How easy is the KJV to understand?

[pescador]

And I think that the claim that 'thees' and 'thous' and some few other archaic words make the KJV incomprehensible is a worn-out argument.

Almost ANYONE with average intelligence and schooling can understand it if given a little help--by even online references. But, oh, the griping we routinely hear about it supposedly being impossible for 21st century people to understand the KJV!

When it comes to these "modern language" works, most are monstrosities, and hardly a one is more easily understood than the KJV; they merely are "dumbed down" with less descriptive and/or meaningful words.

If there is any evidence for your above opinion please produce it.

Again, re-read my selections from Luke above, then try to tell me that the KJV is more accurate and/or understandable than the NRSV.

 

[Albion]

Your last paragraph sums up your unreasonable -- literally! -- bias. Why do you worship a book?

You do your messages no good by including such ludicrous personal attacks as that in your posts, my friend.

 

[pescador]

You do your messages no good by including such ludicrous personal attacks as that in your posts, my friend.

I have removed the last (offensive) paragraph.

BTW, did you also correct Davy when he wrote this in post #68: "Satan's servants are ever trying to get away from the 1611 KJV because of how it was based on the MAJORITY TEXTS (5000+ existing Greek manuscripts which agree with each other)." (my emphasis)

 

[Isilwen]

Almost ANYONE with average intelligence and schooling can understand it if given a little help--by even online references.

I shouldn't need help when sitting down and reading the Bible. I should be able to read it and get what I am reading without help. Not get distracted with having to look stuff up.

 

[Albion]

I shouldn't need help when sitting down and reading the Bible. I should be able to read it and get what I am reading without help. Not get distracted with having to look stuff up.

Yeah, that's what people say, BUT...

1. Bible reading is like learning from any other book. You don't have to "look up" everything and not every TIME. You get informed and you're set.

2. No other translation of the Bible is free from the problem. Trust me, every last one of them requires the reader to get straight what some difficult wording is actually saying.

3. If you want the best, it's the KJV. It is the Bible that won the third world to Christ. It's been called the most beautiful book in the world. It's the Bible that has over a hundred familiar sayings and expressions that we all, even non-Christians, use all the time. That makes it even MORE familiar to the reader than these "pop" editions that give it to you in boring baby talk or today's slang.

4. Finally, you don't have to choose the one over the other anyway. Get yourself one of those paperback editions that have four different translations side-by-side and you can compare as you are reading with almost no interruption. That really makes any difficult passage become clear.

 

[Isilwen]

No other translation of the Bible is free from the problem. Trust me, every last one of them requires the reader to get straight what some difficult wording is actually saying.

I disagree with you here. I read the NIV straight through and came across zero difficult wording that required me to look it up.

Bible reading is like learning from any other book. You don't have to "look up" everything and not every TIME. You get informed and you're set.

It's getting through it the first time that is the issue. I am sorry that you don't understand that. I failed Shakespeare in High School. I got too distracted looking things up to understand what I was reading. It's the same with the KJV. While I don't get a passing or failing grade, if it's too distracting, I will not read it, end of story.

If you want the best, it's the KJV.

Again, I disagree with you. Maybe for the first two hundred years, it was the best, but more recently? Not so much.

Finally, you don't have to choose the one over the other anyway. Get yourself one of those paperback editions that have four different translations side-by-side and you can compare as you are reading with almost no interruption. That really makes any difficult passage become clear.

Or, just don't read the KJV at all? Pretty easy and don't have to spend any money doing it!

 

[pescador]

Yeah, that's what people say, BUT...

1. Bible reading is like learning from any other book. You don't have to "look up" everything and not every TIME. You get informed and you're set.

2. No other translation of the Bible is free from the problem. Trust me, every last one of them requires the reader to get straight what some difficult wording is actually saying.

3. If you want the best, it's the KJV. It is the Bible that won the third world to Christ. It's been called the most beautiful book in the world. It's the Bible that has over a hundred familiar sayings and expressions that we all, even non-Christians, use all the time. That makes it even MORE familiar to the reader than these "pop" editions that give it to you in boring baby talk or today's slang.

4. Finally, you don't have to choose the one over the other anyway. Get yourself one of those paperback editions that have four different translations side-by-side and you can compare as you are reading with almost no interruption. That really makes any difficult passage become clear.

You wrote, "That makes it even MORE familiar to the reader than these "pop" editions that give it to you in boring baby talk or today's slang." Are you really saying that the wonderful translations that we have in our language are "in boring baby talk or today's slang". Really? Calling the devoted work of committees of recognized Christian scholars "baby talk" and "today's slang" shows your obvious contempt for sound scholarship.

 

[Albion]

I disagree with you here. I read the NIV straight through and came across zero difficult wording that required me to look it up.

All that tells us is that you didn't look up anything. On the one hand, I would be surprised if there were not words and passages that should have been looked up, but on the other hand I know that when something is glossed over, as it is in the NIV and other such translations, the reader may well not realize that something important has been lost in the translation.

I got too distracted looking things up to understand what I was reading. It's the same with the KJV. While I don't get a passing or failing grade, if it's too distracting, I will not read it, end of story.

Okay. It looks like I misunderstood the level of interest involved.

Best wishes to you.

 

[Isilwen]

All that tells us is that you didn't look up anything.

More like, what that tells us is that for me, the NIV is the best Bible for me as I don't need to look things up to understand what it is I am reading.

 

[pescador]

All that tells us is that you didn't look up anything. On the one hand, I would be surprised if there were not words and passages that should have been looked up, but on the other hand I know that when something is glossed over, as it is in the NIV and other such translations, the reader may well not realize that something important has been lost in the translation.



Okay. It looks like I misunderstood the level of interest involved.

Best wishes to you.

You wrote (with no references): I know that when something is glossed over, as it is in the NIV and other such translations, the reader may well not realize that something important has been lost in the translation.

If something is (according to you) "glossed over", to what are you referring?

Also, "something important has been lost in the translation" refers to..?

The KJV is nothing more than a translation based on limited sources and written in archaic English. It is a flawed translation; modern translations are much more accurate.

 

[Albion]

You wrote, "That makes it even MORE familiar to the reader than these "pop" editions that give it to you in boring baby talk or today's slang." Are you really saying that the wonderful translations that we have in our language are "in boring baby talk or today's slang". Really?

Yes, really. Of course, they come in varying degrees of simplification. To read (or to hear read from the pulpit) some of these alternate translations, they're just matter of fact, lacking anything uplifting and often giving the wording a little twist in meaning as well.

 

[Albion]

More like, what that tells us is that for me, the NIV is the best Bible for me as I don't need to look things up to understand what it is I am reading.

By using the NIV, that IS what you're doing. You just don't have to go to an additional source.

 

[Isilwen]

By using the NIV, that IS what you're doing. You just don't have to go to an additional source.

You make it sound as though the NIV is a translation of the KJV, which it isn't.

 

[Albion]

You wrote (with no references): I know that when something is glossed over, as it is in the NIV and other such translations, the reader may well not realize that something important has been lost in the translation.

If something is (according to you) "glossed over", to what are you referring?

Oversimplification.

Also, "something important has been lost in the translation" refers to..?

Oversimplification.

 

[pescador]

Yes, really. Of course, they come in varying degrees of simplification. To read (or to hear read from the pulpit) some of these alternate translations, they're just matter of fact, lacking anything uplifting and often giving the wording a little twist in meaning as well.

"Uplifting" and "giving the wording a little twist in meaning" gives away what you're looking for. There is no question that the language of the KJV language is beautiful -- unlike the plain, common languages of the source documents. A little twist in meaning compared to what the KJV translators thought the sources meant? So much for centuries of Biblical scholarship...

Your post indicates a lot of what is wrong with those who cling to a 410-year-old translation: belief that somehow translators centuries ago were somehow more competent and knowledgeable than today's scholars. Can you show me any other field in which knowledge and skill stopped 400 years ago?

 

[Albion]

You make it sound as though the NIV is a translation of the KJV, which it isn't.

I didn't make it sound as though it's a translation from the KJV, but maybe your concern provides a good lesson about how "close enough" shouldn't be considered satisfactory when it comes to different Bible editions.

 

[Davy]

I'll keep reading a Bible that I can actually read. Not all of us did well with Shakespeare in High School.

That statement right there is intentionally misleading, because the KJV available is a version that is NOT in Old English. Only the 1st edition KJV is in Old English.

 

[pescador]

Oversimplification.


Oversimplification.

Oh now I see the problem. According to you, the Bible is supposed to be complex and difficult to understand. Only "the learned", those with some special, secret knowledge, can understand God's word. Therein lies the fallacy!

=> The Bible was never supposed to be difficult to understand <= God is not the author of confusion.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." 1 Corinthians 14:33 (your beloved KJV)

 

[pescador]

I didn't make it sound as though it's a translation from the KJV, but maybe your concern provides a good lesson about how "close enough" shouldn't be considered satisfactory when it comes to different Bible editions.

Correct. That of course includes the KJV.

 

[Albion]

"Uplifting" and "giving the wording a little twist in meaning" gives away what you're looking for.
There is no question that the language of the KJV language is beautiful -- unlike the plain, common languages of the source documents. A little twist in meaning compared to what the KJV translators thought the sources meant?

The beautiful and uplifting part was a late addition. However, such things should matter when we are dealing in religion!

But the conversation until that point had been strictly on the understanding aspect and the claims made against the KJV on that score.