Grade Level

[Baptist4life]

Let's don't BE dumb, here!

Have you ever seen any such test?YES, MY DAUGHTER HAS A MASTERS IN EDUCATION, AND I'VE SEEN TESTS FROM 100 YEARS AGO Have you even tried looking up an actual test from that era, as opposed to a couple of the fake ones that appear on the internet from time to time? YES

Incidentally, I could fully recommend the CKJV or KJVER for a 3rd grader, both of which update the KJV text into a more understandable reading form for those of that general level, while I would most likely never recommend the GNB or MSG, even though both of these would probably be far easier to read for that same 3rd grader, in exactly the same manner I would also likely not recommend the GEN or the actual KJ-1611 edition.

Why would you (or anyone else) see the need to make the Bible less readable for that 3rd grader of today? I thought the general idea was to get someone to read (and understand) the Bible. Did I miss something here??

I cannot transport someone back to the 17th Century for schooling, any more than you (or anyone) can.
Why attempt to smack someone with this false red herring,

when we are talking about the 21st Century, here?

Ed

Thank you for your FALSE accusations and Christlike response. I never even suggested ANY of those things. I'll await your apology.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't need to "go and read the KJV". I've been reading it for 48 years! :thumbs:


And I'm NOT "tring":smilewinkgrin: to say today's versions are dumbed down, I was saying the public school system has dumbed down our children.

Compared to any kind of primary education of the the 17th century in England to days primary schools are centres of higher learning. There were no common schools as we know them in England for about 200 years after the KJV.

 

[Rippon]

I don't need to "go and read the KJV". I've been reading it for 48 years! :thumbs:

[personal attack deleted] I'm just wanted you to take a fresh reading to verify your assertions.

And I'm NOT "tring":smilewinkgrin: to say today's versions are dumbed down, I was saying the public school system has dumbed down our children.

I fail to see why the public school system has anything to do with folks in the 21st century needing to understand a largely 16th century translation.

 

[Baptist4life]

That's what you claim anyway.

You know, I can take a lot of criticism on here, but I WILL NOT BE ACCUSED OF LYING!!! :BangHead: Either apologize or remove the post!

 

[Tater77]

This is a difficult question because the original language manuscripts are so varied.

Probably the most difficult to translate is Hebrews at a college level whereas John and his epistles are more simplistic; maybe middle school (with execeptions here and there (e.g. "propitiation").


HankD

So very true !!!!

 

[Rippon]

I think since the KJV was WRITTEN in 1611, that the language THEN was probably at a THIRD grade level. You're thinking about TODAY'S 3rd grader Ed.

B4L, the opening post clarified that he was "talking about today's school grades."

When we hear of reading levels or grade level reading we are speaking of contemporary times. There is absolutely no way that the KJVs qualify on a third grade reading level. If that's your contention you need to reread the Anglician Version.

 

[Baptist4life]

For the record, I would put the KJV at about an 8th grade level.

 

[Logos1560]

One site claims a very low grade because it uses a system 9Flesch-Kincaid) that only measures length of sentences and syllables per word. It gives a false view of grade level, I think it says grade five.

It does not take into account antiquated or rarely used words.

That is true. That computer-based evaluation of the KJV would indicate an incorrect grade level since it seems to emphasize length of words or average syllables per word.


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,” and “mean while.” 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.

I wonder if that test puts much weight on length of sentences since the KJV is usually credited with have longer sentences because of the long sentences used by Paul in Greek while modern translations are sometimes criticized for their use of short sentences.

 

[EdSutton]

Let's don't BE dumb, here!

Have you ever seen any such test? ( YES, MY DAUGHTER HAS A MASTERS IN EDUCATION, AND I'VE SEEN TESTS FROM 100 YEARS AGO - Comment inserted by Baptist4life - Ed) Have you even tried looking up an actual test from that era, as opposed to a couple of the fake ones that appear on the internet from time to time? ( YES - Comment inserted by Baptist4life - Ed)

Incidentally, I could fully recommend the CKJV or KJVER for a 3rd grader, both of which update the KJV text into a more understandable reading form for those of that general level, while I would most likely never recommend the GNB or MSG, even though both of these would probably be far easier to read for that same 3rd grader, in exactly the same manner I would also likely not recommend the GEN or the actual KJ-1611 edition.

Why would you (or anyone else) see the need to make the Bible less readable for that 3rd grader of today? I thought the general idea was to get someone to read (and understand) the Bible. Did I miss something here??

I cannot transport someone back to the 17th Century for schooling, any more than you (or anyone) can.
Why attempt to smack someone with this false red herring,

when we are talking about the 21st Century, here? ['' Smilie snipped, to print!] (Note- Underlining in red is all done by Baptist4Life, and not by EdSutton, in this post. - Ed)

Thank you for your FALSE accusations and Christlike response. I never even suggested ANY of those things. I'll await your apology.['Unhappy' Smilie snipped, to print!]

Why are you so unhappy, here?

With all respect, my brother, I made NO "accusations" of any sort - true, false, or otherwise in between here, but basically only asked a series of questions. I will admit, that I did misread one part of your initial post, by not reading carefully enough, and thought you were referring to some '3rd grade test' from the early 17th Century, however. I will apologize, if I may have made you angry, somehow, for it was fully unintended. I will not apologize for anything actually said in my post, for I repeat that I said nothing that can be construed as any accusation.

FTR, I have been reading what is purported to be the KJV for more than 50 years, myself, and read the Christmas story in Luke, publicly at my school's Christmas Program, when I was in the 3rd grade.

Actually most, if not all, of the KJVs that I did read, before about 1969, were not genuine KJVs, for they were all probably printed in the USA. I purchased my first genuine KJV in Jan. 1969, because the KJV was the required text for memorizing, for Bible College. It was a copyrighted Oxford Scofield Edition, and was suggested as the Bible one should have.

Unfortunately, I did not know then, as much as I now know, for had I then known, I would have ONLY used a 'real' KJV-1611 reproduction, :thumbsup: with the 1611 spellings, and word forms, and probably raised enough of a "stink" about the bad grades I would have undoubtedly gotten for spellings that did not correspond to the 1769 Edition, that I when I had showed that my Bible College Administration was

, I would most likely have received this notice, in response from my Bible College -

, considering I probably would not have been quite as congenial then, as I am today. ['Wink' Smilie removed to print!]

Do you not consider it to be a misrepresentation for anyone to profess fealty to "the 1611 King James Bible" and then turn around and actually use the spellings and word forms from the KJV- 1769 Edition? If not, why would you not?

Would you please list a site where one can actually view a 3rd grade test from 100 years (or so) ago, considering you apparently know where such can be found, and also considering you have impeached today's educational system in that it has "dumbed down" the students in the 21st Century? Would that be too difficult to show??

Or do you consider my asking of these question to be some "accusation" here, also?

Incidentally, I believe you might probably know that I do primarily use a genuine Oxford KJV (© - 1967 Edition), and a NKJV (© 1982 - © 1989 Thomas Nelson Edition), and that the underlying OT and NT texts of the NKJV are the exact same texts, as those underlying the KJVs. I just do not happen to ONLY use these two Bibles.

Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

Ed, I THANK YOU for your response. I sometimes post before I think about it, and I just get frustrated because I think the KJV-ONLY people have caused the KJ-VERSION to be thrown to the wolves. I LOVE the KJV, I've used it my whole life. I understand the argument against KJV-ONLY, but it just seems that the KJ-VERSION is taking the "hit" for that.

 

[EdSutton]

Fake So-called 'test' !

I think since the KJV was WRITTEN in 1611, that the language THEN was probably at a THIRD grade level. You're thinking about TODAY'S 3rd grader Ed. We've "dumbed down" a LOT. Go back 100 years and look up a third grade general knowledge test. I doubt if the average high school freshman could pass it.

Have you ever seen any such test? Have you even tried looking up an actual test from that era, as opposed to a couple of the fake ones that appear on the internet from time to time?

The reason I asked this particular question is exactly because variations of this so-called "test" appear from time to time on the internet (I've received this in e-mails, personally.), and such have even been cited on the BB.

This one is still false and fraudulent, and has been palpably and totally debunked, regardless of who may have seen it, wherever, and also regardless of what well-meaning and even totally honest individuals may believe, and innocently pass this on this particular bit of "GIGO" at any time.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=48717&highlight=1895%3B+exam

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ed, I THANK YOU for your response. I sometimes post before I think about it, and I just get frustrated because I think the KJV-ONLY people have caused the KJ-VERSION to be thrown to the wolves. I LOVE the KJV, I've used it my whole life. I understand the argument against KJV-ONLY, but it just seems that the KJ-VERSION is taking the "hit" for that.

I believe all of the KJVs has their share of shortcomings. I also believe every other version around does the same. Some have more than others, granted.

However, all complete Bible versions in any language are translated from other languages, with the result that there is a bit 'lost' in human translating. One cannot even find any complete Bible in Hebrew, Chaldee, or Greek that has not been translated, at least in part, even if one were to actually hold the autographs in one's hand.

I do not hold to 'inerrant' translators of any version. I am not aware that any legitimate translators ever claimed such. Certainly Jerome, the primary translator of the VUL, did not claim such, not did the KJV or NIV (These do happen to be the two all-time, best selling, English versions, I believe, although I could possibly be mistaken, here.) translators, nor to my knowledge did the translators into such other major languages (and numerically also among the all-time best-sellers) as the RVA, LUTH, LSG, or others.

Aside from the Roman Catholic Church, which has later claimed effectively both 'infallibility' and 'perfection' for both the VUL and the D-R (If the D-R and VUL were completely 'perfect', why was there any need for any revisions of them, such as Challoner's and Clementine's??), the only other Version that this claim is made for, at least that I'm aware of, is the KJV (Again, if the KJV-1611 posessed this same 'perfection,' then why the need for the revisions of Parris and Blaney in the 1760s?).

Let it be noted that I do not consider the correction of printing 'typos' as any 'revision' for any version, in any language.

And let me here also note that I do fully agree with the 'editings' of Drs. Parris and Blaney, for the KJV, in virtually every instance, of which I'm aware.

Ed

 

[Askjo]

Thr argument shows the disagreement on this grade level ALL the times. The KJV is still here since 400 years. If the KJV is hard to understand, let it goes or let it die. Why is the KJV still here today?

This phrase, 'hard to understand" means that a person has trouble reading habit or no reading. I know about a preacher's brother who can't read because he left the school when he was very young. He has trouble reading because he can't stand to read. During his adult lifetime, He had the ability to read the KJV. He read it daily. He improved his reading. He is capable to teach a lesson in children's class.

Most deaf people's education is different from hearing people's education. Deaf people's education is up to 6 or 10 grade level -- depend on their intelligence. On other State, it up to 3 grade level. BUT most deaf student's' reading is lowest. What is the lowest on grade level for their reading? I learned many deaf student's reading is between 3 to 7 grade level. A few deaf student's reading is higher than that. They used the KJV for reading/studying because they are capable to read it and understand it.

DBFA (Deaf Baptist Fellowshio of America) is independent Fundamental Baptist. This association only uses the KJV for preaching, teaching, reading and memorizing. Many deaf Christians use the KJV in many Baptist churches today.

 

[Keith M]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring one of the KJVs over other Bible translations, Askjo. The problem arises when people abandon scriptural authority and become their own final authority, declaring one of the KJVs to be the ONLY word of God in English. Many of these people go on to denigrate God's word in all English Bible translations except their own favorite translation. THIS is what non-KJVOs are fighting against - not the KJVs themselves.

As for the OP, I firmly believe the KJVs are on a 12th grade reading level for modern readers. I also realize this is not ALWAYS the case. There are many people who were brought up around one of the KJVs. Such was the case in my home when I was growing up. I'm quite familiar with the archaic language of the KJVs. However, for those NOT brought up around the KJVs, the language can be very difficult to understand. That's why God has graciously provided modern Bible translations for us. Modern Bible translations insure God's message to us is kept just as pure and understandable for today's readers as it was for readers of the original autographs.

 

[EdSutton]

Thr argument shows the disagreement on this grade level ALL the times. The KJV is still here since 400 years. If the KJV is hard to understand, let it goes or let it die. Why is the KJV still here today?

This phrase, 'hard to understand" means that a person has trouble reading habit or no reading. I know about a preacher's brother who can't read because he left the school when he was very young. He has trouble reading because he can't stand to read. During his adult lifetime, He had the ability to read the KJV. He read it daily. He improved his reading. He is capable to teach a lesson in children's class.

Most deaf people's education is different from hearing people's education. Deaf people's education is up to 6 or 10 grade level -- depend on their intelligence. On other State, it up to 3 grade level. BUT most deaf student's' reading is lowest. What is the lowest on grade level for their reading? I learned many deaf student's reading is between 3 to 7 grade level. A few deaf student's reading is higher than that. They used the KJV for reading/studying because they are capable to read it and understand it.

DBFA (Deaf Baptist Fellowshio of America) is independent Fundamental Baptist. This association only uses the KJV for preaching, teaching, reading and memorizing. Many deaf Christians use the KJV in many Baptist churches today.

FTR, I made no comments as to whatever "grade level" of any version, although what I did show, in post #31, is that one of the purported "tests" for 8th graders, is fraudulent.

Ed

 

[Mexdeaf]

Most deaf people's education is different from hearing people's education. Deaf people's education is up to 6 or 10 grade level -- depend on their intelligence. On other State, it up to 3 grade level. BUT most deaf student's' reading is lowest. What is the lowest on grade level for their reading? I learned many deaf student's reading is between 3 to 7 grade level. A few deaf student's reading is higher than that. They used the KJV for reading/studying because they are capable to read it and understand it.

DBFA (Deaf Baptist Fellowshio of America) is independent Fundamental Baptist. This association only uses the KJV for preaching, teaching, reading and memorizing. Many deaf Christians use the KJV in many Baptist churches today.

And there are many deaf Christians who use the NIV, ESV, NKJV as well whose reading comprehension is higher than average also. They know how to spell "Fellowship", too. :laugh:

 

[Askjo]

And there are many deaf Christians who use the NIV, ESV, NKJV as well whose reading comprehension is higher than average also. They know how to spell "Fellowship", too. :laugh:

Yeah, I know that. Please don't stupid me.

 

[Keith M]

Hey, Askjo, I often hit the o instead of the p or the p instead of the o since they're side-by-side on the keyboard. This doesn't indicate someone can't spell a word. If you're stupid for doing this, then so am I and everyone else who has ever made the same mistake.

BTW, just because I defended you on this doesn't mean I'm not absolutely against the KJVO position you promote.

:wavey:

 

[Askjo]

Hey, Askjo, I often hit the o instead of the p or the p instead of the o since they're side-by-side on the keyboard. This doesn't indicate someone can't spell a word. If you're stupid for doing this, then so am I and everyone else who has ever made the same mistake.

BTW, just because I defended you on this doesn't mean I'm not absolutely against the KJVO position you promote.

:wavey:

There has 2 groups of KJVO. The KJVO believes in the KJV inspiration. I didn't.

 

[Keith M]

There has 2 groups of KJVO. The KJVO believes in the KJV inspiration. I didn't.

Regardless of whether one believes the KJVs are inspired, I'm still against the KJVO position in any form. But I love the KJVs - I use one of the KJVs as one of the three translations I use most often.