Is the AV1611 written at a 4th grade Level?

[rlvaughn]

MEdde, I must post a great thank you for informing us (me at least) of the ability to apply the Flesch-Kincaid scale in Microsoft Word. I'm still learning something new every day!

With this newfound information, I plugged several versions of I Timothy chapter 4 (the chapter I happened to be studying) into a Microsoft Word document and used this feature (after I finally figured out how to get it to work). Some of you might find the results interesting, though I would hasten to add that I am not asserting that it proves anything more than that this is what Microsoft Word says the Flesch-Kincaid Scale is for this chapter in the following versions. I do not think it would be accurate to assert that this chapter is necessarily representative of the entire Bible. There are two parts to the readability scores: </font>

• Flesch Reading Ease score - Rates text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 60 to 70. </font>
  1. </font>
  2. WEB/73.4</font>
  3. NIV/71.8</font>
  4. RSV/71.5</font>
  5. HCS/69.0</font>
  6. KJV/68.2</font>
  7. NKJV/68.0</font>
  8. NAS/64.8</font>
  9. Spanish/35.4</font>

</font>

• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score - Rates text on a U.S. grade-school level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most standard documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0. </font>
  1. </font>
  2. WEB/7.2</font>
  3. KJV/7.5</font>
  4. NIV/7.9</font>
  5. HCS/7.9</font>
  6. RSV/8.0</font>
  7. NKJV/8.6</font>
  8. NAS/9.2</font>
  9. Spanish/12.0</font>

I note that all the texts studied are in what might be considered the "acceptable range" of reading ease (with less than 10 points difference), and that there is only a two-grade range of difference for grade level. I just threw in a Spanish text of I Timothy 4 just to see what Word would do. Oh well, I'm sure sure I understand all I know about this scale. Anyway, hope it makes interesting reading.

 

[rsr]

For what it is worth, after plugging in the 1st Chapter of Matthew the KJV said it was on the 6th grade while the NIV was on the 16th!!!! grade.

Which shows the futility of relying on the scale for any kind of accurate measurement.

 

[rlvaughn]

I ran Matthew 1 and came up with KJV/6.4/66.6 (grade level/readability ease) and NIV/12.0/37.9 (grade level/readability ease). There are obviously grade level "standards" other than Flesh-Kincaid, but I am glad to find this tool. Now I'm going to plug in some of my posts and see how I'm doing for readability/grade level.

 

[Refreshed]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I ran Matthew 1 and came up with KJV/6.4/66.6 (grade level/readability ease) and NIV/12.0/37.9 (grade level/readability ease). There are obviously grade level "standards" other than Flesh-Kincaid, but I am glad to find this tool. Now I'm going to plug in some of my posts and see how I'm doing for readability/grade level.

In case you are wondering, your post is 10.8, well above of recommended guidelines, you scholar you.

Jason

 

[Pastor Larry]

I pretty sure that "begat" in Matthew 1 lowers the readability because it is short. However, it is not easily understood. "Was the father of" in the NIV is a much clearer, though slightly longer, translation and is indeed very accurate. This is a prime example of why the KJV language is outdated in many regards. We simply don't use "begot" in today's speech.

It is easy to say, why not just explain what it means? To which I would reply, Why? The NIV and others say what it means in a very simple, easy to understand manner.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
This is a prime example of why the KJV language is outdated in many regards. We simply don't use "begot" in today's speech.

If we're using the word "begot" or "begotten" as the test, the ASV, the NRSV, the NASB, and the NKJV are all outdated as well.

The NIV and others say what it means in a very simple, easy to understand manner.

We've already seen that the "others" do not when it comes to these outdated words. I suggest you stay away from Isa 45:10 in the NIV if you don't want to have to explain what "begotten" means.

I've never checked personally, but I would hazard a guess that just about any word found in the KJV can also be found in the MV's as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
If we're using the word "begot" or "begotten" as the test, the ASV, the NRSV, the NASB, and the NKJV are all outdated as well.

The ASV is outdated. The NRSV I could look up if I cared; the NASB I did look up. Begot is used twice; begotten is used 13x, 10 in theological reference to Christ. The NKJV has unfortunately carried over the tradition of the KJV. The NIV DOEsn't have "begot" at all and it has begotten only once in the verse you mentioned. Even there it is a curious choice. I don't understand why they used it there.

[qb]We've already seen that the "others" do not when it comes to these outdated words. I suggest you stay away from Isa 45:10 in the NIV if you don't want to have to explain what "begotten" means.

[/b]For the most part they actually do, contrary to your conclusion.

I've never checked personally, but I would hazard a guess that just about any word found in the KJV can also be found in the MV's as well.

I am not sure about this and I don't think it matters, because the majority of words are only part of the story. It is the outdated words that are in question.

Since you brought it up, Isa 45:10 shows yet another problem with teh KJV.

Isaiah 45:10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

"What begettest though" is outdated language and structure. It is uncommon and not the way we speak. "What have you fathered" seems much better; even What have you begotten is better because it uses normal speech.

So my argument stands. "Begot" or "begat" is an outdated word choice that could be communicated better.

 

[russell55]

Which shows the futility of relying on the scale for any kind of accurate measurement.

My husband worked in middle school special ed for many years. When he set up individual reading programs, he found the Flesch-Kincaid test useful because it was readily available, simple and fast. If you think a kid might be interested in reading as particular novel, turn to page 28, type in a couple paragraphs and run the test. It will give you some sort of an idea whether the kid could make it through the book and understand it.

But all teachers know that what you gain in ease of use on this test, you may well lose in accuracy. The test assumes, for one thing, that all words in the text are common English words. If that's not the case, then the text is pretty much useless in determining grade level.

 

[Johnv]

So far, while the reading level has been discussed, no one has discussed comprehension level. The two are not in any way symonymous.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by russell55:
...the Flesch-Kincaid test useful because it was readily available, simple and fast...The test assumes, for one thing, that all words in the text are common English words. If that's not the case, then the text is pretty much useless in determining grade level.

I have been doing some research on Flesch-Kincaid and most of what I'm reading indicates it is considered generally reliable. But your point is well taken, and something I thought of when I was plugging texts into MW document last night and running the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. That's one reason I plugged in the Spanish text. It comes out as 12th grade level, but obviously if you can't read Spanish that number is irrelevant. The point seems to me that Flesch-Kincaid is a good comparative tool if used within its parameters. Seems to me its basically a mathematical equation that could be subject to abuse. I've e-mailed the IBS web site to ask what basis they are using to "grade" the Bibles on the page you linked, and also have e-mailed some teachers and curriculum specialists in our district concerning standards of determining "grade levels" of readers. This has really piqued my interest, and I am finding this discussion more profitable than the standard bickering over versions.

Here's a neat test I found. Someone might find it interesting:

Cloze Test - After you have checked on some texts of your own that you are hitting the right level, you should take them out to some audience members and perform a Cloze Test on them:

Take a text of about 250 words of continuous prose. Leave the first sentence intact. Thereafter delete every fifth word, leaving a standard-size gap for each deleted word. Leave the last sentence intact. Number each gap. Respondent fills in missing word for each gap. Count up correct answers. Do not allow synonyms (you can if you want, but it rarely makes much difference to the final score).
</font>

• Scores: </font>
  • </font>
  • &gt;50% - reader understands</font>
  • 35% - 50% - reader needs help</font>
  • &lt;35% - frustration</font>

 

[russell55]

That's one reason I plugged in the Spanish text. It comes out as 12th grade level, but obviously if you can't read Spanish that number is irrelevant.

It's probably irrelevant for Spanish even if you do read it., because the average length of a Spanish word is longer.

Please post what you find from your inquiries....

 

[kman]

Originally posted by Johnv:
So far, while the reading level has been discussed, no one has discussed comprehension level. The two are not in any way symonymous.

Great point. Not sure what "we do you to wit" (2 cor 8:1) would register on some scales..but I had to look that one up first time I read it. Though I will admit I haven't found a whole lot of places where the meaning isn't fairly obvious.

I've used the King James Study Bible(nelson) in the past..it has good footnotes pointing out archaic words and phrases.

-kman

 

[Harald]

I think that this questioning as to whether the KJV is 4th grade level or 6th grade level or whatever level is quite stupid. The only thing which should matter as respects a Bible translation is whether it is accurate and faithful to the text from which it is translated. In the case of the KJV this would mean that as for the NT it should be accurately and faithfully translated from the Textus Receptus Greek. All such things as 4th or 5th grade reading levels are even beyond secondary matters. If the merit of the KJV isn't in accuracy and faithfulness one would understand that some would have it to compete with modern versions in the area of reading level.


Harald

 

[Pastor Larry]

The reference above to langauge got me to thinking -- I ran the first two cahpters of PHilippians from the Greek text (Robinson Pierpont MAJority Text). It is only a 9.9 ... I think it give further evidence that this method of determining readability is flawed.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I believe that it goes beyond simply what is faithful to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is important that the bible is understandable to this generation of people.

There are many KJVonlyist here who comment on how their own children and the children of the church they attend have no problem with understanding the KJV. Even if this is the case, it is secondary.

We are called to reach people who do not have church or bible experience at all in their lives. It is important that the bible we refer to is understandable to them. Especially un-churched children need a bible that explains the Gospel message in a manner in which they can understand.

In working with the neighborhood kids in our church we often give them the Living Bible to read. I know this is not preferable for study, but these bibles are not given to them for that purpose.

These lost children need a to understand that God loves them and is offering them life in Jesus Christ. They need the basic story of the bible that is presented in a way they can comprehend.

It does not matter what family of Greek manuscripts were used in translation. They are not concerned if the language in Revelation is too dynamic. These kids need a bible that transmits to them that Jesus died in their place on the cross, and that they can be saved if they will only come to Him.

If they die and go to hell without Jesus, will it matter then that we remained faithful to some bible that was written for English speaking people 400 years ago.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
...this method of determining readability is flawed.

Pastor Larry, I think I understand your point, but to say that the Flesch-Kincaid method is flawed is probably the wrong way to approach the issue. The Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level methods seem to have a fairly respectable standing in the educational world (though that in itself might prove it is flawed ). I would say that they are limited and should be used within those limits. From what I have learned so far, I'd say they would have to be considered unacceptable methods for comparing the readability of the KJV vs MV's - just as they would for comparing English vs Greek (because they cannot take into account certain factors such as language differences).

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
I believe that it goes beyond simply what is faithful to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is important that the bible is understandable to this generation of people...

Your overall post seems to indicate that you place readability above faithfulness to the original languages. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I would say that they are limited and should be used within those limits. .

That would definitely be a better way of putting what I was trying to say. Thanks.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
It is important that the bible is understandable to this generation of people.

Here is a little vocabulary test to see if these words are understandable to this generation. See how many you know without looking them up.

1. algum
2. allocate ( I put one in so everyone would get at least one right)
3. calamus
4. carnelian
5. cors
6. filigree
7. hoopoe
8. mattocks (hint: not a baseball player)
9. offal
10. porphyry
11. profligate
12. retinue
13. sated
14. terebinth
15. wadi

How did you do?

All of these words are contained in the text of the NIV. I would say that these are not the words of the "common man" today.

 

[Alcott]

Let's go one-on-one with this and compare those words against 15 I will pick out from the Anglican Version:

1. Selvedge
2. Helve
3. Michtam
4. Asswage
5. Provender
6. Servitor
7. Shittah
8. Firkins
9. Concupiscence
10. Pannag
11. Spikenard
12. Suborned
13. Sackbut
14. Scall
15. Neesings

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Again Pastor Bob, you confuse the issue. It is not only a matter of words in the text; it is how the sentences are structured. The KJV uses old English sentence structure which is confusing to people today.