Flesch-Kincaid readability scale

[Salty]

Lily of the Valley in another thread asked about SS material for young children - but insisted it had to be KJV.

As usual the thread turned into a KJO discussion.

I did want to respond - but did not want to go off OP, thus this thread.

From the other thread

What do you care that I asked why 2 and 3 year olds required 12 grade level reading?...

Incidentally the Flesch-Kincaid readability scale does not consider the kjv "12-grade level." ...

HoS, I clicked on the link for F-K scale. So what is the grade level of the KJV?

I, too think it is unnecessary to require the KJV for adults, let alone 2 & 3 year olds.

If we put so much stock in the KJV - then why don't we use that language in our everyday speech?

In addition there are so many words that are archaic.
For example, read II Samuel 11:8. Do you know what the word "mess" means? How about Deut 22:19; what does "Amerce mean. For these and some 200 other archaic words, click here. (can you honestly say you knew the meanings before going to the link?)

When we teach children to read, do we start with Shakespeare or the "Dick and Jane" books?

There are so many other REASONS (not excuses) to use good solid modern versions.

Main questions?

Do children need to be taught out of the KJV
What is the grade level of the KJV?

Thoughts?

Salty

Bonus question: What version did the Pilgrims use?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

O.K. I'll bite: even though I never go onto or respond to the KJVO threads: The reason why is that just because we are KJVO does not mean that we desire to make it a subject of doctrine (it isn't). We just want to peacably be permitted by those who would burn the KJVO's at the stake to leave us alone and let us be KJVO, just as those who are not; would prefer that those who would burn them at the stake for NOT being KJVO leave them in peace as well. It is not a doctrinal position, per se at least not for us...That is where I think the whole things goes awry...It is (for us) a belief that generally speaking: It is the best translation due to:

1.) The particular body of manuscripts used to translate (we consider them the best)
2.) The translational philosophy employed i.e.: Literal translation/ transliteration vs. DE or some mix of the two...
3.) Method of translation vis a vis The scholars present, Their particular qualifications, and the system of dividing books to be translated and then reviewed by committee et. al.
4.) The capacity of a National project to have the vast resources necessary to accomplish with no need for short-cuts etc..due to budgetary concerns or something. I am not assuming that was necessarily an impedement for others.

There are other reasons but that is essentially where we are coming from.

HoS, I clicked on the link for F-K scale. So what is the grade level of the KJV?

This has apparently been debated ad nauseum before: got this off of Google: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37866
Knock yourselves out.

I, too think it is unnecessary to require the KJV for adults, let alone 2 & 3 year olds.

Then don't. Incidentally, we do, thus, Lilly (I say "we" because lilly is my wife) made that caveat so that anyone wishing to post particular material would only post material available in KJV.

If we put so much stock in the KJV - then why don't we use that language in our everyday speech?

Sometimes, I actually do!! but it is immaterial to the conversation anyway...

In addition there are so many words that are archaic.
For example, read II Samuel 11:8. Do you know what the word "mess" means? How about Deut 22:19; what does "Amerce mean. For these and some 200 other archaic words, click here. (can you honestly say you knew the meanings before going to the link?)

Yes, I can, but that is mainly because I have been using KJV all my life and am familiar with the archaicisms already...We read Shakespeare, not because we want to learn the archaic words...but because of its intrinsic value despite the archaic words. When my children are older: they will, like me, be as familiar with the "archaic" words as anyone and they will breeze past them with narry a thought.

When we teach children to read, do we start with Shakespeare or the "Dick and Jane" books?

WE may mean any number of people; for us:...we use some of both at the same time....McGuffy's eclectic readers are what we will largely use to teach our children to read with. We regularly read to them out of the Scriptures (KJV)as well. When our children become age 3+ they leave the nursery and sit in "big-Church" with mommy and daddy. They also have Dick and Jane books of course. It is not either/or for us: it is both/and.

I find it humorous that you included "mess" this word is still used: "mess-hall"

With respect to "amerce": If you teach children to glean vocabulary from "context-clues" then the meaning becomes clear without even having to look it up or be already familiar with it often. One's vocabulary is better broadened by reading material than looking up words: Allow me to give you an example I hope you do not already know the meaning of this rather un-common (but not archaic) word:

"Jesus explained to his disciples that after endlessly cajoling the unjust judge to grant her justice, the unfortunate widow forced him (through her constant pleading) to grant her her need"

Our vocab word for today is "cajole" which means to beg or to plead. What if I had said it this way:

"After endlessly begging the unjust judge to grant her justice; the importunate widow forced him (through her constant pleading) to grant her her need"

Vocab word: "importunate" the context will hopefully supply the meaning of the word.

Bonus question: What version did the Pilgrims use?

the Geneva: some people still do: Good for them, it is a quality translation

 

[DiamondLady]

O.K. I'll bite: even though I never go onto or respond to the KJVO threads: The reason why is that just because we are KJVO does not mean that we desire to make it a subject of doctrine (it isn't). We just want to peacably be permitted by those who would burn the KJVO's at the stake to leave us alone and let us be KJVO, just as those who are not; would prefer that those who would burn them at the stake for NOT being KJVO leave them in peace as well. It is not a doctrinal position,the Geneva: some people still do:

AMEN!!!! I too steer clear of the debates. There's never a winner and everybody comes out feeling like a loser. I am KJVO because that's what I prefer. I've read/thumbed through/perused most of all the modern versions. I have problems with them. If someone else swears by them....fine. I'm not going to go postal on you because you don't read the same version I do. However, I do not buy into the pitiful excuse of "it's easier to read." Baloney. Hogwash. Are there archaic words in the KJ? Sure, but I don't have any problem with them. Bible names would be another story! LOL Mahershalalhashbaz is a mouthful.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

AMEN!!!! However, I do not buy into the pitiful excuse of "it's easier to read." Baloney. Hogwash. Are there archaic words in the KJ? Sure, but I don't have any problem with them. Bible names would be another story! LOL Mahershalalhashbaz is a mouthful.

I am with you here: nothing gets my goat more than that (which I think to be a lame excuse) were one to use the kjv, the worst that could happen is that they would expand their vocabulary some and gain knowledge of some earlier forms of speech and older words. How is that a problem? Everyone already knows how to speak in the common every-day way we do now: Becoming familiar with the KJV would only serve to help you become familiar with a slightly older method of speech as well. Once one is familiar with the archaic words....they are no longer too archaic! I daresay that Kenneth Branaugh reads Shakespeare as easily as he reads "Newsweek". Expanding one's horizons is not so terrible.

 

[annsni]

I think it's important to bring the Bible to the people in their own language. A 2 year old does not speak 17th century English and as such, I think it best to get a Bible that they can use. I think the NIrV is a great version for that age group.

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV translators themselves knew that their version was NOT the final one to come, that it was not perfect, and they would have rejoiced to see modern version placing word of god to us in our own language and way of speaking/phrasing!

 

[DiamondLady]

I think it's important to bring the Bible to the people in their own language. A 2 year old does not speak 17th century English and as such, I think it best to get a Bible that they can use. I think the NIrV is a great version for that age group.

Yes, people in France need a Bible written in French, people in Mexico one written in Spanish, etc.
However, to say that the KJV does not "bring the Bible to the people in their own language" is a poor statement. The KJV is written in ENGLISH, not a foreign language. It doesn't hurt folks to go use a dictionary once in a while if they don't understand a word. I have to do it sometimes when reading a novel! I learned every Bible verse I know...from the time I was 2 and up, from the King James Bible. I never had any problems.

This is a poor defense of the modern versions, Annsni.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The KJV translators themselves knew that their version was NOT the final one to come, that it was not perfect, and they would have rejoiced to see modern version placing word of god to us in our own language and way of speaking/phrasing!

I believe you are correct, However...

Allow me to point this out:
It is true that all languages evolve over time...and the kjv (due to age) has some archaicisms which are no longer commonly used. However: Let us pretend that the English speaking world were- from the time of childhood-teaching their children the Holy Scriptures and that we were using the KJV, as we did for 300 years or so....
1.) The archaic words in the kjv would be known and easily understood
2.) The English language itself would not have evoloved (as it were) as much, or as quickly as it has, inasmuch as English speaking people would regularly and commonly be immersing themselves in KJV English on a daily basis.
3.) One will note that with the 1st modern English Translation: (The RSV) the translators intent was not to "modernize" the language of the KJV, nor was that in any way their concern...Up to that point, people did not (at least generally) complain about the difficulty of understanding KJV English. Even though the KJV was nearly 300 years old by then. Their purpose for re-translating was entirely in order to square their Translation or translate FROM the New Greek New Testament...It had little or nothing to do with modernizing the language.
4.) If and Only if that was not a good thing to do....then we should reject them (modern translations). and therefore since the inevitable result that this new translation has contributed to modernizing the language, then the modernization of the language is subsequently an insufficient reason to use more modern translations which are based on the same New Greek New Testament from which the RSV was translated.
5.) Fundamentally, the issue is one of the manuscripts used to translate the KJV vs. Modern Translations: This should be our fundamental concern....given this: the NKJV (which is KJV only in the sense that it was translated from the same body of manuscripts) would satisfy (assuming it is faithful to said manuscripts) these conditions...
6.) Unfortunately, other than NKJV no one has translated a modern version into English utilizing the same body of manuscripts utilized by KJV translators.
7.) From day one: my children, like myself, will be immersed in the King James Bible and subsequently, it will be no difficulty whatsoever for them to clearly understand what is being said. This, of course, is unhelpful for those not raised in Christian homes of this nature.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, people in France need a Bible written in French, people in Mexico one written in Spanish, etc.
However, to say that the KJV does not "bring the Bible to the people in their own language" is a poor statement. The KJV is written in ENGLISH, not a foreign language. It doesn't hurt folks to go use a dictionary once in a while if they don't understand a word. I have to do it sometimes when reading a novel! I learned every Bible verse I know...from the time I was 2 and up, from the King James Bible. I never had any problems.

This is a poor defense of the modern versions, Annsni.

I think you and I have been involved in threads on this matter before, DiamondLady. Dictionaries are very useful tools, but to turn to a dictionary, you must first be aware that you need to do so. That's fine with archaic KJV word such as cockatrice, coney, greaves or knop, but what about words that are still in regular use today in English, but with a different meaning to what they had in 1611? Words like publican, bowels, carriage, compass, prevent? How does a modern reader, for whom "publican" means "inn-keeper", "compass" is a device for finding direction, and "prevent" means to stop something happening, know that they need to look for a different meaning when he or she comes across such words in the KJV? Granted, in some cases the context will make it obvious, but by no means always. In Acts 28:13, Paul is describing a sea voyage when he says: "We fetched a compass". In Psalm 119:147 David says that he "prevented the dawning of the morning." There is no indication that says: "Watch out! Word meaning changed. Refer to historical dictionary!"

 

[Baptist4life]

The words of the Authorized King James Bible are not archaic.

The following is excerpted from BiblicalScholarship.net:

Those so-called "archaic" words found in the Authorized Version are not archaic; they can be found in every domain today--if you are looking.

When the NIV changes the warp and the woof of Leviticus 13:48 to "woven or knitted material" you can never figure out how material is made. You won't even stop to think about it--all you can do is go to the store and buy a woven or a knitted garment. With the warp and the woof of the King James Bible, on the other hand, you can talk to the weaver who may tell you that they now call it the warp and the weft (but it will always be the warp and the woof to you). This actually happened to me--and not just in the area of weaving, but across all kinds of disciplines. As a result of Biblical Scholarship, you and your children can talk to anybody and judge methods--whether they be good or corrupt.

Those ROBUST, PRECISE WORDS of the Authorized Version form a CRYSTAL CLEAR roadmap out of the wreckage of modern, machine life BACK to ancient understandings, ancient manhood, ancient womanhood, ancient childhood. We are NOT the same people as the ancients. We are weak-minded and dependent on somebody else for every morsel of food that we eat. May each true disciple turn off that filthy tv FOREVER, recover himself from the snare of the devil, and walk in the light of God's word.

The English of the Authorized King James Bible, published in 1611, is considered modern English--not "old English" or "ancient English," as some believe. The development of the English language has been divided into three distinct periods (dates approximate)--

Old English/Anglo-Saxon (450-1100 A.D)
Middle English (1100-1500 A.D)
Modern English (1500 A.D-present day).

As modern English, the Authorized King James Bible can be understood by both children and adults. According to BiblicalScholarship.net a two-year old requested the reading of the King James Bible over the reading of a Bible "story book" and at three years of age began reading the Authorised Version. At nine years old, the child's favorite book of the Bible was Leviticus.

The Authorized King James Bible can be understood by English-speaking people.

 

[DiamondLady]

I think you and I have been involved in threads on this matter before, DiamondLady. Dictionaries are very useful tools, but to turn to a dictionary, you must first be aware that you need to do so. That's fine with archaic KJV word such as cockatrice, coney, greaves or knop, but what about words that are still in regular use today in English, but with a different meaning to what they had in 1611? Words like publican, bowels, carriage, compass, prevent? How does a modern reader, for whom "publican" means "inn-keeper", "compass" is a device for finding direction, and "prevent" means to stop something happening, know that they need to look for a different meaning when he or she comes across such words in the KJV? Granted, in some cases the context will make it obvious, but by no means always. In Acts 28:13, Paul is describing a sea voyage when he says: "We fetched a compass". In Psalm 119:147 David says that he "prevented the dawning of the morning." There is no indication that says: "Watch out! Word meaning changed. Refer to historical dictionary!"

Are you trying to convince me that when you read that "David prevented the dawning of the morning" that any sane person would draw the inference that David somehow physically held back the sun coming up over the horizon? That's not even a logical thought. Any person reading knows when they feel confused by what they are reading and can, and SHOULD, stop and investigate. That's what studying God's Word is all about. It's not sitting down and reading it comfortably like a novel. It's not a giant storybook for our enjoyment. It's for teaching, edification, knowledge, wisdom. If it's worth understanding it's worth the effort put into understanding.

I honestly don't care what version of scripture you read. If it makes you comfortable, fine. I feel those who settle miss the depth and richness of the King James Bible. We will continue to read and study in the King James. What I don't understand....why is it such an issue for you and others that I choose to do so??

 

[annsni]

Yes, people in France need a Bible written in French, people in Mexico one written in Spanish, etc.
However, to say that the KJV does not "bring the Bible to the people in their own language" is a poor statement. The KJV is written in ENGLISH, not a foreign language. It doesn't hurt folks to go use a dictionary once in a while if they don't understand a word. I have to do it sometimes when reading a novel! I learned every Bible verse I know...from the time I was 2 and up, from the King James Bible. I never had any problems.

This is a poor defense of the modern versions, Annsni.

It's not written in MY english. I don't speak that way nor do my children. A 2 year old is still in the formational time of his language development and if the language is foreign to what he hears, it will be very confusion.

It's actually not a poor defense at all. If you want to have your children memorize but not understand, that's fine. Memorizing is one thing - understanding is another and I'd prefer that my kids memorize and understand.

 

[DiamondLady]

It's not written in MY english. I don't speak that way nor do my children. A 2 year old is still in the formational time of his language development and if the language is foreign to what he hears, it will be very confusion.

It's actually not a poor defense at all. If you want to have your children memorize but not understand, that's fine. Memorizing is one thing - understanding is another and I'd prefer that my kids memorize and understand.

Sorry, doesn't float as an argument against. My children DID learn from the KJV and DID understand. Well enough the boys were both saved before the age of 5. I teach children in Children's Church and AWANA, all from the KJV. They understand clearly and well. Children understand what you teach them. It matters not whether it comes from a modern version or the KJV.

I don't care which version you choose but don't try the excuses of "easier to understand", "easier to read", "MY English"....they're poor reasons. I'd respect it more if you just said, "it's the one I want to read." Maybe the problem with lack of understanding the KJV is the lack of TEACHING the depths of God's Word. It's meant to be deeply mined, not surface scratched. It's not meant to make us feel comfortable, or feel good.....it's to make us examine ourselves and lives. THAT'S what the KJV does for me.

 

[Logos1560]

It doesn't hurt folks to go use a dictionary once in a while if they don't understand a word.

There are words used in the KJV that are not found in a present, regular one-volume English dictionary that typical readers would have in their homes.

There are also a number of words used in the KJV that may be found in present one-volume English dictionaries, but not with the definition of how it was actually used in the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

the worst that could happen is that they would expand their vocabulary some and gain knowledge of some earlier forms of speech and older words. How is that a problem?

Is it being suggested that it is unimportant for translations to be understandable by present typical readers?

Is it being suggested that the KJV translators were wrong not to use and keep many words found in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision since it would have expanded the vocabulary of readers to have kept them?

Along with reducing the number of uses of several of the archaic words found in the pre-1611 English Bibles, the KJV completely removed some archaic, antiquated, rare, unusual, unclear, or difficult words or spellings along with a few other words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles. The KJV also removed or no longer used some words that would not be considered archaic today.

A list of words in the pre-1611 English Bibles, which are not found in the KJV, would include the following: “ableness” (2 Cor. 3:5), “abrech” (Gen. 41:43), “achat” (Exod. 39:12), “advoutry“ (Mark 7:21), “affianced” (Luke 1:27), “afterbirth“ (Deut. 28:57), “albs” (Lev. 8:13), “almery“ (Deut. 28:17), “almuggim“ (1 Kings 10:11), “arb” (Lev. 11:22), “arede” (Mark 14:65), “assoyl” (Matt. 21:24), “atone“ (2 Cor. 5:20), “badge“ (Acts 28:11), “banketed“ (Job 1:4), “beer“ (Isa. 24:9), “beneficial“ (Acts 19:24), “beweep“ (Deut. 21:13), “boldened“ (1 Sam. 13:12), “brain pan“ (Jud. 9:53), “brawn“ (Ps. 119:70), “breakfast“ (Heb. 12:16), “breastlap” (Exod. 25:7), “bruterer” (Exod. 25:7), “buballs” (1 Kings 4:23), “buggers” (1 Tim. 1:10), “bugle“ (Deut. 14:5), “bugs“ (Ps. 91:5), “burgesship“ (Acts 22:28), “byss” (Gen. 41:42), “calamite” (Exod. 30:23), “carpets“ (Prov. 31:22), “carrion“ (Lev. 5:2), “cavillation” (Luke 19:8), “cavillations“ (Lev. 19:13), “chaft bones“ (Prov. 30:14), “chevisance” (Deut. 21:14), “childishness“ (1 Cor. 13:11), “childship“ (Rom. 9:4), “christened“ (1 Cor. 1:14), “clippers“ (1 Sam. 25:11), “colled“ (Isa. 15:2), “commonalty“ (Lev. 4:13, “conjurers“ (Dan. 4:7), “consistory“ (Ps. 107:32), “cowcasins“ (Ezek. 4:15), “cratch” (Luke 2:7), “credence“ (Acts 8:12), “cressets“ (Jer. 25:10), “cupboards“ (Isa. 39:2), “deadoffering“ (Lev. 3:6), “debite” (Luke 20:20), “deedslayers” (2 Kings 14:6), “delectation“ (2 Cor. 12:10), “despicions” (Acts 28:29), “discomforted“ (Ezk. 13:22), “diseasest“ (Mark 5:35), “disposers“ (1 Cor. 4:1), “dissembling“ (Prov. 12:19), “doe“ (Prov. 6:5), “door checks [or cheeks]” (Isa. 6:4), “dukedoms“ (Gen. 36:30), “effusion“ (Heb. 11:28), “egalness“ (2 Cor. 8:14), “emmets“ (Prov. 30:25), “emperor“ (Luke 20:25), “endote” (Exod. 22:16), “equalness“ (2 Cor. 8:14), “erewhile“ (John 9:27), “examinedst“ (Rev. 2:2), “excellentness“ (Ps. 96:6), “expounders“ (Jer. 27:9), “falcon“ (Lev. 11:17), “fardels” (Acts 21:15), “field devils“ (2 Chron. 11:15), “fiend“ (Mark 5:15), “flackered“ (Ezek. 10:19), “flacket” (1 Sam. 16:20), “flaggy” (1 Sam. 15:9), “flawnes” (1 Chron. 23:29), “felicity” (Gal. 4:15), “flittings“ (Ps. 56:8), “foreby“ (Lam. 1:12), “fore elders“ (Prov. 22:28), “fortuned” (2 Chron. 5:11), “fortunes“ (2 Kings 21:6), “fraudulent“ (Ps. 119:134), “frayles” or “frailes” (1 Sam. 25:18), “frumenty” (Lev. 23:14), “gabis“ (Job 28:18), “galaries“ (Ps. 73:4), “gaoler” (Acts 16:23), “gard“ (Exod. 28:8), “gardes“ (Deut. 22:12), “ghostly“ (Rom. 8:5), “gloriousness“ (1 Cor. 2:1), “gnew“ (Rev. 16:10), “goers“ (Mark 6:31), “gorgeousness“ (Isa. 3:18), “goshawk“ (Lev. 11:13), “grece” (Acts 21:35), “grennes“ (Ps. 140:5), “groveling“ (1 Sam. 17:49), “hagab” (Lev. 11:22), “handreaching“ (Acts 11:29), “hangman“ (Mark 6:27), “harborous” (1 Tim. 3:2), “harbourless” (Matt. 25:35), “hargol” (Lev. 11:22), “hawthorn“ (2 Chron. 25:18), “healthful“ (Tit. 2:11), “healthoffering“ (Lev. 4:26), “heavengazers” (Isa. 47:13), “hedgehog“ (Lev. 11:30), “hilchapels“ (Amos 7:9), “hoared“ (Josh. 9:4), “hucklebone“ (Gen. 32:25), “huswiferie“ (Prov. 31:18), “idiot“ (Job 5:2), “ignorancies“ (Heb. 9:7), “Iims“ (Jer. 50:39), “improve“ (2 Tim. 4:2), “indwellers“ (Isa. 18:3), “inquirance“ (Acts 10:17), “incontinently“ (Mark 5:13), “inconvenient“ (1 Pet. 4:4), “inconvenience“ (Acts 28:6), “interrupted“ (1 Pet. 3:7), “intolerable“ (Exod. 8:24), “invocation“ (Ps. 89:26), “ixion“ (Deut. 14:13), “jakes” or “iakes” (2 Kings 10:27, Dan. 2:5, 3:29), “Jewship“ (Gal. 1:13), “knappeth“ (Ps. 46:9), “lamia“ (Isa. 34:14), “lamies“ (Lam. 4:3), “latten“ (Gen. 31:42), “lavatory“ (2 Chron. 4:10), “lay people“ (Acts 4:13), “lecture“ (Acts 13:15), “lever“ (1 Cor. 14:19), “library“ (Ezra 6:1), “ligurious“ (Exod. 28:19), “lither“ (Rom. 12:11), “loured” (Gen. 4:5), “luck“ (Gen. 30:11), “lucky“ (Gen. 39:2), “lusty bloods“ (2 Sam. 13:28), “lute“ (Ps. 144:9), “maidenhead“ (Jud. 11:38), “male stewes“ (1 Kings 15:12), “manchet” (1 Kings 4:22), “mandragoras” (Gen. 30:14), “manginess“ (Deut. 28:27), “manslaughter“ (Hos. 4:2), “manward“ (Titus 3:4), “marshal“ (Gen. 41:12), “maund” (Exod. 29:3), “meekened“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “meinie” (Gen. 22:3), “meked“ (James 3:7), “mercifulness“ (Rom. 12:1), “mirror” (2 Cor. 3:18) “misdoers“ (Isa. 53:12), “monstrous beasts“ (Isa. 34:14), “moon prophets” (Isa. 47:13), “mossell” (1 Cor. 9:9), “Muscatel“ (Isa. 27:1), “muzzling” (Deut. 32:2), “naughtipacks“ (Ps. 86:14), “nebb“ (Gen. 8:11), “neers“ (Isa. 34:6), “neverthelater“ (Lev. 7:24), “nigard“ (Isa. 32:6), “nigardness“ (Isa. 32:6), “nightcrow“ (Lev. 11:16), “nippers“ (Isa. 50:6), “obstinate“ (Jer. 5:23), “ohim“ (Isa. 13:21), “otemeel“ [oatmeal] (Prov. 27:22), “overbody“ (1 Sam. 23:9), “overhand“ (Hos. 4:2), “overscaped” (Lev. 19:10), “overskipped“ (Deut. 26:13), “overthwart” (Deut. 32:5), “overwinner“ (1 Sam. 15:29), “panier“ (Job 41:7), “parbreak” (Num. 11:20), “partlets“ (Acts 19:12), “patron“ (Acts 27:11), “pecks“ (Gen. 18:6), “penance“ (Matt. 3:8), “pensiveness“ (Ps. 77:3), “perceavaunce“ (Eph. 1:8), “perquellies” (2 Sam. 5:8), “pickt“ (2 Chron. 13:3), “pight“ (Heb. 8:2), “pill“ (2 Cor. 12:17), “pismire” (Prov. 6:6), “pitfall“ (Job 18:10), “plage” (Deut. 17:8), “pleck” (Lev. 13:4), “porphyry” (Est. 1:6), “possessioner“ (Micah 1:15), “prerogative“ (John 1:12), “puissant“ (Ps. 93:4), “pyght“ (Heb. 8:2), “quadrin“ (Mark 12:42), “querne” (Isa. 47:2), “quier” (1 Kings 6:5), “racked“ (Heb. 11:35), “rascal“ (Num. 11:4), “raynes“ (Rev. 19:8), “rebecks” (1 Sam. 18:6), “recreate“ (Ps. 94:19), “redebush” (Isa. 9:16), “redshanke“ (Deut. 14:16), “rickes“ (Jud. 15:5), “rigorousness“ (Rom. 11:22), “roomth“ (2 Sam. 22:20), “rowneth“ (Isa. 5:9), “rugagates” (Jud. 12:4), “rythe“ (Jer. 49:31), “sallets” (Jer. 46:4), “scrale” (Exod. 8:3), “seameaw“ (Lev. 11:16), “seditious“ (Ezra 4:12), “selaam“ (Lev. 11:22), “senator“ (Isa. 3:3), “sequester“ (Prov. 18:1), “sermon“ (Jer. 11:1), “sethim” (Deut. 10:3), “shalms“ or “shawms” (Ps. 98:6), “shope” (Gen. 2:7), “shrewd“ (Ps. 83:3), “simnel” (Exod. 29:23), “simulation“ (James 3:17), “slade” (1 Sam. 25:20), “slops” (Isa. 3:20), “smaragdus“ (Exod. 28:17), “Sodomward“ (Gen. 13:22), “softness“ (Phil. 4:5), “soleam“ (Lev. 11:22), “solicit“ (Prov. 6:3), “spangles“ (Num. 31:50), “sparrowhawk“ (Deut. 14:15), “sparsed“ (2 Cor. 9:9), “springalds“ (Dan. 1:4), “stackered“ (Rom. 4:20), “stambered“ (Mark 7:32), “stellio“ (Lev. 11:30), “stuffed“ (1 Sam. 19:13), “succourless“ (Prov. 31:8), “Sunday“ (1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10), “taxus” (Exod. 25:4), “terebinths“ (Isa. 6:13), “term“ (Ezek. 22:4), “testimonial“ (Luke 21:13), “toad“ (Lev. 11:29), “toot-hill“ (Gen. 31:48), “transitory“ (Prov. 31:8), “treacle” (Jer. 8:22), “trowel“ (Amos 7:7), “tufts” (Lev. 19:27), “tushe“ (Job 39:25), “tyranny“ (Job 3:17), “tyrants“ (Job 6:23), “unexpert“ (Heb. 5:13), “unfainedness“ (2 Cor. 8:8), “unghostly“ (1 Tim. 4:7), “unhealeth“ (Deut. 27:20), “unhele” (Lev. 18:16), “unlust“ (Isa. 43:22), “unquiet“ (Deut. 28:65), “unquieted“ (1 Sam. 28:15), “unquietness“ (Acts 24:18), “unright“ (Gen. 16:5), “unshodhouse“ (Deut. 25:10), “unthrifts“ (1 Sam. 30:22), “unthrifty“ (Prov. 6:12), “untractable“ (Titus 1:6), “untruss” (Isa. 47:2), “untruth“ (Ps. 89:35), “uplandish“ (Jud. 5:11), “valiantness“ (Ps. 18:32), “voluptuousness“ (Titus 3:3), “wallfish“ (Isa. 27:1), “wastels“ (Lev. 24:5), “wealthiness“ (Job 21:13), “weaponed“ (Prov. 6:11), “weeding“ (1 Sam. 13:20), “wenest” (Acts 8:20), “whale fish” (Job 7:12), “wherethrough“ (Dan. 2:1), “Whitsuntide“ (1 Cor. 16:8), “whore keeper” (Deut. 23:17), “wiliness“ (Ps. 10:2), “winegardeners“ (2 Chron. 26:10), “withoutforth“ (1 Chron. 26:29), “witsafe“ (Ps. 119:29), “workmasters“ (Jer. 24:1), “worthies“ (1 Chron. 11:26), “wrutt“ (Ps. 80:13), “yonderward” (1 Sam. 20:37), and “zijm“ (Isa. 13:21). There are likely other such words that could be included.

 

[DiamondLady]

There are words used in the KJV that are not found in a present, regular one-volume English dictionary that typical readers would have in their homes.

There are also a number of words used in the KJV that may be found in present one-volume English dictionaries, but not with the definition of how it was actually used in the KJV.

Well, I don't know about you....but I don't even OWN a print dictionary English dictionary anymore. I use the ever expanding WWW. You can google even the most obscure Bible word and it'll give you the definition. You can google Bible places and names and find out all sorts of information. There's no excuse for not being able to read the KJV except you don't want to do so...and that's fine with me, just say that.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. Here are some examples of how the KJV translators made simpler, updated, or revised a number of renderings in that Bishops' Bible.

Are some KJV-only advocates suggesting that the KJV translators were wrong to update and make simpler many renderings in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles?

Ezra 1:5 gat up the principal fathers (Bishops) rose up the chief of the fathers (KJV)
Ezra 3:3 fearfulness (Bishops) fear (KJV)
Ezra 4:2 the principal fathers (Bishops) chief of the fathers (KJV)
Ezra 4:4 folk of the land discouraged (Bishops) people of the land weakened (KJV)
Ezra 4:12 a city seditious and froward (Bishops) the rebellious and the bad city (KJV)
Ezra 4:15 chronicles of thy progenitors (Bishops) records of thy fathers (KJV)
Ezra 4:15 noisome unto the kings (Bishops) hurtful unto kings (KJV)
Ezra 5:2 Then gat up Zorobabel (Bishops) Then rose up Zerubbabel (KJV)
Ezra 6:2 a volume (Bishops) a roll (KJV)
Ezra 7:6 all that he required (Bishops) all his request (KJV)
Ezra 7:18 the remnant (Bishops) the rest (KJV)
Ezra 7:19 ministration (Bishops) service (KJV)
Ezra 8:31 And we brake up from (Bishops) Then we departed from (KJV)
Ezra 9:6 our trespass is waxed great (Bishops) our trespass is grown up (KJV)
Ezra 10:16 Esdras (Bishops) Ezra (KJV)
Ezra 10:17 they were finishing the business (Bishops) they made an end (KJV)

Neh. 1:1 the castle (Bishops) the palace (KJV)
Neh. 1:11 butler (Bishops) cupbearer (KJV)
Neh. 2:1 heavy (Bishops) sad (KJV)
Neh. 2:3 God save the king for ever (Bishops) Let the king live for ever (KJV)
Neh. 2:10 the wealth (Bishops) the welfare (KJV)
Neh. 2:12 gat me up (Bishops) arose (KJV)
Neh. 2:13 valley port (Bishops) gate of the valley (KJV)
Neh. 3:1 high priest gat him up (Bishops) high priest rose up (KJV)
Neh. 3:13 dung port (Bishops) dung gate (KJV)
Neh. 4:14 I looked, and gat me up (Bishops) I looked, and rose up (KJV)
Neh. 8:16 port (Bishops) gate (KJV)
Neh. 9:28 converted (Bishops) returned (KJV)
Neh. 9:35 converted (Bishops) turned (KJV)
Neh. 13:20 chapmen and merchants (Bishops) merchants and sellers (KJV)




Esther 1:4 glorious worship of his greatness (Bishops)
honour of his excellent majesty (KJV)
Esther 1:11 To fetch (Bishops) To bring (KJV)
Esther 1:12 his indignation (Bishops) his anger (KJV)
Esther 2:22 Whereof also Mardocheus gat knowledge (Bishops)
And the thing was known to Mordecai (KJV)
Esther 3:5 bowed not the knee (Bishops) bowed not (KJV)
Esther 4:12 certified Mardocheus (Bishops) told to Mordecai (KJV)
Esther 6:6 would fain bring unto worship (Bishops) delighteth to honour (KJV)
Esther 6:7 unto worship (Bishops) to honour (KJV)
Esther 6:9 raiment (Bishops) apparel (KJV)
Esther 6:12 Haman gat him home in all the haste mourning (Bishops)
Haman hasted to his house mourning (KJV)
Esther 7:7 a mischief (Bishops) evil (KJV)

 

[Logos1560]

I use the ever expanding WWW. You can google even the most obscure Bible word and it'll give you the definition. .

Will all the places on the web give the meaning of words as they were actually used by the KJV translators in the various contexts? How do you know the definitions that you are given are correct?

If the words in the KJV are so understandable, why do even KJV-only authors disagree about the meaning of some of them?

coney

KJV-only author David Cloud defined “coney” as “a rabbit” (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 90; Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 20). The 2003 New Pilgrim Bible with consulting editors Jerry Rockwell and Douglas Stauffer has this note for Leviticus 11:5: “coney--a rabbit” (p. 169). Riplinger indicated that the coney is a “bunny” (Language of the KJB, p. 23), and she found that “built-in“ definition by changing the pronunciation. On the other hand, Waite’s Defined KJB gave this definition: “small, rabbit-like nocturnal animal that lives in rock holes; perhaps hyraxes” (p. 899). The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Bible Word List and “a Bible Word List” in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV explained or defined “coney” as a “hyrax, rock-badger.” This same Bible Word list that was recommended by David Cloud “to help people understand the KJV” conflicts with Cloud’s definition (Faith, p. 602). Steven White defined “coney” as “an adult rabbit, or rabbit-like animal” (White’s Dictionary, I, p. 261). Can the word coney in the KJV be used to mean “rabbit” and “not a rabbit” at the same time?

target

In another example, Waite’s Defined KJB has one definition for target at 1 Samuel 17:6 [“a small shield” (p. 423)] while David Cloud’s Way of Life Encyclopedia gave a different definition [“small spear; javelin” (p. 432)].

bravery

White’s Dictionary of the King James Language defined bravery at Isaiah 3:18 as “the condition of possessing the qualities of bold courage” (p. 185). On the other hand, David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary has a different definition: “beauty” (p. 14).

flagon

Flagon at a specific verse (2 Samuel 6:19) is defined both as “a cake of grapes” (Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 36) or “raisin-cake” (Waite’s Defined KJB, p. 456) and as “bottle holding liquid; flask” (Daniels’ KJB Companion).

 

[Logos1560]

There's no excuse for not being able to read the KJV except you don't want to do so...and that's fine with me, just say that.

Are you jumping to wrong conclusions about believers who may disagree with your personal opinions?

I have read through the KJV a number of times.

KJV-only author David Cloud wrote: “Admittedly, the antiquated language in the KJV is difficult for new readers and especially for those who read English as a second or third language” (Glorious History of the KJB, p. 215).

 

[Rippon]

I've read/thumbed through/perused most of all the modern versions.

Thumbed-through and perused are totally different meanings. I am sure you did not actually peruse in the sense of carefully examination with attention to detail.

I do not buy into the pitiful excuse of "it's easier to read." Baloney. Hogwash.

You have used a more contemporary understanding of the word pitiful. Instead of the KJV usage of the word it conveys full of pity. You are using a modern meaning in that you show contempt rather than heartfelt compassion.