Reading level of Bible Versions

[Winman]

Then why is it wrong for MV's to translate it as "cattle's reaction to thunder"? Isn't that what you're having to do?? You're having to re-translate it to your own modern language because otherwise it makes no sense.

Why do we have to try to figure out what it means because it's written in 400 yr old language? Why is it wrong to have a Bible written in the modern English that we speak?

If that is all the Modern Versions did, you would have an excellent point, but that is not what they did. It is from a completely different text that leaves out thousands of words and dozens of verses. The modern versions often give a very different meaning or interpretation to scripture.

Now, you know this, it was about 3 years ago when a modern version troubled you because it made you believe it was a sin to get angry for any reason. You learned that the King James said it is a sin to be angry at someone WITHOUT CAUSE. If you have a legitimate reason to be angry then it is not a sin.

I can think of a half dozen times when discussing various subjects here on the BB that a modern version gave a very different meaning than the KJB. In fact, I can think of many times when I saw a modern version gave a completely different meaning, but I did not say anything.

And if you are honest, you know that is absolutely true.

The modern versions aren't simply making the KJB easy to read, they often give a completely different meaning to scripture.

 

[Rippon]

And thats the whole point of my OP- many people who have trouble understanding the KJV and who will not take the time to study

The point is not to study and master the antiquated language of the KJV.

- may very likely not read the Bible at all.

If someone shows no desire to study the KJV does not mean they have no desire to study the Word of God. That's because the Word of God is evidenced in many Bible translations.

 

[Rippon]

I disagree, I do not think we should dumb-down the scriptures because folks are too lazy to study.

I think all this dumbed-down talk is itself a dumbed-down view of things.

But mainly I do not think we should tamper with scriptures because God gave strict warnings against doing so.

You speak as an uninformed person. Do you equate reading versions other than the KJV as tampering with Scripture? The KJV did not sent things in stone. The Lord never gave instructions such as :Thou shalt not read or study any Holy Writ except that of the KJV! LOL!

There are good KJB Bibles like the ones put out by D.A. Waite that define ancient English words, or words that have changed meaning like "conversation".

 

[Winman]

I think all this dumbed-down talk is itself a dumbed-down view of things.

You speak as an uninformed person. Do you equate reading versions other than the KJV as tampering with Scripture? The KJV did not sent things in stone. The Lord never gave instructions such as :Thou shalt not read or study any Holy Writ except that of the KJV! LOL!

There are good KJB Bibles like the ones put out by D.A. Waite that define ancient English words, or words that have changed meaning like "conversation".

So, if the Bible doesn't tell you something is wrong, it is OK?

The Bible doesn't tell you that you shouldn't pick your nose, but your momma did.

God said we should not add or diminish from his words. The Critical Text has nearly 3000 less words in the original Greek than the Received Text. Either the CT diminished from God's word, or the RT added to God's word, but they cannot both be the word of God.

The word of God cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of the 16th chapter of Mark.

 

[Rippon]

Modern Versions [are] from a completely different text that leaves out thousands of words and dozens of verses.

Completely different? We are speaking of the New Testament;right? There may be at most a 5% difference,if that. Leaves out thousands of words? You know how to use hyperbole;don't you? I would say that the KJV has added hundreds of words to the original texts;but not thousands.

The modern versions often give a very different meaning or interpretation to scripture.

Please give some examples. I think you are on to something.

 

[Rippon]

My Pastor has a KJV with the reading grade levels on the inside... it listed Genesis at like grade 5... maxing out at like grade 8. I don't know if I agree that its at a 13 level... once you get Thee, thy, thou down... its [sic] just english.

Hmmm...like wow!

 

[Winman]

Completely different? We are speaking of the New Testament;right? There may be at most a 5% difference,if that. Leaves out thousands of words? You know how to use hyperbole;don't you? I would say that the KJV has added hundreds of words to the original texts;but not thousands.



Please give some examples. I think you are on to something.

Yeah, well I think you are ON something.

KJV- But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV- But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Here is the very verse that confused Amy around 3 years ago. The MV she was reading at the time omitted the phrase "without a cause" which caused her to believe it was a sin to get angry at any time for any reason.

We discussed this verse right here at BB. The KJB says "without a cause" which means it is OK to be angry at a person for a legitimate reason. If someone broke into your home and stole all your possessions, you have a legitimate reason to be angry at them.

If you hate your neighbor because they bought a new car and you are jealous, that is not a legitimate reason and would be sin.

The MVs give a different meaning here.

Then there is the famous verse where Jesus said he would not go up to Jerusalem "yet".

KJV- Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.

RSV- Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."

Many of the MVs omit the word "yet" which gives the impression that Jesus said he would not go up to the feast. Two verses later Jesus goes up to the feast. This has given some enemies of the Bible an opportunity to say that Jesus lied.

In fact, about 3 years ago I gave the link for a website where a Muslim posted this very verse from a MV and attempted to use it to prove that Jesus was a liar. He could not do that with the KJB, because it gives a completely different meaning.

I think you have seen examples like this many times and choose to ignore the truth.

 

[Rippon]

Dr. Edwin H. Palmer Piece Written in 1975

I would be more interested in the reading level of those that prefer certain versions.

I mean, what is the biggest criticism to the KJB? That it is too difficult to read?

What does that tell you about folks who criticize the KJB?

"Do not give them a loaf of bread,covered with an inedible,impenetrable crust,fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible...

For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic,not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable,and almost unconscionable."

 

[Winman]

"Do not give them a loaf of bread,covered with an inedible,impenetrable crust,fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible...

For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic,not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable,and almost unconscionable."

Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

How ironic that you would choose a statement about bread. Jesus said, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

You know, this was the VERY verse that stopped me in my tracks nearly 50 years ago. Jesus told me I need to live by EVERY word of God. How could God expect me to live by EVERY word unless he has provided EVERY word for me? That is when I realized the perfect and preserved word of God was in the world, I just need to find it. And I did, in the King James Bible.

But see, you have to see the promise there, and you have to BELIEVE the promise. It is faith, not scholarship. You will never find the answer through scholarship, simply believe.

 

[Amy.G]

Now, you know this, it was about 3 years ago when a modern version troubled you because it made you believe it was a sin to get angry for any reason. You learned that the King James said it is a sin to be angry at someone WITHOUT CAUSE. If you have a legitimate reason to be angry then it is not a sin.

Yes, I was having difficulties during that time because I was in a KJVO church. It wasn't like that when I joined the church but the pastor became more and more KJVO and taught it from the pulpit.
When I began to study it out for myself, I realized that the KJV was not the "Only" valid version. And studying different versions I found that all of them, including the KJV have verses that are questionable.
The phrase "God forbid" for example is not even found in the original Greek manuscripts, however the KJ translators added it. Does that mean they're cursed for adding to scripture? No, of course not because they merely used a common idiom of their day. But you would say MV's add or take away from scripture because you compare them to the KJV instead of the original languages, making the KJV have more authority than the manuscripts it is translated from. That is backwards.

 

[Winman]

Yes, I was having difficulties during that time because I was in a KJVO church. It wasn't like that when I joined the church but the pastor became more and more KJVO and taught it from the pulpit.
When I began to study it out for myself, I realized that the KJV was not the "Only" valid version. And studying different versions I found that all of them, including the KJV have verses that are questionable.
The phrase "God forbid" for example is not even found in the original Greek manuscripts, however the KJ translators added it. Does that mean they're cursed for adding to scripture? No, of course not because they merely used a common idiom of their day. But you would say MV's add or take away from scripture because you compare them to the KJV instead of the original languages, making the KJV have more authority than the manuscripts it is translated from. That is backwards.

What? It was the King James that relieved your anxiety. It was a MV version you were reading that made you feel that getting angry for any reason was a sin. The King James showed you it is not a sin to be angry when someone has truly done something wrong to you. I remember clearly, I participated on that thread with you.

It was the KJB that helped you, and now you support the very MVs that caused you distress! Shame on you.

 

[Van]

What? It was the King James that relieved your anxiety. It was a MV version you were reading that made you feel that getting angry for any reason was a sin. The King James showed you it is not a sin to be angry when someone has truly done something wrong to you. I remember clearly, I participated on that thread with you.

It was the KJB that helped you, and now you support the very MVs that caused you distress! Shame on you.

How could anyone believe it is a sin to be angry. What about be angry and sin not? If you do something in the will of God then it is not a sin, but if you do something outside the will of God, then it is sin.

If something happens which disrupts your expectations, then the emotion of anger can arise. It is what we do with the emotion, how we exercise self control where deviating from the will of God comes in. We know Jesus experienced anger yet was without sin. Mark 3:5 You do not need to add to scripture to cause people to come to the biblical position, just study it by looking at all the places the topic is mentioned rather than reading one verse and forming an opinion in isolation.

 

[Amy.G]

What? It was the King James that relieved your anxiety. It was a MV version you were reading that made you feel that getting angry for any reason was a sin. The King James showed you it is not a sin to be angry when someone has truly done something wrong to you. I remember clearly, I participated on that thread with you.

It was the KJB that helped you, and now you support the very MVs that caused you distress! Shame on you.

It was the KJVO teaching that caused me distress. I believed that it was wrong to read anything else because I trusted those teaching me.
Of course it's not sin to be angry. It's the holding on to anger that's sin. That's the context. But the pastor ignored that and made me fear sinning against God by reading anything other than the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

The KJV is written on a grade 12 or 13 level.

Does that discourage some from reading the KJV or the NASB (grade 11).
Would someone be more likely to read the NIV (grade 7) or The Message (grade 4-5)

Most folx pay no attention to those "reading level" surveys. most are made by wannabee authors and 'pretend' researchers wanting to make a few bux.

I know many children who read the KJV with no trouble, but wisely read other versions as well.

 

[robycop3]

I would be more interested in the reading level of those that prefer certain versions.

I mean, what is the biggest criticism to the KJB? That it is too difficult to read?

What does that tell you about folks who criticize the KJB?

The biggest criticism of the KJV is actually indirect: the false KJVO MYTH.

As for the KJV itself, the obsolete language is the biggest criticism, followed by its proven goofs and booboos.

 

[robycop3]

I am KJB only because I believe it is the only accurate version in English.

Then you simply believe INCORRECTLY. The older Geneva and Bishop's bibles were a little more accurate, not to mention the NKJV and others which don't have the KJV's goofs and booboos.

I will admit it is more difficult to read than other versions, but I have found with study it can be understood. I rarely have any difficulty at all, but there are a few difficult verses for sure.

Thus, the need for modern versions.

As for Shakespeare, we did study and read Shakespeare in High School, and I remember it was very difficult to follow, but again, with study it can be understood.

I read Chaucer as a child, in original language style. I diligently studied the old spellings and definitions until I could clearly understand it. (I'm not extra-smart; I was simply fascinated by Chaucer's stories.)

As for Shakespeare, he coined many words still in everyday use! These include(but are not limited to):

accused
cater
champion
countless
critic
generous
hint
lonely

But again, my preference for the KJB has nothing to do with whether it is easier or more difficult to read, or whether it uses ancient English, although I do admit the old English sounds majestic, but I am KJBO because I believe it is an accurate version of the preserved word of God. I believe the Critical Text used for the Modern Versions is full of MANY errors and is not accurate.

And again, you simply BELIEVE INCORRECTLY. You've been shown the cdultic, dishonest origin of the KJVO myth; you should know it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, with almost all its points simply FALSE.

"KJVO IS A POISON MUSHROOM!"

 

[Gorship]

Curious, robycop what bible version do you use?

 

[robycop3]

I disagree, I do not think we should dumb-down the scriptures because folks are too lazy to study. That is the very reason the American educational system is falling behind much of the world.

Having God's word in our own language isn't "dumbing down; it-s just the opposite...SMARTING UP!

But mainly I do not think we should tamper with scriptures because God gave strict warnings against doing so.

Then you should use another version, as the KJV has more than one goof.

There are good KJB Bibles like the ones put out by D.A. Waite that define ancient English words, or words that have changed meaning like "conversation".

And there are good MODERN versions that have few words not readily understandable to the average English reader.

God did tell us to STUDY.

NO, He said "WORK DILIGENTLY". That is one of the archaic meanings for 'study'. WE understand that word to mean "examine closely with the object of learning".

OF COURSE we should study the Scriptures in that sense, but let's keep them ACCURATE. And "study" in a modern version at 2 Tim. 2;15 is incorrect. Same at 1 Thess. 4:11.("Study" to be quiet??)

 

[robycop3]

BUT...

You must use a little COMMON SENSE. Jesus doubtlessly spoke MANY MILLIONS of words that were NOT recorded, at least here on earth. And His Father has spoken countless words to other beings besides men.

But I beklieve we have every word He wanted us to have.

AND...

God didn't speak His words to Hebrews in Assyrian language. He spoke them in the best language of His chosen penmen. Remember what Paul said about "unknown tongues". Thus, He provides His word in OUR language, while keeping what He provided for our ancestors before us.

PLUS....

What Amy said above.

PLUS....

The PROVEN FALSEHOOD of the KJVO myth.

 

[robycop3]

What? It was the King James that relieved your anxiety. It was a MV version you were reading that made you feel that getting angry for any reason was a sin. The King James showed you it is not a sin to be angry when someone has truly done something wrong to you. I remember clearly, I participated on that thread with you.

It was the KJB that helped you, and now you support the very MVs that caused you distress! Shame on you.

So, Herod kept Peter in stir while he celebrated EASTER? Yyeeaahh, RRIIGGHHTT!