Featured Flesch-Kincaid readability scale

No, I should have worded that differently, I do not think you were being "dis-ingenuous" as you were speaking only of your experience....I think, when it is said of others, who have never even cracked open one translation or another, it sometimes is. My apologies, I do not mean to suggest that YOUR POST or point of view is dis-ingenuous at all.

I do not deny this either...on some occasions, the KJV sounds rather like Yoda as opposed to Han Solo, but, no one had a problem comprehending what Yoda meant, and if it forces someone to work a little harder at mastering the possiblities of their language, it doesn't bother me. I would not say they are "non-understandable" though, it may take a little work, but it isn't THAT bad!

In and of itself...no, it isn't a sufficient condition for use of KJV....but there are occasions, where a generic "you" can sometimes lead to confusion as to whom a passage or statement is being directed, that is all I was trying to say. I am KJV for other reasons fundamentally...TR vs. other manuscripts etc...

Again, usually, yes, but differentiating IS closer to a direct representation of the original source language, and on occasion...I have seen someone miss-apply a statement because of this. Not to the extent of Heresy or anything, but just misapplication....

What are any of us doing, but merely posing "I think". You are, I am, Salty is, so is Diamond Lady.....That was indeed my opinion...this is yours...and I value it.

It isn't the "High English" (whatever that means) it was something about precision....agree or not....we are sharing opinion.

I do not, this is neither necessary nor fair...Let's take advantage of the rare opportunity to engage in a KJVO discussion wherein no crazies, no Ruckmanites or any other sorts have showed and no-one has acted un-civil and keep it that way.

In certain respects....it is just as easy...in others, it may take a little work. Have you looked into any of the F.K. and readability research that is available? There is some basically objective research on these very topics.

I have never stated in any unequivocal sense that it is "just as easy" I quote some of my own statements here:

So, Please use only the Authorized KJV version of my statements: Not a modern paraphrase :laugh:

With respect to the bolded part: You may disagree, and that is fine, but it is (I assure you) not "

" This can be a very civil conversation....and yes, there is indeed a "bias" The "

" is, as Yeshua pointed out: based upon TR vs other manuscripts etc...That is why my contention would be that it (even provided its readability is compromised) is more faithful to the original autographs and that that provides a sufficient condition for preference of KJV.

I do not patently deny that there are sometimes challenges to the modern reader for understanding some of KJV speach....I believe that it is usually over-blown though: Allow me to give an example:

Quite often, I get involved in conversations like this:

(modern transtlation proponent): "I don't understand all the thees and thous and stuff.."

(me): "Really, What does thee mean?"

(modern translation proponent): "You"

(me): "what does thou mean?"

(modern transtlation proponent): "you"

(me): "What does ye mean?"

(modern transtlation proponent): "you"

(me): "So, you do know what they mean, what other words do you not understand?"

(modern transtlation proponent): "I don't know, it's just hard"

(me): "Have you read from a KJV recently?"

(modern transtlation proponent): "No"

(me): "Then how are you so confident that the KJV is hard to understand?"

(modern transtlation proponent): "I don't know, it just is"

(me): "Then why not give it another shot, and whenever you come across something hard to understand either look it up or call me and ask what it means?"

(modern transtlation proponent): "Alright, I'll give it another try"

(me): "Just to go ahead and answer you now, the statement: 'we do you to wit' means 'we would have you know' and 'gaddest thou not, and wottest thou not' both mean': 'don'cha know' Call me if you have any more problems."

(modern transtlation proponent): "k' thanks."

 

Where is the evidence for your claim?

The first rule given the KJV translators stated: “The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.”

In their preface to the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators themselves asserted:
"Truly (good Christian Readers) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, not yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one"

Anyone who compares the 1611 KJV to the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision can easily see that the KJV is not an original new translation. Most of English text of the 1611 KJV comes from those pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops).

 

"Replaced" I think NASB came out in '77 and then NIV came out '85...How about this charming word: It...."supplanted" it.

 

Actually the readability research can be subjective and misleading since it often largely depends on the number of syllables per word and other factors that may not relate at all to whether readers properly understand the words.

KJV-only author R. B. Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the KJV averages less syllables per word” (Language, p. 159). 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). Is that a significant difference?

Furthermore, there may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is easier to read. 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 translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read. By the way, some 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. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.

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 equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “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,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ 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. These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading and misused.

 

ERM......I am aware of all of this, hence......I phrased my statement like this:

Thus, you have

informed me of nothing I was not aware of.....note my qualifier here:

Words have meaning...there are objective researchers who have done some study on this....you are focusing on one and only one facet of their formula, and syllable-count is indeed one and ONLY ONE facet of the discussion.

I have read Riplinger's books, and you will note that I (a KJVO type) am not going to quote her: When I or another KJVO proponent quote her on this thread feel free to beat her up all you want.

 

You have not yet provided any such objective data that affirms your claim that the KJV is as easy to read and understand as modern translations. Since you admit that syllable-count data does not support your claim, what are those other facets of their formula to which you refer?

Who are those "objective" researchers [to which you referred] who do not have a KJV-only motive or bias to uphold?

 

Firstly, I have admitted no such thing...I am refusing to debate it either way, I believe it IS a legitimate facet of "understandability" I posted links to a previous thread on BB about the topic and there are links contained in the OP of that thread....and one can easily google it.....You are not talking to some insane Ruckmanite who is willing to live and die on this hill. I believe that your mind seems obviously made up, and therefore, if you are interested in researching it feel free, maybe follow some of the links contained in the earlier threads I linked to...OR you could simply copy/paste some KJV into F.K. which the previous links point to.

F.K. for what it is worth, is a respectable source on the topic, with absolutely no bias whatsoever...This is what they DO, and they do it for everyone. And their stats simply do not suggest that KJV is too difficult to read. And, again, if you follow some links I provided to some previous debates on this topic, you will find some sources.

I refused to mention it before, but I actually take issue with the contention of your previous link about syllable count in that, it gives us NO comparisons of the same type for other translations. Instead, it merely provides examples of kjv "shortenings". There is no "control group" so to speak, by which to compare them. I am willing to bet that I could create a similar set of examples where the KJV uses a longer or more syllabic word than any number of modern translations and subsequently post a nearly identical comparison favoring the KJV. Let's take one example: Your KJV-hating resource used "trump" and "trumpet" as one proof....I spent less than 15 seconds following a fascinating link via google to find these word studies:

http://www.tricitiesgracefellowship.org/messages/conference/text/trumpandtrumpet.pdf
http://www.magnifiedword.com/trumpandtrumpet.pdf

This study you quoted was conducted by someone who obviously had a result they wanted, and therefore got the result they sought. We all tend to do it sometimes, it is hard not to. The second link I just posted...was in fact made by a KJVO him/her self. As stated by the author here: "the English KJV(which I believe to be entirely correct and without error)." I respect the straightforward honesty of that statement. Be these authors right or wrong....it does suggest something about the depth and precision that KJVO's such as myself (and if I am being presumptuous by speaking for her, I apologize and please correct me) and Diamond Lady have been carping about on this thread.

I am not going to try to "convert" you to my manner of thinking. It is easy to tell when someone is dedicated to their point of view...You are not "convertible" on this one; at least not by me. If you want a hard-core and more brutal debate partner, this section is FULL of Hard-core KJVers and KJV-despisers. Some other threads might suit your fancy more.

 

Perhaps your own KJV-only bias or lack of objectivity is showing. Your posts suggest that it is your mind that is made up, and you are unwilling to consider objective evidence. Are you not dedicated to your point of view?

It was mentioned that there are some words united in KJV editions that may be divided in modern translations, but you skip over the fact that those words are not as commonly used as some of the words mentioned that are divided in most KJV editions. Some even many KJV editions have words such as "dwellingplaces," "kneadingtroughs," "snuffdishes," or "threshingfloor" printed as one word although there are other KJV editions that divide them. The number of such words and which words that they are depends on which one of the many varying editions of the KJV in print today may have been tested. Another possibility to consider is whether the computer or computer program that does the test might automatically divide such words itself as "dwellingplaces" into two words "dwelling places" and might change non-standard spellings in KJV editions to standard spellings, and thus the accuracy of the test results might be affected. I know from typing KJV words on my computer that my computer will change some KJV spellings automatically and I have to retype them to get them back to how I had actually first typed them as they are spelled as found in most present KJV editions.

You seem to miss or skip over the valid points that was raised [in bold type below], and you did not demonstrate that there was any bias in that information. The first four words mentioned below are found many times in the KJV [to day, to morrow, for ever, for evermore], more times than any word that might be united in many KJV editions but divided in modern translations. "To day" may be found as many as 69 times in the KJV. If you seem to stick your head in the sand or close your eyes to valid points and evidence, you only reveal your own unwillingness to examine the facts.
____________________

There may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is easier to read. 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 translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” "father in law," “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ "every thing," "any one," “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read. By the way, some 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.

 

Another example that would affect syllable count would concern "lift" and "lifted."

There are some places where the 1611 edition has "lift" where later editions changed it to "lifted." The 1611 edition has "lifted" around 69 times while most present KJV editions have it almost double that. Besides that, there is a good number of places where the same change was not made in most present KJV editions but where the two syllable "lifted" would be found in modern translations.

Genesis 7:17 [see 2 Chron. 26:16--was lifted] [was lift--1602 Bishops]
was lifted (1804 Oxford) [1747, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1750, 1760, 1763, 1764 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1802 Carey) (Clarke) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (1845 Harding) (1846 Portland) (1911 TCE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (CSB) (KJRLB) (EB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
was lift (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 14:22 [see Ps. 93:3--have lifted]
have lifted (1804 Oxford) [1747, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1750, 1760, 1763, 1764 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1802 Carey) (1813 Johnson) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (EB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
have lift (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 18:2 [see Gen. 22:4, 37:25] [see Gen. 22:13--lifted … looked]
lifted … looked (1765, 1768, 1784, 1804 Oxford) [1747, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1750, 1760, 1763, 1764 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1791 Collins) (1810, 1828 Boston) (1813 Carey) (1815 Walpole) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1876 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
lift … looked (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Genesis 21:16 [see Gen. 27:38]
lifted (1765, 1768, 1777, 1784, 1795, 1804 Oxford) [1747, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1791 Collins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1810, 1828 Boston) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1924 Hertel) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1842 Bernard)
lift (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1611 London}

Genesis 22:4 [lift--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
lift (1675, 1679, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1771, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1788 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1747 London} (1638, 1756, 1764 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1808 MH) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
lifted (1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1747 Cambridge, DKJB] {1760 London}

 

think that there were some reasons why the NASB never 'took off", while the NIV did!

NASB was close enough reading/sounding to the KJV that those holding to KJV stuck with it, while those who wanted to use a different version wante one "more modern!"

Also, its style lent to the truth of 'good greek/poor English", so many who tried to read and use it foundit to "literal/wooden" for their tastes!

Finally, the Niv IS a good translation,, would say it and the HCSB would be best for those needing a totally modern reading version, BUT also having massive advertisement of Zondervan publishers behind it did not hurt it either!

And once the NIV got to being main pew/sunday school bible, than it became the bible for Evangelicalism!

 

People say this all the time, but I have never understood it. The NASB is not wooden at all to me. It's my favorite version actually.

 

If the archaic words in the KJV supposedly add "depth and precision," then evidently according to a consistent application of that claim the KJV translators themselves removed some "depth and precision" when they updated and revised the same words in a number of other places where they were used in the Bishops' Bible. Did the KJV translators take away "depth and precision" in the many places where they made simpler, updated, or revised archaic renderings used in the Bishops' Bible?

Some examples were given earlier in this thread where the KJV translators updated or revised some of the same words used in the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision that they kept in other places. Many more examples could be given.

KJV-only advocates cannot have it both ways. Their argument does not hold up to careful examination.

 

If it may take a little work, the KJV is not as easy to read and understand.

Perhaps your personal experience and bias toward the KJV are not objective concerning this matter.

 

Did the KJV translators remove "depth and precision" when they updated "betimes" in the pre-1611 English Bibles a number of times?

Several times the KJV updated Coverdale’s rendering “betimes” (Gen. 19:2, 20:8, 22:3; Exod. 8:20, 9:13, 24:4; Josh. 7:16; 1 Sam. 1:19, 29:10, etc.) with “early.” The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible had “betimes” at least twenty times. The Bishops’ Bible used “betimes” or “betymes” several times (Gen. 20:8, 26:31, 2 Chron. 36:15, Job 8:5, 24:5, Ps. 5:3, 59:16, 143:8, Prov. 13:24, Isa. 50:4, 60:1, Jer. 7:13, 11:7, Eze. 24:18, Dan. 6:19, Zech. 10:1). By updating or revising, the KJV reduced the number of
uses of “betimes” to five (Gen. 26:31, 2 Chron. 36:15, Job 8:5, 24:5, Prov. 13:24). The Geneva Bible has “betimes” at Psalm 101:8 where the KJV has “early” while the opposite is true for Job 8:5.

 

by and by

Did the KJV translators remove depth and precision when they sometimes updated or revised "by and by" to "immediately"?

Sometimes the earlier Bibles' rendering "by and by" (Mark 2:12, 4:5, 10:52; John 6:21; Acts 16:26, 17:14) was changed to "immediately" in the KJV while it is kept other times (Matt. 13:21, Mark 6:25, Luke 17:7). "By and by" at Acts 12:10 in Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham’s, and Geneva Bibles is revised to "forthwith" in the KJV. Waite's Defined KJB has this note for "by and by" in the KJV: "immediately, at once" (p. 1276). Connecting Mark 6:25 and 27, Goddard suggested that the definition of by and by was “straightway with haste” or “immediately” (KJB’s Built-In, p. 358). Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary defined it as “immediately” (p. 15). Jack Moorman also defined it at Luke 21:9 as “immediately” (Conies, p. 30). For the rendering “by and by“ used in an archaic sense, Edward Hills gave the modern equivalent “at once” (KJV Defended, p. 217). Likewise, Ruckman defined it at Mark 6:25 as “at once” (Problem Texts, p. 424). In his introduction to his Bible, Noah Webster confirmed that "by and by" as used in the KJV denoted "immediately" (p. x). While the expression "by and by" meant "immediately" in the 1500 and 1600's, now it is usually understood to mean "soon" or "after a while." Webster noted: "In present usage, it seems rather to indicate soon, but not immediately" (p. x). Vincent’s Word Studies affirmed that use of by and by is “obsolete in the old sense of immediately” (I, p. 194). Bullinger also noted that “by and by (Luke 21:19) meant immediately” (Figures, p. 857). Wright also maintained that by and by meant “immediately” (Bible Word-Book, p. 106).

In this case, the KJV has three one syllable words where a modern translation may have a five syllable word. However, the five syllable word is likely more understandable to many present readers than the three one syllable words.

In contrast to the other sources cited, KJV-only author Paul Heaton wrote that “the phrase is defined as ’unspecified future time’” (Are the Words, p. 16). If the KJV is just as easy to understand, how did this KJV-only pastor get this wrong understanding from the KJV? Does Heaton’s acceptance of the current definition for by and by match the meaning of how the phrase was used in the 1550 translation of Matthew by John Cheke? At Matthew 3:16, Cheke’s translation has “he came out of the water by and by.” Cheke’s translation of Matthew has other such uses [“by and by his leperness was cleansed” (Matt. 8:3); “Jesus by and by stretched forth his hand” (Matt. 14:31). This attempt by a KJV-only author to define the phrase by using a current definition confirms that this is not how this phrase was used in the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the KJV and shows how reads can get a wrong concept from some of the archaic words in the KJV.

 

anon

"Anon" in the pre-1611 English Bibles was updated or revised with a variety of words in the KJV: "straightway" (Mark 1:20, 2:2, 8:10, 15:1), "immediately" (Mark 4:29, 6:50), "forthwith" (Matt. 13:5, Mark 5:13), "presently" (Matt. 21:19), "now" (John 21:6), and "quickly" (Rev. 11:14). At Mark 14:70, "anon after" in the earlier English Bibles became "a little after" in the KJV. At Acts 27:14, "anon after" in Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Geneva was amended to "not long after" in Great, Bishops', and KJV. Wycliffe’s Bible had “anon” in many verses [see Matt. 3:16, 4:20, 13:5, 13:21, 14:22, 21:2, 21:19, etc.]. Is consistency in updating a hallmark of the KJV? Although the 1611 KJV usually revised the earlier Bibles' use of "anon," it retained this archaic word at Matthew 13:20 and Mark 1:30. Knox referred to “anon” as “a so-called archaic word” (By Definition, p. 37). On the other hand, Waite's Defined KJB acknowledged that this word was archaic and defined it as "immediately, at once" (pp. 1276, 1308). KJV-only author David Daniels also listed “anon” as an archaic word. Connecting Matthew 13:5, 13:20, Mark 4:5, and Luke 8:6 and later connecting Mark 1:10, 12, 29, 30, and 42, Goddard indicated that the definition of anon was “straightway,” “immediately,” “forthwith,” or “as soon as” (KJB’s Built-In, pp. 344, 355). David Cloud's Way of Life Encyclopedia has "immediately; directly" as its definition (p. 26). Jack Moorman defined “anon” at Matthew 13:20 as “immediately” (Conies, p. 29). Robert Harbach defined it as “straightway/forthwith/immediately” (Bible Archaisms, p. 2). Mayhew and Skeat’s Concise Dictionary of Middle English gave this definition for it: “at once, instantly, soon, in a short time” (p. 12). Swinton defined anon as “immediately, at once” (Bible Word-Book, p. 18). On the other hand, KJV defender Steven J. White asserted that anon “doesn’t simply mean ’forthwith’ or ’straightway,’ else the [KJV] translators would have used those words” (White’s Dictionary, I, p. 106). If “anon” does not have those meanings, why did the KJV translators use them to update some of the pre-1611 Bibles’ uses of this word?

Is “anon” a more majestic word or a word with more depth and precision than the words that the KJV translators used to update it in a number of places?

 

I have admitted a certain bias: The difference is I can detect and admit my own bias and you apparently can't. I even supplied you with a quote contained in a study I posted where the author of the post admitted their own bias. I tend to think you have not carefully read this thread from the OP on, but kind of jumped in to the middle.

The studied confusion of this source you keep citing is absolutely insane. It is not objectively written. It is painfully obvious that it isn't. If there is any signifigance to the syllable-count facet, it is at best absolutely minor in the overall scheme of things. Even if this study's conclusions are totally accurate, the signifigance of them to the overall argument is minor. The author of this study is basically straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

I don't recall anyone claiming that it was necessarily the archaicisms which were what added the "depth" and "precision" to KJV. For like the 453rd time...since the OP.....they are not sufficient reasons to use a Modern Translation...I could have sworn I heard someone say that on this thread before.

Seriously, read your statement here again. This is a hard-hitting point of yours provided we first assume the same depth and precision about the Bishop's Bible. Nobody on planet Earth thinks particularly highly of the Bishop's Bible. Most people who weren't High Church Anglican apologists didn't think very highly of the Bishop's Bible 400 years ago.

No, not if one word might have worked just as well as another. It is not as though I would claim that "throughly" (kjv) might not just as easily be translated "thoroughly". You appear to be assuming you are talking to someone who insists that EVERY SINGLE WORD is absolutely critical and not up for dispute....Once again, use that argument with a Ruckmanite or someone who maintains it is perfect; otherwise it is meaningless.

If you had carefully read this thread from the OP on....you would have heard that particular admission from more than one KJVO than just myself, and from myself more than once. But no one reading this thread will hear you making a similar admission. By the way, ultimately, someone can be biased and also be correct.

No.

This is what we mean by studied confusion. This is tilting at windmills....Coverdale's ??? Really??? You seem to think that previous translations should necessarily be viewed as standard-setting. You are not talking to someone who would think something like that. Poor Miles didn't even understand Hebrew and Greek.

:sleeping_2:The ceaseless droning endlessly on in this study about "by and by" and "anon" is beyond ancillary and insignifigant.

And the answer to this last very meaningful question:

Is probably not, and anyone obsessing over the issue such as the author of this link you quote or anyone trying to debate it with him/her is probably wasting their time. :sleep:

 

Episcopal bias in the KJV

The Bishops' Bible was an important influence on the KJV, and it was the actual source of much of the archaic language found in the KJV when the Geneva Bible already had used clearer or more up-to-date language.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the KJV was made under the control of the same High Church Anglican party as the Bishops' Bible had been. Archbishop Richard Bancroft was more extreme in his High Church views that Archbishop Matthew Parker had been.

In an article entitled “Short History of the English Bible,“ it is asserted that the Bishops’ Bible had “a tendency to use the hierarchical terminology of the Anglican Church” (Unpublished Word, Spring, 2009, p. 11). This article also stated: “The translators preserved the ecclesiastical terms largely because King James and the Anglican Bishops had strictly charged the translators to preserve the ecclesiastical terms of the Bishops’ Bible” (Ibid.). Charles Pastoor and Galen Johnson maintained that King James I in effect directed “that the translation adopt language supportive of episcopacy” (Historical Dictionary, p. 174). In his history of the making of the KJV, Adam Nicolson referred to the KJV as “a ferociously episcopal” Bible (God’s Secretaries, p. 60). Was that hierarchical ecclesiastical terminology kept or even increased in the KJV which was officially a revision of the Bishops‘ Bible?

Rule 1 given for the making of the KJV was that "the ordinary Bible read in the [state] church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit." Evidently, the person who made the rules for the making of the KJV thought more highly of the Bishops' Bible than he did of the loved and accepted English Bible of most believers in that day--the Geneva Bible.

The third rule was that "the old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, etc." After listing this third rule, Adam Nicolson commented: “Bancroft, and almost certainly the king, was not prepared to give any ground in the language of the translation to the Presbyterians” (God’s Secretaries, p. 75). David Daiches noted that the third rule was "directed against the Puritan tendency to abandon the traditional terms which had associations with Catholic ritual and is an interesting reflection of the essentially Anglican nature of A.V." (The KJV of the English Bible, p. 169).

S. E. Anderson contended: "The King James translators were prejudiced, and ordered to be so by King James himself" (Scofieldism Upgraded, p. 14). Anderson also asserted: "When the Authorized Version of our Bible was to be translated, King James commanded not to undermine any of the beliefs of the Church of England. Ecclesia was not to be 'congregation' or 'assembly,' because they held to the invisible, universal theory" (Baptists Unshackled, p. 98). Alexander Carson (1776-1846) wrote: "There was the strongest temptation to induce them to accommodate their translation to the practice of their church" (Baptism, p. 123). Henry Fox asserted that the KJV translators “were bound by a code of rules drawn up by their president, Archbishop Bancroft” (On the Revision, p. 7). Adam Nicolson suggested that Bancroft could see that “the church should take the initiative and mould the new Bible to its own purposes” (God’s Secretaries, p. 65). Alfred Dewes maintained that the directions or rules given the translators “must sorely have hampered them” (Plea, p. 7). James Woolsey wrote: “In preparing his version, King James restricted the translators within certain bounds, which left them not at liberty to follow the plain import of certain words, nor the convictions of their own consciences; but obligated them to comply, not with a mandate proceeding from the throne of heaven, but with one coming from the throne of England” (Doctrine, p. 80).

Baptist Hezekiah Harvey asserted that the KJV "was prepared under the influence of prelacy" (Church, p. 42). Concerning several verses in the KJV, Andrew Edgar asserted that “prelacy” obtained “a show of countenance which is scarcely warranted” (Bibles of England, p. 294). Edgar noted that some say “the theological and ecclesiastical bias of the translators betrays itself in the authorized version” (p. 294). In his 1659 book, Robert Gell, who had been chaplain of KJV translator George Abbot, maintained that “dogmatic interests were in some cases allowed to bias the translation,” and one of those dogmatic interests he referred to as “the prelatic view” (Essay). The fact that a person with a position in the Church of England and with a firsthand association with a KJV translator acknowledged or affirmed the bias is strong evidence. John Lewis asserted that Robert Gell “reflected on this new translation as wrested and partial, and speaking the language of and giving authority to one sect” (Complete History, p. 333). Thomas Smyth referred to the KJV translators as “prelatists” and contended that they “took every occasion to make the original speak the language of prelacy” (Presbytery and not Prelacy, p. 257). Smyth noted that the KJV “was translated and arranged under prelatic direction” (p. 273). W. D. Killen indicated that “the prelatic leanings of our English interpreters” appear in their translating (Framework of the Church, p 147). James R. White asserted: “Anglican ecclesiology had an impact upon the KJV’s translation, a charge that has been made ever since the translation appeared” (King James Only, p. 72). Allister McGrath noted that “one Parliamentary group, meeting in 1652-53, argued that the King James Bible used ‘prelatic language’” (In the Beginning, p. 286). In 1645 in the sessions of the Westminster Assembly, Scottish reformer George Gillespie moved to alter “some places in the [KJV] New Testament that prelatic men make use of” (Mitchell, Minutes, p. 181). This is firsthand evidence that prelates made use of certain renderings in the KJV.

Henry Dexter maintained that “its [KJV]s] translators acted under Episcopal bias, and is some passages modified earlier and more exact versions in its interest” (Hand-Book, p. 15). Samuel Cox acknowledged that some renderings in the KJV “have been attributed to ecclesiastical bias” (Expositor, III, p. 301). Edward Jacob Drinkhouse referred to “the Episcopal bias” of the King James translators (History of Methodist Reform, p. 260). Benjamin Hanbury contended that certain renderings in the KJV makes it “sectarian and the symbol of a party” (Historical Memorials, footnote pp. 1-2). In the general preface to his New Literal Translation, James Macknight claimed that “their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect” (p. 9). James Edmunds and T. S. Bell asserted that “King James’s servitors warped the Word of God to suit their employer or to suit their theological notions” (Discussion on Revision, p. 113). Derek Wilson maintained that the translation by Bancroft’s team “had to circumvent any interpretation that might tend towards separatism” (People’s Book, p. 119). Edmunds and Bell refer to the KJV as “that sectarian version” (p. 119). R. S. Sugirtharajah asserted that the KJV was seen as “episcopal” (Hamlin, KJB after 400, p. 160). Ross Purdy wrote: “There is an Episcopalian bias in the King James Bible” (I Will Have One Doctrine, p. 46). Purdy asserted: “the Anglican bias is still discernible” (p. 15). Purdy referred to “examples of obvious Anglican and authoritative bias” that promote “prelacy” (p. 57). KJV-only author Robert Sargent even acknowledged that the Puritans considered certain words or renderings to favor “Episcopalian polity” (English Bible, p. 230). In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).

 

Do you detect fully the extent of your own bias?

What you do think or assume that my bias is?

I grow up reading the KJV and still read it as my overall favorite translation. Thus, I have no bias against the KJV. I do disagree with the modern, man-made KJV-only view and any faulty reasoning or inaccurate claims used to support it.

I am objective enough to see the Episcopal bias that was added to the KJV when compared to the earlier pre-1611 English Bibles. There is more Episcopal bias found in the KJV than there was in the Bishops' Bible.

I am objective enough to see the problems that many English readers today have in understanding some of the archaic language used in the KJV.

 

I've been in mucho discussion elsewhere about the "Thees, thous, & ye's" in the KJV as opposed to the "yous" in modern versions. I reminded those readers that it was GOD who caused/allowed those changes in English; the whole English-speaking world slowly adopted those changes, not just the makers of English Bible translations.

Some KJVOs holler that those who don't hesitate to make changes in the Holy Bible wouldn't DARE make the smallest change in a work of Shakespeare. They forget, or deliberately overlook some major differences: first, Shakespeare is dead; God is alive. Shakespeare's worx became frozen in time at his death; God still superintends His word. Shakespeare wrote entertainment; God wrote instructions of how to worship Him. And Shakespeare was merely a man; GOD IS KING OF EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING, THE MAKER AND SUSTAINER OF ALL THERE IS.

We see proof over the years that God has kept His word in current style of many languages, and I fully believe that God superintends all languages and causes/allows all changes in them. And the proof is simply overwhelming that He has kept His word in current English now, same as He did for the English style in use 400 years ago.