Reading level of Bible Versions

[Salty]

The KJV is written on a grade 12 or 13 level.

Does that discourage some from reading the KJV or the NASB (grade 11).
Would someone be more likely to read the NIV (grade 7) or The Message (grade 4-5)

 

[Rippon]

The KJV is written on a grade 12 or 13 level.

Does that discourage some from reading the KJV or the NASB (grade 11).
Would someone be more likely to read the NIV (grade 7) or The Message (grade 4-5)

The Message is certainly not written as low as a grade 4 or 5 level. It is several levels beyond that.

The old Living Bible was probably around that grade level though.

 

[preachinjesus]

The only reason the KJV is ranked so high is due to its arcane language. When we test texts or translations on grade-level reading, one of the primary qualifications is vocabulary used. The KJV (because of its last revision in 1769) uses words that are out of date.

 

[Yeshua1]

The only reason the KJV is ranked so high is due to its arcane language. When we test texts or translations on grade-level reading, one of the primary qualifications is vocabulary used. The KJV (because of its last revision in 1769) uses words that are out of date.

Where did the NKJV rate out at?

Would think the Nasb right there with old kjv for reading levels!

 

[Winman]

I would be more interested in the reading level of those that prefer certain versions.

I mean, what is the biggest criticism to the KJB? That it is too difficult to read?

What does that tell you about folks who criticize the KJB?

 

[Scarlett O.]

I would be more interested in the reading level of those that prefer certain versions.

I mean, what is the biggest criticism to the KJB? That it is too difficult to read?

What does that tell you about folks who criticize the KJB?

I like the King James as well as others.

I've never heard that the biggest criticism of the King James is a reading difficulty.

It is most certainly not difficult to read. It is, however - in some regards and places - a struggle to understand.

And therein lies a very big difference. I am a voracious reader. I can read all the words in the KJB. Yet, even I find myself having to seek other versions and sometimes lexicons to grasp a better understanding.

 

[Rippon]

I like the King James as well as others.

I've never heard that the biggest criticism of the King James is a reading difficulty.

It is most certainly not difficult to read. It is, however - in some regards and places - a struggle to understand.

And therein lies a very big difference. I am a voracious reader. I can read all the words in the KJB. Yet, even I find myself having to seek other versions and sometimes lexicons to grasp a better understanding.

In some cases the KJV translates (places in which there was no mere revision) verses which they themselves could not have possibly understood. They were operating in the blind.

 

[Yeshua1]

In some cases the KJV translates (places in which there was no mere revision) verses which they themselves could not have possibly understood. They were operating in the blind.

What would be a good example of that?

Wonder if our KJVO bethren know about that?

 

[preachinjesus]

I would be more interested in the reading level of those that prefer certain versions.

Yes, this is a more accurate gauge for sure.

I mean, what is the biggest criticism to the KJB? That it is too difficult to read?

What does that tell you about folks who criticize the KJB?

My primary criticism for the KJV is that while it is a fine translation, the scholarship behind it is outdated since it hasn't been updated since 1769. The present day versions are better because of how they translate the text from top to bottom.

If you're going after the KJV based on antiquated language, I hope you don't ever read Shakespeare.

 

[Winman]

Yes, this is a more accurate gauge for sure.

My primary criticism for the KJV is that while it is a fine translation, the scholarship behind it is outdated since it hasn't been updated since 1769. The present day versions are better because of how they translate the text from top to bottom.

If you're going after the KJV based on antiquated language, I hope you don't ever read Shakespeare.

I am KJB only because I believe it is the only accurate version in English. I will admit it is more difficult to read than other versions, but I have found with study it can be understood. I rarely have any difficulty at all, but there are a few difficult verses for sure.

As for Shakespeare, we did study and read Shakespeare in High School, and I remember it was very difficult to follow, but again, with study it can be understood.

But again, my preference for the KJB has nothing to do with whether it is easier or more difficult to read, or whether it uses ancient English, although I do admit the old English sounds majestic, but I am KJBO because I believe it is an accurate version of the preserved word of God. I believe the Critical Text used for the Modern Versions is full of MANY errors and is not accurate.

 

[Salty]

... I will admit it is more difficult to read than other versions, but I have found with study it can be understood. ...

And thats the whole point of my OP- many people who have trouble understanding the KJV and who will not take the time to study - may very likely not read the Bible at all. Lets get them into the Word - and then teach them to study.

 

[Gorship]

The KJV is written on a grade 12 or 13 level.

Does that discourage some from reading the KJV or the NASB (grade 11).
Would someone be more likely to read the NIV (grade 7) or The Message (grade 4-5)

My Pastor has a KJV with the reading grade levels on the inside... it listed Genesis at like grade 5... maxing out at like grade 8. I don't know if I agree that its at a 13 level... once you get Thee, thy, thou down... its just english.

 

[Winman]

And thats the whole point of my OP- many people who have trouble understanding the KJV and who will not take the time to study - may very likely not read the Bible at all. Lets get them into the Word - and then teach them to study.

I disagree, I do not think we should dumb-down the scriptures because folks are too lazy to study. That is the very reason the American educational system is falling behind much of the world.

But mainly I do not think we should tamper with scriptures because God gave strict warnings against doing so.

There are good KJB Bibles like the ones put out by D.A. Waite that define ancient English words, or words that have changed meaning like "conversation".

God did tell us to STUDY.

 

[Amy.G]

My Pastor has a KJV with the reading grade levels on the inside... it listed Genesis at like grade 5... maxing out at like grade 8. I don't know if I agree that its at a 13 level... once you get Thee, thy, thou down... its just english.

Really? No thee or thou in this verse.

Job 36:33 The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.


????

 

[Winman]

Really? No thee or thou in this verse.

Job 36:33 The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.


????

Well, if you pull this one verse out of context and read it all by itself, it is difficult to understand. But it you read it in context in the passage it is contained, it is easy to understand God is talking about thunder, lightning, and rain.

Job 36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:

 

[Gorship]

Really? No thee or thou in this verse.

Job 36:33 The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour.


????

Looks like english! :1_grouphug:

 

[Amy.G]

Looks like english! :1_grouphug:

Oh it's English, but what does it say? :laugh:

 

[Amy.G]

Well, if you pull this one verse out of context and read it all by itself, it is difficult to understand. But it you read it in context in the passage it is contained, it is easy to understand God is talking about thunder, lightning, and rain.

Job 36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:

Verse 33 still makes no sense.

 

[Winman]

Verse 33 still makes no sense.

It is simply saying the noise (thunder) shows a storm is coming, and the cattle also. Now, I am not real familiar with cattle, but I believe it is speaking of the cattle's reaction to thunder and lightning.

Look, anybody can go through any version of scripture and find very difficult verses to understand. Much of this is because we do not understand the culture many thousands of years ago. When the Lord told Paul he was kicking against the pricks, most folks do not understand this. I can't remember the first time I read that, but somehow I learned this was speaking of a sharp object herdsman used to prod or goad the cattle along.

But you know, before I actually learned what these "pricks" were, I easily understood that Paul was resisting the Holy Spirit and conviction.

 

[Amy.G]

It is simply saying the noise (thunder) shows a storm is coming, and the cattle also. Now, I am not real familiar with cattle, but I believe it is speaking of the cattle's reaction to thunder and lightning.

Then why is it wrong for MV's to translate it as "cattle's reaction to thunder"? Isn't that what you're having to do?? You're having to re-translate it to your own modern language because otherwise it makes no sense.

Why do we have to try to figure out what it means because it's written in 400 yr old language? Why is it wrong to have a Bible written in the modern English that we speak?