# Equivalents of KJV Onlyism in other languages?



## MichaelNZ (Aug 22, 2014)

Does anyone know if there are equivalents of KJV Onlyism among speakers of other languages? I know that Jack Chick's site states that the Reina-Valera-Gomez 2010 Bible is God's perfect words, but are there any Spanish speakers who say that? Are there any Luther Bible Only folks in Germany or Austria?

Also, for those of you who are KJV/TR only, what would you do if you preached the Gospel to a foreigner whose English wasn't all that good and he or she got saved? What Bible would you encourage them to read? (I remember when I used to attend the local Independent Fundamental Baptist church, I was with another guy from the church who preached the Gospel to a Chinese exchange student who prayed to receive Christ right then and there. The guy then proceeded to give him a KJV. I have no idea as to whether he had a genuine conversion since I left the IFB church, but I could imagine reading an archaic English Bible version would not help in his walk with Christ).


----------



## earl40 (Aug 22, 2014)

This is one of my "pet peeves". Like there is a KJV in other languages? I know this "peeve" has been answered here in the past and am sure I will repent soon for what I just wrote.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 22, 2014)

Hi Michael. , you mentioned Chick and then called the KJV archaic in the same post.... hope you wearing full body armour!
But really I don't know, if someone did not know much English I would imagine learning from the KJV would be no more difficult to learn than anything else. They would learn the words as if they were normal wouldn't they?
Like if I went to China and could hardly speak it or read it then why would I have any more difficulty learning say one dialect from another if you know what I mean?


----------



## earl40 (Aug 22, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Hi Michael. , you mentioned Chick and then called the KJV archaic in the same post.... hope you wearing full body armour!
> But really I don't know, if someone did not know much English I would imagine learning from the KJV would be no more difficult to learn than anything else. They would learn the words as if they were normal wouldn't they?
> Like if I went to China and could hardly speak it or read it then why would I have any more difficulty learning say one dialect from another if you know what I mean?



If I was in China I would research what bible should be used that is wriiten in Chinese.


----------



## JOwen (Aug 22, 2014)

If someone has to start from ground zero to learn the language of theology and scripture, why not give them the most successful Bible in the English speaking language? The Bible that became the standard collated language for science, literature, law, commerce, history and theology? The KJV scores a grade 5.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid standard reading scale, so it's just around the same reading level as the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine as far as readability goes. And yes, other countries have the TR equivalence. The Netherlands, for instance, has the The Statenvertaling (1637).


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Does anyone know if there are equivalents of KJV Onlyism among speakers of other languages? I know that Jack Chick's site states that the Reina-Valera-Gomez 2010 Bible is God's perfect words, but are there any Spanish speakers who say that? Are there any Luther Bible Only folks in Germany or Austria?
> 
> Also, for those of you who are KJV/TR only, what would you do if you preached the Gospel to a foreigner whose English wasn't all that good and he or she got saved? What Bible would you encourage them to read? (I remember when I used to attend the local Independent Fundamental Baptist church, I was with another guy from the church who preached the Gospel to a Chinese exchange student who prayed to receive Christ right then and there. The guy then proceeded to give him a KJV. I have no idea as to whether he had a genuine conversion since I left the IFB church, but I could imagine reading an archaic English Bible version would not help in his walk with Christ).



I know the Trinitarian Bible Society ( Trinitarian Bible Society) does have a variety of bible in different languages based on the Traditional Text. If they would have a bible in their language I would probably recommend that one. If they do understand English and can read it I would explain the differences and suggest them to refer to the AV for more accuracy, I would probably recommend to follow along with an Audio Bible at first.

What would you do if you were a biology teacher and all text book in whatever language you are teaching would teach evolution? Would you not use what is good in the textbook and explain why the other material is not accurate and maybe use another text book in an other language for those erroneous sections? Same thing applies here, you make the best with what is available to you but you do not teach error just because the material available is erroneous.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Aug 22, 2014)

JOwen said:


> If someone has to start from ground zero to learn the language of theology and scripture, why not give them the most successful Bible in the English speaking language? The Bible that became the standard collated language for science, literature, law, commerce, history and theology? The KJV scores a grade 5.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid standard reading scale, so it's just around the same reading level as the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine as far as readability goes. And yes, other countries have the TR equivalence. The Netherlands, for instance, has the The Statenvertaling (1637).



May I ask if you advise all people of other languages to learn another language so they could read the KJV if it is not translated in the language they know?


----------



## JOwen (Aug 22, 2014)

earl40 said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> > If someone has to start from ground zero to learn the language of theology and scripture, why not give them the most successful Bible in the English speaking language? The Bible that became the standard collated language for science, literature, law, commerce, history and theology? The KJV scores a grade 5.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid standard reading scale, so it's just around the same reading level as the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine as far as readability goes. And yes, other countries have the TR equivalence. The Netherlands, for instance, has the The Statenvertaling (1637).
> ...



No I do not. Please, please do not confuse the Reformed doctrine of providential preservation of the original Received Text, and its subsequent current rendition, the King James Bible, with the ideology of David Cloud, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and fundamentalist/baptist KJV-only people. I would venture to guess that there is no one on the PB who would advocate what you have asked above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 22, 2014)

earl40 said:


> If I was in China I would research what bible should be used that is wriiten in Chinese.


Hi Earl, I don't get what your on about in regards to my post? I answered in regards to the opening post with regards to someone in an English speaking country who could not understand much English.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 22, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > If I was in China I would research what bible should be used that is wriiten in Chinese.
> ...



I think my bias is showing. I have a mild conviction that people are not morally obligated to learn the language of a country they live in.  I know many do not hold to such a conviction but I having been around many who do not speak english here in central Florida I am very sypathetic to what they experience and in no way would start from "ground zero" as was suggested above..._unless the person wanted_ to do such which I believe Pastor Jerrold would agree with.


----------



## Logan (Aug 22, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Same thing applies here, you make the best with what is available to you but you do not teach error just because the material available is erroneous.



What error would one be teaching by not using the KJV?


----------



## Logan (Aug 22, 2014)

As a side note, if I remember correctly, Brother Andrew (God's Smuggler) was learning English and reading from a KJV. At one point while at the dinner table, one of the fellow students asked for the butter and Andrew passed on this request with the words "Thus saith the neighbor of Andrew: that thou wouldst be pleased to pass the butter"!


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Does anyone know if there are equivalents of KJV Onlyism among speakers of other languages? I know that Jack Chick's site states that the Reina-Valera-Gomez 2010 Bible is God's perfect words, but are there any Spanish speakers who say that? Are there any Luther Bible Only folks in Germany or Austria?




Actually I found a group on the Internet called Sociedad Bíblica Valera that hold to the old Reina Valera of 1865, their exact words are:



> We defend the old Valera Bible produced by Casiodoro de Reina and Cipriano de Valera. The outstanding edition of the Reina-Valera Bible is the 1865 edition. We reject all versions published after the year 1865, given that they ALL represent the diabolical intent to abrogate the authority of the true Castilian Bible of the Protestant reformation in Spain, and to replace it with the corruptions found in the corrupt family of Alexandrian manuscripts



Pretty hard hitting & to the mark.




MichaelNZ said:


> Also, for those of you who are KJV/TR only, what would you do if you preached the Gospel to a foreigner whose English wasn't all that good and he or she got saved? What Bible would you encourage them to read? (I remember when I used to attend the local Independent Fundamental Baptist church, I was with another guy from the church who preached the Gospel to a Chinese exchange student who prayed to receive Christ right then and there. The guy then proceeded to give him a KJV. I have no idea as to whether he had a genuine conversion since I left the IFB church, but I could imagine reading an archaic English Bible version would not help in his walk with Christ).



The above one for any Spanish readers, The Old Chinese Union Bible which was translated off of the KJB is the best one to use for Chinese readers, likewise it doesn't hold C.T. readings.

The KJB would be the best Bible to give a foreigner if he desired to learn English & new christian, as it has the track record
of producing the best christians in both learning & godliness.


----------



## Logan (Aug 22, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> [The KJB] has the track record of producing the best christians in both learning & godliness.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 22, 2014)

Logan said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > [The KJB] has the track record of producing the best christians in both learning & godliness.



No can of worms brother Logan, its just an undisputed Historical fact, obviously I'm referring to the Unglish speaking world.


----------



## Rob Marsh (Aug 22, 2014)

This thread raises an interesting question I've been wondering about latelty: if the Lord tarries and, say, another 500 years pass in world history, and English continues to change and mutate into something completely different, won't the 1611 translation be rendered almost impossible to read (similar to reading something like Chaucer's middle English today.) Would there still be a KJVO movement at that point?


----------



## yeutter (Aug 22, 2014)

MichaelNZ said:


> Does anyone know if there are equivalents of KJV Onlyism among speakers of other languages? I know that Jack Chick's site states that the Reina-Valera-Gomez 2010 Bible is God's perfect words, but are there any Spanish speakers who say that? Are there any Luther Bible Only folks in Germany or Austria?


Yes there are Luther Bible only folks among pietist Lutheran
A translation was done into the dialect spoken by the low German speaking folks [Amish and other similar anabaptists] It was rejected, and they cling to the Luther Bible.

A less obvious parallel movement is the Vulgate only movement, and Douay Rheims only movement among the Romish.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 22, 2014)

Logan said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > Same thing applies here, you make the best with what is available to you but you do not teach error just because the material available is erroneous.
> ...



For one thing (depending on which translation you would be using) insinuating or asserting that these verses do not belong in the Bible

Matt 12:47
Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 21:44
Matt 23:14

Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-20

Luke 17:36
Luke 22:43
Luke 22:44
Luke 23:17

John 5:4
John 7:53-8:11

Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29

Rom 16:24

And that the partial omissions in these verse do not or might not belong in the Bible.

Matt 5:22
Matt 5:44
Matt 6:13
Matt 6:33
Matt 8:29
Matt 15:8
Matt 16:20
Matt 18:26
Matt 19:9
Matt 20:16
Matt 20:22
Matt 25:13
Matt 27:35

Mark 1:1
Mark 1:14
Mark 6:11
Mark 7:8
Mark 9:24
Mark 10:21
Mark 10:24
Mark 11;10 

Luke 1:28
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:18
Luke 4:41
Luke 9:55
Luke 9:56
Luke 11:2
Luke 11:4
Luke 21:4
Luke 22:64
Luke 23:38
Luke 23:42

John 1:14
John 1:18
John 1:27
John 3:13
John 3:15
John 3:16
John 3:18
John 4:42
John 5:3
John 5:16
John 6:47
John 8:9
John 8:59
John 16:16 

Acts 2:30
Acts 7:30
Acts 9:5
Acts 10:6
Acts 15:11
Acts 16:31
Acts 17:26
Acts 19:35 
Acts 20:24
Acts 20:25
Acts 23:9
Acts 24:15
Acts 28:16

Rom 1:3
Rom 1:16
Rom 1:29
Rom 6:11
Rom 8:1
Rom 11:6
Rom 13:9
Rom 14:6
Rom 15:8

1 Cor 5:4
1 Cor 5:7
1 Cor 6:20
1 Cor 7:5
1 Cor 9:1
1 Cor 10:28
1 Cor 11:24
1 Cor 11:29
1 Cor 16:22

2 Cor 4:10
2 Cor 5:18

Gal 2:20
Gal 3:1
Gal 3:17
Gal 4:7
Gal 6:15
Gal 6:17 

Eph 1:6
Eph 3:9
Eph 3:14
Eph 5:30

Col 1:2
Col 1:14
Col 1:28
Col 3:6

1 Thes 1:1
1 Thes 2:19
1 Thes 3:11
1 Thes 3:13

1 Tim 2:7
1 Tim 6:5

2 Tim 2:15
2 Tim 4:22

Heb 2:7
Heb 3:1
Heb 7:21
Heb 10:34

1 Pet 2:2
1 Pet 4:1
1 Pet 4:14
1 Pet 5:11 

2 Pet 2:17

1 John 1:7
1 John 3:16
1 John 4:3
1 John 4:9
1 John 4:19 
1 John 5:13

Rev 1:8
Rev 1:9
Rev 1:11
Rev 2:15
Rev 5:14
Rev 11:17
Rev 14:5
Rev 21:24 


And this is not a complete list and it's not counting the variant readings. But of course we can barely notice any differences between the Translation made from the CT an TR right 

Note: This is tongue in cheek and not meant to be obnoxious, but at the same we do need to point out the elephant in the room.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Aug 22, 2014)

Rob Marsh said:


> This thread raises an interesting question I've been wondering about latelty: if the Lord tarries and, say, another 500 years pass in world history, and English continues to change and mutate into something completely different, won't the 1611 translation be rendered almost impossible to read (similar to reading something like Chaucer's middle English today.) Would there still be a KJVO movement at that point?



I don't know about KJVO but there would probably be advocates of the Traditional Text which would translate it into whatever new language variation there would be at that time, similar to what Tyndale and the other reformation era translators did. God has faithfully preserved his word up to now, there's no reason to doubt he will ever stop preserving it in the future.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 22, 2014)

I have listened to so many of D.A. Carson's sermons, on Sermon Audio, Trinity Baptist website, and on youtube, that I cannot recall in which I heard it, but he grew up in Quebec, the son of a lifelong pastor. French was his lingua franca and he was talking about pronouns relative to God. How for him, "You" was a normal way of referring to God, as opposed to 'Thou." I found this interesting because, having read the KJV so much in my younger days, and on up into what I guess, @ 65 is old age, I pray using the Elizabethan pronouns.

It is a habit I got into and 'sounds' right to my ear, while saying my prayers in modern English seems irreverent. It was interesting to hear Don Carson point out that for a French speaker, who has adopted English as his primary language, that is not an issue. I think that relates to the topic in this thread, because In my humble opinion, a lot of people who adhere to the KJV do so out of familiarity.

How many centuries was the Latin Vulgate the Bible translation most used ? Quite a long time, and it was in a period, if I am not badly mistaken, when educated people knew the language and read it in Latin. Of course the hoi polloi were unable to read in any language, so going to the Wiki ; "*For over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate was the definitive edition of the most influential text in Western European society. Indeed, for most Western Christians, it was the only version of the Bible ever encountered*. The Vulgate's influence throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into the Early Modern Period is even greater than that of the King James Version in English; for Christians during these times the phraseology and wording of the Vulgate permeated all areas of the culture. Aside from its use in prayer, liturgy and private study, the Vulgate served as inspiration for ecclesiastical art and architecture, hymns, countless paintings, and popular mystery plays."

See also the Wiki article on the Septuagint here. That had a long run as the Bible of believers as well. but they couldn't leave well enough alone and kept revising the translation. Sound familiar ? I'm sure there were many in that day and time, over the ensuing centuries, who decried the revisions as tampering with God's perfect word. Apparently God's providential care of His word may have extended beyond the bounds of the English language as it was in 1611 and beyond.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 22, 2014)

Rob Marsh said:


> This thread raises an interesting question I've been wondering about latelty: if the Lord tarries and, say, another 500 years pass in world history, and English continues to change and mutate into something completely different, won't the 1611 translation be rendered almost impossible to read (similar to reading something like Chaucer's middle English today.) Would there still be a KJVO movement at that point?



At the moment it is still my opinion that the KJB is very highly understandable, though in a Millennia it might not be.

The "problem" with your point is that the E(I,U)nglish language was still developing to this time in regards to its rules of
usage ie;grammar, spelling etc and had almost being finalised, the last 200-250 years there hasn been very little change,

the real problem is with the user, it requires a basic education to be able to read, a little effort & patience, that is why children in different years of schooling have different levels of reading comphrehension and are expected to attain & progress through to a higher reading level, not fail at school & then moan that the Bible is to difficult to read and needs to 
be watered or dumbed down to their level so they can understand it.




yeutter said:


> MichaelNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone know if there are equivalents of KJV Onlyism among speakers of other languages? I know that Jack Chick's site states that the Reina-Valera-Gomez 2010 Bible is God's perfect words, but are there any Spanish speakers who say that? Are there any Luther Bible Only folks in Germany or Austria?
> ...


 
There was a German speaking Swiss fellow at my old Church who remarked to me that he thought that currently 
Zwingli's German translation was a lot more readable today than Luther's, then again he was from Zurich so he 
could have been biased.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 23, 2014)

JOwen said:


> The KJV scores a grade 5.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid standard reading scale


This is new to me as I have usually read the reading level of the KJV to be around 12.x, e.g., Bible Translation Guide or Bible Translation Reading Levels - Christianbook.com

Do you have a reference for this, Pastor Lewis?


----------



## bookslover (Aug 23, 2014)

JOwen said:


> The KJV scores a grade 5.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid standard reading scale, so it's just around the same reading level as the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine as far as readability goes.



The King James Version of the Bible is as easy to read as Time magazine? Seriously? That's a new one on me. I wonder how far a reader of Time would really get in the KJV. LOL


----------



## JOwen (Aug 23, 2014)

Patrick and Richard. Most people confuse readability with comprehensibility, which is where the disbelief and laughing out loud comes from I suspect. Some research online, or your own investigation using the Flesch-Kincaid test will verify the claim with the sampling given. I did this test myself in the 90's to come up with the score. I have no clue where that study is now. The math behind the F-K formula is simple, (total words / total sentences) - (total syllables / total words)=GRL. The test varies when the 1611 is used when compared to the 1769 edition, but even then, it is as readable as the NASB. I noticed that Christianbooks.com did not supply the math behind their statement, and confesses that "not everyone agrees about the grade level of every translation or the formulas used to calculate them." Anyway, point being, the AV is readable, and still the best benchmark for learning theology and scriptural language as far as I see it. 

As a slight deviation, and something that has probable been posted on the PB before, you might want to give this a read.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 23, 2014)

"The KJV scores a grade 5.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid standard reading scale, so it's just around the same reading level as the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine as far as readability goes."

If I recall correctly Flesch-Kincaid regards the length of words, number of syllables, and length of sentences. "Wot" is short, but difficult to understand for modern English reader. This argument is used by most KJV advocates, but take the average American and give him a chapter of the KJV vs. a chapter of the ESV, you'll see that the "readability chart" doesn't match up.


Flesch-Kincaid data on KJV readability in KJV-Only Forum
KJV-only author R. B. Ouellette claimed that it is a false statement to say that the KJV “is harder to read and understand” (A More Sure Word, p. 150). As support for his claim, Ouellette asserted that the KJV “has a significantly lower average syllable count” (Ibid.). Gail Riplinger also maintained that “the KJV averages less syllables per word” (Language, p. 159). Riplinger claimed that the KJV’s average was 1.310 syllables per word and that the NKJV’s average was 1.313 syllables per word (p. 160). Is that a significant difference? Furthermore, there may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is easier to read. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count. More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand. These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” may be misleading and misused.


----------



## KeithW (Aug 24, 2014)

An additional comment about that particular readability calculation...


JOwen said:


> Patrick and Richard. Most people confuse readability with comprehensibility, which is where the disbelief and laughing out loud comes from I suspect. Some research online, or your own investigation using the Flesch-Kincaid test will verify the claim with the sampling given. I did this test myself in the 90's to come up with the score. I have no clue where that study is now. The math behind the F-K formula is simple, (total words / total sentences) - (total syllables / total words)=GRL. The test varies when the 1611 is used when compared to the 1769 edition, but even then, it is as readable as the NASB. I noticed that Christianbooks.com did not supply the math behind their statement, and confesses that "not everyone agrees about the grade level of every translation or the formulas used to calculate them." Anyway, point being, the AV is readable, and still the best benchmark for learning theology and scriptural language as far as I see it.


I find this to be an usual test of readability. The emphasis is on short sentences and words with low syllable counts. I might not know what this word is, but it has a low syllable count so it is "readable". 

If I might add something about readability -- readability has to do with can you read and understand the words. I suspect there are many Bible translations which would have a similar score as what you mentioned for the KJV. The Tyndale New Testament and the Geneva Bible use English in a very similar fashion. The readability problem has to do with understanding the words being used. To use these two English translations as an example, the spelling is so different from modern English as to render these translations "unreadable" even though they would achieve a similar "readability" score to the KJV using the test you mentioned. When observing other people trying to read the KJV who have little exposure to it, but who have been in the Christian church for many years, the readability issue of the KJV is often an impediment to comprehending what Scripture is saying.

(Personally I am used to the KJV, read it all the time, and use it as my primary source in my studies.)


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 24, 2014)

This site gives the KJV's Flesch-Kincaid as 10.6 (you have to scroll right to the bottom to see it). It's a site dedicated to giving Flesch-Kincaid levels to _Project Gutenberg _books.

I wonder if the 5.8 Flesch-Kincaid was something that Gail Riplinger made up for _New Age Bible Versions_, like she did the "acrostic algebra"? Is there any evidence of this level applied to the KJV outside of Riplinger or publications influenced by her?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 25, 2014)

I was just wondering about the lower level as I had always read differently. I prefer the KJV or the NKJV, so it is of little matter to me personally.

BTW, my sentence above clocks in at nearly the 10th grade level using the FOG index. Then again, it is only one sentence.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 25, 2014)

*Readability & Comprehensibility & Listenability.*

apparently what helps the KJB's readability is the fact there are over 900 verses in the King James Bible that contain only one syllable words. Here's one, and what could be simpler, Jesus wept.

Here is a weblink that shows its Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level:
A Red Herring, "The Readability of the KJV"

And what was the result? The King James Bible literally “blew the doors off” the ESV! The following verifiable scientific results do not lie. 

DESCRIPTION ......................................KJB.. ESV 
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (Lower Easier to Read) 4.32 8.22 
Sentence Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) .........29 ..61 
Vocabulary Complexity (Lower Easier to Read) ........2 ..10 
Short Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........10342 3441 
Simple Sentences (Higher Easier to Read) .........5728 2301 
Big Words (Lower Easier to Read) ................7020 13478 
Average Words per Sentence (Lower Easier to Read)8.78 18.82 

As you can see from our easy to verify results, the readability statistics of the much aligned "hard-to-understand" King James Bible clearly knocks the ESV out of the park!

also another thing when reading the KJB apparently you need to know a smaller vocabulary as well, which I suppose is its comprehensibility 
Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand Than The Others?

The national bestseller, The Story of English, writes of the simplicity of the King James Bible: 

"The King James Bible was published in the year Shakespeare began work on his last play, The Tempest. Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8000 words—God’s teaching in homely English for everyman." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 113) 

Did I also fail to mention it's a better Sounding Bible, yes *Listenability*! 
so what could be better for a Family & Pulpit Reading Bible?

One of the amazing personalities of the King James Bible is it’s poetic beauty. Nothing ever penned in the English language can match it’s sound and rhythm. For a work of it’s volume and serious subject matter – the poetic splendor defies human logic. The very sound of reading of the King James Bible bears the resemble of a music concerto. It’s timbre grabs you, as it’s melody sings God’s word. What an amazing book! 

It’s worth noting the emphasis the King James translators placed, not only on the readable text of the King James Bible, but also it’s sound. Before the King James Bible was published and after the initial translation work was completed, a re-working took place, The Story of English describes this unique process, "they were to go through the text, re-working it so that it would not only read better but sound better, a quality for which it became famous throughout the English-speaking world." (Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil, The Story of English, p. 112)


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 27, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> apparently what helps the KJB's readability is the fact there are over 900 verses in the King James Bible that contain only one syllable words. Here's one, and what could be simpler, Jesus wept.



Jesus has 2 syllables, I can't believe I've made such a stupid mistake! also been shown up on another Forum


----------



## MichaelNZ (Aug 27, 2014)

You can post all the stats you want but I for one do struggle with the KJV. I find the modern versions much easier to understand.

But this wasn't the point of the thread. Does anyone know if any of these groups which favour one translation in their particular language preach it really hard like KJV Only people do in English-speaking countries? Are there any German Peter Ruckmans attacking those who don't use the Luther Bible, for example?


----------



## whirlingmerc (Aug 27, 2014)

I read much slower in KJV and prefer NKJV or ESV
The KJV was written in the language of common people... and the usage of the common people has changed quite a bit since then
As far as translation to other languages? It's the message that's important and translating from the best reconstruction of the original seems best to me
Having said that, the KJV is a majestic translation and a considerable accomplishment.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 27, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I read much slower in KJV and prefer NKJV or ESV
> The KJV was written in the language of common people... and the usage of the common people has changed quite a bit since then
> As far as translation to other languages? It's the message that's important and translating from the best reconstruction of the original seems best to me
> Having said that, the KJV is a majestic translation and a considerable accomplishment.



Michael, in a sense, the KJV was not written in the language of the common people - especially in the New Testament, which is about 80% William Tyndale's translation, which was already nearly a century old when it was brought nearly wholesale into the KJV. The old pronouns ("thee" "thou") were beginning to fade from the English language by the early 17th century.


----------

