King James Flunked All His Writing Classes

Let's get honest, the KJV Bible isn't the wondrous work that it's unanimously tauted to be by the community of believers.  In terms of literary qualities, this is especially true.  It's full of language that can be misconstrued in this modern age, and it's got numerous grammatical errors and ambiguations, that almost lend to the wondering of whether or not it has contradictions.  The perfect book?  I hardly think so.  Take a look:

Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body. - Heb 13:3 (KJV)

Does "remember" mean what it means today:  referencing something by memory?  Or does it mean to be mindful?  It took me a while before I finally understood what it was trying to say:  if somebody else is in bondage or suffering, then you should feel what they are feeling, too, out of sympathy.  But the verse is still ambiguous.  What is "them" referring to -- just anybody or a fellow believer?  And I thought we weren't supposed to suffer with others, but rather bring them out of their suffering?  (Unless suffering with them brings the two of you out).  If this verse is what it says it is, there is hardly a believer I know that does this and that means we're all screwed.

But if it does mean to suffer along with them, at what point do you stop suffering?  I mean, the two of you need to get out some how.  You guys can't always be "remembering yourself as bound with those in bondage."  In this case, then, the verse should read the following:

If somebody else is in bondage and suffering, be empathetic with them -- feel their bondage and their pain.  But don't do it indefinitely.  Bring them out of it soon, after remembering what it feels like. - Heb 13:3 (MJV - Mark Jones Version)

There.  Much more clear.  It's a good verse, but unfortunately, trying to unravel the meaning is a job.  And did I just add words to Scripture?  No, I just put two principles of scripture together.  The Bible does say to heal other people of their pain and suffering.

And note the version:  the Mark Jones version.  I have this theory that all of us, when reading the Bible, interpret and reword the Scripture our own way anyway.  It's the only way one can understand the literary brainteaser that is the King James.

Many people might look at this and say:  my, what an over-analysis!  And they're exactly right.  You need to over-analyze a King James scripture sometimes in order to understand it (heck, you need to over-analyze a scripture from *any* version in order to understand the Bible as a whole).

Actually, I take what I said back.  It's actually pretty simple to understand whole sections of scripture sometimes.  Hebrews chapter 1-2 basically says these things:  Jesus is the Son of God, he is above the angels, and he died on the cross for our sins.  In the Bible, it takes 50 times as many words to say that.  Way to adhere to the brevity principle:  try using as few words as possible.

And other people might say, "you're taking the verse of context."  (Back to Hebrews 13:3)  It's already out of context.  The surrounding verses, the subject of marriage and being hospitable to strangers, don't closely pertain to bondage and suffering (unless the stranger you absentmindedly welcomed into your home is behaving like a real jerk).

Here's another example:

13 Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: 14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. -- James 4:13-14 (KJV)

Go to where?  It never says.  The first few words of verse 13 lead to a either an incoherent thought, or a fragment.  Unless "now" is a place.  But in today's language, that's not the wording for it.  It's this:  "be in the present."

Another example of garbled communication:

  4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but
    chosen of God, and precious, 1 Peter 2:4 (KJV)

"To whom coming"?  Not even a five-year old talks like that.  "Disallowed indeed of men"...disallowed what?  You can't disallowed an "indeed," indeed is not a noun.  And "of men"?  Is there a sort of "indeed" out there that is of the "men" type?  The verse might make sense, but I feel like once I grasp the meaning of it, the words used to understand the verse will be far different from the original words of the verse.


Oh, I get it.  He was disallowed by men.  The all-too-common missing verb problem.  Found in too many places for a book that wishes to sell itself as authoritative.

But I mean, it doesn't say what he was forbidden to do.  Everything?

Putting the verse in "context" doesn't help either:

  1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies,
    and envies, and all evil speakings, 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere
    milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted
    that the Lord is gracious.

  4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but
    chosen of God, and precious, 1 Peter 2:4 (KJV)

  5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy
    priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by
    Jesus Christ. -- 1 Peter 2:1-5 (KJV)

Right off the bat, a comma splice at the beginning of verse 5.  "Ye" is a subject, so it should be separated by a comma and coordinating conjunction, a period, or a semi-colon.

And the "If" in verse 3 doesn't make sense.  Either that or "so be" should be ommitted.
Perhaps the most prominent case of failed literary aspiration in the King James is found in Hebrews 4.  Let's start with the first verse:

"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it."

Thank you for being so clear and straightforward with that.  It is very clear what we should fear, and the "promise" is an animate force that left the believers "of entering into his rest," except for those who "should seem to come short of it."  Seem to come short of it (the promise, of course); not everyone who seems has actually come short of the promise.  How do you come short of a promise?  You don't know?  It said in a previous verse (the third verse of Hebrews 4), that you do so if you don't believe in it:  "for we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."  I guess some people can also pretend to work on the Sabbath, seemingly coming short of the promise.

And don't you love it when colons actually serve their purpose in writing?  Well, I'm sorry you won't be feeling that love here in Hebrews.  Colons usually elaborate on the preceding statement or word (in this case, it would be "if they shall enter into my rest," or the word "rest" itself).  The clause following the colon is very much a non-sequitir.

When I write a paper for school, my English teacher always encourages me to spellcheck and fix grammatical errors.  This teaching must be a modern American one that no person under the rule of King James had ever even considered.

And if I wrote like King James did for my English professors, I'd sure fail my composition classes.  Thank goodness I was smart enough not to swallow the nonsense notion, "the King James Bible was the greatest book ever written."