• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why I love the King James

glfredrick

New Member
Thanks for the links.

The author is absolutely right with regards to our "modern" education system and the impact that TV has had on literacy. This oldtimer was around when TV was not in every home. And, especially when there was only 1 TV in the home. Parents controlled the TV watching in relationship to doing homework.

I'd like to offer the simple fact that barely anyone in America in 2012 is literate in 1611 English as used during that era. A few Shakespearean scholars and perhaps a few preachers who have actually worked to become educated in that dialect, but not mainstream America. English has changed in usage somewhat in the 400 years that have passed between the KJV translation and where we are today. Why on earth would we expect our schools to teach a 400-year-old dialect just because some like it?
 

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
I like the King James also - even though it isn't my preferred Bible to read. I was raised on it. I think the "eloquence of speech" element is just matter of opinion and semantics. "Flowery" speech doesn't imply eloquence to me. Shakespearean English doesn't necessarily make it eloquent. It's just flowery and poetical. It's pretty to listen to and some people think this makes the King James Version "formal" and so they make it in their minds more powerful. But the formality just makes it more stoic and solemn - those two adjectives not necessarily implying a superior power of word.

To me, eloquence of speech and the ability to "describe with power", has to do with the substance of the speech and not the Elizabethan nature of the words.

The video in the OP demonstrates that perfectly. LOL!
“A wolf – carnivorous nature in full season – called out to the straw ensconced swine and said, ‘Pray thee little pig, grant me entrance!!”
But pig one recalled with sage foreboding that he is mad who trusts in a belly-pinched wolf and he responded immediately and said ‘Nay, It shall not be indeed by wit nor whiskered jowl!!’
Prepared for this most expected response, the wolf replied immediately, ‘Then steel thyself little pig. Forthwith shall I endeavor by employing means both huffing and puffing to dismantle thine flaxen fortress!!’”
The excerpt above is certainly more flowery than the Sermon on the Mount from the Living Bible, but not more eloquent and not described with more power. It's still just a wolf trying to blow down a pig's house. LOL!!
 

Mark_13

New Member
I like the King James also - even though it isn't my preferred Bible to read. I was raised on it. I think the "eloquence of speech" element is just matter of opinion and semantics. "Flowery" speech doesn't imply eloquence to me. Shakespearean English doesn't necessarily make it eloquent. It's just flowery and poetical. It's pretty to listen to and some people think this makes the King James Version "formal" and so they make it in their minds more powerful. But the formality just makes it more stoic and solemn - those two adjectives not necessarily implying a superior power of word.

To me, eloquence of speech and the ability to "describe with power", has to do with the substance of the speech and not the Elizabethan nature of the words.

The video in the OP demonstrates that perfectly. LOL!

The excerpt above is certainly more flowery than the Sermon on the Mount from the Living Bible, but not more eloquent and not described with more power. It's still just a wolf trying to blow down a pig's house. LOL!!

I can't tell exactly what you're trying to say about the KJV there. Its certainly not just a lot of flowery archaic ornate prose. The KJV is highly regarded universally among literary scholars. The English language as it exists today is highly indebted to the KJV. It was one of the very first books (if not the the first book) to be mass produced (remember the printing press came out only a short time earlier), and all subsequent literary works in English were influenced by it. There was a cover story on the KJV in the National Geographic only a couple of months ago (though I didn't read it).

I recently discovered my deceased Grandfather's leather-bound KJV. He was born in 1900 in Celeste, Texas. This Bible of his is in great shape, but it also has every so often his own margin notes. I really treasure that Bible now. I find I very quickly get used to the archaic constructions in it. And also its a study Bible from that era with all sorts of auxilliary material in it.

Aside from that I read the NASB. I will NEVER read the NKJV again. I've discovered a host of problems with it that I won't get into here. If anyone knows of a more recent version other than the KJV or NASB I should be reading, I'd like to hear about it (something that say, doesn't translate money into dollars and cubits into feet).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
I can't tell exactly what you're trying to say about the KJV there. Its certainly not just a lot of flowery archaic ornate prose.

Then let me explain what I am saying. I like the King James (maybe you missed that part).

The OP said that one of the reasons that he liked the King James is because of the "eloquent" speech and the "power" of the Shakespearan language that is "superior" to our English.

His exact words were ....

The English language was at it's peak of eloquence and descriptive power in the age in which the King James was born.

I disagreed with him.

The power of the language is not in its ornateness or floweriness, but in the substance of the words. The King James, like other versions, is potent because it is God's Word.

The Elizabethan and Shakespearean words contain NO potency in and of themselves. They are just ornate. You can dress a pig in suit and it's still a pig. Ornate words don't hold any more power than ordinary words.

I used his own video cite an example. Yes, the man in the video told the story of the three little pigs in Shakespearean English, but it was still just a story about a wolf trying to blow down a pig's house.

If I follow the OP's line of thinking, then the story of the three little pigs told in the language of Shakespeare is more powerful than the Sermon on the Mount from the Living Bible.

I REALLY don't believe that the OP thinks that at all, in fact, I KNOW he doesn't, but I was just showing him where his line of reasoning led.

The King James version isn't potent because of the language. It's potent because it's the Word of God.
 
Last edited:

Mark_13

New Member


If I follow the OP's line of thinking, then the story of the three little pigs told in the language of Shakespeare is more powerful than the Sermon on the Mount from the Living Bible.

Since you brought up Shakespeare, all actors today have a deep reverential respect for him. And furthermore, audiences of high cultural aspiration at least feign appreciation for Shakespeare themselves. (I personally think he's a little overrated, but what do I know) That is why Shakespeare, in the original language is continually performed throughout the world - in the park, on the stage, at the movies, at schools, etc.

Now, no one says, "audiences today are just too stupid to understand that English, lets come up with 25 new modern versions of the bard. Sure, every so often someone does that, but its just sort of a goof - no one takes it seriously.

The English of the KJV is more expressive and nuanced and rich than the language we employ today (despite the archaic attributes). We shouldn't let it die out just to cater to the ignorant or lazy.
 

Mark_13

New Member
Also there's an issue of trust - I personally have deeper respect and confidence for the writers of the KJV - writing on the heels of the reformation, steeled by persecution, eloquent, serious, unswerving, rather than the glib posers of seminaries today.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since you brought up Shakespeare, all actors today have a deep reverential respect for him. And furthermore, audiences of high cultural aspiration at least feign appreciation for Shakespeare themselves. (I personally think he's a little overrated, but what do I know) That is why Shakespeare, in the original language is continually performed throughout the world - in the park, on the stage, at the movies, at schools, etc.

Now, no one says, "audiences today are just too stupid to understand that English, lets come up with 25 new modern versions of the bard. Sure, every so often someone does that, but its just sort of a goof - no one takes it seriously.

Well,the works of Shakespeare have been translated into a host of languages in modern garb. I daresay that the readers of Shakespeare written in modern speech understand the plays much beetter than the average native English reader/speaker.

English translations do not have to have a loyalty to a largely 16th century text --but the much older and inspired autographs. There is much misplaced loyalty in tradition --a false god to be sure.

The English of the KJV is more expressive and nuanced and rich than the language we employ today (despite the archaic attributes).

Prove it.

We shouldn't let it die out just to cater to the ignorant or lazy.

You are dead-wrong in your categorizations. Shame on you.
 

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
Now, no one says, "audiences today are just too stupid to understand that English, lets come up with 25 new modern versions of the bard. Sure, every so often someone does that, but its just sort of a goof - no one takes it seriously.

Now it's me that doesn't know what YOU are talking about. :flower: :laugh:

I NEVER said that people are too stupid read the King James Bible and that's why new versions are written. I never implied that.

I was merely disagreeing with the OP. Shakespearean English - in it's ornateness - does NOT make a passage - whether from the Bible or from a play - more powerful. The power of words does NOT lie in their length, number of affixes, archaicness, or their poetic nature. The power of words lies in what do these words SAY!

One more time - I read the King James Bible - but NOT because it sounds like Shakespeare.


The English of the KJV is more expressive and nuanced and rich than the language we employ today (despite the archaic attributes). We shouldn't let it die out just to cater to the ignorant or lazy.

I see now why you are not understanding what I am saying. You are not READING what I am saying. :flower: :laugh:

The King James English is NOT more rich, NOT more potent, and NOT more "intellectual" than modern English. It is merely more flowery.

And lastly, (note NO smiley face here), to call people who do not read the King James Bible "ignorant and lazy" proves your own ignorance of WHY they choose other versions and your gross disrespect for others.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am reminded of the famous KJV only IFB pastor who would tell the folks after reading one verse to close their Bibles and look at him while he preached.

His sermons were filled with "I" and rarely based upon the Scripture that he had read.

Unfortunately, quite a few non-thinking monkey see monkey doers were swayed by this man's view and also tried to copy his dicto-authoritarian leadership.



:BangHead:
 

Oldtimer

New Member
glfredrick quoted:
Originally Posted by Oldtimer
Thanks for the links.

The author is absolutely right with regards to our "modern" education system and the impact that TV has had on literacy. This oldtimer was around when TV was not in every home. And, especially when there was only 1 TV in the home. Parents controlled the TV watching in relationship to doing homework.


I'd like to offer the simple fact that barely anyone in America in 2012 is literate in 1611 English as used during that era. A few Shakespearean scholars and perhaps a few preachers who have actually worked to become educated in that dialect, but not mainstream America. English has changed in usage somewhat in the 400 years that have passed between the KJV translation and where we are today. Why on earth would we expect our schools to teach a 400-year-old dialect just because some like it?

Article disagreeing with the use of the Flesch-Kincaid formula to rate the reading level of the KJV.
Even when we done all this analysis of the text there still remains one issue that these numbers can’t help with … the low level of reading skills amongst adults. It has been suggested that the average reading age of American adults is equivalent to that of a schoolchild in grade 6! More substantive is a recent statistic that 25% of American adults are illiterate. http://betterbibles.com/2005/07/05/flesch-kincaid-and-bible-reading-levels/

~ More than one million of last year's high school graduates received their diploma even though they could not read and write at an eight-grade level. ~ The most widely used version of the Bible in the United States is the King James Version (KJV). However, given the literacy skills of the population, slightly more than three out of every four adul.ts are incapable of reading and understanding the KJV due to their literacy limitations. http://www.tencommandmentsproject.org/participate_DidYouKnow.htm

Note the 100 most used words in the KJV along with the text stats on a KJV on sale at Amazon. Flesch-Kincaid Index: 10.4 http://www.amazon.com/dp/052116334X/?tag=baptis04-20

Here's a comparison of various Bibles using the Flesch-Kincaid index on the same chapters of each Bible. Plus additional information from various sources. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html

From a site making fun of the KJV. Note the cartoon.
My KJV-only dad often tells me, “I’ve never met anyone who couldn’t understand the KJV” as I just shake my head, baffled. My husband and I have worked with teenagers who can barely read today’s English, much less comprehend the KJV. They truly do not understand what they’re reading, as anyone could tell if you’ve ever sat in a Sunday School class where such kids each read a verse in a circle around the room. By the end of the passage, we’re all exhausted and none of the teens has any idea what was read! http://www.stufffundieslike.com/2010/06/the-flesch-kincaid-grade-level-indicator/

Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand Than The Others?
http://www.elijahproject.net/read.html
Scroll down and note the word for word comparisons between the KJV and the NASB

Archaic Words in the NIV http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

My premise is that our modern education system isn't producing enough literate people. Period. It has far less to do with a "400-year-old dialect" than is has with people being able to read materials being produced in 2012.

Wish I could find a percentage figure of the words in the Bible (any version) that haven't changed, in meaning, in the last 400 years. Note the 100 most used words in the KJV. Teach the children to actually read and comprehend 2012 English and they'll be able to read most of most Bibles without any problems. (Note the word comparisons in the lists in the links provided.)

How many of today's high school graduates can't read and comprehend their senior year textbooks? Thus the question... Can they read and comprehend any Bible on the market today?
 

joey

Member
Yes, Joey there are material differences in the translations that are more than just updated language. The differences are the result of which major set of manuscripts that are used for the translations. Plus the translation method used. There are several methods that range from word for word (as closely as possible when switching languages) to what the translators think the author intended to say.
Thanks, that makes more sense now.

Be careful when using the KJVO term, until you research it further. I thought I was until I dived into the controversy and learned what some on both sides of the issue have to say. It's sad to say to what extremes some professing Christians have to say about this topic.
I meant that impartially. I had forgotten that emotions can ride high either side of the fence on this issue.
 

Oldtimer

New Member
Thanks, that makes more sense now.

I meant that impartially. I had forgotten that emotions can ride high either side of the fence on this issue.

Glad I could be of some help. When I first started this study, I had no idea of what was "behind the scenes" with the battle over Bible versions. Didn't know a thing about manuscripts, translation approaches, etc. I've still got a long ways to go in that regard, BTW.

You're right. Emotions do run high. It's often sad to see that "emotions" derail otherwise valid commentary on either side. John Doe may have a legimate point to make. But it's destroyed when he resorts to name calling, etc.
 

glfredrick

New Member
Recall that "pragmatism" (one of the main arguments of the KJVO crowd) is not always the same as "truth."

The argument goes along these lines, "More people have come to faith because of the KJV than any other translation..." That is pragmatic thought. There is not a cause and effect correlation between the fact that a lot of people used the only really readily available translation and God only using a particular translation to do His work.
 

DaChaser1

New Member
Recall that "pragmatism" (one of the main arguments of the KJVO crowd) is not always the same as "truth."

The argument goes along these lines, "More people have come to faith because of the KJV than any other translation..." That is pragmatic thought. There is not a cause and effect correlation between the fact that a lot of people used the only really readily available translation and God only using a particular translation to do His work.

have read many times that those devotees of the KJVO position claiming that its easier to read with understanding then versions such as the NIV/NASB/NKJV...

HOW can that be true?

Also...

Wouldn't it be far better to read and apply a Bible one can easier understand?

God does NOT just work through the KJV, His word in English for us includeds both good modern versions and the KJV!
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I will NEVER read the NKJV again. I've discovered a host of problems with it that I won't get into here.

There are no host of problems with the NKJV. KJV-only advocates make a number of misleading and false claims concerning the NKJV. If you have been influenced by such KJV-only claims, you have been misled.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here's a comparison of various Bibles using the Flesch-Kincaid index on the same chapters of each Bible.

Is that computer comparison based simply based on average syllables per word?

There may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is easier to read. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.

More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand.

These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” that supposedly indicates easier to read may be misleading and misused.
 

jaigner

Active Member
I love it because the memorization I did as a child was in KJV. I love the eloquence and the stately language.

But it's not the best we have anymore. It served us well for centuries, but it shouldn't be the preferred translation anymore.
 

glfredrick

New Member
I love it because the memorization I did as a child was in KJV. I love the eloquence and the stately language.

But it's not the best we have anymore. It served us well for centuries, but it shouldn't be the preferred translation anymore.

I think your sentiment sums up what a lot of us think about the KJV. We've used it, seen it used, it has been influential, and it is a good enough translation to continue using if that is what one wants, but it is neither the best nor the only translation that is the Word of God, so there is no basis for "only" when applied to that particular translation effort.
 

Mark_13

New Member
There are no host of problems with the NKJV. KJV-only advocates make a number of misleading and false claims concerning the NKJV. If you have been influenced by such KJV-only claims, you have been misled.

Why do people immediately assume that everyone including themselves just runs around parroting the words of some beloved "teacher" of theirs. Do you do that? I don't. Do you think the only people that have pointed out problems with the NKJV are in some fringe KJV-only sect?

Why not just ask me what my own specific personal objections to the NKJV are? I can assure they exist.
 

DaChaser1

New Member
Why do people immediately assume that everyone including themselves just runs around parroting the words of some beloved "teacher" of theirs. Do you do that? I don't. Do you think the only people that have pointed out problems with the NKJV are in some fringe KJV-only sect?

Why not just ask me what my own specific personal objections to the NKJV are? I can assure they exist.

what are they?

NKJV based upon same Greek text, TR, as the KJV was, so what problems?
 
Top