Flesch-Kincaid readability scale

[Rippon]

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.

I'm in full agreement. The NIrV is ideally suited for such purposes;as well as for use with low level ESL folks.

 

[Salty]

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).

But to the ultra KJO - it is doctrine

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

IMHO you are not KJO - you would actually be KJP (preferred)
and I have no problem with you using KJO - just as you would have no problem with our church using MV. (actually, I doubt any non-KJO would burn you all at the stake.)

It is the best translation due to:

Yes, it is a good translation - but would you agree it is not a perfect translation (ultra KJO would say it is a perfect translation)

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

Actually "mess-hall is archaic! The proper term is dining facility

I am KJVO because that's what I prefer.

So you actually are NOT KJO - just KJP! nothing to be ashamed of.

... The KJV is written in ENGLISH,

You are correct, but we in the USA do not speak English - we speak American! How many times have Jim (of Canada), David Lamb (of England) and BB members from other non-USA English speaking coutries asked someone to clarify something they did not understand - which was written in "American"

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

Okay- if you say so. In that case, I will just get rid of my dictionary, and when I preach there will be no need to say - but this verse means....

The English of the Authorized King James Bible, published in 1611, is considered modern English--not "old English" or "ancient English," as some believe ..

Which version of the KJ 1611 are you refering to?

As modern English, the Authorized King James Bible can be understood by both children and adults...

In spite of our inadequate school system? :smilewinkgrin: ( no offense intended to our good teachers)

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...

Key word is A (one) child - There are always exceptions

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. .

and what would you do if your net is out of order, no electricity, ect......

nuff for now

other than - I have no problem with my good brothers and sisters who prefer to use KJ - I only have a problem with those who say it is a perfect edition and it is the only translation you can find salvation.

 

[DiamondLady]

But to the ultra KJO - it is doctrine



and what would you do if your net is out of order, no electricity, ect......

GASP!!! Don't even HINT at such a thing!!!!! LOL

 

[agedman]

This tread reminded me of two things.

First was a staff member who approach a christian school teacher demanding to know if that teacher taught "Christian" phonics.

The teacher happened to be very amused.

Some folks stumble over a version rather than teaching for meaning. To such small children, it is better to build the broad themes of the stories than worry so much about what version is used. Last I looked Noah, David, Daniel, Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus was a character in every version.

Hold the child's attention with tools that work - finger puppets for their hands to hold, and play animals for them to put in the ark. Don't spend time worrying over them going in "two by two" but that they all got in safe, secure just as God wants them to be safe and secure, too.

The second I will put in the form of questions.

The original 1611 King James Bible included the Apocrypha.

Yet, most KJV only folks have a low opinion and few have read those books.

Why do the KJV only folks consider the version so great and yet leave out part of the original translation work (btw, I am KJV prefered).

Second, if the preacher preached out of a text from the Apocrypha, who would consider it wrong or in poor taste?

 

[DiamondLady]

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

Not at all. Please do not misunderstand me. If you, your church, your SS..whatever, wants to read and use another translation that's fine with me. I, however, PREFER, for myself, the King James version. In return I do not expect to be hounded, or told I'm wrong. I also really hate the excuses given by those who prefer the modern versions that they're easier to read, easier to understand. They're not. I'd have a lot more respect for others if they's simply say, I PREFER to use XYZ translation and leave it at that. I, personally, do not understand all the ruckus and bickering over the issue.

GOD is able to use any translation to reach souls.

 

[DiamondLady]

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.



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.

I actually meant precisely what I said, Rippon. I have both thumbed through and perused different modern versions. I have read thoroughly the NIV, I have thumbed through and quickly discarded The Message. I understand the differences in terms. I'm sure I've missed one or two modern versions but I've read portions of most all and all of some. I still will stick with my KJV. You see, I don't think you can make an educated choice if you don't know all the available versions. It would be like choosing a dessert if you didn't know all the varieties available on the menu. You might get stuck with vanilla ice cream and then see a creamy cheesecake go by. To me the KJV is rich and deep. I prefer it.

I also meant precisely what I said when I used the term pitiful. You may not like my words, and you may disagree with them...that's fine. Many words have many different meanings. I can discern the differences when I am reading by the context. You discerned exactly what I meant when I said pitiful. You didn't need to go look it up. It's the same with Bible versions. There's often no need to look up a word you are unfamiliar with because of the context. When usure there are many dictionaries, encyclopedias and other reference works available. Amazingly enough people are often too lazy to do that. Shameful isn't it?

 

[Salty]

...GOD is able to use any translation to reach souls.

Would you agree that we should insert the word "most"

...GOD is able to use MOST any translation to reach souls.

The New Word Translation (Jehovah Witness) comes to mind....

 

[DiamondLady]

Would you agree that we should insert the word "most"

...GOD is able to use MOST any translation to reach souls.

The New Word Translation (Jehovah Witness) comes to mind....

You can, if you like. I, however, have learned never to limit God's ability to use whatever means He likes. He did, after all, use an ass...umm donkey! :laugh:

 

[Logos1560]

I also really hate the excuses given by those who prefer the modern versions that they're easier to read, easier to understand. They're not. .

The reasons are not actually excuses when it is actually true that some modern versions are easier to read and to understand than the KJV. While you may disagree with those reasons and even hate them, is it fair to attack them as mere excuses?

Your defence of the archaic words in the KJV has not demonstrated that modern versions are not actually easier to read and understand overall than the KJV. If the KJV was easier to read and understand, there would be no need for you to suggest all the various sources to use to help people understand it. You may hold the opinion that the modern versions are not easier to read, but you have not proven it to be true.

 

[David Lamb]

(snip)
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??

I've just seen your reply, DiamondLady, and must immediately apologise sincerely for unwittingly giving you the impression that your choice to use the AV/KJV is an issue with me. I assure you it isn't. Indeed, I've just looked through my post again, and I cannot see anything in it that even mentions the matter of your choice. I don't want to make the same mistake again, so please tell me what it was in my post that gave you the idea that your choice of translation is an issue for me. Meanwhile, sorry again!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

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

No, but since the KJV IS very understandable to present typical readers, it is a non-issue.

The KJV also removed or no longer used some words that would not be considered archaic today.

Of course, why wouldn't they.

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.

Officially, it was an entirely New Translation: Someone, somewhere, found one or more historical statements that imply this somehow, and they then ignore all other Historical realities about KJV, How it was Translated, What they used et. al. It was a New Translation, not merely an update.

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?

Are they? Why not post a statement by a KJVO on this thread bearing that suggestion.

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

flagon
bravery
target
coney

These are issues any author using any Translation will have to deal with....Could you explain how this has any bearing on the topic at all? If the Hebrew word is difficult to Translate into English or not easily understood, it is an issue for any author using ANY Translation.....If you think about it, if some post-modern translator for instance were to merely confidently place HIS interpretation of how one of these words ought to be translated....and then he be mistaken....Then incidentally, a non-KJV user would not have known that the definition of a particular word were even in dispute no?

initially posted by Salty But to the ultra KJO - it is doctrine

Yes, I used to be one meself.....I grew out of the insanity of it once I was forced to grow up a little and actually think about it.

IMHO you are not KJO - you would actually be KJP (preferred)

I think most here would use that definition: at least vis a vis the description on the moderator's thread....but I am a KJVP who throws up in his mouth a little whenever he hears or reads any modern versions LOL...It is something I "BELIEVE" In the sense that I would suggest that others OUGHT to think as I do and they OUGHT to be KJV as well. I just realize that (strictly speaking) it is not a matter of Theology, and not an issue of doctrine.

Yes, it is a good translation - but would you agree it is not a perfect translation (ultra KJO would say it is a perfect translation)

I would not say it is perfect...Do I think it is as close as anyone has ever come? Yes...Do I think anyone has ever re-translated as well as KJV? No. Do I think anyone ever will? Not holding my breath...I sorta think the KJV had to incorporate a "Persian Flaw" as it were:tongue3:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This tread reminded me of two things.

The second I will put in the form of questions.

The original 1611 King James Bible included the Apocrypha.

Yet, most KJV only folks have a low opinion and few have read those books.

Why do the KJV only folks consider the version so great and yet leave out part of the original translation work (btw, I am KJV prefered).

It also contained Psalms set to music in the back....It also included the "Epistle Dedicatory" in the front...My Scofield Reference Bible also includes Footnotes, Some foolishly advocating the "Gap Theory" and a Dictionary of commonly used words, and some maps. It is not as though they believed the Apocryphal books were inspired....but they can be read profitably, some more than others.

Second, if the preacher preached out of a text from the Apocrypha, who would consider it wrong or in poor taste?

Any sane modern Baptist or Protestant would consider it wrong....and the Dude should probably lose his job....If he preached it as though it were Scripture. If the HCSB translators had decided to include them as well just for the benefit of anyone interested, would it change your opinion of the HCSB? Actually, I have always wished translators would throw in a copy of the book of Jasher at the back....but they wanna make me pay separately for it.


LOGOS:

Your defence of the archaic words in the KJV has not demonstrated that modern versions are not actually easier to read and understand overall than the KJV. If the KJV was easier to read and understand, there would be no need for you to suggest all the various sources to use to help people understand it. You may hold the opinion that the modern versions are not easier to read, but you have not proven it to be true.

No one is "defending" the archaic words, I think it would be more accurate to state that KJVO's feel they are insufficient reasons (due to other considerations) to use a different translation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37866

Apparently, you could simply copy and paste KJV into the F-K scale and it will indicate for you...Do some comparisons and contrasts yourself maybe.

 

[Yeshua1]

It also contained Psalms set to music in the back....It also included the "Epistle Dedicatory" in the front...My Scofield Reference Bible also includes Footnotes, Some foolishly advocating the "Gap Theory" and a Dictionary of commonly used words, and some maps. It is not as though they believed the Apocryphal books were inspired....but they can be read profitably, some more than others.



Any sane modern Baptist or Protestant would consider it wrong....and the Dude should probably lose his job....If he preached it as though it were Scripture. If the HCSB translators had decided to include them as well just for the benefit of anyone interested, would it change your opinion of the HCSB? Actually, I have always wished translators would throw in a copy of the book of Jasher at the back....but they wanna make me pay separately for it.


LOGOS:


No one is "defending" the archaic words, I think it would be more accurate to state that KJVO's feel they are insufficient reasons (due to other considerations) to use a different translation.http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=37866

Apparently, you could simply copy and paste KJV into the F-K scale and it will indicate for you...Do some comparisons and contrasts yourself maybe.

KJVP christians hold to the superiority of the TR as basis to use it exclusively instaed of modern versions... I disagree with them as to TR being superior, but at least they would be saying the KJV has a real reason to be best english version to use...

KJVO state that the English version itself ONLY, not just BEST, so they have no felt need to defend it, as it is the ONLY english version inspired/auth by God!

So even IF the English used in it was totally not able to be understood by modern readers, would not matter, as it still is the ONLY word from God to us today!

 

[Amy.G]

The KJV is without a doubt hard to read for someone who has never been exposed to it's archaic language. The only people who claim it's just as easy to read as modern versions are always the ones who have been reading it since childhood and have had it re-interpreted by pastors, teachers, and parents. (In my personal experience.)

 

[Yeshua1]

The KJV is without a doubt hard to read for someone who has never been exposed to it's archaic language. The only people who claim it's just as easy to read as modern versions are always the ones who have been reading it since childhood and have had it re-interpreted by pastors, teachers, and parents. (In my personal experience.)

exactly! If you were raised on it, especially if used to memorize the Scriptures, it read MUCH better to you for understanding than one just saved and starting the Bible!

That why would say use either the NKJV/NASB 1977 edition , as both keep the "reading style" of the KJV...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The KJV is without a doubt hard to read for someone who has never been exposed to it's archaic language. The only people who claim it's just as easy to read as modern versions are always the ones who have been reading it since childhood and have had it re-interpreted by pastors, teachers, and parents. (In my personal experience.)

I understand this contention, but I would say this: I would not use such universal and general language (words such as)

always only

. I feel this is a little disingenuous...I have personally met many people, often new Christians who have rarely if EVER cracked open a Bible who, from day one of their Salvation use KJV and quickly learn to read understand and interpret it. I am willing (as a KJVO type) to admit that it can be a challenge sometimes, but I also think that many people make more of this "archaic words" "understandable" stuff than there really is to it...Consider your tag....what about that particular verse, for instance, is hard to understand? It is not as though the KJV is veritably bristling with obscure words...chapter after chapter is often as easy to read as anything, or at least quite close to it. Also, within your own tag, there is a rarely understood and quite wonderful facet of KJV precision...notice it uses the word "ye" as opposed to the post-modern generic "you". The original languages have pluralized and singular forms of the word "you" as most languages do....English, has unfortunately abandoned that...however a KJV user can...in seconds learn something to help them more accurately place verbiage in context:
Thee: singular e.g. "Get thee behind me Satan"
Thou: singular e.g. "Thou art the Christ..."
Ye: Plural e.g. "Come unto me, all ye that labour" "Go ye into all the world.."( a plural audience)

KJV: accurately and effectively portrays this facet of the originals in a way no other translation does....if by only this one thing....Sometimes, (I won't claim often) one has to search more deeply into a modern translation to be assured to whom something might be addressed when a generic "you" is used. It may help us to not merely focus strictly upon difficulty or readability as much as a sort of ratio if you will, of a translation's difficuty vs. the depth/precision/scope of information actually conveyed in any given word or statement. I think a student of the KJV benefits from a depth and richness not available in modern translations.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

exactly! If you were raised on it, especially if used to memorize the Scriptures, it read MUCH better to you for understanding than one just saved and starting the Bible!

That why would say use either the NKJV/NASB 1977 edition , as both keep the "reading style" of the KJV...

If one wanted to "compromise" so to speak on the issue I think you are correct, those are good ones to use.....I have personally always wondered why the NASB is not more often used...It is good, the NIV sort of punked it quickly and I cannot guess why....although I have seen many places where the NASB is actually unnecessarily difficult to understand even Vs. KJV such as usage of "harlot" when KJV simply says "whore" or "wineskins" instead of KJV "bottles" or "acclaim" vs KJV "salute" "tunics" vs. KJV "coats" "evirons" vs KJV "coasts" Always found some of those comparisons interesting.

 

[Amy.G]

I understand this contention, but I would say this: I would not use such universal and general language (words such as) . I feel this is a little disingenuous...

Not disingenuous at all. If you had read my post, you would have noticed I said "in my experience". Maybe my language was too modern for you? :laugh:

It is not as though the KJV is veritably bristling with obscure words...chapter after chapter is often as easy to read as anything, or at least quite close to it.

It's not just the archaic words themselves, but also the sentence structure. Combine the two and many passages in the KJV are basically non-understandable.

Also, within your own tag, there is a rarely understood and quite wonderful facet of KJV precision...notice it uses the word "ye" as opposed to the post-modern generic "you". The original languages have pluralized and singular forms of the word "you" as most languages do....English, has unfortunately abandoned that...however a KJV user can...in seconds learn something to help them more accurately place verbiage in context:
Thee: singular e.g. "Get thee behind me Satan"
Thou: singular e.g. "Thou art the Christ..."
Ye: Plural e.g. "Come unto me, all ye that labour" "Go ye into all the world.."( a plural audience)

I have no problem with ye, you, thee, thou, ect. That's not what I'm talking about. I have the NASB 1977 and it contains those words in the poetic books. But those words do not make the translation any better, just different. It's not a reason to use the KJV.

....if by only this one thing....Sometimes, (I won't claim often) one has to search more deeply into a modern translation to be assured to whom something might be addressed when a generic "you" is used.

Simply reading it in context will tell you how many "you (s)" a particular passage is speaking of.

I think a student of the KJV benefits from a depth and richness not available in modern translations.

Key words here being "I think". It is your opinion. I use the NASB and the NKJV and there is much richness in them both. If you need lofty, "high" English to make God's word "rich", then I think you have a low view of God's word.



I have no problem with anyone using the KJV, but to say it's just as easy to understand as modern versions is just ridiculous and shows a clear bias toward that particular translation.

 

[Rippon]

I have personally always wondered why the NASB is not more often used...It is good, the NIV sort of punked it quickly and I cannot guess why....

What in the world does "punked it quickly" mean?

 

[Rippon]

I actually meant precisely what I said, Rippon. I have both thumbed through and perused different modern versions.

When one uses the slashes it usually conveys the thought that you mean the same thing though employing different words.

So aside from the NIV which you say you have perused (not the 2011 I assume) what other versions have you actually perused?

I also meant precisely what I said when I used the term pitiful.

I was just emphasizing that you went with the modern meaning of the word --not the meaning of the word as it was used in the 16th and 17th centuries.

There's often no need to look up a word you are unfamiliar with because of the context.

I agree. The particular wording of the KJV is not sacrosanct. If,as you say,that the context is key. Then the renderings in the more modern versions should be generally acceptable to you ...if you want to be consistent.

When usure[sic] there are many dictionaries, encyclopedias and other reference works available.

Hmm...