Readability Challenge

These tests are based on word length, aren't they? The problem with modern readers reading the KJV is not that the words are long (they aren't) but that some of the grammar is unfamiliar and, particularly that many words have simply changed their meaning.

D.

 

The best readability test is people. Over the years of ministry, it is beyond dispute that the KJV is far harder to read than other versions. (That doesn't necessarily mean it is an inferior version. That is beside the point here.)

A readability test like the Flesh-Kincaid doesn't actually read. It judges sentence length, word length, etc. as I recall. It doesn't take into account where the verb is in relation to the noun, nor whether or not a word is a common word.

 

What you are describing is the ability to "decode" - as we used to call it when I was teacher training many moons ago. The fact that someone can decode soemthign and read it does not mean they understand it. I can decode French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Latin and Greek and probably several others. I am sure you can too. I would stand little chance of understanding a conversation in any of those languages except French and German, and even in French and German the speaker would have to keep the vocabulary very small and speak slowly.

You are confusing the ability to read out words on a page with the ability to actually understand what is being read.

D.

 

This can be done of course. The single biggest problem is that many of the words that are not understood are in fact very familiar words, but they mean something quite different these days. Prevent, let, suffer, man, meat, quiet, sober, and many many others, just do not mean the same thing now that they meant in 1611. THAT is the problem.

D.

 

I know of no objective way to measure readability because it depends on people's intelligence, education, cultural and social background, etc. What is extremely readable to me is not to someone else. We can obviously put texts on a general continuum, but that is not "objective" such as a math equation would be.

We can objectively tell is someone can read something. That doesn't necessarily help us to obtain readability of the text.

Because it's not their purpose I assume. Government documents are generally not written to be readable. I think they are written primarily to confuse people.

 

One reason these tests would be unsuitable is because that they would indicate incorrect conclusions because of the way that the Bible versions, especially the KJV, had words divided into more syllables than later English translations. For example, the KJV has often-used words such as "to day," "to morrow," "for ever" that would count as two shorter and supposedly easier words according to this test while later English translations may have the exact same renderings as one longer word that would likely count as a harder, longer word. In addition, these tests would not indicate whether words are used with archaic meanings that are not commonly understood.

 

Logos1560: // ... these tests would not indicate whether words are used with archaic meanings that are not commonly understood.//

This is a MAJOR PROBLEM. I've got a series of posts that
show common misunderstandings of archaic meanings
of KJVs words which lead to doctrinal differences.

 

People can usually find something that supports their agenda when they have an agenda such a proving the KJV is easy reading for those not familiar with archaic English. Such is this test that "proves" the KJV is easier to read than many other versions. However, it is just as easy to come up with information to show something to the contrary. The information at http://www.sundayschoolresources.com/biblechoices.htm shows the KJV is written at a 12th grade reading level while some of the modern versions are written at a reading level much easier to understand.

No test is completely infallible. It may be true the KJV doesn't have a lot of long words in it. But the meanings of many or the words have changed, and that is what makes reading comprehension harder for those not familiar with archaic English. I agree 1000% :smilewinkgrin: with Pastor Larry's statement when he said "The best readability test is people." If people don't comprehend what they are reading the shorter words don't mean a thing. :thumbs:

At http://resources.bibles.com/vsItemD...5AC-265E-4C93-B7C46D32C1D07DB0&method=display the American Bible Society shows just how unreliable these tests really are.

 

Speaking of pronouns, recently I was teaching 1st Kings in
my Sunday School class. There were places where two people
and God were involved. The older Bibles used 'he' for God
and 'he' for each of the two people - it was sometimes difficult
to tell who was meant by 'he'. While the more modern Versions
of the Bible use 'He' for God, it was still sometimes difficult to
tell which of the two 'he's were being discussed.

 

If you think it's hard in English to determine who the pronouns refer to, you should try it in Greek or Hebrew. It is often worse.

 

Using the E-Sword search engine:

KJV1769 'he' 7,607 verses 10,430 hits
KJV1611 'he' 5,507 verses- 6,970 hits
KJV1611 'hee 3,105 verses 3,500 hits
KJV1611 he & hee 10,470

'he' has been taken out of the KJV1611 40 times
to make the KJV1769 :laugh:

(sorry to mock those who do Bible words counts, as thougth
it were of some signifance. I refer, of course, to
the blood of animals being removed as though it were the
Sweet, Precious Blood of my Lord & Savior, Jesus - the Messiah --
the Blood poured freely for all those who will accept it's
cleansing power)

 

Once again, the best test of all is a REALITY CHECK. For the average English reader, modern English is easier to read than Elizabethan English, and THAT'S THAT!

 

I think the various methods of rating a Bible's readability could be of some use to those choosing first Bibles for children or for those whose primary language is other than that which the Bible is written in.

For anyone who has already studied the Bible I think that persons own ability levels are the best judge, i.e., read selections in several different versions and pick according to how well you understand. The rating methods that use word length cannot take into account a persons education level, comprehension ability, or familiarity with the text to begin with. Bruce

 

Thank you. I didn't know I could do this.

 

But there is no place for definitions in the passage.
According to this, a certain reading written in Spanish could have a readability of 5th grade, but since I don't know what the words mean, I could not read it.

The same goes with modern day readers...
Some words have changed meaning since 1769.
This is the reason for some bad doctrine.