Bible Reading Comprehension Tests

[Rippon2]

However, KJV is not the American dialect, which additionally does not observe English pronunciation, as you know. One cannot truthfully say that UK pronunciation is obsolete when it is the standard.

There is no one uniform standard of British English. There are way more varieties on that isle than in big ole' America.

 

[Rippon2]

Perhaps the "aloud" isn't a perfect test. This just isn't a KJV issue. I have noticed that middle school kids do poorly when reading the ESV out loud during youth Bible study.

The ESV is a perfect translation...to stumble and fumble when reading aloud.

In my Baptist experience...we do not do near as good at reading the KJV.

That sentence indicates why.

 

[Rippon2]

An online Christian book seller has the following grade level ratings:

Translation — Grade Level

• NRSV — 11
  
• 
  
• ESV — 10
  
  
• 
  
• Message — 4-5

• The ESV and NRSV should be at the very same grade level.

The Message is certainly not at the 4-5th grade level. Someone, or some people, didn't even bother
to read it before making that inane conclusion. It's easily at the 9th grade level at least.

 

[alexander284]

There is no one uniform standard of British English. There are way more varieties on that isle than in big ole' America.

Yes, and let's not forget the rest of the UK: Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

 

[church mouse guy]

yes an no - different dialect with many differences.

and a language which 400 years ago now has many current archaic words.

A good example of what you are talking about is this:

1Jo 2:1 (KJV) My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

I doubt if anyone who speaks Ameican uses the word "propitiation" and it has been removed from American translations.

 

[alexander284]

yes an no - different dialect with many differences.

and a language which 400 years ago now has many current archaic words.

"Current archaic words?"

A word is either "current" or it's "archaic."

There's no such thing as a "current archaic" word.

 

[Rippon2]

Yes, and let's not forget the rest of the UK: Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

I meant to say the British Isles --all-encompassing.

 

[rlvaughn]

For example, wood today is commonly used to refer to pieces of a tree or to something made from a tree.

Wood [singular] in the KJV is sometimes used with the meaning of the plural form of the word --"woods" [a growth of un-cut trees, usually greater in extent than a grove and smaller than a forest]. Perhaps some people may understand the word "wood" to refer to the woods, but I have never heard the word used that way in regular present-day English.

Pretty much off topic, but I have found in watching British TV that "wood" must still be pretty common there. At least it is used regularly on some of the shows.

 

[Jerome]

And what about all the tots who've watched Winnie the Pooh's antics in The 100 Acre Wood.
Maybe the hand wringers should reach out to Disney so it can be corrected.
LOL