Featured Grade level?

I was reading the NIV by 5th grade. I don't remember struggling with it in anyway. Some of the Hebrew names were hard to pronounce, but I still struggle with those

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

It is easy to find sites where the reading level is specified, but as indicated, pick up several versions and read the same passage and use the highest reading level you can understand. Note, younger folks are still on the learning curve, so they should tackle versions a grade or so higher than their current level.

Here is a reading level site:
http://www.bibleselector.com/reading_level.html

 

Whether or not this has anything to do with the OP, I'm not 110+% certain.
More or less this is maybe FYI, but Rose Publishing ( www.rose-publishing.com ) has what it calls a Bible Translations Comparison pamphlet, Stock # 597X (ISBN 13: 978-159636-133-1).
This publication compares "20 Popular Versions of the Bible [in the English language]" from the KJV up to and including the Common English Bible (CEB) [2010 NT, 2011 OT].
Its "Balance Method" for each listed Bible has within it an assigned 'Reading Grade Level.'

This publication also has within it other very helpful charts and definitions, etc., that are relevant to "Translations Issues."

IMHO, it's well worth the price. It also comes in a 19" X 26" wall chart.

 

That grading scale looks flawed tbh. It reminds of how the QB rating (not ESPN's QBR) has a huge, huge bias towards interceptions. Interceptions lower the rating about thrice as much as throwing a touchdown pass raises it. But that makes no sense because intercepted passes aren't guaranteed to lead to a scoring drive while touchdown passes are guaranteed points

 

Not sure where this fits: the copies of the NT(no originals available), were written in KOINEGREEKCAPITALLETTERSTHEREARENOSPACESBETWEENWORDSORPUNCTUATION MARKS. Hermeneutics is difficult without the Holy Spirit leading, guiding and directing. Obviously, not all translators have the HS as a guide.

The KJV translators were commissioned by an Anglican king who had problems with the Geneva Bible--the Bible reportedly used by the New Testament Church, 37 members, on the Mayflower, 1620.

The KJV translators transliterated baptize to baptism instead of translating it to dip, plunge or immerse. Anglicans still sprinkle, afluse(sic)or something, including their babies. Not many in Christendom practice scriptural baptism.

The world will be judged by The Book. We better know what it says.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Huh? Come again? The Geneva Bible was used by the New Testament Church you say? You're more than a millennium and a half off. And the early Church did not understand 16th century English.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Sir, a New Testament Church, as opposed to a man-made church. There have been NT Churches in every generation--Jesus promised. He is faithful, even when we are not. He said the gates of hell will not prevail against it--maybe even in Beijing.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

BJ: When you use the term "N.T. Church" that refers to a certain time period centuries ago.

You should have used the term "operating under New Testament Principles" instead. But then you would be going agianst your oft-repeated theme --that only Baptists go by the New Testament. The problem for you is that the Pilgrims of New England were decidedly not credo-Baptistic.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did NT churches no longer exist? Mt. 28:20, "...and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the age"--Jesus said NT churches would be around for a while, maybe even after 2015. See also: Mt. 16:18, "...the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Apostle Paul used "world without end" in Eph. 3:21.

This is not about a name or a creed, but rather a Faith and Practice. See Jude 3--the whole book is applicable.

For extra credit see: History of the Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, by S. Morland.

See also: MayflowerHistory.com

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I beg to differ with you on this point. If you want to know why, we can start up a private conversation in which I can explain to you the reason(s) for which I differ with you on this particular matter.

 

Actually, would see the Kjv as being about 11-12 grade, as would be the Nasb, as both of them would require one to have a good grasp on English grammar and word usuage in order to get most from them!

 

Or, to reword the above:
Actually, I think the KJV and NASU are about the 11th to 12th grade level. Both translations require a good grasp of English grammar and word usage in order to get the most out of them.

 

I believe the reasoning behind the KJVOnly's post is simply to rebut those who express difficulty in comprehending that version, as if it proves no one should have difficulty.

The English used in the version is no longer vulgar (common) so when persons pick it up to read it is strange. There is no need imo to have to stick to that version. Get a version you can comprehend and readily read such as an ESV, NIV, NASB, or other. Nothing against the KJV but there are better translations out there.

 

I wish you had given the GL of the NASB in your list.

If I recall it is about 5th to 6th grade, but I am probably very wrong.