Readablity

[TC]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:

This hasn't been brought up, but it is a real issue to me. They are not joking about the eyes starting to go above 40 years of age.

Welcome to the club. It's all history from here. Ancient times are behind us. Remember when we thought 40 year old folks were old? Now we are them. </font>[/QUOTE]I had one eye doctor tell me that I was almost ready for bifocals at 27. I found a different eye doctor. I'm almost 36 and still avoiding those things (bifocals). Nevertheless, giant print is good.

 

[manchester]

I wish the Brits would make a new version of the Authorized Version. "KJV 1611, 2005 revisions." It would use the TR, retain the beauty but use modern English.

 

[BruceB]

For me the NLT is the most readable, followed by the NKJV (which I would choose if I could only own one Bible). As to the size of type; if I cannot buy a translation in a Large Print edition I do not buy. I have tried to figure out the definition of "large print" but it seems to change from publisher to publisher - I have learned from experience that a minimum of 9-pt type is what I require (10 or 11 is even better). At 38 my eye-doctor wanted me to go to bifocals but I was insulted, at 40 I was back begging for them, at nearly 49 I cannot read without them! Bruce

 

[robycop3]

For me, the NKJV is the most readable. Being led to Jesus by His word as found in the NASB, I found the NKJV to be an "easier read" but still accurate, according to acquaintances who read Greek and/or Hebrew.

Since I've found the NASB, NKJV, NIV, KJV, & AV 1611 to be more than adequate for me, I've not read anything but excerpts fron the newest versions.