reading level of various Bibles

[Rippon]

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.

Amen to all of the above.

The KJV revisers tried to fancy-up the text. But by that they were not being as faithful to the original as they could have been. Of course they didn't know about Koine Greek back in the 17th century.

The NLTse and GW translations are more faithful in this respect.

 

[Harold Garvey]

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.

Amazing how a topic about grade levels of English versiosn has somehow turned into a topic about Greek and NOTHING is "snipped" as it being off-topic and an attempt to derail the thread.

Where is the 1st grade level version?

12th grade English reading level has nothing to do with aristocracy. 12th grade is the highest level shown in the OP which I also receive Christianbooks catalogues regularly and saw the same thing.:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Grade levels of English versions. grade levels begin now with Pre-K 3 and work their way up to 12th grade, then college levels. Greek is extra-curricular and not on topic.

 

[preachinjesus]

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?

lol...hahahaha...wait...you're serious...

yeah if that Paul guy had just raised his inspiration to modern standards maybe we could have actually gotten him to talk about the Gospel...

Actually this comment bears a much deeper theological immaturity that I can't begin to describe. The standard of the text, that is its readibility, begins with the Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic at points.) It is highly specious to suggest that because English is "superior" to the Greek that it deems a more worthy text.

In actuality this couldn't be further from the truth. English is a rather unrefined language in terms of development. It lacks so many of the nuances of inflected language that we miss out on so much of what the original authors had to say. It is worthy to suggest that a more simplistic text, in terms of grader reading ability, is closer to the true intent of the writers. Offering a critique as you have only demonstrates your inability to grasp the theological ramifications of objectifying the original languages in some attempt to say a random version, availabe to only 1/10 of the worlds' population, is the normative value for all Christendom. The argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Harold Garvey]

lol...hahahaha...wait...you're serious...

yeah if that Paul guy had just raised his inspiration to modern standards maybe we could have actually gotten him to talk about the Gospel...

Actually this comment bears a much deeper theological immaturity that I can't begin to describe. The standard of the text, that is its readibility, begins with the Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic at points.) It is highly specious to suggest that because English is "superior" to the Greek that it deems a more worthy text.

In actuality this couldn't be further from the truth. English is a rather unrefined language in terms of development. It lacks so many of the nuances of inflected language that we miss out on so much of what the original authors had to say. It is worthy to suggest that a more simplistic text, in terms of grader reading ability, is closer to the true intent of the writers. Offering a critique as you have only demonstrates your inability to grasp the theological ramifications of objectifying the original languages in some attempt to say a random version, availabe to only 1/10 of the worlds' population, is the normative value for all Christendom. The argument doesn't hold water.

Go teach the world koine Greek then while the rest of us speak English as the main tongue.

There's nothing in the Greek that cannot be explained in the English, seen it done thousands of times.

Maybe you are the one who doesn't comprehend what I said, well, of course you are, your response shows this.

I'm promoting education, What are you promoting, common street talk?

 

[Johnv]

Go teach the world koine Greek then while the rest of us speak English as the main tongue.

Wow, when did English become the main tongue of "the rest" of the world. That's rather pretentions of you.

There's nothing in the Greek that cannot be explained in the English, seen it done thousands of times.

No one said otherwise.

I'm promoting education

Which has nothing to do with the OP topic of translational grade levels.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... 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.

I think the 'authors' wrote at their own personal level of literacy. Peter & John were not particularly 'highly' educated, but Paul & Luke were probably more formally trained (that really only leaves Matthew, James, and Jude remaining.) It is clear that the Epistles & Gospels in Greek are written at a different levels. This is probably true of the OT books as well, but I am not as familiar with the Hebrew text in this regard.

I would not expect personal letters (like Philemon) that became canonized to have been written in a level 'higher' than standard common language (in a comfortable manner as I would write to a friend). However, Luke may have written more formally to Theophilus (in the respectful manner I might write a letter to a Congressman).

I believe Grade Levels assigned to each version (like in the OP) are averages; I have seen some of the studies broken down into individual books of particular versions and there is variation book-to-book within the versions themselves.

Should our translations intentionally parallel the level of literacy of the original language text for each indivdiual book? (I know at least one Bible translation attempts to do this.)

 

[preachinjesus]

Go teach the world koine Greek then while the rest of us speak English as the main tongue.

Hate to break this to you but this isn't true...actually about 80% of the world doesn't speak English as their "main tongue."

There's nothing in the Greek that cannot be explained in the English, seen it done thousands of times.

This isn't my point.

Maybe you are the one who doesn't comprehend what I said, well, of course you are, your response shows this.

No I understand what you are attempting to say, and you're wrong. You're so wrong that it is dangerously anti-intellectual and denies the primacy of the text of the Bible.

I'm promoting education, What are you promoting, common street talk?

Yeah 'cause I'm not about education. You can talk education all day long but the reality of the world exists whether you like it or not. The NT was written in Greek by its various authors. That Greek was the common language of the day and the NT is written on a common level. While the KJV is an example of wonderful prose it is merely a translation of the original and has its lackings.

I enjoy reading the KJV. I won't deny that. But English is not the primary language of the world. While te KJV is an excellent example of the English language there are far better, more accurate translations available today that speak people better.

Thanks for contributing.

 

[Trotter]

Go teach the world koine Greek then while the rest of us speak English as the main tongue.

There's nothing in the Greek that cannot be explained in the English, seen it done thousands of times.

Koine Greek may have been the "common" Greek dialect, but it is completely foreign to English speakers. The same goes for Hebrew and Aramaic. It is for this reason we have translations.

The various "grade levels" mentioned in the OP have to do with both the word choices of the translators as well as the grammar and syntax they used. I can say the same thing at a college level, high school level, and grammar school level. Each time I am conveying the same information, but I would be choosing simpler words and sentence structures each time. This is exactly how the reading levels in the OP were figured.

There is no question that the ESV, NRSV, NASB, RSV, and KJV are all high school level texts. This is mainly due to the level of formal equivalence used in each of these translations. Those further down the list are less formal and more dynamic. The HCSB may be an exception as it is a rather easy read but lenas more toward formal (that I know of, anyway).

 

[Harold Garvey]

Hate to break this to you but this isn't true...actually about 80% of the world doesn't speak English as their "main tongue."



This isn't my point.



No I understand what you are attempting to say, and you're wrong. You're so wrong that it is dangerously anti-intellectual and denies the primacy of the text of the Bible.



Yeah 'cause I'm not about education. You can talk education all day long but the reality of the world exists whether you like it or not. The NT was written in Greek by its various authors. That Greek was the common language of the day and the NT is written on a common level. While the KJV is an example of wonderful prose it is merely a translation of the original and has its lackings.
. But English is not the primary language of the world. [\Quote]Never said it was. English is obviously our main tongue since we are all speaking about this in it. We see 2 versions in a 12th grade level, are we to understand you to say less is better? understand we

 

[Johnv]

English is obviously our main tongue since we are all speaking about this in it.

[personal attack] You're espousing that we strive for scripture in our tongue, but you refuse to acknowlege that our tongue today is Modern English. Not all the translations in the OP are written Modern English. A cursory look at the list shows a pattern: New translations that come out stop using Middle English entirely, and use less and less Early Modern English over time. As translations make the switch away from the old versions of English to Modern English, the grade level reguired to comprehend them drops. This is due to the fact that we no longer speak Middle English or Early Modern English today. We speak Modern English today. The chart demonstrates what is already known: that Bibles translated into the common tongue are easily understood by the common person.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Wow, an admission awarding ignorance laced with an attack formulated into an accusation. Yet not seeing the grade level is not based upon comprehensive ability but upon the level of literary worth in which it is written. The basis for education is to teach things above present understanding to advance the pupil, yet debasing the material to a lower degree entraps those who are limited by its worth and is an opposite direction carrying society back towards barbarism.

 

[robycop3]

Simple fact is, the valid English translations were written in the style of English prevalent in the time they were written. Wycliffe's Bible compares in English style & spellings somewhat with Chaucer's worx, written slightly earlier. The KJV compares favorably in English style with the writings of KJ himself, other writings by AV translator Sir Launcelot Andrewes, or Sir Francis Bacon.

English changed much between Wycliffe and KJ, much more than it's changed between 1790 and now. The English Bibles written in those times reflect the English in use when they were written, same as our current Bibles reflect current English. God keeps His word in the languages & vernaculars HE has given us to use.

 

[Johnv]

HG is completely ignoring the fact that we don't speak Early Modern English or Middle English today. We speak Modern English, and it is Modern English that is taught from the very beginning of schooling. It's not surprising, therefore, to see that bible translations in the OP written in strictly Modern English will be understood by earlier grade levels than bible translations written with combinations of Modern English, Early Modern English, and Middle English.

 

[preachinjesus]

You quote directly inferred that you believe English is the majority tongue in the world. I don't try to put words into people's mouths...too often..and several others have seen this and pointed it out. Nevertheless...

We see 2 versions in a 12th grade level, are we to understand you to say less is better? understand we

Well I'm all for people reading at a higher level if that is where their education has taken them. I am more for people reading with comprehension leading to application.

The only reason the KJV is listed as a 12th grade level on the CBD website is because the language is so archane and outdated that it takes a person with replete knowledge of idioms and trends of 150 years ago to understand the thing at points. I have a PhD and I have to look up some the terminology at times because it is so backwards from common language today.

We should never belittle people into reading a text of the Scriptures that they cannot understand because they haven't been given the same opportunities as you and I.

With the graded reading levels listed I am far more comfortable easing a new Christian into a lower graded level and allowing their sacntification to allow them to step up into more rigorous translations. That is my opinion. While the Church should not always default into appealing to the lowest common denominator, when it comes to allowing people to read, study, and apply the Scriptures we should allow them to find a suitable translation that they will understand and enjoy reading. For most every new Christian I have or am discipling this nearly never means the KJV. Primarily because of the difficult, old worldy language.

editted to add: the only other 12th grade text listed is the RSV which is just as archane and outdated. That's why they came out with the NRSV. Have you read the RSV? It too uses "thees" "thous" and "thines" which are not a part of contemporary English idiom.

 

[Harold Garvey]

It has been repeatedy acknowledged the versions at a 12th grade level maintain a much higher level than the today's versions. My intent is to bring people up to the higher standard, but most seem to rather keep men to the lower standard. God's choosing in reaching men of low degree is never on an intellectual basis in the first place. It is solely upon the word being heard, not read

 

[Johnv]

It has been repeatedy acknowledged the versions at a 12th grade level maintain a much higher level than the today's versions.

It has? Where in this thread has that been acknowlged, let alone repeatedly?

God's choosing in reaching men of low degree is never on an intellectual basis in the first place. It is solely upon the word being heard, not read

Aside from the fact that you made that up, it has absolutely nothign to do with the OP.

 

[Rippon]

The HCSB may be an exception as it is a rather easy read but leans more toward formal (that I know of, anyway).

The HCSB is a mediating translation. Within that middle-of-the-road approach it's position is closer to the left side of the graph -- towards the more form-driven versions.

The REB is not an easy read. The HCSB is less difficult. However the REB is more functionally equivalent.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Simple fact is, the valid English translations were written in the style of English prevalent in the time they were written. Wycliffe's Bible compares in English style & spellings somewhat with Chaucer's worx, written slightly earlier. The KJV compares favorably in English style with the writings of KJ himself, other writings by AV translator Sir Launcelot Andrewes, or Sir Francis Bacon.

English changed much between Wycliffe and KJ, much more than it's changed between 1790 and now. The English Bibles written in those times reflect the English in use when they were written, same as our current Bibles reflect current English. God keeps His word in the languages & vernaculars HE has given us to use.

[snipped - off topic again]

 

[Harold Garvey]

It has? Where in this thread has that been acknowlged, let alone repeatedly?

Aside from the fact that you made that up, it has absolutely nothign to do with the OP.

[snipped - off topic again]