Flesch-Kincaid readability scale

[Yeshua1]

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.

think that was mainly addressing the 1977 version of NASB, one I use, that kept tall of the ole KJV thees and thous and ways of expressions...

Think 1995 version corrected the wooden aspect quite a bit!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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.

Yes, so what. What are you trying to demonstrate. It was mentioned only once in that, I would argue that they are closer to the meaning of the original languages, and it is not a particular difficulty to understand their meaning in that...there are only three of those "thee" "thou" (same meaning for those two) and the "ye". It might be worth learning to distinguish between those in that learning the difference takes roughly 25 seconds.

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.

True enough...and no one on this particular thread "hollers" about that stuff...take that up with the insanos on some other thread.

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.

A wonderful platitude...also not inherently germaine to this topic or the particular direction of this thread.

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.

A comparison between the translational history of the Bible into English and into that of other languages is probably unwarranted, since we are still in the process of translation into many languages wherein the Scriptures are as of yet still unavailable.

And the proof is simply overwhelming that He has kept His word in current English now

UHH...Yes, it is at least demonstrably true that since 1611 there have been gazillions of different publishing firms wishing to make a quick buck and there have also been numerous genuinely concerned groups who feel a need or desire to update the language of the KJV...It has happened scores of times in the last 130 years. It has happened many more times than is necessary to merely keep current of the natural evolution of language (which un-doubtedly changes over time). It also happens rather slowly.

same as He did for the English style in use 400 years ago.

That would be accurate to say if it were the case that the KJV translators consistently kept their translation in the modern vulgar/vernacular...they didn't; they even permitted some archaicisms because they felt that they were more accurate renderings.

 

[Logos1560]

That would be accurate to say if it were the case that the KJV translators consistently kept their translation in the modern vulgar/vernacular...they didn't; they even permitted some archaicisms because they felt that they were more accurate renderings.

It has not been demonstrated at all that the KJV translators kept some archaicisms because that they felt that they were more accurate. That may be your opinion, speculation, or assumption, but that does not prove it to be true. You do not speak for the KJV translators and have given no quotations from them that assert that those archaic renderings are more accurate than the more up-to-date language already used in the Geneva Bible.

The KJV translators may have simply been inconsistent in their updating.
If they thought those archaicisms were more accurate, why would have they updated their use in other places as has been demonstrated in this thread?

The KJV translators may not have noticed some of the archaicisms since they were used to reading them in the Bishops' Bible or another pre-1611 English Bible. Some of them may not have been considered actually archaic in 1611 and were only considered archaic later on as the English language changed through the years. The KJV translators could not predict which renderings would later be considered archaic.

 

[glazer1972]

I use a NKJV because that is the Bible I was reading/holding in my hands when I was saved.

 

[DiamondLady]

I use a NKJV because that is the Bible I was reading/holding in my hands when I was saved.

Finally! Someone has a reasonable, succinct, clear-cut reason for reading a modern translation: their version of choice.

 

[robycop3]

Finally! Someone has a reasonable, succinct, clear-cut reason for reading a modern translation: their version of choice.

I have no prob with those who prefer the KJV as a matter of choice. My prob is with those who insist that the KJV (or ANY one version, for that matter) is the ONLY valid English translation out there.

I believe GOD hs caused/allowed many English translations to be made because of the multiple correct meanings in English of a great many Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek words/phrases. He wants us to have a broad understanding of His written word. Since he hasn't given us a full understanding of all the subtleties and nuances of the "original" languages of Scripture, He has chosen instead to have different translators make versions from each of their unique points of view.