My Wish List For The Top Eleven ...

Wasn't the first NIV written on a 7th grade level?

 

As far as I understand, all editions are around the 7th to 7.5 grade level.

 

Depends.

what was the typically accurate reading level of a student in high school that would read and understand Chaucer in Senior English classes in the 50’s and 60’s isn’t even comparable to the reading level of some college seniors of this day.

all ability testing is adjusted according to the number of correct answers every few years, and as a result though the reading levels may show no dramatic change, the actual proof is found in the classrooms.

 

As I had said earlier, the operative word in the title of the best selling English translation is International. This Bible translation is not meant exclusively for native English speakers. I'd have to do some digging, but I think the majority of customers are not native English speakers. Also, the NIV might not just be the biggest selling English Bible translation, but the biggest selling Bible translation internationally.

 

I am not being confrontational, but asking is being international a mark of praise or a mark of denouncing?

In my own life, popularity does not always belong to conformity.

For example, the late Billy Graham was very popular around the world, but conforming to his choices of who to be associated is too far for me.

 

I had also thought the NKJV, NASB (older version), KJV were written on a 12th grade level?

 

The former, of course.

 

On those charts they rate those on a reading level of 10th to 12th grade; yes.

I find it both amusing and illogical for The Message and Phillips to be put on a low reading level of 5 or less. If any rational person would actually read these they would know that they rate at least at a reading level beyond the 7th grade. I guess the thinking is that because these are beyond functional-equivalence they should have a reading level as low as possible.

I am certainly not a fan of The Message, yet I will always appreciate the 1972 Phillips translation. I know its faults, but appreciate it nonetheless.

 

This post concerns reading levels and how a parent might discern quickly if a book is age appropriate.

Reading levels are established, for the most part, by publishers.

There are other formal assessments that can be made which examines the types of sentences (simple, compound) the number of multi syllabic words, whether definitions are presented within the context of unfamiliar or little used words, punctuation variables (semicolons, colons, apostrophes, parentheses,….) and so on.

For those reading who may have children and question the reading level of a book, the five finger test is a quick assessment useful in selecting a book.

Have the child take an unfamiliar book they might like to read, have them open it to any random page near the middle of the book that has a full page written both before and after (that excludes the beginning and ending of a chapter), and have them read the page orally.

On your hand count the words miss pronounced, and words stumbled over. 0 to 1 ok, but maybe too easy. 2 to 3 grade level appropriate that will not discourage the child but stretch the mind. 4 to 5 maybe something less challenging. However, many challenging books (even at the four and five finger) can be a thrilling experience for the child. This is merely a quick guide.

 

You meant that 4 to 5 would be too challenging or difficult for the child.

 

It usually is, however, a highly interesting book read by a child can overcome the lack of actual reading ability.

Decades ago, a child was discovered to merely substitute in their mind a word they new for an unfamiliar word. It worked very well, but the child still needed to be taught decoding skills so they could properly sound out the unfamiliar.

One might think that this simple “test” wouldn’t work on adults, but it does. It is a quick assessment of the book, not the person.

One should not assess the ability on a few books, there are many other factors one being health, culture, parental educational level, ….

a big one is eyes, and watching how the person tracks the words.

 

Bible Gateway listed the Phillips at 10+ That is more realistic.
The Message is listed at 4+. That is highly unrealistic.

Christian Book has The Message at 4-5.

One site (I have forgotten which) listed The Message at grades 5-10 "depending on the passage." That is accurate.

 

Too bad they don't still print the '84, I'm not the biggest NIV fan (though I'm not totally opposed to it), but the 2011 is an abomination.

 

That kind of language used against the word of God is not allowed here. And if you are a Christian you wouldn't dare say or think anything like that. Remember what was said in the preface to the KJV "...we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English...containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."

Start a thread on what you perceive to be mistakes in the NIV. It's been done dozens of times on the BB.

What is your favorite English translation?

 

Unfortunately what they did to the 2011 was horrifying, and it's because I'm a Christian that I say that. You don't need to question my salvation due to my verbal disdain for an update that has been thoroughly panned by those who take the word of God seriously. Minor translational errors are expected, and remedied, but outright putting things into the text that don't exist IS an abomination. If my comment is deemed out of line then I will delete it.

EDIT - having thought about it, I should have clarified my statement on my first comment, I have a great dislike for the 2011 update as they did some very terrible things to the text. The bible itself is not an abomination, rather, the edits that were made, and items inserted that are in no other bible translation are the abominable part. I apologize for my lack of clarification and heated response.

 

Why? You own stock in the company? :D

 

NIV, ESV, NASV read like the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT in many key texts. Proof:

 

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the JW's nwt reads like the NIV, ESV, NASB. Remember, the Jehovah's Witnesses used to use the KJV and probably still do. Because the JW's use it does not make the KJV or any other bad.

 

Would use of the guilt by association fallacy be strong proof of your inconsistent reasoning?
This same fallacy was used against the Lord Jesus Christ when some attempted to associate Him with publicans and sinners.

You would not condemn the KJV for reading like the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament even when the Church of England makers of the KJV actually borrowed renderings from it.

 

*

There are textual variants which are not the word of God. The question needs to be asked which variants are original and which of them are the corruptions.