Can anyone see the irony in this? The same people whose reading skills can bring them through the works of Hort and Westcott and leave them with the conclusion that they are Satanists; the same people that can read Burgon’s work and think he is the original King James Onlyist; these are the same people that will look you dead in the eye and proclaim that the King James Version is actually more understandable than a version written in modern day English.
As yet further evidence of a complete lack of reading comprehension, a quote has been circulating around the internet, made famous when it appeared in Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions (who has just about the worst track record of any KJVO author when it comes to “getting the point” of whom she’s quoting).
“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)
“Wow,” your average KJVO reader may say. “I don’t know what an affix is, but clearly this Rudolf Flesch guy thinks the King James Version is the most readable Bible known to English-speaking man.” Oddly, the definition of an affix is never given in tandem with this quote. What Dr. Flesch meant by an affix is either a prefix, such as when you add ap to prove to make approve, or a suffix, such as when you add ing to make approving. Affixes can be “stacked”, so you could add a third to make it dis-ap-prov(e)-ing. In Dr. Flesch’s opinion, “disapproving” would be a much more difficult word than “prove”, or more to the point, that a commonly used word such as “disapproving” would be much harder to read than any words in the KJV that have gone out of common usage today, such as wist, ravin, anon, wot, etc.
In other words, this is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the King James Onlyist. No one who is being honest with themselves will compare the King James (as lovely as the translation may be) against any of the mainstream modern translations and claim that it is easier to read.