This is based on the Flesch Kincaid evaluation which is really flawed. That method mainly focuses on syllable length and sentence length.
it does not take into account difficult/archaic grammatical structure nor does it take into account archaic word difficulty or archaic idioms.
As for perfectly understanding the KJV, you might think you perfectly understand it but I highly doubt that. Even if you perfectly understand it now, I highly doubt you always have.
I am constantly finding things in the KJV that I have misunderstood and have to had to refine in my own understanding.
Mine is a personal opinion only. I do not consider any update of the KJV necessary or even possible, without errors of omission or commission. I suspect that in today's world there are no Bible scholars that are on a par with the original translators.
Of first and foremost importance is the verifiable fact that the manuscripts they worked from are no longer in existence; therefore, any update can only be from using the existing KJV, complete with its language and grammar.
As for the ability, or lack of it for the average person to understand, I have heard it said that our KJV is und
TO THE MOST
HIGH AND MIGHTY
by the Grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland
Defender of the Faith, &c.
The Translators of the Bible
wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace through Jesus
CHRIST our LORD
[What follows is the Dedicatory Epistle of the King James translators to King James I who commissioned the translation of the Kimg James Bible. It is included here that the reader might have a basis of comparison between the language and style of the 1611 Authorized King James Version and the language and style this Dedicatory Epistle. Note the sharp c
Thank you for all the comments and feedback! For those of you who have indicated that you are positive towards a KJV update, what do you think about having a parallel Bible with the current KJV compared to a standalone update? (Please take the poll if you have not yet so we can see what lots of people think.)
I would like to give my opinion here as a King James Bible believer and defender, but also as one with a background in Linguistics, training in Bible Translation and as someone who has deeply studied the Bible both in English and in Greek and Hebrew.
First of all, many Modern Translations are rightly criticized for their corrupt source texts and bad translation methodology. However, what you largely see here is a superstitious commitment to the particular word choices of the KJV translators that even they would not have agreed with. Even in the preface to the KJV they talked about how the