Great Book On King James Only by Mark Ward

[Reformed1689]

I don't think that the archaic words point of view is persuasive. As Morris suggested, those could be straightened out with footnotes.

This would assume that most readers actually read footnotes. I doubt this is the case.

If the KJV has a tenth grade reading level, that might explain why it has been popular for 400 years.

What makes you think it has a 10th grade reading level? What is this based on?

In other words, the KJV illustrates the 400 year decline in our language skills.

This is false. The only thing it demonstrates is that the English language is different 400 years later. This is no different than the reality that the English Language of the KJV was different than it was 400 years prior to that. This is a non-starter argument and it is not reality.

 

[robycop3]

No, English has not gone downhill. It's become more-practical, with spelling simplified more. And it takes its users' intelligence into account. For instance, most people know whether a particular use of "you" is singular or plural. And it's eliminated the unnecessary "eths, ests", etc. It's an IMPROVED English that expresses something more-quickly.

 

[robycop3]

This would assume that most readers actually read footnotes. I doubt this is the case.

What makes you think it has a 10th grade reading level? What is this based on?

This is false. The only thing it demonstrates is that the English language is different 400 years later. This is no different than the reality that the English Language of the KJV was different than it was 400 years prior to that. This is a non-starter argument and it is not reality.

The "10th grade" stull likely comes from a biased Barna survey.

 

[church mouse guy]

This would assume that most readers actually read footnotes. I doubt this is the case.

What makes you think it has a 10th grade reading level? What is this based on?

This is false. The only thing it demonstrates is that the English language is different 400 years later. This is no different than the reality that the English Language of the KJV was different than it was 400 years prior to that. This is a non-starter argument and it is not reality.

Totally absurd.

 

[church mouse guy]

No, English has not gone downhill. It's become more-practical, with spelling simplified more. And it takes its users' intelligence into account. For instance, most people know whether a particular use of "you" is singular or plural. And it's eliminated the unnecessary "eths, ests", etc. It's an IMPROVED English that expresses something more-quickly.

Absurd.

 

[church mouse guy]

The "10th grade" stull likely comes from a biased Barna survey.

No, Morris was not that sort of person.

 

[church mouse guy]

Which is just nonsense in today's culture.

Absurd.

 

[church mouse guy]

Elizabethen English is certainly more flowery. I prefer a Shakespearean sonnet to modern gibberish like ee cummings. But beauty and a greater degree of focus on cadence doesn’t necessarily equal easily understood. Hemingway wouldn't be improved by being more prolix.

Hemmingway is a failure as a human being.

 

[Reformed1689]

Totally absurd.

What is totally absurd?

 

[Reformed1689]

No, Morris was not that sort of person.

So then how do you arrive at the KJV being a 10th grade reading level?

 

[church mouse guy]

So then how do you arrive at the KJV being a 10th grade reading level?

Dr. Morris said that.

 

[Reformed1689]

Dr. Morris said that.

Ok, then how did he arrive at that?

 

[church mouse guy]

Ok, then how did he arrive at that?

Do you think that the KJV is more difficult than tenth grade?

 

[Reformed1689]

Do you think that the KJV is more difficult than tenth grade?

Why are you avoiding my question by asking another question?

Here's what I think. Reading Level on 10th Grade Modern day English? Absolutely not, the KJV does not fit that standard.

 

[church mouse guy]

Why are you avoiding my question by asking another question?

Here's what I think. Reading Level on 10th Grade Modern day English? Absolutely not, the KJV does not fit that standard.

Do you attribute that to the collapse of the public school system?

 

[Reformed1689]

Do you attribute that to the collapse of the public school system?

No. I attribute it to the English language changing over the last 400 years just like it changed from the 400 years prior to the KJV>

 

[church mouse guy]

So do you think that KJV is above or below 10th grade?

 

[Reformed1689]

So do you think that KJV is above or below 10th grade?

We don't teach KJV English today so you are comparing Apples and Oranges.

 

[church mouse guy]

We don't teach KJV English today so you are comparing Apples and Oranges.

So you yourself cannot read the KJV--would you put it on the level of PhD?

 

[Reformed1689]

So you yourself cannot read the KJV--would you put it on the level of PhD?

I'm saying that sentence structure, punctuation, and word meanings are all different than they are now. Does this mean you can't read and understand the KJV? Not necessarily. But nobody today reads and understands the KJV without extra dictionaries (and these must be specific dictionaries, simple Webster will not help you) and understanding the language of the 17th century vs the 21st century.

In short, no, nobody today reads the KJV just as it is without any helps and can understand the English plainly. If you say that you can you are either ignorant or lying to yourself.