King James Only Movement

[Grace Alone]

I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.

 

[JohnGill]

Of course I would like the AV to change Easter to Passover as most people today now know that passover can refer to the whole season. I would also like 'unicorn(s)' replaced with the margin note rhinoceros, and some other changes. But the so-called archaic language should not be touched. Propitiation should never be removed from scripture just because it's 'archaic.'

I wasn't trying to say that they should remove words like propitiation. The ESV is a modern translation and it retains important theological terms like propitiation and justification.

Didn't mean to imply that you were. I have heard some people and have read articles by others who claim words like propitiation should be removed because they are archaic.

Sorry about that.

 

[JohnGill]

You mean everyone else doesn't spend their free time as I do?!?

I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.

Once again I've been reminded not to assume facts not in evidence.

It didn't even occur to me that you didn't know the difference between thou and you. Sorry about that.

I spend a lot of time reading pre-20th century books on grammar. And I use pre-20th century books for studying Greek and Latin. They all translate Greek and Latin 2nd person singular pronouns with thee/thou/thy/thine. Lowth's is a good example of an 18th century English grammar that does this. I learned this when studying the principles of universal grammar. And yes I know how weird it is to read such books. What is even weirder is when you starting writing notes in that style.

Below is a handy chart for remembering which is which. After about a week of this you'll know it. Shakespeare also locks it in quickly.

Singular nominative - thou; thou art the man (you - Standard English equivalent)
Singular objective - thee; I have loved thee (you)
Singular possessive pronoun - thine; Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart; thine is generally used before a word that begins with a vowel or an 'h'. (your)
Singular possessive adjective - thy; Thy will be done; (yours)

Plural nominative - ye; Ye must be born again (you)
Plural objective - you; Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat (you)
Plural possessive pronoun - yours; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also (yours)
Plural possessive adjective - your; for great is your reward in heaven (your)

Verb conjugation in the AV:

First Person I write
Second Person Thou writest (-est ending; would read you write in standard English)
Third Person He, She, It writeth (-eth ending; She writes)

Now if everyone would spend their free time reading pre-20th century books on English, Latin, and Greek grammar there would be no confusion.

Oh for a perfect world!

 

[JohnGill]

A few points

1) How many CT guys totally follow Westcott and Hort in every thing they teach? For the sake of argument, isn't it possible these guys stumbled onto something right, despite their other issues?

2) What modern translations throw out the deity of Christ (we're not talking of the JW or liberal nonsense)? Most of them are far more clear than King James is that Jesus is truly God.

3) The excellence of (some) modern editions should not be ignored due to problems with the translators. (In fact Westcott and Hort didn't translate any of the modern Bibles!) The NIV, NAS, ESV, and other translators are committed to inerrancy. At the same time, the excellence of the Authorized Version should not be discounted due to the fact that King Jimmy was a "divine right" tyrant, crypto-papist, and would be the first to persecute most of us on this board for "nonconformity" (Hello Baptists, Presbyterians, Nondenoms, even Reformed Anglicans!).

4) What about the NKJV? It is fairly literary. Or the World English Bible, which uses the Majority Text?

5) And I would definitely support a Geneva-Preference over an AV-Preference.

1) For a complete refutation of Westcott & Hort's textual theory read The Revision Revised. W/H textual theory forms the basis of modern TC and its rejection of the text that the Reformers considered 'inspired' and 'infallible', the Textus Receptus. Then read the book by Metzger I listed earlier. It demonstrates that modern textual criticism is subjective.

2) Besides the JW, and there is enough in there to prove Christ's Deity, I'm not aware of any, save the Deist version, that throws out Christ's deity. However, they do call it into questions through various contradictions. Most MVs render Psalm 119:9 as, How shall a young man keep his way pure, which by implication teaches that a man's way is pure to begin with. The GV/AV reading does not do this. If the MVs had rendered it, How shall a young man keep purifying his way, there would be no contradiction with the doctrine of original sin and no implicit support of Pelagianism. In some Proverbs 8:22 is rendered with 'made' or 'created' in referring to wisdom. As Christ is the wisdom of God, this would then lead to Arianism. BTW it was this verses reading in the Septuagint and Targum that Arius used. Also one could ask, Did God have wisdom before he made/created it? "Without a cause" is left out of Mt 5:22 making Jesus contradictory with himself in Mk 3:5, various times when he was angry with the disciples, and places him in conflict with Eph 4:26. In some modern versions 'yet' is left out of John 7:8 making Jesus a liar when you get to verse 10. 1 Timothy 3:16 does not read God but instead reads he/who or some other word. The textual support for God is so overwhelming that there is no legitimate reason for removing it from scripture. (See Burgon Revision Revised and his other texts) Unless you want to rely on Aleph & B, the two most corrupt manuscripts. (See Hoskier's Codex B & Its Allies. ccel.org should have it.) Then there is the problem with Phil 2:7 in which some versions have 'emptied' or 'nothing'. Nothing makes no sense in the verse. Did he make himself metaphysically nothing, ethically nothing, epistemologically nothing? Emptied is even worse as it supports the kenosis heresy. The Geneva and the Authorized Version get it right.

3) The NIV is not an excellent translation. The Trinitarian Bible Society has some articles dealing with its many problems. My favorite goof in it is found in 1 Cor 5:5. Sin enough and Satan will destroy your sinful nature. Jakob Van Bruggen has also dealt with its many problems.

4) They lack the specificity of the Geneva and the Authorized Version.

5)

 

[JohnGill]

This is something you're going to have to study and come to your own conclusions concerning. There's no going back to the simpler days when there was a universal text for the English-speaking church. If I would have to recommend only one book to you, it would be Dr. Thomas Holland's, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version. (I see the basic core of it is now online at his site: Dr. Thomas Holland's Home Page.) But I much prefer the hard copy, as it has appendices, an intro plus other stuff not in the online version. Highly recommended!

I couldn't find Crowned With Glory. The only link at his site is broken.

Never mind. It's the Chapter links. The way the site is setup it makes it look like it is his commentary on an Epistle.

Who wrote his site?

 

[Grace Alone]

I see what you are saying, but what I am saying is that I read the word "you" to be singular in both versions. I would not have known it was plural in the KJV unless I had had notes for it. So if my ESV notes explain that to me, I would get the accurate meaning whereas I would not have with the KJV.

Once again I've been reminded not to assume facts not in evidence.

It didn't even occur to me that you didn't know the difference between thou and you. Sorry about that.

I spend a lot of time reading pre-20th century books on grammar. And I use pre-20th century books for studying Greek and Latin. They all translate Greek and Latin 2nd person singular pronouns with thee/thou/thy/thine. Lowth's is a good example of an 18th century English grammar that does this. I learned this when studying the principles of universal grammar. And yes I know how weird it is to read such books. What is even weirder is when you starting writing notes in that style.

Below is a handy chart for remembering which is which. After about a week of this you'll know it. Shakespeare also locks it in quickly.

Singular nominative - thou; thou art the man (you - Standard English equivalent)
Singular objective - thee; I have loved thee (you)
Singular possessive pronoun - thine; Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart; thine is generally used before a word that begins with a vowel or an 'h'. (your)
Singular possessive adjective - thy; Thy will be done; (yours)

Plural nominative - ye; Ye must be born again (you)
Plural objective - you; Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat (you)
Plural possessive pronoun - yours; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also (yours)
Plural possessive adjective - your; for great is your reward in heaven (your)

Verb conjugation in the AV:

First Person I write
Second Person Thou writest (-est ending; would read you write in standard English)
Third Person He, She, It writeth (-eth ending; She writes)

Now if everyone would spend their free time reading pre-20th century books on English, Latin, and Greek grammar there would be no confusion.

Oh for a perfect world!

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt why the modern reader will have problems comprehending the KJV.

 

[JohnGill]

Now if everyone would spend their free time reading pre-20th century books on English, Latin, and Greek grammar there would be no confusion.

Oh for a perfect world!

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt why the modern reader will have problems comprehending the KJV.

When I'm world dictator everyone will be required to learn Classical Latin and Greek. They will also be required to learn the distinction between 2nd pers. sing & plur. pronouns in English upon pain of death! Euclid's Elements of Geometry will be the only Geometry text book allowed in high schools. Everyone will be required to read Newton's Principia Mathematica. The entire Bible, either Geneva or Authorized, will be memorized upon leaving the 8th grade along with the 3 Forms of Unity, the LBCF or WCF and the Westminster Larger Catechism with scripture proofs. Science and Theology classes will be conducted in Latin only. People caught using slang will be severely punished.

I expect your vote.

 

[Grace Alone]

I seriously do want a Geneva Bible.

 

[JohnGill]

I seriously do want a Geneva Bible.

Better memorize the thou/you distinction. There's only a 39% difference between the AV & GV.

It is available online here: GENEVA BIBLE 1599

You can read the Bible notes here: The 1599 Geneva Bible Notes - The Reformed Reader

 

[Grymir]

Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.

 

[JohnGill]

Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.

I can't even understand the NKJV. I remember growing up my mother gave a new Bible to replace my battered KJV. It was the NIV. I stopped reading the Bible until I got another KJV. I just could not understand the NIV. And this was in 6th or 7th grade.

 

[DMcFadden]

Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.

Better watch out, Timothy. What if Barth used the KJV?

It could be true. It might be true. It's possible.

 

[Grymir]

Better watch out, Timothy. What if Barth used the KJV?

It could be true. It might be true. It's possible.

Oh the humanity of it all! I googled 'Barth's Bible version' and got no answer. Arghh!!! I'm gonna have to read more Barth just to figure it out. Haven't I read enough already?? Besides, his problem wasn't in the reading, but the interpretation of the Bible. And what the Bible was.

 

[JohnGill]

Some of us have a hard time reading the newer versions. They are vague, and difficult to follow. esp the NASB for me. I got an early pre-release of the NT and it was jumbled in it's english. The English in the KJV is straight forward and crystal clear.

Better watch out, Timothy. What if Barth used the KJV?

It could be true. It might be true. It's possible.

Barth was trained in German. He used some German Bible.

 

[Grymir]

Barth was trained in German. He used some German Bible.

Whew! I feel better already. My trusty KJV delivered me through theological turmoil again! My KJV is like a sword from a Micheal Moorcock novel! Able to pierce asunder soul and spirit! It's - 'Soul-Bringer'!!!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

In our discussions here we seem to have overlooked the fact that one of the main problems with the W&H Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, and the modern versions that replicate its textual changes and omissions based upon the readings of B and [size=+1]a[/size], is that portions of the Bible are removed. The last 12 verses of Mark, the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, the Ethiopian's confession in Acts 8:37, "of his flesh, and of his bones" in Ephesians 5:30 (not even a margin note here on it!), "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, the wrong ancestors in Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1:7, 10 (Critical Greek text and ESV) and on and on.

To me this is the primary issue. B and [size=+1]a[/size] (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), although the oldest manuscripts (certainly not more reliable), are not the oldest text-form, which is reflected in the Majority Text and its finest edition (thanks to the Lord's providential preservation), the Textus Receptus, and its best English translation, the King James Bible.

One just cannot take the Bible from me, and go at it with a scissors, without a fight from me -- a fight many men and women have already given their lives for.

 

[Grace Alone]

In our discussions here we seem to have overlooked the fact that one of the main problems with the W&H Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, and the modern versions that replicate its textual changes and omissions based upon the readings of B and [size=+1]a[/size], is that portions of the Bible are removed. The last 12 verses of Mark, the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, the Ethiopian's confession in Acts 8:37, "of his flesh, and of his bones" in Ephesians 5:30 (not even a margin note here on it!), "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, the wrong ancestors in Christ's genealogy in Matthew 1:7, 10 (Critical Greek text and ESV) and on and on.

To me this is the primary issue. B and [size=+1]a[/size] (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), although the oldest manuscripts (certainly not more reliable), are not the oldest text-form, which is reflected in the Majority Text and its finest edition (thanks to the Lord's providential preservation), the Textus Receptus, and its best English translation, the King James Bible.

One just cannot take the Bible from me, and go at it with a scissors, without a fight from me -- a fight many men and women have already given their lives for.

What really bothers me is that some of the things you mention are incorrect. My ESV Bible DOES have the last 12 verses of Mark. There is tiny type that says some manuscripts do not include vs. 9-20, but the verses are in the main text and not in footnotes. John 7:53-8:11 is there in the main text as well.

Acts 8:37 is in a footnote, 1 Timothy 3:16 in footnote (although I understand He to mean God there anyway), Matthew 1 in footnotes.

So I would have to conclude from these examples that the ESV did not leave out anything you mentioned as problems. I am actually feeling better about the ESV judging from these examples.

One question, how do you know those extra verses were not added later by someone as opposed to others leaving them out purposely?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Janis,

Sorry if I was not clear about this. When a Scripture section is set apart from the text by double brackets following the statement "[THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 16:9-20]" (ESV), or set off from the main text following the statement "[The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.]" (NIV), or set apart in brackets with a footnote, "Some of the oldest mss. omit from verse 9 through 20..." (NASB), it is understood to mean these portions do not belong in the text of the Bible but we include them for tradition's sake.

It is equivalent to saying (for it is in the Bible as an explanatory note by the textual editors) that the earliest and best manuscripts do not include these and we do not recognize them as genuine. That is tantamount to actually omitting them, is it not?

Multitudes of young (as well as mature) Christians are thrown into doubt concerning the reliability of the Bible. Which is the true text? Did God preserve His word for His people, or are we in the hands of academic scholars -- who often are not believers -- and their judgments? I consider the margin or in-text notes disallowing the genuineness of the various verses I noted above the same as if they had removed them with scissors. The effect is the same on the reader: these portions should not be here.

If you are interested in hearing a responsible opposing viewpoint (for the authenticity of these portions of Scripture), I submit these discussions for your consideration:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f44/mark-16-12-a-20445/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/john-7-53-8-11-a-25089/

On this one, scroll down a little till you see the section in blue type, 1 Timothy 3:16

I think I will desist from posting further in this thread as it appears to have the disapproval of the moderators, it being removed from appearing in some of the Stats.

Your sincere interest in these things, Janis, is great!

Steve

 

[JohnGill]

Barth was trained in German. He used some German Bible.

Whew! I feel better already. My trusty KJV delivered me through theological turmoil again! My KJV is like a sword from a Micheal Moorcock novel! Able to pierce asunder soul and spirit! It's - 'Soul-Bringer'!!!

Unless the German Bible was a translation of the KJV.

 

[Grace Alone]

Steve, I sincerely appreciate your dedication to seeing that the Word of God is accurately preserved. And I do understand the concern that brackets and footnotes might cause doubt in a new believer. It may cause me some confusion, but it doesn't affect my faith. As long as these variations don't cause doctrinal problems, I think I can deal with them.

I wonder why someone hasn't done a faithful update of the KJV?

 

[JohnGill]

Steve, I sincerely appreciate your dedication to seeing that the Word of God is accurately preserved. And I do understand the concern that brackets and footnotes might cause doubt in a new believer. It may cause me some confusion, but it doesn't affect my faith. As long as these variations don't cause doctrinal problems, I think I can deal with them.

I wonder why someone hasn't done a faithful update of the KJV?

At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.

Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?

1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?

2) How shall a young man purify his way?

 

[Grace Alone]

At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.

Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?

1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?

2) How shall a young man purify his way?

I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.

 

[JohnGill]

At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.

Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?

1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?

2) How shall a young man purify his way?

I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.

That was my only point. The first one implies an error. The second one does not.

Psalm 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (ESV)

Psalm 119:9 (Beth) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. (AV)

BTW, the AV is written at a 5th to 6th grade reading level.

 

[mossy]

Mr. Gill,
I recognize that one from your previous post, Ps 119 I think. In that other post you mentioned 1 Cor 5:5 as your favorite NIV flub. I have read that verse in several translations and I don't really see any of them saying anything different. Help me out and explain what is the big flub on that verse in the NIV. It says sinful nature in the NIV but has flesh as an alternate translation in a footnote. Is that the problem you were pointing out?

1 Cor 5:5

NET Bible
5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved 8 in the day of the Lord. 9

NIV
5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. A. Or that his body; or that the flesh

NASB
I have decided to (A)deliver such a one to (B)Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in (C)the day of the Lord

KJV
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Thanks for your help.
Terry

 

[Grace Alone]

At this time with the great confusion in translation theory, textual criticism, non-existent autograph inerrancy vs apographa inspiration & infallibility, liberalism, etc. the conditions are not right for such an undertaking.

Question: Which of the following two questions below affirms the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity? Why?

1) How shall a young man keep his way pure?

2) How shall a young man purify his way?

I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.

That was my only point. The first one implies an error. The second one does not.

Psalm 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (ESV)

Psalm 119:9 (Beth) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. (AV)

BTW, the AV is written at a 5th to 6th grade reading level.

That is a myth, unfortunately. I teach children to read, and I can guarantee you that one of the two verses you just quoted is nowhere near 5th to 6th grade level. Here are some links that suggest 12th grade level for KJV:

Bible Translations

BibleNetUSA:Read

http://www.bible.com/community/biblebasics.php

 

[JohnGill]

Mr. Gill,
I recognize that one from your previous post, Ps 119 I think. In that other post you mentioned 1 Cor 5:5 as your favorite NIV flub. I have read that verse in several translations and I don't really see any of them saying anything different. Help me out and explain what is the big flub on that verse in the NIV. It says sinful nature in the NIV but has flesh as an alternate translation in a footnote. Is that the problem you were pointing out?

1 Cor 5:5

NET Bible
5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved 8 in the day of the Lord. 9

NIV
5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. A. Or that his body; or that the flesh

NASB
I have decided to (A)deliver such a one to (B)Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in (C)the day of the Lord

KJV
5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Thanks for your help.
Terry

I think the NIV is the ONLY translation with 'sinful nature' here. But let's assume they have accurately translated 'sarx' and have not put their own interpretation into the text as they are wont to do. If I engage in gross sin and do not repent, the church will turn me over to Satan. So far, so good. Once I'm turned over to Satan what will he do? Will he destroy my sinful nature? Or will he destroy my flesh? (Satan attacked Job's ....?) If my sinful nature is destroyed, I can live a perfect life. We sin that grace may abound? There have been various cults who have believed that you can purify yourself of your sinful nature by engaging in gross immorality. The NIV is not translating here, but is instead interpreting. And their interpretation is wrong. Furthermore they are destroying Paul's point. The battle is between the flesh and the spirit. That's the theme throughout Paul's writing. Walk after the Spirit and not the flesh. Mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit.

Here is an article from the Trinitarian Bible Society which deals with the many problems in the NIV. Scroll down until you get to "Synonym Problems."

From John Gill's Exposition on 1 Cor 5:5 "for the destruction of the flesh; that is, that his body might be shook, buffeted, afflicted, and tortured in a terrible manner; that by this means he might be brought to a sense of his sin, to repentance for it, and make an humble acknowledgment of it:"

John Calvin on the same passage:

The clause that follows, for the destruction of the flesh, is made use of for the purpose of softening; for Paul’s meaning is not that the person who is chastised is given over to Satan to be utterly ruined, or so as to be given up to the devil in perpetual bondage, but that it is a temporary condemnation, and not only so, but of such a nature as will be salutary. For as the salvation equally with the condemnation of the spirit is eternal, he takes the condemnation of the flesh as meaning temporal condemnation. “We will condemn him in this world for a time, that the Lord may preserve him in his kingdom.” This furnishes an answer to the objection, by which some endeavor to set aside this exposition, for as the sentence of excommunication is directed rather against the soul than against the outward man, they inquire how it can be called the destruction of the flesh My answer, then, is, (as I have already in part stated,) that the destruction of the flesh is opposed to the salvation of the spirit, simply because the former is temporal and the latter is eternal. In this sense the Apostle in Hebrews 5:7, uses the expression the days of Christ’s flesh, to mean the course of his mortal life. Now the Church in chastising offenders with severity, spares them not in this world, in order that God may spare them. "But it is in order that God may spare them.” Should any one wish to have anything farther in reference to the rite of excommunication, its causes, necessity, purposes, and limitation, let him consult my Institutes.

 

[JohnGill]

I feel like I need a children's bible again, but I'll take a guess. The second one is better because it indicates he was NOT pure and must become pure. Whereas the first one makes it seem that he is already pure and needs to stay that way, which would be incorrect.

That was my only point. The first one implies an error. The second one does not.

Psalm 119:9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. (ESV)

Psalm 119:9 (Beth) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto according to thy word. (AV)

BTW, the AV is written at a 5th to 6th grade reading level.

That is a myth, unfortunately. I teach children to read, and I can guarantee you that one of the two verses you just quoted is nowhere near 5th to 6th grade level. Here are some links that suggest 12th grade level for KJV:

Bible Translations

BibleNetUSA:Read

Bible.com Community: Multimedia

Not according to the Flesch-Kincaid research company’s Grade Level Indicator which places the KJV at a 5th grade reading level. Others say it is around the 10th grade. Dealing with 3rd-5th graders in Sunday School, none of them had a problem reading it.

"The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 100 words) is the King James Version of the Bible: . . ." (Rudolf Flesch, The Art of Plain Talk, p. 43)

"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)

The Influence of the Authorised Version upon English Literature.

HS Millar, though a supporter of the Westcott Hort Text and the Revised Version, had to admit:

For more than three centuries the King James version has been the Bible of the English-speaking world, and there does not seem to be much abatement, even in favour of the Revised Version. More copies are being sold each year. Its simple, majestic, Anglo-Saxon tongue, its clear, sparkling style, its directness and force of utterance, have made it the model in language, style and dignity of some of the choicest writers of the last two centuries. Added to the above characteristics, its reverential and spiritual tone and attitude have made it the life of the Christian church, for its own words have been regarded as authoritative and binding. It has endeared itself to the hearts and lives of millions of Christians and has molded the characters of the leaders in every walk of life in the greatest nation of the world. During all these centuries, King James' version has become a vital part of the English-speaking world, socially, morally, religiously, and politically. Launched with the endorsement of the regal and scholarly authority of the seventeenth century, its conquest and rule have been supreme

- HS Miller, General Biblical Introduction, pp. 356,66; Miller quotes part of this paragraph from Ira Price's The Ancestry of our English Bible

Brand Blanchard On Philosophical Style

It might pay them to do so. Raleigh thought that “imperfect acquaintance with the Latin element in English is the cause of much diffuse writing and mixed metaphor. If you talk nonsense in Saxon you are found out at once; you have a competent judge in every hearer. But put it into Latin and the nonsense masquerades as profundity of abstract thought.” Unfortunately the mask may deceive even oneself.

T. S. Eliot on the issue of readability. T.S. Eliot on the style of the New English Bible ('dignified mediocrity')

Geroge P. Marsh's Lectures on English Authorized King James Version of the Bible 1611

The Literary Impact of the Authorised Version Book by CS Lewis


But that was not my major point. My major point was that the ESV reading in Psalm 119:9, is contrary to the Doctrine of Original Sin & Total Depravity.

That is a doctrinal problem.

 

[Grace Alone]

I understand that it wasn't your main point. And I do not mean to appear to be arguing at all. But I pulled up a page of links for bible version reading levels and they all said 12th grade for KJV. If Flesch-Kincaid comes up with 5th, I will have to say they are in the minority, and I would seriously doubt their methods of assessing reading level.

I get your point with the other verse, but in just reading that Psalm, that verse would not have jumped out to me as a problem. I need to look it up in my Ref. Study Bible and see how they handle it. But I am off to church at the moment (with my family) to meet with the elders in order to join our new church!

 

[JohnGill]

I understand that it wasn't your main point. And I do not mean to appear to be arguing at all. But I pulled up a page of links for bible version reading levels and they all said 12th grade for KJV. If Flesch-Kincaid comes up with 5th, I will have to say they are in the minority, and I would seriously doubt their methods of assessing reading level.

I get your point with the other verse, but in just reading that Psalm, that verse would not have jumped out to me as a problem. I need to look it up in my Ref. Study Bible and see how they handle it. But I am off to church at the moment (with my family) to meet with the elders in order to join our new church!

The Flesch-Kincaid method may be in the minority, but this method has no bias for or against any version. I am not even sure the man was a Christian. However, with regards to lacking bias, the same cannot be said with the links you have provided.


I would say good luck, but I'm no longer Arminian. (And I'm not implying you are. Internet removes intonation which breeds confusion.)

God Bless.

 

[cornopean]

John Murray liked the NIV altho he disagreed with its translation of monogenes in john 3:16.