry, I have seen the accusation proved true more times than I can remember. The problem was that it created a sense of distance between God and young people. You, like I, probably used the KJV for years so it is not the big of a deal. But for those who are not brought up on it, the language is a great unnecessary barrier. And it is not just about who can list words that people don't understand. It is about sentence structure, and pronouns, etc. These things are unused in modern English and unnecessary for the Bible.