Is the KJV too difficult?

[Armchair Apologist]

While I have read the KJV for over 60 years, it may be harder to understand than many of its readers realize. Sometimes readers of the KJV are reading different meanings into its words than what was intended in its Early Modern English.

Even something as seeming simple as prepositions which present readers think that they know may have been used in an uncommon or archaic sense in the 1611 KJV.

And I addressed this in my post did I not? Perhaps not as thorough as you may like but I am trying to be efficient in my words as I am often accused of being too loquacious!

Mark Ward makes a great point regarding "false friends" which is relevant here and I would agree that if you use the KJV on a regular basis, you need to be adept at translating 17th century English to what it should actually mean to a 21st century reader or listener! Its nothing that needs to be excessively technical and for the most part, if you simply acknowledge that there is a difference, you should be able to work your way through a passage with little difficulty.

I often find myself poring over a passage in the KJV of which I find difficulty in understanding due to the sentence structure and when I check the same passage in my ESV, I immediately think "Oh, THAT'S what it says! and then translate this understanding into the way I approach the same passage in the KJV. This begs the question though: Rather than doing all that work, why not just use the ESV? Perhaps it is a force of habit or my latent KJVO mindset forcing me to cling to my old King James Cambridge Wide Margin?

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Not too difficult to me. I prefer it to the newer version which has changed the meaning of or intent of and deleted a few scriptures.

Modern versions are largely a faithful representation of the underlying text of which it has been translated. There is no "conspiracy" going on to take words from the Bible! One may argue whether the words were deleted in the critical text or added in the Syriac-Byzantine line but this can be discussed intelligently can it not?

 

[Dave G]

Is the KJV too difficult?

In my opinion, no.
But there is a learning curve involved, especially if one was not raised in it from an early age.

As I see it and at the end of the day, if an English speaker is willing to go so far as to can learn a whole other language and to be bilingual, then that person should find the shift to Late Middle English ( when reading the AV ) far easier.

 

[JonC]

It’s not like I’m going rouge but addressing the content of his posts. Like I told him earlier, threads ebb and flow but tend to drift back to the topic of the thread.

The problem is the OP is a bit vague.

The language of the KJV proved top difficult a century later and was updated to a more modern form.

So yes, obviously the original KJV is too difficult for today's reader.

We know John 3:16. But pretend you never read the Bible, never heard a verse.

"For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." (Authorized KJV)

That would be difficult (that was difficult so the language was updated and the KJV now reads "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (1769 KJV)

It was changed so it could be understood more easily. Why? Because the 1611 Authorized KJV was difficult.

But the KJV is difficult for younger generations because they are not familiar with the language. My generation and above (me, @Martin, @Anthony Pritchard , for example) grew up having to read not only Jacobean English but also Elizabethean English.

I remember in high school (11th grade) having to sit through and follow Charcer in Middle English. Not fun. In fact, it was unfun.

So most of us (probably all of us) have little difficulty with the KJV (I can't say no difficulty given the misunderstanding of some words on post threads).

BUT our concern should be the younger generation. Would they find the foreign language used by the KJV difficulty?

"Difficult" implies degrees. Walking to the next room is not difficult, but it is more difficult than sitting in a recliner.

The KJV is unnecessarily difficult than a translation in one's actual language.

Likewise, Attic Greek would have been unnecessarily difficult in the 1st century compared to Koine Greek.


It is important not to add obstacles, even what we may see as little obstacles, to God's Word. Our minor obstacles may be a major obstacle for others.

It would probably be better that millstone were hanged about our neck, and us cast into the sea, than we create stumbling blocks for others understanding the gospel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Not too difficult to me. I prefer it to the newer version which has changed the meaning of or intent of and deleted a few scriptures.

None of this is remotely true. The newer versions use mss that didn’t omit passages but were not there to begin with. I’d venture to guess the KJV is littered with scribal notes, and that’s why they have vss in them that the newer versions bracket and explain they were not found in earlier mss.

 

[JonC]

In my opinion, no.
But there is a learning curve involved, especially if one was not raised in it from an early age.

As I see it and at the end of the day, if an English speaker is willing to go so far as to can learn a whole other language and to be bilingual, then that person should find the shift to Late Middle English ( when reading the AV ) far easier.

But what of those who are not bilingual? And should such a shift in languages, that "learning curve", really be necessary in order for a person to read God's Word?

Granted, the "top" in the OP makes the whole thread subjective. What is too big an obstacle?

Some find breaking up study to research archaic words acceptable. Others (like me) view and man made obstacle one shift too many.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

None of this is remotely true. The newer versions use mss that didn’t omit passages but were not there to begin with. I’d venture to guess the KJV is littered with scribal notes, and that’s why they have vss in them that the newer versions bracket and explain they were not found in earlier mss.

Such would make for interesting discussion although I feel woefully inadequate to argue either way. What I would say though is that these so-called "scribal notes" seem to be largely consistent throughout the majority text!

 

[Silverhair]

For another post perhaps, this one asked two simple questions: Is the KJV too hard and by what measure.

And we are getting off topic here. Let us stay with the questions that were asked.

These question do relate to your OP.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

Looking at the OP and your expectations, it would have been a good idea to have included a poll ("yes" or "no")and then people could have explained their choice.

Just a suggestion if you start another on the topic.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Such would make for interesting discussion although I feel woefully inadequate to argue either way. What I would say though is that these so-called "scribal notes" seem to be largely consistent throughout the majority text!

But their absence from some [many in some cases?] should send up red flags.

 

[JonC]

But their absence from some [many in some cases?] should send up red flags.

Their absence tend to point toward authenticity (one would expect older manuscripts closer to the autographs not to have many, if any).

 

[JonC]

I understand the preference for modern English,

The KJV is modern English (but I know you mean the vernacular).

I do not think it is about preference, or at least it shouldn't be.

I love the KJV. I love literature as well. The KJV is beautifully written. I doubt you will find any translation that approaches the literary value of the KJV.

But it is not about preference. It is about a translation that plainly communicates God's Word to people living in the English speaking world today.

It is about setting aside our preferences and removing any and all obstacles as possible so that other people can know God through His words.

Here the KJV fails in our world. People should not have to shift their language, learn a language no longer used, in order to experience God's Word.

 

[Salty]

Not too difficult to me. I prefer it to the newer version which has changed the meaning of or intent of and deleted a few scriptures.

But WHY did the MV delete some of the verses in the KJV???

 

[JonC]

But WHY did the MV delete some of the verses in the KJV???

They didn't. The verses are absent in the older manuscripts (the KJV made use of late-medieval Greek).

The better question is why does the late-medieval manuscripts have additional passages.

The probable reason is notes made it into the source text over time. The additional verses in the KJV appear to be explanation (indicating probable notes explaining the ancient circumstances) and notes repeating truths expressed elsewhere (like criss referencing, something I often do when studying).


It just does not seem logical to me that manuscripts many centuries older than the ones used in the KJV somehow reached forward and omitted verses not yet written.
The counter argument is that the manuscripts originally contained those verses but those were lost to time, which is a wishful thinking hypothesis.

 

[searchingtruths]

Modern versions are largely a faithful representation of the underlying text of which it has been translated. There is no "conspiracy" going on to take words from the Bible! One may argue whether the words were deleted in the critical text or added in the Syriac-Byzantine line but this can be discussed intelligently can it not?

I don't believe I was trying to indicate there was a conspiracy.

I will agree to disagree

 

[SovereignGrace]

I don't believe I was trying to indicate there was a conspiracy.

I will agree to disagree

Upon what basis is your disagreement?

 

[searchingtruths]

None of this is remotely true. The newer versions use mss that didn’t omit passages but were not there to begin with. I’d venture to guess the KJV is littered with scribal notes, and that’s why they have vss in them that the newer versions bracket and explain they were not found in earlier mss.

Ok - not trying to debate anybody's belief and what Bible they choose to read.

1:15Revelation 1:15 His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. Revelation 1:15 - John's Vision on Patmos

Lamentations 5:10 Our skin is as hot as an oven with fever from our hunger. Lamentations 5:10 - A Prayer for Restoration

Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV? Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?

 

[Dave G]

I used the example of those who have studied other languages to reinforce the fact that the AV, after over 400 years of being in publication, is still read and preached from to this day in many churches, and studied by even children.
That said, it's not hard to get used to, from my perspective.

Late Middle English is not that far removed from modern English in the majority of its wording. For words that are "ambiguous" ( even though still a part of the English language despite not being used by most native speakers today ), they can easily be found on the internet or in dictionaries.

Also, for those looking to expand / enrich their vocabularies, I've found it to be very "teachable" on this subject.

 

[searchingtruths]

But WHY did the MV delete some of the verses in the KJV???

They say it is closer to the original Greek text / meaning _ yet there are no originals and no one can say as an absolute they are correct or even the King James is absolutely correct. It all boils down to what translators think it means.

After all EVEN when you look at the usage of hell in the Bible and its meaning; the ancient Hebrew / Israelite / Jew's version of hell (SHEOL) was, is totally different than that which is taught by Roman and English churches and passed out throughout the centuries.

 

[JonC]

Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV? Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?

I think the confusion is in the wording. Nobody took out verses or changed words. The words are not in the older manuscripts (they do not exist until we get to the late middle ages).

The question is not about missing verses but why verses were added in later manuscripts.

The probable reason is marginal notes making it into the text (notes of expiation not needed in eary manuscripts, restating applicable verses, etc).


Why be this paticular? Because the manuscripts that "change words" and omit verses are almost 1000 years older than the manuscripts supposedly changed. It is not logical.