KJVO vs any other translation(s).

[JonC]

The best version (translation) is the one that best communicates God's Word to you. We have to remember that we are talking about translations. Every translation carries with it interpretive decisions. The KJV had a particular mandate and theology which influenced the translators choice of words or terms in English (it is still a very good, albeit perhaps not for contemporary English, translation). So is the ESV, NKJV, NASB and HCSV.

There are instances where the HCSV is more curate than the KJV, ESV and NIV (John 3:16 comes to mind). There are passages where the NIV excelks in communicating th meaning of the source text. The KJV is excellent in preserving much of the OT literary tools (something the ESV tried to capture).

But in the end of the day the best translation is the one you will study as a translation. They are all perfect translations, yet all also carry the problem inherent with all translations. Translations never perfectly carry the meanings of every source word. Some words (like logos) do not have an exact English corresponding equivalent.

But God's Word is perfectly preserved in each of these translations. We just have to know how to deal with translations.

An interesting thing(with translation) is the role of poor word choices and tradition. Lucifer Calaritanus, for example, was a 2nd Century Christian leader. Lucifer was a popular Christian name until the KJV carried over the Latin into the OT translation. That was a very poor choice (bring a Latin word, surprisingly poor).

But that's just a bit of trivia.

 

[Yeshua1]

The best version (translation) is the one that best communicates God's Word to you. We have to remember that we are talking about translations. Every translation carries with it interpretive decisions. The KJV had a particular mandate and theology which influenced the translators choice of words or terms in English (it is still a very good, albeit perhaps not for contemporary English, translation). So is the ESV, NKJV, NASB and HCSV.

There are instances where the HCSV is more curate than the KJV, ESV and NIV (John 3:16 comes to mind). There are passages where the NIV excelks in communicating th meaning of the source text. The KJV is excellent in preserving much of the OT literary tools (something the ESV tried to capture).

But in the end of the day the best translation is the one you will study as a translation. They are all perfect translations, yet all also carry the problem inherent with all translations. Translations never perfectly carry the meanings of every source word. Some words (like logos) do not have an exact English corresponding equivalent.

But God's Word is perfectly preserved in each of these translations. We just have to know how to deal with translations.

An interesting thing(with translation) is the role of poor word choices and tradition. Lucifer Calaritanus, for example, was a 2nd Century Christian leader. Lucifer was a popular Christian name until the KJV carried over the Latin into the OT translation. That was a very poor choice (bring a Latin word, surprisingly poor).

But that's just a bit of trivia.

None are perfect in the sense of being exactly as the Originals were from God!

 

[JonC]

None are perfect in the sense of being exactly as the Originals were from God!

That is not what "perfect" means in regards to a translation. A car is the perfect vehicle for a Sunday drive. It is not a perfect airplane.

 

[rlvaughn]

Same as the million Ethiopians in 2 Chron. 14:9. There likely weren't a million Ethiopians of all ages & both genders living then. But they doubtlessly had a large army.

I thought this might be interesting for discussion, so started a thread about An Army of One Million.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is not what "perfect" means in regards to a translation. A car is the perfect vehicle for a Sunday drive. It is not a perfect airplane.

Would prefer to use term Infallible, as no translation would be either inspired or perfect!

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Romans 10:17 explicitly states that, "Faith cometh by HEARING, and HEARING by the THE Word of God." Therefore these 1611 KJVO advocates are demanding that (1) A deaf person (one who cannot HEAR the Word of God must first and foremost somehow find some means of actually HEARING the Word of God in order to exercise faith so that he/she CAN exercise faith, AND (2) He/She MUST understand early 17th century English since that is the language in which the "Inspired and therefore INFALLIBLE" Word of God was written (ANY updAT=

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Romans 10:17 explicitly states that, "Faith cometh by HEARING, and HEARING by the THE Word of God." Therefore these 1611 KJVO advocates are demanding that (1) A deaf person (one who cannot HEAR the Word of God must first and foremost somehow find some means of actually HEARING the Word of God in order to exercise faith so that he/she CAN exercise faith, AND (2) He/She MUST understand early 17th century English since that is the language in which the "Inspired and therefore INFALLIBLE" Word of God was written (ANY updating of the early 17th century English is, of course, strictly forbidden since such updates are always the tool of Satanic "Revisionists," and thus, can NEVER be relied upon to present God's Word in ANY legitimate fashion!! I suppose we who now are in the 21st century AD are, therefore, hopelessly confined to eternal damnation. This is what these literal 1611 KJVO advocates tell us!

 

[Yeshua1]

the 1611 Kjv has had revisions updates itself since 1611, were all of those editions then a perfect translation, even though disagree with 1611 hundreds of times?

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Bible Translation Reading Levels - Bible Gateway Blog

Not everyone agrees about the minimum grade level of every translation or the formulas used to calculate them. But we offer as general guidelines the following range of USA school grade levels (taken from information provided by the publishers of the various translations wherever possible) and age levels:

• Mounce — 12+ (ages 17+) ................NET — 7+ (ages 12+)
• KJV — 12+ (ages 17+).......................GNT — 7+ (ages 12+)
• RSV — 12+ (ages 17+)......................ISV — 7+ (ages 12+)
• Geneva — 12+ (ages 17+)................NKJV — 7+ (ages 12+)
• WEB — 12+ (ages 17+)....................SB — 7+ (ages 12+)
• NRSV — 11+ (ages 16+)...................The Voice — 6+ (ages 11+)
• NASB — 11+ (ages 16+)....................The Voice — 6+ (ages 11+)
• Amplified — 11+ (ages 16+)................NLT — 6+ (ages 11+)
• MEV — 11+ (ages 16+).......................CEV — 5+ (ages 10+)
• LEB — 11+ (ages 16+)........................GW — 5+ (ages 10+)
• ESV — 10+ (ages 15+).......................CEV — 5+ (ages 10+)
• The Message — 4+ (ages 9+).............GW — 5+ (ages 10+)
• J.B. Phillips NT — 10+ (ages 15+).......Living — 4+ (ages 9+)
• NABRE — 9+ (ages 14+).....................ERV — 4+ (ages 9+)
• NIV — 7+ (ages 12+)............................NCV — 3+ (ages 7+)
• CEB — 7+ (ages 12+)...........................ICB — 3+ (ages 7+)
• ..............................................................NIrV — 3+ (ages 7+)

and do you want:-----------Word-for-word------------Meaning-for-meaning
Thought for thought-----------------Paraphrase

2021 Holy Bible Translation Comparison Chart | GOD’S WORD Bible

Grade level and comparison
http://kukis.org/Eng_trans/biblechart.pdf

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Salty, I don't see the reading level age(s) for Tyndale's New Living Translation (NLT) that was copyrighted in 1996 & 2004. One reason for me asking this is because this is the Bible that I primarily use. If you can supply me with this info, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any info about this!

 

[rlvaughn]

Salty, I don't see the reading level age(s) for Tyndale's New Living Translation (NLT) that was copyrighted in 1996 & 2004. One reason for me asking this is because this is the Bible that I primarily use. If you can supply me with this info, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any info about this!

Using the New Living Translation at Bible Gateway (says it is copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015) and Microsoft Word 2016, I checked the Flesch-Kincaid scores for three chapters from the NLT. These three (Jude, Obadiah, 2 John) came out with an average grade level of 6.5 (roughly 11 or 12 years old in the U.S.).

Here are the specifics:
Jude

• Flesch Reading Ease 71.8
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 7.3

Obadiah

• Flesch Reading Ease 75.1
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.2

2 John

• Flesch Reading Ease 79.9
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.1

I chose these because they are short books of one chapter each.

The Flesch Reading Ease test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score means the easier it is to understand the document. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 would mean that an eighth grader should be able to understand the document.

The Flesch-Kincaid scale is a measure of sentence length/words-per-sentence, word length/syllables-per-word only. It does not measure vocabulary. Vocabulary and sentence structure, which Flesch-Kincaid does not measure, can change the readability of a document. In my opinion, the Flesch-Kincaid tests actually tell us very little about comparing the readability of various Bible versions. However, I expect most of all the Bible Reading levels that are out there are based on Flesch-Kincaid.

 

[Salty]

From wiki:
The New Living Translation is (according to its publisher) intended to be easily accessible to readers of modern English. As part of this effort:[6]

• Weights and measures, money, dates and times, etc., are described in modern terms, with footnotes giving the literal translation. For example, the Gospel of John 6:7 reads: "Philip replied, 'Even if we worked for months, we wouldn't have enough money to feed them'", with a note that the Greek text reads "Two hundred denarii would not be enough" and an explanation that a denarius was equivalent to a laborer's full day's wage.
• Some phrases are translated into contemporary English; e.g. "they beat their breasts" (Luke 23:48) is translated as "They went home in deep sorrow", again with footnotes providing more literal interpretations.
• Gender-inclusive language is used where the editors believed that it was appropriate, thus ἀδελφοί (adelphoi) is translated "brothers and sisters".

Meet the Team – NLT | New Living Translation

https://biblology.com/is-the-nlt-a-paraphrase-or-a-translation/

 

[37818]

Colossians 1:15, ". . . Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: . . .". (I understand "firstborn" to refer to His bodily resurrection per Colossians 1:18).

NLT, ". . . Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, . . ."
(This is just too wrong for me.)

 

[robycop3]

Colossians 1:15, ". . . Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: . . .". (I understand "firstborn" to refer to His bodily resurrection per Colossians 1:18).

NLT, ". . . Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation, . . ."
(This is just too wrong for me.)

I agree. While doctrinally correct, it's not a correct translation. A Bible translation should be ACCURATE to its sources.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Using the New Living Translation at Bible Gateway (says it is copyright © 1996, 2004, 2015) and Microsoft Word 2016, I checked the Flesch-Kincaid scores for three chapters from the NLT. These three (Jude, Obadiah, 2 John) came out with an average grade level of 6.5 (roughly 11 or 12 years old in the U.S.).

Here are the specifics:
Jude

• Flesch Reading Ease 71.8
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 7.3

Obadiah

• Flesch Reading Ease 75.1
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.2

2 John

• Flesch Reading Ease 79.9
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 6.1

I chose these because they are short books of one chapter each.

The Flesch Reading Ease test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score means the easier it is to understand the document. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 would mean that an eighth grader should be able to understand the document.

The Flesch-Kincaid scale is a measure of sentence length/words-per-sentence, word length/syllables-per-word only. It does not measure vocabulary. Vocabulary and sentence structure, which Flesch-Kincaid does not measure, can change the readability of a document. In my opinion, the Flesch-Kincaid tests actually tell us very little about comparing the readability of various Bible versions. However, I expect most of all the Bible Reading levels that are out there are based on Flesch-Kincaid.

"rlvaughn, post 2706383 member 969": Did you (Like I often times do!!) miss a decimal point in your post? As I literally read it, it's telling me that: (1) The reading ease for the three books you mention is for at least a 71 YO; and (2) One must have at least attained either a sixth or a seventh grade level to understand these books. I don't think that's literally what you meant, but then I may have simply misinterpreted what you've posted. I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance for clarifying this post of yours!!

 

[rlvaughn]

"rlvaughn, post 2706383 member 969": Did you (Like I often times do!!) miss a decimal point in your post? As I literally read it, it's telling me that: (1) The reading ease for the three books you mention is for at least a 71 YO;

No, that is not 71 years old. It is a Flesch Reading Ease grade of 71.8, 75.1, and 79.9. That is just a way they assign a number for comparison to the ease of reading, between 0 and 100. The higher the number, the easier it is supposed to be to read.

and (2) One must have at least attained either a sixth or a seventh grade level to understand these books. I don't think that's literally what you meant, but then I may have simply misinterpreted what you've posted. I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance for clarifying this post of yours!!

Yes, that is what the second number means, a grade level of 6.5 (6th or 7th), which is usually children 11 to 12 years old here in the United States. I do not claim it is correct, but that is how the test scored those three books from the NLT. It is just a computer test, not like they actually studied real people reading something.

Hope this helps, and perhaps the following will help. (Don't know, just found it and have not read it myself,)
The Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

 

[Salty]

One thing to keep in mind is that a particular chapter or short book, might be on a 6th grade level - and other books and/or chapters may be a college sophomore level. - So over all - it may be - say a 10th grade level.

 

[rlvaughn]

One thing to keep in mind is that a particular chapter or short book, might be on a 6th grade level - and other books and/or chapters may be a college sophomore level. - So over all - it may be - say a 10th grade level.

That is correct. What I tested only applies to those three books. You would have to get the average of the whole Bible to know the true Flesch Kincaid Reading Level of the NLT. The 66 books average might be higher or lower or about the same.

 

[rlvaughn]

Wikipedia gives a reading level of "MIddle School". Not sure where they get that info.
New Living Translation - Wikipedia

 

[Paul from Antioch]

I think that what Wikipedia means is that someone with at least a Middle School (usually that would mean up to Grade 8 or 9) should be able to comprehend this version. OTOH, like you posted Wikipedia doesn't indicate from where it secured this info. Usually I've found that Wikipedia is a fairly reliable source of info (i.e., it doesn't appear that it, per se, has a pre-concieved agenda on the topic it presents.)