I’m binging so many of your videos today! I really appreciate how clearly you present information. For many years I was very strict about KJV-only and have heard the arguments about readability. But when I sat down to study, I really couldn’t understand how it could possibly be easier to read than modern versions. For years, I adamantly refused to read any other version. I realize now what a disservice I was doing to myself. My inability to understand the text easily led me to surface read. Far too often I would end my quite time with no deep understanding of what I had read because I just skimmed over the confusing parts. Lately I’ve been reading and comparing KJV with other versions and it’s been so helpful. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like anyone that is (or was raised) KJV-only has a sense of guilt or wrong when ready other translations. Maybe that’s silly, but I was once so narrow minded about other translations. I know that God wants us to understand His word and, while I love the language of the KJV, I realize that I cannot possibly understand it all and it’s very beneficial to read the Bible in other versions. I just really appreciate the time and energy you put into your videos. You are really opening my eyes to a lot of things, and you make me laugh. So thanks!
My pleasure! I experienced the very same feeling. But I trusted a teacher who knew the Bible better than me, and though it took a little while, I soon enough came to the place where I could read contemporary translations with a clear conscience. And then the benefits started rolling in: *I understood what God was saying!* And that eliminated all conscience problems. If I could talk to my former self, I would say what I say on this channel: let 1 Cor 14's call-edification requires intelligibility-be what pushes you past the objections of your conscience.
@@markwardonwords Old video but I also was KJVO in the 90s .. A man that was a friend and Preacher that was the wisest and most intelligent man on God's word I have ever met to this day told me it was OK to read the NKJV. It opened the door for me to finally understand what I was reading! Your videos make it all make sense now all these years later!
Thanks once again for this video.May I ask your help for the meaning of the phrase "in their self will they dig down a wall" found at the last part of Genesis 49:6.When I look at NKJV and NASB it is rendered " they humstrung an ox".Thanks in advance.
I hadn’t looked into this one before, but I did some research. Interesting question. The answer is a little complicated: it all has to do with whether the vowels added by medieval scribes are to be considered inspired and accurate or not. The Hebrew word for “ox” can, with a different vowel, be “wall”-and vice versa, of course. I don’t know without doing more research why the KJV translators opted for “wall”; I presume this is a textual variant, but OT textual criticism is complex and not my specialty.
My guess is only shakespeare researchers will be able to avoid any misunderstanding of the archaic kjv. Some archaic english experts will probably still miss some of the archaic english in the kjv unconsciously bec 1611 is just not our time.
Do you have any documented examples of people claiming that Bibles should include no aids to reading other than those God inspired? Wouldn't this position necessarily imply that it is wrong to translate the Bible?
I have seen certain people from the KJV-Only crowd suggest to buy copies of the KJV with no footnotes when asked what the suggestions are for KJV Bibles on the market.
You don't even need to go to the extent you did in this video to see the difficulty in reading the KJV. You just need to read any given paragraph and the words don't exactly roll off the tongue. It'll never make sense to me how someone can say all the -eths, -ests, hitherto, etc are more "understandable" than the everyday words we use today that are in the modern translations. The NASB and ESV, that use every day words, are college degree difficult but Shakespeare English is pre-k difficulty? It never made sense to me, so i absolutely loved this video.
Here's an experience I've had similar to this. Recently I was looking for a tool online that would help me write things in a more clear manner and correct any typos or punctuation errors I may have missed for a project I've been working on for a while now. I found several, and I quickly noticed that not one of them did what it claim to do. When I realized this, I did a few test by playing with the sintax to the point where it was literal nonsense and these trusted and "qualified" tool (that a lot of them you have to pay for) they'd say "GREAT JOB! NO ISSUES FOUND" With a big check mark on readability and clarity! I have my suspicions that there has to be some people out there who use these tools that do absolutely nothing at all and say "See! Nothing difficult about King James English" which is honestly just sad.
Thanks for your good work on this Dr Ward. I feel the term understandability, although long, is where the issue lies, rather than readability. Probably a 5th grader can read each individual word in KJV, such as "vain janglings", but that does not mean they have understood the text. In 7th grade I switched to an understandable translation. I was weary of trying to understand the meaning in the KJV, realizing, "It shouldn't be this difficult." Does God speak my English? Yes!
Honestly, I don’t know a better tool than watching all my videos in the Fifty False Friends in the KJV series. There is no one tool out there that will not only give you the meanings of individual false friends but will also help you understand why they occur, how to find them, and how to verify what you find. I think the most complementary tool, honestly, is a contemporary translation. Maybe the ESV or NIV-maybe the NKJV or MEV if you prefer TR-based translations.
will_be_done, if you are looking for an item to help you overcome archaic words, I would recommend The Westminster Reference Bible from Trinitarian Bible Society. In it every archaic word and I believe the false friend words are marked and there is a modern equivalent in the outer margins. Blessings, Dan
I looked up word changes and definitions for dead words and had a 37 page printed list. It still didn't have them all. It missed "replenish" which means to refill now but back then meant to fill, to fill full. It missed others too I'm sure. The problem is there is no easy way to find out.
Dr Ward you are a fantastic communicator - your content is very clear and compelling, and the production is great. Well done on another very clear and helpful video. Your demonstration of the text analysis was very persuasive indeed.
Wow, thank you for such kind words! The Flesch-Kincaid argument is one argument I'd like to see some honest KJV-Onlyists walking back. I think it's objectively false. And I have had one guy privately tell me he wouldn't use it again!
I did a similar exercise to you and came to a similar conclusion. Many years ago. I was excited to find that Microsoft Word had tools that would make my work easier to read. How could I not like that? So I would write a document and then change it, and change it again, to improve the document’s readability number. The result- was a mess, even approving of gibberish. I learnt that its cold calculation was not a replacement for the living touch of an actual English speaker. Yes, I still use them as a tool or guide, but they are definitely not the final standard to determine readability.
Actually, I do respect this video and your point of view. As a former KJV-Only advocate, I can tell you that, were it not for my high school classes in Shakespeare, there would be passages of the KJV that would be entirely a mystery.
Bahasa Indonesia is the national language, and is essential when traveling between different areas of the country, watching TV, applying for government services and attending higher education.
According to F-K, this is a difficult, professional read--2.19 out of 100): The shadows where the Mewlips dwell are dark and wet as ink. And soft and slowly rings their bell as in the slime you sink.
Good watch. I appreciate the time and effort you put into making this video. Lots of good examples. I read the King James version and I find some parts difficult to comprehend as you demonstrated with some verses you have shown on the video. However, I am convinced it's not the old English causing the problem, rather it's us as a society and subtle changes in our mindset. I believe one such example is the caliber of our literacy and intellectual capacity to comprehend even simple compound thought processes is disintegrating. In other words, we have been getting dumber and lazier since the dawn of the industrial revolution proceeding to the electrical revolution, and now the digital revolution. Nobody reads, they watch. Nobody works, it's done for them. Nobody thinks, it's done for them. Nobody cares, they indulge in a sea of endless pleasures to fulfill an empty soul. It's not the spoon that bends, it's us. Thank you for the discussion.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RUclips for help reading the KJV! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Thanks for this video! I will most definitely bookmark it to share with folks (when appropriate). During my college years (graduated in 2001, so that's been a minute), I was highly involved in campus ministry. I also took Attic Greek as my foreign language as, at the time, I was planning on going straight into seminary (God had other plans for my life, however). I had a great many discussions with friends during those years about KJV Onlyism. In fact, it was during that time that I first encountered the phenomenon, despite having grown up in a somewhat small country church in East Tennessee. There was one girl in particular with whom I had many debates about various translations. She brought out all the greatest hits of the KJVO and I learned all about the Textus Receptus, the various codices, the grade level testing, and how the KJV was the "most accurate" translation. That last point was what finally gave me the in I needed to get through to her a bit (there were other things going on alongside the whole KJV only thing with her, such as taking her pastor's words as gospel truth). The specific verse that did was Matthew 27:44 ("The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth" [KJV]). I was able to show her in my Greek-English interlinear bible that the Greek word for "teeth" (δόντια) was mysteriously absent from the original text. And why is that? Because the translators used idiomatic speech that was common to their day in order to convey ideas! It wasn't long after that that I learned that every italicized word in the KJV was added by translators as well. It turns out that the KJV is far from the "most accurate" translation. The bottom line is that the KJV is, as you have said, a very, very good translation and useful for teaching and edification. But it's not the most accurate. It's not the "best" (as if such a superlative could be applied to any bible translation). And it is *most definitely* not at any elementary school reading level.
I graduated from college the same year you did! And I had a few conversations with a young woman along similar lines. I’m glad that she apparently listened? Your Matt 27:44 argument is excellent. So what DID you end up doing?
@@markwardonwords Sorry for the delay in replying. ‘Tis the season for many things happening at once! I ended up majoring in media and journalism. I did my internship at the local Christian radio station where I worked after graduation for four years off and on. During that time I also owned a short-lived coffee shop and spent did a summer mission trip in Wales through the IMB where I worked with a ministry that was dedicated to reaching the Celtic language people groups in their heart languages (Gaelic, Cornish, Welsh, etc.). After that, I came home, got married, and landed a job as a designer and web developer with a startup ad agency (I minored in graphic design and had been doing freelance design work since high school). That company eventually tanked, but not before I jumped into a corporate marketing and design job with our local tourism bureau where I worked for about four years. Somewhere in there, my wife and I started a handmade goods business which eventually evolved into a small batch gourmet food product manufacturing business. I quit my job in 2012 in order to dedicate myself full-time to our business - which was probably a bit too early, but we made it work. We even managed to get a product into Cracker Barrel nationwide for a time. So that’s what we do now: we manufacture a variety of small batch food products for our own brands and for other startups and restaurants looking to grow that part of their business. Because we had to learn every lesson the hard (and expensive) way, we feel strongly about helping other small business owners in any way we can. It turns out that you can apply the second greatest commandment in business as well, by treating them how you wish you’d been treated. For the last few years, I’ve been on a journey de-constructing and unlearning a lot of heresies that were instilled in me by the White American Evangelical tradition (my wife and I were both raised Southern Baptist). I still consider myself an Evangelical Protestant, but I mean that in a theological rather than an ideological (or - sigh - political) sense now.
Hi Matt, I'm a bit older than you are (67) so I began studying Ancient Greek in 1972 for four semesters at the college level. The basic text we used was "A NEW Introduction to Greek" by Alston Hurd Chase and Henry Phillips, both of whom taught Greek in private academies in New England. My prof took a somewhat diachronic approach in that we studied Attic to begin with, then the slightly earlier Ionic and finally the Koine but not Homeric. More's the pity. Later, around 2003 I hooked up with an online study group where we used "Greek An Intensive Course" by Hardy Hansen and Gerald M. Quinn to refresh my Attic Greek. This was the text used at Yale University at the time. (I live near Yale.) Just curious. Have you read dialects other than the Attic? What text(s) did you learn from? είθε ο Θεός σʼ ευλογοίη Καλά Χριστούγεννα έρρωσο Richard
I'd love to meet you someday. I'm involved in a lifelong effort to be a theological rather than ideological (I like the way you put that) evangelical Protestant myself. May the Lord bless your endeavor!
@@markwardonwords I'd like that as well! Honestly, I wish I had more Christian scholars in my life. I also noticed that you are a singer (as indicated on your website). I have had the pleasure of performing with a men's choral group for the last decade or so. We haven't performed together in-person since the start of the pandemic, but we have done a couple virtual concerts. Here's a link if you're interested: ruclips.net/video/H2rc8WTMtSQ/видео.html&ab_channel=VociViriliVoiceofReason (I'm in the bottom-right corner).
News flash - saying "thang" instead of thing does in fact, NOT, make you cooler. Once you have teenagers (maybe you do now?) they will most assuredly point this out! ;)
The only people who attack bible translations'it is only the KJVO movement. It is a tremendous pity that the Geneva bible but even better if the 1901 ASV bibles'' more readily available. The latter retains the beauty and majesty of the KJV while upgrading archaic words. It would be great if there was a revival of the 1901 ASV
Yes, that is one of the more sobering points anyone has made to me recently. For all the complaints our KJV-Only brothers make about the way the modern versions "attack" key doctrines, they are the ones who cast more doubt on the Bible than anyone else. =(
Very interesting. I had always thought the idea that the KJV was written on a fifth grade level had it's roots in the nineteenth century, when eight grade was the equivalent of going to college today. As with anything, the more you read, the more you understand. It holds true with French, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew and the KJV.
@@markwardonwords I can understand your point of view. Still, there will always be people who will misinterpret what the Bible says, no matter how much you update the language. Even with the new versions we see many people with bad theology. I appreciate you telling people they should at least read through the KJV at least once. It is hard to understand the Bible without having read through the entire thing. I have heard studies saying that a very low percentage of Christians have ever read any version of the Bible all the way through. It almost makes our debate meaningless. It won't matter what versions they have if they don't read it anyway.
That is actually a really important comment, a VERY FIRM place of agreement between the two of us: I would much rather have someone who actually reads his KJV than someone who never gets around to reading his NIV. No matter how easy a Bible translation is to understand, you still have to read and study it to get that understanding!
Ahh. I find Austen and Dickens easy to read--like a 1940 edition of The Hardy Boys. It's not hard. Did I mention I took History of the English Language and had to translate from the Germanic to English?
I still read the Authorized Version because I simply love it. I’m not an onlyist or anything. If people want to read something else, I don’t try to steer them away unless it’s a really bad translation like the one the Jehovah’s Witnesses's use. Personally, I find it very easy to memorize from.
I'm with you! I love it, too. And most of my memorization is from the KJV, simply because most of my Scripture memorization-by sheer volume-happened when I was younger and required to use the KJV.
The Flash-Whatever readability test... I remember that from the early 2000s. It surprised me so much, and I thought: surely this can't be right, so I dug into it. A little investigation showed me the reason: they used Matthew 1 as a comparative text. 😅
Yes, exactly my point. "Caul" (in that sense) is a word few people know today; "call" most definitely *is* a word people know today. But to the Flesch-Kincaid analysis, they look exactly the same. They are four-letter, one-syllable words. Does that make sense?
Mark, these clips are a great review of the book content. This chapter is so compelling, as I’ve heard the argument all my life about KJV being easier to understand based upon the computer test. As you state in your book, just have a child read it, and see if it’s easier. Using this argument is like trying to convince someone of something they know is not true. I read the King James all my life and having this type of argument helped to serve as some form of defense for continuing its use. “Well, well mine is easier to understand, you just don’t understand that it’s easier to understand.” Sadly, this can lead to a subliminal sense of superiority. I convince myself that you’re just not spiritual enough to understand what I claim that I understand. It is subtle but dangerous. Been there. Talking about myself!
I have a friend who may do a DMin thesis on KJV readability, and I hope to find some figures to back up what I already know to be true: none of the brothers and sisters who insist that the KJV is plenty easy to read has memorized all the dead words, let alone noticed all the false friends. And I am jealous for them: I want them to understand God's words!
@@markwardonwords ruclips.net/video/UkoRKsX4D5c/видео.html He very ethical pastor. I have spoken to him on several occasions. He is a good man but this where I have to disagree with him. His name is Darrel Dumas his ministry is Touching hands ministry
I watched some of the videos, and I'm disappointed to say that when it comes to the text and translation of the Bible, Dumas is wildly irresponsible. =( I hope and pray-and assume!-that this is a blindspot in an otherwise faithful ministry. His claims have been repeatedly answered by responsible people. Try a book contributed to by my own pastor, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: www.amazon.com/dp/B00KRO8LIM?tag=3755-20
And who could forget this example of the beauty of KJV English "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." Song of Solomon 5:4
Yup, I agree it's more difficult to plough but I'd rather have a Bible employ the lost usage of plural pronouns you and ye, along with singular thee, thou, thine. Thankfully, I've not heard Bryan Ross harping on Flesch-Kincaid as others do👍
Bryan is someone I like and respect. He's responsible, careful, and honest. I'd encourage you, however, to listen to and interact with my video on this topic: ruclips.net/video/OyS1IB7OK8A/видео.html
I don't think it's scientific anyways if you wanted to do an experiment you would need a control group and all that it takes to do an experiment a computer program can have issues just like you are pointing out but maybe you mention later but if not I think calling it science is a huge leap too.
Computers can't read. =) So it's hard for them to measure readability. But see my next video on the CSB. I talk about this theme and use the work of Andi Wu.
"We shouldn't give the reader any helps that God didn't put there!" Have they ever seen a third-century Codex??? 🙄 Here's the quote in the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus style- "WESHOULDNTGIVETHEREADERANYHELPSTHATGODDIDNTPUTTHERE" Better? 😬 How would that sell?
Friend, the KJV is not "the most accurate" Bible translation. But it isn't the least accurate, either. It's very good; it's very, very good. But so are multiple other English Bibles. And the advantage most of them have over the KJV is that they are translated into your English. I would encourage you to pick up and read the ESV, the NIV, the NASB, the CSB, the NET Bible, the NKJV, or others that are made by responsible Christian scholars today.
It's a good translation. But it's not the most accurate out there. Young's literal or Berean literal might do that. KJV was a few pretty glaring errors, and it has to make the same sorts of decisions other versions do. I have a deep hatred of the liberties that the NIV takes with the text, but there are many good word for word translations. :)
All modern versions are corrupt , the sinnaticus and vaticannus contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone. And they disagree with the majority text in 13,000 places.modern bible versions like the niv and esv are based on these minority text manuscripts. Sinaiticus and vaticannus were writtain from 300- 400 AD. SO because they're ' ancient', modern bible translator's mistakenly think that they must be better.
The premise behind modern bible versions, such as the niv and esv , is that they are easier to read , but the deception lies in the fact that they are missing words and verses, which is forbidden by God, for example the niv has 64,576 ( which is 10% ) fewer words than the king James version. Many of these changes are in verses that validate the deity of Jesus.
Really value your views, they come from a position of deep understanding which I admit I do not have yet. I know pointing out differences are old hat but humour me - Psalm23:2 in the ESV is a fundemantally different meaning and words from the KJV, the difference between being made by God to be able to lie in green pastures (kjv) versus being forced to lie in a green pasture (esv). This isn't a linguistic update, it's a change of meaning. Am I way off or is this a genuine concern?
Boy, I'm really just not seeing a difference here… The Hebrew verb is in the Hiphil stem, which is the causative stem. He makes/causes/forces/enables me to lie down. I think, though, that this is just further shepherd imagery and nothing coercive is meant. This is what shepherds-and mothers of young children-do: they make their sheep/kids lie down for their own good!
Mark, I understand what you explain me what means words or sentences about kjv . I ordered kjv center column reference acrocrypha for few days ago and I has no choice. You has real KJV Bible are so expensive. Is okay with you about Greek and Hebrew study bible kjv? Please help to tell me. Thank you! 😮😢
@@markwardonwords , I got christain standard bible apps and I saw different versions kjv shocked me so awesome. WOW! Can we keep touch every day? If I need to know. I couldn’t believe it. This Bible what you has it now and it is so expensive. Shoot! I am really want to buy the Bible. I am interested about your bible under your name so I can find it. Please help me. Okay?😃👍🏻
I was taught to pronounce "saith" as "seth" and "shew" as "show." I'm not certain how those words ("saith" and "shew") were pronounced by the KJV translators.
Basically we just need to learn the words we don’t know. The Holy Spirit will explain if we go to other verses to explain the verse we don’t immediately understand. I don’t want a man to explain it, I feel better allowing God to explain.
These are verses that tell us not to alter God's Word, and show examples. when you compare the modern versions and the KJV there are some major differences as I pointed out just 2. one set removes words, and even entire verses or one set adds them it cannot be both, I am of the opinion that it is easier to remove what you do not like, ie... the gnostics of Alexandria Egypt removing what they did not like rather than zealous Christians making up stuff and adding it in. Deu 4:2, Deu 12:32, Deu 17:11, Ezr 6:11, Psa 56:5, Psa 119:126, Pro 30:6, Jer 23:36, Jer 26:2, Mat 15:1-9, Mar 7:1-13, Rom 1:25 2, Co 2:17, 2Co 4:2, 2Pe 1:20, 2Pe 1:21, 2Pe 3:16, Rev 22:19.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
Hello Mark, while I respect your perspective that the KJV may be difficult to read, it's important to note that readability tests alone do not determine this. Once someone follows the basics of writing style and the rules of hermeneutics, the KJV is not difficult to understand. The KJV uses a relatively simple vocabulary. Despite the presence of archaic words, the overall word choice is accessible to readers. So your point is not valid. But, I must ask, as I've watched your other videos and read your comments section, why do you and many of your followers feel the KJV is in error? It's not just that you feel the translation is outdated-you believe the manuscripts used were in error compared to these so called older and more reliable ones. Why do you feel the need to sway people away from the KJV? Why are you advocating that the KJV be retranslated when there are many other modern translations already? Also, to add as we discuss these topics, I am not 'KJVO' by any means. But as someone who has studied the Bible for over 16 years and understands the Jewish culture and how the authors of the books we have wrote, these modern translations are not completely accurate. Which manuscripts used is a bigger debate to discuss, but ironically the modern translations read similiar to the KJV. It's just when confronted with the fact that many verses were left out as opposed to the KJV, the argument shifts to the KJV used manuscripts that were in error, and the ones used in modern translations are older and more reliable.
My friend, I must insist that you are changing the subject-kind of twice! First, are you now willing to take back what you said about the KJV being at a sixth-grade reading level? I have shown this to be false, or at least to be impossible to establish via the only method I ever see people use, namely Flesch-Kincaid or similar tests. Your response, my friend, seems to be to insist that the KJV is not difficult to understand-without letting the hundreds of dead words and false friends weigh anything. These are not just weights you are using. Second, where have I said that the manuscripts underlying the KJV are inferior? I do believe this; I'm not being cagey. But you'd have to look very, very hard on this channel to find me saying so. That's never the point here. The point is to explain archaic KJV words that people don't realize they're misunderstanding. When it comes to textual criticism, I say the same thing to literally everyone: "My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you."
Colossians 2:23 is not at all difficult to understand. You just showed evidence against your arguement. will worship means "the will to worship" and "in any honour" means "in any respect" it's pretty simple. The ESV is more difficult to understand in that verse. Sad. I've also notice that you put the KJV in a more difficult font to give the illusion that it's harder to read than it actually is, while leaving the ESV and NKJV in a simplified font to give the illusion that they are easier. Your examples are bad and most of your arguements are are unfounded. You really think "religion" is easier to understand than "worship" in this verse? Ya right. "Religion" has much more meaning than "worship" does. Replacing it with "religion" just makes it more confusing. The ESV saying "promoting self-made religion" is a lie. The religion is not self-made. The religion came from the Bible. The WORSHIP comes by the individual. Which is why the King James uses the word worship, not religion in this verse. You see what happens when you change it to whatever you want?
Friend, I encourage you to give this a second look. Look in a commentary you trust that uses the KJV (Matthew Henry? KJV Study Bible?). See how they interpret the phrases "will worship." You may be surprised to see what they say.
I tend to agree-but was I supposed to know that by my knowledge of English? That is, was "will worship" a common phrase in 1611? I'm guessing not, though I haven't taken the time to track this one down.
I can totally understand the point being made regarding the way the KJV is worded at times... some verses simply DO require a lot of work to decipher...BUT on the other hand..... I am hesitant to run to a modern translation.. since.. Once I have studied the verse.. and allowed it to make sense,, in a more modern vernacular.... I think.. I can do a better job in re-wording the verse than these "scholars ".. have tried to do so here is my dilemma... either I muddle thru the wording of the KJV and try to figure it out on my own... and in the end... come up with the Accurate translation AND understanding of the words. in modern English... OR trust the translations of the scholars of today to accurately.. translate those passages into modern English.. well NO THANK YOU... if I come across a difficult or confusing passage..( and just for the record...I make sure that when I am reading, I DO stop and analyze what I am reading)... I have found that MY translation of the passage is better and more accurate than those with the PHD's... I get very upset .. with those who would blindly accept how the KJV is being translated... and Never consider.. how some of the translators... DO NOT know how to translate words properly.....some of the passages I have read in the Modern translations.. are Atrocious.. and just short of butchering God's word.. please anyone reading this... think twice if you only reason for dropping the KJV and going to a Modern translation is due to this language barrier...consider that... you will be better off.. sticking with the passages that are correct and do Not make sense at first...once you figure out the hard verses. .rather than "copping out".. on a translation that may have lost the intended meaning of the original verse..
That might be true today, however in the 1800's the McGuffey Readers had Biblical words in them that a 5th grader would be expected to understand. This is documented by Dr Catherine Millard in her book, The Rewriting of America's History. Also in Spurgeon's Day surely a ploughboy would've had to have been familiar with the KJV. Another example of the education system being dumbed down is that Latin is no longer required to gain entry into Oxford or Cambridge.
Is the move away from learning Latin "dumbing down the education system," or is it simply a long-overdue recognition that learning Latin is less useful than it used to be? It all depends on your field of study, of course, but for some degrees, there's about as much value in learning Latin as there is in learning the abacus.
@@MAMoreno Archaic words are merely words that are not in fashion, Im sure your reply, and including this one, contains many old Latin, Greek , and Germanic words that are still in fashion today, but may one day become out of fashion. And the King James Bible is a great way to expand ones vocabulary and knowledge. And isn't the reason why we have Strong's Dictionary so we can look up the original Greek Koine Greek and learn the nuances of the language that English whether old or modern cannot capture? Should we all just go back to learning Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew, since these are the original languages of the Bible? And lastly, most people like myself read the KJV, NKJV, because it is based upon the Byzantine Majority Textus Receptus and not the faulty and rejected Alexandrian and Vatican Manuscripts.
Norm, you are just trolling, my friend. You haven't given any evidence at all of listening. One more comment like this and I'm just going to ban you. *Listen* one time, and show that you've done so; that's all I'm asking.
I think that is somewhat true. Our top 10 percent are illiterate morons compared to 150 years ago. But that's not true at all of the average person, much less the person who at the top of the bottom 15 percent or so.
No, it means that the English language has changed over the past 400 years. The people who lived during the reign of King James would have found works from ad 1200 hard to understand.
I don't care if it is someone's opinion that the KJV is at the primary reading level! It is the inspired Word of God and if studied, the Holy Spirit will reveal God's truth to a person with a repentant heart. What we need to know about ourselves from God's Word and our only hope of being justified before God: [WHY WE HAVE NO HOPE IN OURSELVES: Mk. 7:20-23 And he (Jesus) said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things (sins) come from within, and defile the man.] [WHY WE NEED A SAVIOR: Rom. 3:10-28 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things so ever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God's) sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Joh. 14:6 For God so loved the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:]
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RUclips for help reading the KJV! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
@@markwardonwords I use the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which has the Greek dictionary of the New Testament and the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary of the Old Testament. Also a section Key-Word comparison's the KJV to the RSV; NEB; JB; NAS & NIV translations. I also use the Noah Webster 1828 American Dictionary of the English language which gives the meaning of words closely associated and many times referenced to specific Bible verses. We must study God's Word with a humbled heart seeking the Holy Spirit to reveal God's truth to us. The Christian life is one who is continually growing in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and we must seek wisdom and discernment from God.
Amen! I agree with all of that! I encourage you still to watch a few of my false friends videos. I'll be very surprised if you don't learn the meaning of some KJV words you didn't realize you were misunderstanding. Because I myself was tripped up-unknowingly-by these words, and I studied like you.
@@markwardonwords I will use one verse as an example in setting an error of truth. Isa. 14:7 Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a "virgin" shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. The RSV changes virgin to "young woman"; the NEB to "young woman"; the JB to "maiden" and in this case the NAS and the NIV keeps the word "virgin". I believe this has caused some to err from the truth because a young woman or maiden is not necessarily a virgin. However in this case I would accept the NAS and NIV versions.
That would be true, sam. t, if there were corrupt Bible translations. But I've read (or at least used) all the major modern evangelical English Bible translations, and not one is corrupt. They're all teaching the same Christian faith.
Sam, I firmly disagree with you. I'm happy to use contemporary translations that are not based on the Textus Receptus. They teach the same Christian faith as the Textus Receptus. But, my sister, take a look at the New King James Version and the Modern English Version. Both use the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV. They are not based on the Westcott-Hort tradition.
No friend they are not the same teaching for example Acts 3:13 in the kjv Jesus is the Son of God why the modern Bible translation Jesus is a servant of God thats why all Islam muslims calling my king Jesus is a servant .
Sam. t, the Greek word there, paida, is ambiguous. It can mean either "servant" or "child." Unless the KJV translators got extra revelation from God to choose the right option every time, each translation is acceptable.
Lots of rhetoric and wikipedia references really? Come on dont be lazy…cherry picking a few words…etc. science says 5th grade level but meh. Also, KJV has led to multiple revivals throughout history. Your other english translation has led to any revivals? No!
Do you have an alternate explanation for how the Flesch-Kincaid tool comes up with its measurement? Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Wow! The OP responded! Thanks 🙂 Anyways, pointing out the "pangram" limitation for Flesch-Kincaid and suggesting that certain words are difficult for typical readers is biased. Flesch-Kincaid has been used by Federal and State governments for decades. The private sector uses their readability grade level such as insurance companies for legal documents, etc. Also, Amazon, which is the nation's largest bookseller, uses Flesch-Kincaid. Lastly, if you want to test your theory about the vocabulary difficulty for the typical reader. I suggest asking the unsaved if they have memorized any verses from the Bible. Usually, they have at least one or two. My experience has been that 8 of 10 will quote a KJV verse.
Used for decades … on contemporary language. As a rough-and-ready measure, as I said. Same goes with the private sector. And Amazon. And as for your preferred method of determining whether the KJV is too difficult for the typical reader, I dispute that that will be of much value-until you ask the memorizers to explain what they've memorized, and then ask them to explain other verses they haven't memorized, and then ask Christians of all sorts to do the same. Or watch my Fifty False Friends series here on RUclips-watch five or ten videos-and then tell me if you still prefer that method! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
First, wow, thanks for replying and recommending your series. I will be sure to check that out. About Flesch-Kincaid, I'm going to continue to disagree with you. Flesch-Kincaid is standard tool used by medical practitioners, military personnel, public school educators and from the halls of Cornell to Harvard Law Schools, etc. All literary fields that use different English vocabulary and language that would differ from "contemporary." If you really want to test the accuracy of Flesch-Kincaid with Old English, you should try other works from the same time period as KJV. I tried John Milton's Paradise Lost (1667), and it gave me a readability score for high school.
I love the KJV, too, and you may be right. But I have discovered numerous places where I thought I was understanding it and, due to four centuries of language change, I wasn’t. At least check out a few of my Fifty False Friends in the KJV. I’ll give you a free Bible if you can watch five of them and not learn anything you didn’t know. ;) ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Articulate mudslinging is still mudslinging. Please don't deny that this video is calling KJVO people the bad guys. Boasting about being the guy that has to be the one who deals with this seems a bit big of you. Or at least that you think very highly of yourself. When King James authorized the translation of the King James text the 54 men who came together probably had 4th graders who could read the text published. Some of us may or may not have that to say. Either way, I do hope that if the KJV is too tough for you then one day, perhaps, you'll get saved and see differently. See you at the end.
Regarding I Thess., 4th chapter in a KJV Bible, we read in verse eleven that one should 'study to be quiet' and in verse fifteen, that we 'shall not prevent them which are asleep'. Even today, most any grade school scholar knows what it means to study; so, one can just hear the question being asked, "Is one supposed to procure a book and cram for a test in order to ace a test on how to be quiet?" And regarding verse fifteen: "Prevent them from doing what?" Yes, by all means, why not use whatever KJV one prefers but is it advisable to use it to correct, for instance, the actual Word which is reported to be in the tablets of stone which the Eternal gave to Moses? I ,actually, have heard a preacher demand that his listeners ignore anything but his favorite KJV.
Your arrogance and ignorance and stupidity is staggering to put it mildly. Furthermore the KJV translators declared that the eight translations that went before the KJV were all the word of God. Furthermore the English language has changed. Prevented is now confronted. Leasing is now falsehood. Let is now allowed. Conversation is now conduct etc. Furthermore the KJV contradicts the resurrection of Christ Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then Christ IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. The KJV also demotes the deity of Christ by faith of Galatians 2: 16 and 20. It should be in Christ has He is our faithful high priest but does not have faith. Also the deity of the Holy Spirit is demoted in Romans 8:16 itself should be Himself. If these errors were pointed out to the KJV translators they would be in full agreement.
Quote of the day, "Our computers will do what we ask them to do, even if they are dumb questions." That's classic... LOL
It's surprising how good we are at asking those dumb questions…
The Flesch-Kincaid test is great at determining word length, but lousy at discerning semantics.
You're exactly right.
I’m binging so many of your videos today! I really appreciate how clearly you present information. For many years I was very strict about KJV-only and have heard the arguments about readability. But when I sat down to study, I really couldn’t understand how it could possibly be easier to read than modern versions. For years, I adamantly refused to read any other version. I realize now what a disservice I was doing to myself. My inability to understand the text easily led me to surface read. Far too often I would end my quite time with no deep understanding of what I had read because I just skimmed over the confusing parts. Lately I’ve been reading and comparing KJV with other versions and it’s been so helpful. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like anyone that is (or was raised) KJV-only has a sense of guilt or wrong when ready other translations. Maybe that’s silly, but I was once so narrow minded about other translations. I know that God wants us to understand His word and, while I love the language of the KJV, I realize that I cannot possibly understand it all and it’s very beneficial to read the Bible in other versions. I just really appreciate the time and energy you put into your videos. You are really opening my eyes to a lot of things, and you make me laugh. So thanks!
My pleasure! I experienced the very same feeling. But I trusted a teacher who knew the Bible better than me, and though it took a little while, I soon enough came to the place where I could read contemporary translations with a clear conscience. And then the benefits started rolling in: *I understood what God was saying!* And that eliminated all conscience problems. If I could talk to my former self, I would say what I say on this channel: let 1 Cor 14's call-edification requires intelligibility-be what pushes you past the objections of your conscience.
@@markwardonwords thanks so much!
@@markwardonwords
Old video but I also was KJVO in the 90s .. A man that was a friend and Preacher that was the wisest and most intelligent man on God's word I have ever met to this day told me it was OK to read the NKJV. It opened the door for me to finally understand what I was reading!
Your videos make it all make sense now all these years later!
Thanks once again for this video.May I ask your help for the meaning of the phrase "in their self will they dig down a wall" found at the last part of Genesis 49:6.When I look at NKJV and NASB it is rendered " they humstrung an ox".Thanks in advance.
I hadn’t looked into this one before, but I did some research. Interesting question. The answer is a little complicated: it all has to do with whether the vowels added by medieval scribes are to be considered inspired and accurate or not. The Hebrew word for “ox” can, with a different vowel, be “wall”-and vice versa, of course. I don’t know without doing more research why the KJV translators opted for “wall”; I presume this is a textual variant, but OT textual criticism is complex and not my specialty.
My guess is only shakespeare researchers will be able to avoid any misunderstanding of the archaic kjv. Some archaic english experts will probably still miss some of the archaic english in the kjv unconsciously bec 1611 is just not our time.
Do you have any documented examples of people claiming that Bibles should include no aids to reading other than those God inspired? Wouldn't this position necessarily imply that it is wrong to translate the Bible?
No, I don't. But it is my definite testimony that this has occurred. People have said this kind of thing.
I have seen certain people from the KJV-Only crowd suggest to buy copies of the KJV with no footnotes when asked what the suggestions are for KJV Bibles on the market.
You don't even need to go to the extent you did in this video to see the difficulty in reading the KJV. You just need to read any given paragraph and the words don't exactly roll off the tongue. It'll never make sense to me how someone can say all the -eths, -ests, hitherto, etc are more "understandable" than the everyday words we use today that are in the modern translations. The NASB and ESV, that use every day words, are college degree difficult but Shakespeare English is pre-k difficulty? It never made sense to me, so i absolutely loved this video.
Here's an experience I've had similar to this. Recently I was looking for a tool online that would help me write things in a more clear manner and correct any typos or punctuation errors I may have missed for a project I've been working on for a while now.
I found several, and I quickly noticed that not one of them did what it claim to do.
When I realized this, I did a few test by playing with the sintax to the point where it was literal nonsense and these trusted and "qualified" tool (that a lot of them you have to pay for) they'd say "GREAT JOB! NO ISSUES FOUND" With a big check mark on readability and clarity!
I have my suspicions that there has to be some people out there who use these tools that do absolutely nothing at all and say "See! Nothing difficult about King James English" which is honestly just sad.
An excellent analogy! I may just steal this, if that's ok!
@@markwardonwords Definitely ok!! 😃
Sorry for the late reply! For some reason youtube never told me I had a comment from you until now.
Thanks for your good work on this Dr Ward. I feel the term understandability, although long, is where the issue lies, rather than readability. Probably a 5th grader can read each individual word in KJV, such as "vain janglings", but that does not mean they have understood the text. In 7th grade I switched to an understandable translation. I was weary of trying to understand the meaning in the KJV, realizing, "It shouldn't be this difficult." Does God speak my English? Yes!
Right! Why didn't I come to that realization earlier myself? I don't know.
What is a good complementary material (commentary, or study bible) to help me overcome the archaic barrier?
Honestly, I don’t know a better tool than watching all my videos in the Fifty False Friends in the KJV series. There is no one tool out there that will not only give you the meanings of individual false friends but will also help you understand why they occur, how to find them, and how to verify what you find.
I think the most complementary tool, honestly, is a contemporary translation. Maybe the ESV or NIV-maybe the NKJV or MEV if you prefer TR-based translations.
will_be_done, if you are looking for an item to help you overcome archaic words, I would recommend The Westminster Reference Bible from Trinitarian Bible Society. In it every archaic word and I believe the false friend words are marked and there is a modern equivalent in the outer margins.
Blessings,
Dan
I looked up word changes and definitions for dead words and had a 37 page printed list. It still didn't have them all. It missed "replenish" which means to refill now but back then meant to fill, to fill full. It missed others too I'm sure. The problem is there is no easy way to find out.
Dr Ward you are a fantastic communicator - your content is very clear and compelling, and the production is great. Well done on another very clear and helpful video. Your demonstration of the text analysis was very persuasive indeed.
Wow, thank you for such kind words!
The Flesch-Kincaid argument is one argument I'd like to see some honest KJV-Onlyists walking back. I think it's objectively false. And I have had one guy privately tell me he wouldn't use it again!
I did a similar exercise to you and came to a similar conclusion.
Many years ago. I was excited to find that Microsoft Word had tools that would make my work easier to read. How could I not like that? So I would write a document and then change it, and change it again, to improve the document’s readability number.
The result- was a mess, even approving of gibberish. I
learnt that its cold calculation was not a replacement for the living touch of an actual English speaker.
Yes, I still use them as a tool or guide, but they are definitely not the final standard to determine readability.
✔
Actually, I do respect this video and your point of view. As a former KJV-Only advocate, I can tell you that, were it not for my high school classes in Shakespeare, there would be passages of the KJV that would be entirely a mystery.
5th grade 30 years ago. Today, a bible graphic novel is today's speed
Try fifth grade 400 years ago!
In fact, the KJV is indeed at a 5th grade reading level! For 5th graders in 1611, which is equivalent to a PhD in semiotics reading level today. :)
I have a hard time gauging the readability of the KJV for its original audience. That world was so long ago.
Praise the Lord for that "one humble and Christian response!"
Yes!
I don't think there is any single "Indonesian" language.
True: they have over 700. The official one, though, is called "Indonesian."
Bahasa Indonesia is the national language, and is essential when traveling between different areas of the country, watching TV, applying for government services and attending higher education.
Has anyone submitted a random assortment of short, elementary words to Flesch-Kincaid to gauge its reading level?
According to F-K, this is a difficult, professional read--2.19 out of 100):
The shadows where the Mewlips dwell are dark and wet as ink.
And soft and slowly rings their bell as in the slime you sink.
A great example!
Good watch. I appreciate the time and effort you put into making this video. Lots of good examples. I read the King James version and I find some parts difficult to comprehend as you demonstrated with some verses you have shown on the video. However, I am convinced it's not the old English causing the problem, rather it's us as a society and subtle changes in our mindset. I believe one such example is the caliber of our literacy and intellectual capacity to comprehend even simple compound thought processes is disintegrating. In other words, we have been getting dumber and lazier since the dawn of the industrial revolution proceeding to the electrical revolution, and now the digital revolution. Nobody reads, they watch. Nobody works, it's done for them. Nobody thinks, it's done for them. Nobody cares, they indulge in a sea of endless pleasures to fulfill an empty soul. It's not the spoon that bends, it's us. Thank you for the discussion.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RUclips for help reading the KJV! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Thanks for this video! I will most definitely bookmark it to share with folks (when appropriate).
During my college years (graduated in 2001, so that's been a minute), I was highly involved in campus ministry. I also took Attic Greek as my foreign language as, at the time, I was planning on going straight into seminary (God had other plans for my life, however). I had a great many discussions with friends during those years about KJV Onlyism. In fact, it was during that time that I first encountered the phenomenon, despite having grown up in a somewhat small country church in East Tennessee.
There was one girl in particular with whom I had many debates about various translations. She brought out all the greatest hits of the KJVO and I learned all about the Textus Receptus, the various codices, the grade level testing, and how the KJV was the "most accurate" translation. That last point was what finally gave me the in I needed to get through to her a bit (there were other things going on alongside the whole KJV only thing with her, such as taking her pastor's words as gospel truth). The specific verse that did was Matthew 27:44 ("The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth" [KJV]). I was able to show her in my Greek-English interlinear bible that the Greek word for "teeth" (δόντια) was mysteriously absent from the original text. And why is that? Because the translators used idiomatic speech that was common to their day in order to convey ideas! It wasn't long after that that I learned that every italicized word in the KJV was added by translators as well. It turns out that the KJV is far from the "most accurate" translation.
The bottom line is that the KJV is, as you have said, a very, very good translation and useful for teaching and edification. But it's not the most accurate. It's not the "best" (as if such a superlative could be applied to any bible translation). And it is *most definitely* not at any elementary school reading level.
I graduated from college the same year you did! And I had a few conversations with a young woman along similar lines. I’m glad that she apparently listened? Your Matt 27:44 argument is excellent.
So what DID you end up doing?
@@markwardonwords Sorry for the delay in replying. ‘Tis the season for many things happening at once!
I ended up majoring in media and journalism. I did my internship at the local Christian radio station where I worked after graduation for four years off and on. During that time I also owned a short-lived coffee shop and spent did a summer mission trip in Wales through the IMB where I worked with a ministry that was dedicated to reaching the Celtic language people groups in their heart languages (Gaelic, Cornish, Welsh, etc.). After that, I came home, got married, and landed a job as a designer and web developer with a startup ad agency (I minored in graphic design and had been doing freelance design work since high school). That company eventually tanked, but not before I jumped into a corporate marketing and design job with our local tourism bureau where I worked for about four years.
Somewhere in there, my wife and I started a handmade goods business which eventually evolved into a small batch gourmet food product manufacturing business. I quit my job in 2012 in order to dedicate myself full-time to our business - which was probably a bit too early, but we made it work. We even managed to get a product into Cracker Barrel nationwide for a time.
So that’s what we do now: we manufacture a variety of small batch food products for our own brands and for other startups and restaurants looking to grow that part of their business. Because we had to learn every lesson the hard (and expensive) way, we feel strongly about helping other small business owners in any way we can. It turns out that you can apply the second greatest commandment in business as well, by treating them how you wish you’d been treated.
For the last few years, I’ve been on a journey de-constructing and unlearning a lot of heresies that were instilled in me by the White American Evangelical tradition (my wife and I were both raised Southern Baptist). I still consider myself an Evangelical Protestant, but I mean that in a theological rather than an ideological (or - sigh - political) sense now.
Hi Matt,
I'm a bit older than you are (67) so I began studying Ancient Greek in 1972 for four semesters at the college level. The basic text we used was "A NEW Introduction to Greek" by Alston Hurd Chase and Henry Phillips, both of whom taught Greek in private academies in New England. My prof took a somewhat diachronic approach in that we studied Attic to begin with, then the slightly earlier Ionic and finally the Koine but not Homeric. More's the pity. Later, around 2003 I hooked up with an online study group where we used "Greek An Intensive Course" by Hardy Hansen and Gerald M. Quinn to refresh my Attic Greek. This was the text used at Yale University at the time. (I live near Yale.)
Just curious. Have you read dialects other than the Attic? What text(s) did you learn from?
είθε ο Θεός σʼ ευλογοίη
Καλά Χριστούγεννα
έρρωσο
Richard
I'd love to meet you someday. I'm involved in a lifelong effort to be a theological rather than ideological (I like the way you put that) evangelical Protestant myself. May the Lord bless your endeavor!
@@markwardonwords I'd like that as well! Honestly, I wish I had more Christian scholars in my life. I also noticed that you are a singer (as indicated on your website). I have had the pleasure of performing with a men's choral group for the last decade or so. We haven't performed together in-person since the start of the pandemic, but we have done a couple virtual concerts. Here's a link if you're interested: ruclips.net/video/H2rc8WTMtSQ/видео.html&ab_channel=VociViriliVoiceofReason (I'm in the bottom-right corner).
Thank you for the work you do to make bible reading comprehensible to readers as a whole.
You are very welcome!
"The Farmer From Tekoa" was excellent resource for Amos
News flash - saying "thang" instead of thing does in fact, NOT, make you cooler. Once you have teenagers (maybe you do now?) they will most assuredly point this out! ;)
I AM COOL AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT NOW ;)
The only people who attack bible translations'it is only the KJVO movement. It is a tremendous pity that the Geneva bible but even better if the 1901 ASV bibles'' more readily available. The latter retains the beauty and majesty of the KJV while upgrading archaic words. It would be great if there was a revival of the 1901 ASV
Yes, that is one of the more sobering points anyone has made to me recently. For all the complaints our KJV-Only brothers make about the way the modern versions "attack" key doctrines, they are the ones who cast more doubt on the Bible than anyone else. =(
Very interesting. I had always thought the idea that the KJV was written on a fifth grade level had it's roots in the nineteenth century, when eight grade was the equivalent of going to college today.
As with anything, the more you read, the more you understand. It holds true with French, Spanish, Greek, Hebrew and the KJV.
I do think you're right, but that there's a limit. I read the KJV a TON, and I'm still tripped up by some obscure false friends to this day.
@@markwardonwords I can understand your point of view. Still, there will always be people who will misinterpret what the Bible says, no matter how much you update the language. Even with the new versions we see many people with bad theology.
I appreciate you telling people they should at least read through the KJV at least once.
It is hard to understand the Bible without having read through the entire thing. I have heard studies saying that a very low percentage of Christians have ever read any version of the Bible all the way through. It almost makes our debate meaningless. It won't matter what versions they have if they don't read it anyway.
That is actually a really important comment, a VERY FIRM place of agreement between the two of us: I would much rather have someone who actually reads his KJV than someone who never gets around to reading his NIV. No matter how easy a Bible translation is to understand, you still have to read and study it to get that understanding!
Ahh. I find Austen and Dickens easy to read--like a 1940 edition of The Hardy Boys. It's not hard. Did I mention I took History of the English Language and had to translate from the Germanic to English?
I love Dickens and Austen. The English is a delight. But I'll betcha both of us are missing little things here and there in the English.
Where's my Bub and Nub Version. I need me my BNV
YES! I could make SO MUCH MONEY! Which is my point in all this work, clearly. ;)
I still read the Authorized Version because I simply love it. I’m not an onlyist or anything. If people want to read something else, I don’t try to steer them away unless it’s a really bad translation like the one the Jehovah’s Witnesses's use. Personally, I find it very easy to memorize from.
I'm with you! I love it, too. And most of my memorization is from the KJV, simply because most of my Scripture memorization-by sheer volume-happened when I was younger and required to use the KJV.
I grew up with the KJV & still memorize from it, even though I now use other translations (NASB, HCSB, CSB, BSB) in addition to the KJV.
Would have been funnier if you said "smurf" instead of bub. But that's probably a copyright/trademark thing.
Ha!
The Flash-Whatever readability test... I remember that from the early 2000s. It surprised me so much, and I thought: surely this can't be right, so I dug into it. A little investigation showed me the reason: they used Matthew 1 as a comparative text. 😅
The one I cited said he used the whole New Testament.
Ub enjoyed bub analysis. Bub did an ubbub good job!
Ha! Thank you!
I think we should be smart to use any help GOD gives us.
God created everything, though.
caul you know that means fat membrane right? no relation to "call"
Yes, exactly my point. "Caul" (in that sense) is a word few people know today; "call" most definitely *is* a word people know today. But to the Flesch-Kincaid analysis, they look exactly the same. They are four-letter, one-syllable words. Does that make sense?
Mark, these clips are a great review of the book content. This chapter is so compelling, as I’ve heard the argument all my life about KJV being easier to understand based upon the computer test. As you state in your book, just have a child read it, and see if it’s easier. Using this argument is like trying to convince someone of something they know is not true. I read the King James all my life and having this type of argument helped to serve as some form of defense for continuing its use. “Well, well mine is easier to understand, you just don’t understand that it’s easier to understand.” Sadly, this can lead to a subliminal sense of superiority. I convince myself that you’re just not spiritual enough to understand what I claim that I understand. It is subtle but dangerous. Been there. Talking about myself!
I have a friend who may do a DMin thesis on KJV readability, and I hope to find some figures to back up what I already know to be true: none of the brothers and sisters who insist that the KJV is plenty easy to read has memorized all the dead words, let alone noticed all the false friends. And I am jealous for them: I want them to understand God's words!
I was told by a KJV only pastor that the KJV is on a 5th grade reading level
Send him my video and tell him I invite his feedback! I've love to hear from him.
@@markwardonwords ruclips.net/video/UkoRKsX4D5c/видео.html He very ethical pastor. I have spoken to him on several occasions. He is a good man but this where I have to disagree with him. His name is Darrel Dumas his ministry is Touching hands ministry
@@markwardonwords this is his second videoruclips.net/video/0jSqv1pf-sY/видео.html
I watched some of the videos, and I'm disappointed to say that when it comes to the text and translation of the Bible, Dumas is wildly irresponsible. =( I hope and pray-and assume!-that this is a blindspot in an otherwise faithful ministry. His claims have been repeatedly answered by responsible people. Try a book contributed to by my own pastor, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man:
www.amazon.com/dp/B00KRO8LIM?tag=3755-20
The Good News Translation is at a 5th grade reading level.
And who could forget this example of the beauty of KJV English "My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him." Song of Solomon 5:4
Yup, I agree it's more difficult to plough but I'd rather have a Bible employ the lost usage of plural pronouns you and ye, along with singular thee, thou, thine. Thankfully, I've not heard Bryan Ross harping on Flesch-Kincaid as others do👍
Bryan is someone I like and respect. He's responsible, careful, and honest.
I'd encourage you, however, to listen to and interact with my video on this topic: ruclips.net/video/OyS1IB7OK8A/видео.html
I don't think it's scientific anyways if you wanted to do an experiment you would need a control group and all that it takes to do an experiment a computer program can have issues just like you are pointing out but maybe you mention later but if not I think calling it science is a huge leap too.
Computers can't read. =) So it's hard for them to measure readability. But see my next video on the CSB. I talk about this theme and use the work of Andi Wu.
"We shouldn't give the reader any helps that God didn't put there!" Have they ever seen a third-century Codex??? 🙄
Here's the quote in the Sinaiticus/Vaticanus style- "WESHOULDNTGIVETHEREADERANYHELPSTHATGODDIDNTPUTTHERE" Better? 😬 How would that sell?
Great point!
I want to understand kjv because it’s most accurate; however, I don’t remember what I read, nor do I understand.
Friend, the KJV is not "the most accurate" Bible translation. But it isn't the least accurate, either. It's very good; it's very, very good. But so are multiple other English Bibles. And the advantage most of them have over the KJV is that they are translated into your English. I would encourage you to pick up and read the ESV, the NIV, the NASB, the CSB, the NET Bible, the NKJV, or others that are made by responsible Christian scholars today.
It's a good translation. But it's not the most accurate out there. Young's literal or Berean literal might do that. KJV was a few pretty glaring errors, and it has to make the same sorts of decisions other versions do.
I have a deep hatred of the liberties that the NIV takes with the text, but there are many good word for word translations. :)
All modern versions are corrupt , the sinnaticus and vaticannus contradict each other over 3,000 times in the gospels alone. And they disagree with the majority text in 13,000 places.modern bible versions like the niv and esv are based on these minority text manuscripts. Sinaiticus and vaticannus were writtain from 300- 400 AD. SO because they're ' ancient', modern bible translator's mistakenly think that they must be better.
The premise behind modern bible versions, such as the niv and esv , is that they are easier to read , but the deception lies in the fact that they are missing words and verses, which is forbidden by God, for example the niv has 64,576 ( which is 10% ) fewer words than the king James version. Many of these changes are in verses that validate the deity of Jesus.
Really value your views, they come from a position of deep understanding which I admit I do not have yet. I know pointing out differences are old hat but humour me - Psalm23:2 in the ESV is a fundemantally different meaning and words from the KJV, the difference between being made by God to be able to lie in green pastures (kjv) versus being forced to lie in a green pasture (esv). This isn't a linguistic update, it's a change of meaning. Am I way off or is this a genuine concern?
Boy, I'm really just not seeing a difference here… The Hebrew verb is in the Hiphil stem, which is the causative stem. He makes/causes/forces/enables me to lie down. I think, though, that this is just further shepherd imagery and nothing coercive is meant. This is what shepherds-and mothers of young children-do: they make their sheep/kids lie down for their own good!
'those peoople'
Not following you!
@@markwardonwords 0:20
@@markwardonwords 0:20
Mark, I understand what you explain me what means words or sentences about kjv . I ordered kjv center column reference acrocrypha for few days ago and I has no choice. You has real KJV Bible are so expensive. Is okay with you about Greek and Hebrew study bible kjv? Please help to tell me. Thank you! 😮😢
My friend, I would not get the Greek-Hebrew study Bible if I were you. If I were you, I would get a Christian Standard Bible. I hope that helps!
@@markwardonwords , Thank you for tell me. I don’t know what you means about get Christian Standard Bible? Tell me what you told me. Thank you!
@@markwardonwords hey, I got your information from Bible. Tell me what name Bible.
@@markwardonwords , I got christain standard bible apps and I saw different versions kjv shocked me so awesome. WOW! Can we keep touch every day? If I need to know. I couldn’t believe it. This Bible what you has it now and it is so expensive. Shoot! I am really want to buy the Bible. I am interested about your bible under your name so I can find it. Please help me. Okay?😃👍🏻
@@markwardonwords , tell me where your bible which one? I am so sorry. OOPS!
seth???? you mean "say-eth". show???? you mean "shoo"
I was taught to pronounce "saith" as "seth" and "shew" as "show." I'm not certain how those words ("saith" and "shew") were pronounced by the KJV translators.
Basically we just need to learn the words we don’t know. The Holy Spirit will explain if we go to other verses to explain the verse we don’t immediately understand.
I don’t want a man to explain it, I feel better allowing God to explain.
My friend, how are we supposed to learn words when we don't realize we're misunderstanding them?
Great job
Thanks, David! This one was so fun for me to do.
These are verses that tell us not to alter God's Word, and show examples. when you compare the modern versions and the KJV there are some major differences as I pointed out just 2. one set removes words, and even entire verses or one set adds them it cannot be both,
I am of the opinion that it is easier to remove what you do not like, ie... the gnostics of Alexandria Egypt removing what they did not like rather than zealous Christians making up stuff and adding it in.
Deu 4:2, Deu 12:32, Deu 17:11, Ezr 6:11, Psa 56:5, Psa 119:126, Pro 30:6, Jer 23:36, Jer 26:2, Mat 15:1-9, Mar 7:1-13, Rom 1:25 2, Co 2:17, 2Co 4:2, 2Pe 1:20, 2Pe 1:21, 2Pe 3:16, Rev 22:19.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
Excellent presentation. I really enjoyed the book. I came from a radical form of King James onlyism.
Glad you enjoyed it! I didn't come from a radical form, but from an insistent form.
Hello Mark, while I respect your perspective that the KJV may be difficult to read, it's important to note that readability tests alone do not determine this. Once someone follows the basics of writing style and the rules of hermeneutics, the KJV is not difficult to understand. The KJV uses a relatively simple vocabulary. Despite the presence of archaic words, the overall word choice is accessible to readers. So your point is not valid. But, I must ask, as I've watched your other videos and read your comments section, why do you and many of your followers feel the KJV is in error? It's not just that you feel the translation is outdated-you believe the manuscripts used were in error compared to these so called older and more reliable ones. Why do you feel the need to sway people away from the KJV? Why are you advocating that the KJV be retranslated when there are many other modern translations already? Also, to add as we discuss these topics, I am not 'KJVO' by any means. But as someone who has studied the Bible for over 16 years and understands the Jewish culture and how the authors of the books we have wrote, these modern translations are not completely accurate. Which manuscripts used is a bigger debate to discuss, but ironically the modern translations read similiar to the KJV. It's just when confronted with the fact that many verses were left out as opposed to the KJV, the argument shifts to the KJV used manuscripts that were in error, and the ones used in modern translations are older and more reliable.
My friend, I must insist that you are changing the subject-kind of twice!
First, are you now willing to take back what you said about the KJV being at a sixth-grade reading level? I have shown this to be false, or at least to be impossible to establish via the only method I ever see people use, namely Flesch-Kincaid or similar tests. Your response, my friend, seems to be to insist that the KJV is not difficult to understand-without letting the hundreds of dead words and false friends weigh anything. These are not just weights you are using.
Second, where have I said that the manuscripts underlying the KJV are inferior? I do believe this; I'm not being cagey. But you'd have to look very, very hard on this channel to find me saying so. That's never the point here. The point is to explain archaic KJV words that people don't realize they're misunderstanding. When it comes to textual criticism, I say the same thing to literally everyone: "My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you."
Colossians 2:23 is not at all difficult to understand. You just showed evidence against your arguement.
will worship means "the will to worship" and "in any honour" means "in any respect" it's pretty simple.
The ESV is more difficult to understand in that verse. Sad.
I've also notice that you put the KJV in a more difficult font to give the illusion that it's harder to read than it actually is, while leaving the ESV and NKJV in a simplified font to give the illusion that they are easier.
Your examples are bad and most of your arguements are are unfounded.
You really think "religion" is easier to understand than "worship" in this verse? Ya right. "Religion" has much more meaning than "worship" does. Replacing it with "religion" just makes it more confusing.
The ESV saying "promoting self-made religion" is a lie. The religion is not self-made. The religion came from the Bible. The WORSHIP comes by the individual. Which is why the King James uses the word worship, not religion in this verse.
You see what happens when you change it to whatever you want?
Friend, I encourage you to give this a second look. Look in a commentary you trust that uses the KJV (Matthew Henry? KJV Study Bible?). See how they interpret the phrases "will worship." You may be surprised to see what they say.
I tend to agree-but was I supposed to know that by my knowledge of English? That is, was "will worship" a common phrase in 1611? I'm guessing not, though I haven't taken the time to track this one down.
I can totally understand the point being made regarding the way the KJV is worded at times... some verses simply DO require a lot of work to decipher...BUT on the other hand..... I am hesitant to run to a modern translation.. since.. Once I have studied the verse.. and allowed it to make sense,, in a more modern vernacular.... I think.. I can do a better job in re-wording the verse than these "scholars ".. have tried to do
so here is my dilemma... either I muddle thru the wording of the KJV and try to figure it out on my own... and in the end... come up with the Accurate translation AND understanding of the words. in modern English...
OR
trust the translations of the scholars of today to accurately.. translate those passages into modern English..
well NO THANK YOU... if I come across a difficult or confusing passage..( and just for the record...I make sure that when I am reading, I DO stop and analyze what I am reading)... I have found that MY translation of the passage is better and more accurate than those with the PHD's...
I get very upset .. with those who would blindly accept how the KJV is being translated... and Never consider.. how some of the translators... DO NOT know how to translate words properly.....some of the passages I have read in the Modern translations.. are Atrocious.. and just short of butchering God's word..
please anyone reading this... think twice if you only reason for dropping the KJV and going to a Modern translation is due to this language barrier...consider that... you will be better off.. sticking with the passages that are correct and do Not make sense at first...once you figure out the hard verses. .rather than "copping out".. on a translation that may have lost the intended meaning of the original verse..
That might be true today, however in the 1800's the McGuffey Readers had Biblical words in them that a 5th grader would be expected to understand.
This is documented by Dr Catherine Millard in her book, The Rewriting of America's History.
Also in Spurgeon's Day surely a ploughboy would've had to have been familiar with the KJV.
Another example of the education system being dumbed down is that Latin is no longer required to gain entry into Oxford or Cambridge.
Is the move away from learning Latin "dumbing down the education system," or is it simply a long-overdue recognition that learning Latin is less useful than it used to be? It all depends on your field of study, of course, but for some degrees, there's about as much value in learning Latin as there is in learning the abacus.
@@MAMoreno Archaic words are merely words that are not in fashion, Im sure your reply, and including this one, contains many old Latin, Greek , and Germanic words that are still in fashion today, but may one day become out of fashion.
And the King James Bible is a great way to expand ones vocabulary and knowledge.
And isn't the reason why we have Strong's Dictionary so we can look up the original Greek Koine Greek and learn the nuances of the language that English whether old or modern cannot capture?
Should we all just go back to learning Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew,
since these are the original languages of the Bible?
And lastly, most people like myself read the KJV, NKJV, because it is based upon the Byzantine Majority Textus Receptus and not the faulty and rejected Alexandrian and Vatican Manuscripts.
Over 400 years and still going strong. Good thing we are at this time in history. Not too much further to go.
Norm, you are just trolling, my friend. You haven't given any evidence at all of listening. One more comment like this and I'm just going to ban you. *Listen* one time, and show that you've done so; that's all I'm asking.
The sad part is the King James version is "too hard" to understand. It shows that society is dumbed down a lot
I handle this objection in my book, and I encourage you to read it.
I think that is somewhat true. Our top 10 percent are illiterate morons compared to 150 years ago. But that's not true at all of the average person, much less the person who at the top of the bottom 15 percent or so.
No, it means that the English language has changed over the past 400 years. The people who lived during the reign of King James would have found works from ad 1200 hard to understand.
I don't care if it is someone's opinion that the KJV is at the primary reading level! It is the inspired Word of God and if studied, the Holy Spirit will reveal God's truth to a person with a repentant heart.
What we need to know about ourselves from God's Word and our only hope of being justified before God: [WHY WE HAVE NO HOPE IN OURSELVES: Mk. 7:20-23 And he (Jesus) said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things (sins) come from within, and defile the man.] [WHY WE NEED A SAVIOR: Rom. 3:10-28 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things so ever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God's) sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Joh. 14:6 For God so loved the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:]
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RUclips for help reading the KJV! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
@@markwardonwords I use the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which has the Greek dictionary of the New Testament and the Hebrew and Chaldee dictionary of the Old Testament. Also a section Key-Word comparison's the KJV to the RSV; NEB; JB; NAS & NIV translations. I also use the Noah Webster 1828 American Dictionary of the English language which gives the meaning of words closely associated and many times referenced to specific Bible verses.
We must study God's Word with a humbled heart seeking the Holy Spirit to reveal God's truth to us. The Christian life is one who is continually growing in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and we must seek wisdom and discernment from God.
Amen! I agree with all of that! I encourage you still to watch a few of my false friends videos. I'll be very surprised if you don't learn the meaning of some KJV words you didn't realize you were misunderstanding. Because I myself was tripped up-unknowingly-by these words, and I studied like you.
@@markwardonwords I will use one verse as an example in setting an error of truth. Isa. 14:7 Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a "virgin" shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. The RSV changes virgin to "young woman"; the NEB to "young woman"; the JB to "maiden" and in this case the NAS and the NIV keeps the word "virgin".
I believe this has caused some to err from the truth because a young woman or maiden is not necessarily a virgin. However in this case I would accept the NAS and NIV versions.
It’s better to read not readability king james than to read corrupt bible translation .
That would be true, sam. t, if there were corrupt Bible translations. But I've read (or at least used) all the major modern evangelical English Bible translations, and not one is corrupt. They're all teaching the same Christian faith.
But my friend all modern English Bible translation using wescott and hort mss thats codex s and codex v how can you say to me not corrupt
Sam, I firmly disagree with you. I'm happy to use contemporary translations that are not based on the Textus Receptus. They teach the same Christian faith as the Textus Receptus.
But, my sister, take a look at the New King James Version and the Modern English Version. Both use the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV. They are not based on the Westcott-Hort tradition.
No friend they are not the same teaching for example Acts 3:13 in the kjv Jesus is the Son of God why the modern Bible translation Jesus is a servant of God thats why all Islam muslims calling my king Jesus is a servant .
Sam. t, the Greek word there, paida, is ambiguous. It can mean either "servant" or "child." Unless the KJV translators got extra revelation from God to choose the right option every time, each translation is acceptable.
Lots of rhetoric and wikipedia references really? Come on dont be lazy…cherry picking a few words…etc. science says 5th grade level but meh. Also, KJV has led to multiple revivals throughout history. Your other english translation has led to any revivals? No!
Do you have an alternate explanation for how the Flesch-Kincaid tool comes up with its measurement? Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Wow! The OP responded! Thanks 🙂 Anyways, pointing out the "pangram" limitation for Flesch-Kincaid and suggesting that certain words are difficult for typical readers is biased. Flesch-Kincaid has been used by Federal and State governments for decades. The private sector uses their readability grade level such as insurance companies for legal documents, etc. Also, Amazon, which is the nation's largest bookseller, uses Flesch-Kincaid. Lastly, if you want to test your theory about the vocabulary difficulty for the typical reader. I suggest asking the unsaved if they have memorized any verses from the Bible. Usually, they have at least one or two. My experience has been that 8 of 10 will quote a KJV verse.
Used for decades … on contemporary language. As a rough-and-ready measure, as I said.
Same goes with the private sector. And Amazon.
And as for your preferred method of determining whether the KJV is too difficult for the typical reader, I dispute that that will be of much value-until you ask the memorizers to explain what they've memorized, and then ask them to explain other verses they haven't memorized, and then ask Christians of all sorts to do the same.
Or watch my Fifty False Friends series here on RUclips-watch five or ten videos-and then tell me if you still prefer that method! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
First, wow, thanks for replying and recommending your series. I will be sure to check that out. About Flesch-Kincaid, I'm going to continue to disagree with you. Flesch-Kincaid is standard tool used by medical practitioners, military personnel, public school educators and from the halls of Cornell to Harvard Law Schools, etc. All literary fields that use different English vocabulary and language that would differ from "contemporary." If you really want to test the accuracy of Flesch-Kincaid with Old English, you should try other works from the same time period as KJV. I tried John Milton's Paradise Lost (1667), and it gave me a readability score for high school.
Why not keep going? Try Beowulf, my friend. Seriously. What score do you get? I'm preparing a sermon and can't do it right now!
We are happy with KJV. It is the word. Period. We have never had a problem with understanding what is written or teaching it to others.
I love the KJV, too, and you may be right. But I have discovered numerous places where I thought I was understanding it and, due to four centuries of language change, I wasn’t. At least check out a few of my Fifty False Friends in the KJV. I’ll give you a free Bible if you can watch five of them and not learn anything you didn’t know. ;) ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Articulate mudslinging is still mudslinging. Please don't deny that this video is calling KJVO people the bad guys. Boasting about being the guy that has to be the one who deals with this seems a bit big of you. Or at least that you think very highly of yourself.
When King James authorized the translation of the King James text the 54 men who came together probably had 4th graders who could read the text published. Some of us may or may not have that to say. Either way, I do hope that if the KJV is too tough for you then one day, perhaps, you'll get saved and see differently. See you at the end.
Thank you, at least, for calling me articulate!
Regarding I Thess., 4th chapter in a KJV Bible, we read in verse eleven that one should 'study to be quiet' and in verse fifteen, that we 'shall not prevent them which are asleep'. Even today, most any grade school scholar knows what it means to study; so, one can just hear the question being asked, "Is one supposed to procure a book and cram for a test in order to ace a test on how to be quiet?" And regarding verse fifteen: "Prevent them from doing what?"
Yes, by all means, why not use whatever KJV one prefers but is it advisable to use it to correct, for instance, the actual Word which is reported to be in the tablets of stone which the Eternal gave to Moses? I ,actually, have heard a preacher demand that his listeners ignore anything but his favorite KJV.
Your arrogance and ignorance and stupidity is staggering to put it mildly. Furthermore the KJV translators declared that the eight translations that went before the KJV were all the word of God. Furthermore the English language has changed. Prevented is now confronted. Leasing is now falsehood. Let is now allowed. Conversation is now conduct etc. Furthermore the KJV contradicts the resurrection of Christ Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then Christ IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. The KJV also demotes the deity of Christ by faith of Galatians 2: 16 and 20. It should be in Christ has He is our faithful high priest but does not have faith. Also the deity of the Holy Spirit is demoted in Romans 8:16 itself should be Himself. If these errors were pointed out to the KJV translators they would be in full agreement.