• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

reading level of various Bibles

Status
Not open for further replies.

mcdirector

Active Member
This is from christianbooks.com. I saw it just yesterday and since "easier" has come up in a discussion about Bibles, I thought I'd post it.

Their note:
Keep in mind:
Not everyone will agree about the reading difficulty level of every translation. The grade levels above are offered as general guidelines, and wherever possible, are taken from information provided by the publishers of the various translations.

In the case of some translations such as the KJV, we've used the generally accepted grade level or range of grade levels

Bible Translation By Grade Level

It may help to know what the approximate reading level is for a given translation. Here's a quick guide for the most popular translations:

Translation Grade Level
KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
NIV 7th-8th
HCSB 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
GW 5th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd
 

Deacon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Putting it in perspective:

The average reading level for the United States is 8th grade (meaning that half fall below that level).

Rob
 

Baptist4life

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Putting it in perspective:

The average reading level for the United States is 8th grade (meaning that half fall below that level).

Rob

I agree. Those charts are meant for people who can actually READ. 12th graders today would struggle with an NIV, I think. I've seen college kids who are pretty close to being illiterate! I don't know how they graduated high school.
 

Harold Garvey

New Member
What's missing is the fact that many who would be judged as illiterate can and will read the bible and through hearing they will know it and know it when they read it. The standard should remain high and not dragged down to a lower reader's level. The Lord said ye shall hear the truth and be made free, not read it and be made free. Are we really so willing to accept ignorance and fail to teach? If this is so then we have become just plain lazy! I'd think if taught on a 12th grade level eventually one who knows reading at an 8th grade level would move up. Keeping it at his present level would not help him learn but would keep him down. if its all a matter of reading skill then why not a 1st grade version?
 

franklinmonroe

Active Member
... It may help to know what the approximate reading level is for a given translation. Here's a quick guide for the most popular translations:

Translation Grade Level
KJV 12th
RSV 12th
NASB 11th
NRSV 11th
ESV 10th
NIV 7th-8th
HCSB 7th-8th
NKJV 7th
NLT 6th
GW 5th
Message 4th-5th
NCV 3rd
NIRV 3rd
People may dispute the actual Grade Levels assigned to each translation, but I found in my experience that the relative differences in reading level to be approximately correct (I have read ten of these NTs completely; I have read some portions but not the entire NT of the NRSV, GW, and NIRV). In other words, the order is about right. For example, if the reading diffculty of the KJV is evaluated as either being a higher or lower Level, then the ESV would need to be also adjusted about the same number of Grades; and so on.

I also think that the Levels cannot be lowered (much) since the NCV is clearly not below 3rd Grade Level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trotter

<img src =/6412.jpg>
Harold Garvey said:
and through hearing they will know it and know it when they read it.
In other words, if it is explained to them they will understand it. Given enough explanation anyone can understand just about anything... but that has nothing to do with someome reading it and understanding it on their own.

franklinmonroe said:
the relative differences in reading level to be approximately correct
I have to agree with this. My own experience with these (all but the NIRV) attest to it as well.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some interesting observations by readability-scale originator Rudolf Flesch:

The Art of Plain Talk (1946), p. 43:
NUMBER OF AFFIXES PER 100 WORDS

VERY EASY 22 or less
EASY 26
FAIRLY EASY 31
STANDARD 37
FAIRLY DIFFICULT 42
DIFFICULT 46
VERY DIFFICULT 54 or more

Again, for the time being, the average-reader standard of 37 is most important for you to know. The best example of VERY EASY prose (about 20 affixes per 100 words) is the King James Version of the Bible; literary writing tends to be FAIRLY DIFFICULT; scientific prose is VERY DIFFICULT. This book has on the average 33 affixes per 100 words.

The Art of Readable Writing (1949), pp. 210-212:
Chapter 12: Our Expanding Words

...here is the perfect illustration: a comparison between the King James Bible, published in 1611, and the Revised Standard Version, published in 1946. The text is, of course, exactly parallel, there is only a change in idiom from the seventeenth century to the twentieth. My example is taken from Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13.
....
You see what happened here? The committee that worked on the modern version naturally tried as hard as they could not to change the meaning; on the contrary, they tried to use words that would express the same ideas exactly as a modern reader would express them himself. So they changed soul to person, powers to authorities, ordained to instituted, good works to good conduct, praise to approval, him that doeth evil to wrong-doer, custom to revenue, and fear to respect. Result: the words have become longer—in spite of the fact that we now say resists instead of resisteth and so on.

How to Be Brief: An Index to Simple Writing (1962), p. 16:
Bible. The King James Version is still the most glorious collection of good strong English there is. Read the newer versions and compare.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I disagree with the position of the NKJ. It reads at a higher level than the NIV and HCSB. The NKJ version is at least at the 11th grade level.

The Message is certainly more difficult than to be assigned a 4th or 5th grade level.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jerome, if you are trying to establish that the KJV is actually an easy read -- you are quite mistaken.

I think the NLT and GW versions use good, strong English. The English of both of these exceeds that of the KJV.

If you like an older style (yet not as old as the KJV) try out the Revised English Bible -- it's beautiful. It's more dynamic than the TNIV, but more ornate.
 

Johnv

New Member
What's missing is the fact that many who would be judged as illiterate can and will read the bible and through hearing they will know it and know it when they read it.
If that's true (which it's not), it's true of any common translation.
[off topic]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ironically the Greek used in the NT is Koine Greek which was the average person's language. It is written at (in a loose parrallel equivalency) about a 6th grade vocabularly.

It only has around 5,000 common words which is not awfully stressing on a vocabularly (a large number of which reoccur so frequently that learning the 50 frequently used words is a key to understanding the text.) So to say the text should not sink down to a lower level seems to forget the true nature of the Greek text.
 

Johnv

New Member
Ironically the Greek used in the NT is Koine Greek which was the average person's language... to say the text should not sink down to a lower level seems to forget the true nature of the Greek text.
That's absolutely correct. The authors could have used more formal languages known at the time, including formal languages spoken by the well-educated and aristocratic, but the authors of the NT chose Koine Greek, which was the "common man's Greek". It was the common written tongue of the average person, not the high language of aristocracy.
 

Harold Garvey

New Member
Ironically the Greek used in the NT is Koine Greek which was the average person's language. It is written at (in a loose parrallel equivalency) about a 6th grade vocabularly.

It only has around 5,000 common words which is not awfully stressing on a vocabularly (a large number of which reoccur so frequently that learning the 50 frequently used words is a key to understanding the text.) So to say the text should not sink down to a lower level seems to forget the true nature of the Greek text.
Then just by7 that analogy alone English, in and of itsself is A HIGHER STANDARD, and anyone who reverts back to the Greek is "dumbing down". Maybe that's where Ruckman gets his psuedo-ideas from?
 

Johnv

New Member
I'm dumbfounded at your response, but not surprised.
Why would you be dumbfounded by the fact that your original claim is so easily refuted by objectivity? There is absolutely nothing factual or objective in your original statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harold Garvey

New Member
[the topic is grade level of English versions - off topic comments snipped]
Back to grade level of the English versions.:1_grouphug:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NaasPreacher (C4K)

Well-Known Member
Mod note:

All off topic posts, attempts to derail a thread, and responses to such are being deleted. I am trying not to let agenda driven members shut down discussion by trolling attempts to divert a topic.

Members would help greatly by not responding to these attempts to stifle discussion by getting threads closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Harold Garvey

New Member
Why would you be dumbfounded by the fact that your original claim is so easily refuted by objectivity? There is absolutely nothing factual or objective in your original statement.
Pre-K 3 starts with pictures and then words for visualizations accompanied by the sounds of the words relating directly to the pictures. It's a BASIC cognitve approach to phonics. It is the beginning of the soon to be grade level.
 

Johnv

New Member
Pre-K 3 starts with pictures and then words for visualizations accompanied by the sounds of the words relating directly to the pictures. It's a BASIC cognitve approach to phonics. It is the beginning of the soon to be grade level.
Which has nothing to do with the OP. Like I said, the authors of the NT could have used more formal forms of Greek at the time, such as the "high" form of Greek we sometimes refer to as "Ancient Greek" today, but the authors of the NT chose Koine Greek, which was the "common man's Greek". It was the common written tongue of the average person, not the high language of aristocracy. Since the NT authors wrote in the common tongue of the day, a translation of that should likewise be into the common tongue of whatever language is being translated to. There's no objective logic to translating a writing, whether it's scripture, or any other literary work, from its original language form to a different form of its translated language.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top