List of English Bible Translations with Equivalence & Grade Reading Levels

THIS CHART IS SORTED ALPHABETICALLY. LEGEND is at the bottom.

Equivalence is in the left column:
BLUE = HARD (more literal)
RED = SOFT (more paraphrase)

Please note that any numbers on the Equivalence are a RANK from 1-32 (I ranked 32 bibles). In reality, I realize that some of these would be the exact same number if the number represented a statistical index marker on a bell curve.

I want to add to this, improve upon, and add more validity and credibility -- so your critical feedback is MOST WELCOME! [:)]

THIS CHART IS SORTED by EQUIVALENCE.

LEGEND is in the bottom right.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057414#Comment_1057414

Great chart. It would be quite useful to add the text type or critical edition from which the respective Bible version was translated (TR, majority text, Nestle-Aland etc.)

Steve Maling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057416#Comment_1057416

Scott, here is a German Interlinear: Luther, Martin. Die Bibel Nach Der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (1984); Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.

None of my 11 remaining Logos German Bibles are interlinears, nor are any of my 5 Logos French Bibles.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057427#Comment_1057427

Scott, here is a German Interlinear: Luther, Martin. Die Bibel Nach Der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (1984); Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.

None of my 11 remaining Logos German Bibles are interlinears, nor are any of my 5 Logos French Bibles.

FYI: The more recent Luther 2017 as well as Schlachter 2000 are German bibles with RI - and the French Louis Segond 1910 also has interlinear capability. As does the Latin Clementine Vulgate, and I'm sure there are Spanish bibles with RI.

Steve Maling

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057431#Comment_1057431

Thank you, NB,

I don't have the Schlachter Bible and, for some reason, my Luther 2007 doesn't include the interlinear feature. Evidently I would need to buy a separate interlinear add-on for Louis Segond 1910. Yes, the Clementine Vulgate does indeed have interlinear capability. I leave the Spanish Bibles to others, having absolutely no training in Spanish, apart from our good neighbors in the Portland (OR) metro area. Thanks again.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057426#Comment_1057426

Great chart. It would be quite useful to add the text type or critical edition from which the respective Bible version was translated (TR, majority text, Nestle-Aland etc.)

Thanks Jan! If you happen to have that data, I'll add it in!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057427#Comment_1057427

Thanks so much Steve! Unfortunately, I think I'm only putting the English bibles on there. I mean, I'm assuming the bibles you are mentioning are German || Original languages (not German || English)?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057469#Comment_1057469

Great chart. It would be quite useful to add the text type or critical edition from which the respective Bible version was translated (TR, majority text, Nestle-Aland etc.)

Thanks Jan! If you happen to have that data, I'll add it in!

I started collecting that data some time ago. It's still sort of a draft.

Dan Cleghorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057492#Comment_1057492

Where would the Modern English Version (MEV) fit into this?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057492#Comment_1057492

I started collecting that data some time ago. It's still sort of a draft.

Jan, would you like me to get that data added in? I'd be happy to -- but was hoping you could provide me with two things:

1) A text version of that data (excel, .csv, .txt, etc).

2) Recommendations for appropriate abbreviations?

Thanks!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057505#Comment_1057505

STRANGE QUESTION: How far into the future can one "EDIT" a post? In other words, if / when I update those charts, can I simply change the source files in the future, or will I have to keep posting new posts with new images (in which case, theoretically, there'll be a bunch of different versions in this thread, over time)?

PetahChristian

Good question!

The edit time limit is two hours, so you'd have to resort to a new post with a new image. I think that's due to spam protection. Sorry!

Alternately, if you kept this information at the wiki, you'd simply upload a more recent version of the image to the wiki, and any wiki page referencing that image would use the latest image.

Once that is done, you could ask the forum administrator if he would add a "See the wiki for the latest revision" to your original post.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057512#Comment_1057512

Wow Petah... thanks; I have a lot of questions )

The edit time limit is two hours...

Would it be advisable to host the image someplace where I can just update it so it refreshes on the posts here?

I actually was doing that on my original posts (using the "insert / edit image" button instead of the "insert attachments / media" button). The reason I stopped doing that is the images were HUGE and cut off. But when using "insert attachment" (hosting here at Logos) it shrunk the image and made it a clickable, zoomable thumbnail.

... if you kept this information at the wiki ...

In all truth, I'd really rather not have another aspect to manage -- but I'd be happy to if that's more appropriate. I've never contributed to Wiki before. But, I guess I have a few questions:

1) Would it be more appropriate to post here, or on Wiki?

2) If the answer is Wiki, how do I know what sort of stuff I should post here and what sort of things should be on Wiki?

3) Can anyone tell me how to embed an image in a post -- that is a clickable thumbnail (but at the same time hosted on another site)?

Thanks to everyone for all the newbie help [H]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057495#Comment_1057495

Where would the Modern English Version (MEV) fit into this?

Dan, I have no idea; but I would love the answer to that question as well.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057504#Comment_1057504

I started collecting that data some time ago. It's still sort of a draft.

Jan, would you like me to get that data added in? I'd be happy to -- but was hoping you could provide me with two things:

1) A text version of that data (excel, .csv, .txt, etc).

2) Recommendations for appropriate abbreviations?

Thanks!

Would it make sense to maintain the entire list of Bibles in the Logos Wiki, so we have it in one central location, and users can add or correct data when necessary, and provide sources for the data?

I could create a draft document on the Wiki with the data we have so far, and then all of us can add to it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057516#Comment_1057516

Would it make sense to maintain the entire list of Bibles in the Logos Wiki...

I love your 'parrot' (not sure if it's actually a parrot) Jan! Boy, LOL, you're the 2nd person today to recommend Wiki to me.

I could create a draft document on the Wiki with the data we have so far, and then all of us can add to it.

I don't know anything about Wiki. Do I need to create an account? How does it work? If you think that's appropriate, I'm all in (perhaps). I'm just really reluctant to have another thing to manage -- but it would sure be nice to have multiple authors contributing; I have a holes in my data sets:

1) I'm missing many English Bibles

2) I'm missing a lot of data for English Bibles on the list (i.e. Grade Reading Level / Equivalence ratings)

3) I'm sure that my Equivalence ratings need to be improved (some of the accuracy is questionable)

However, for me, the chart and the table have very practical purposes:

EXCEL TABLE - I use the table to make bible recommendations to folks based on: their reading level, Christianity level, personality type, etc.

CONTINUUM CHART - I use the chart to help people really think about choosing 3 key bibles (one from each area of the bell curve continuum) when they are thinking about what bibles to purchase for use in Logos.

So with respect to the Wiki article -- and the current tools I've developed -- my goal is much more for Lay oriented (and newer Christians)... Not for pastors / theologians / scholars.

Appreciate any feedback / thoughts you may have!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057495#Comment_1057495

Where would the Modern English Version (MEV) fit into this?

MEV Preface to the Reader includes:

The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript. The Committee on Bible Translation adhered to the principle of formal equivalence, the meaning of which is to be as literal as proper English syntax and grammar will allow.

Modern English Version, Thinline Edition. (Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014), x.

Compare the original Tyndale Translation with the updates of the following passage:

For when the worlde thorow wysdome knew not God in ye wysdome of God: it pleased God thorow folisshnes of preachinge to save them yt beleve (1 Co 1:21, Tyndale Translation, 1534).

For after that, in the wisedom of God, the world by wisedome knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishnesse of preaching, to saue them that beleeue (1 Co 1:21, KJV, 1611).

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1 Co 1:21, KJV, 1769).

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Co 1:21, NKJV, 1982).

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe (1 Co 1:21, MEV, 2014).

Modern English Version, Thinline Edition. (Lake Mary, FL: Passio, 2014), xi–xii.

A Bible Gateway article in 2016 shows MEV with 11+ reading level, which is the same as NASB and Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Keep Smiling [:)]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057552#Comment_1057552

A Bible Gateway article in 2016 shows MEV with 11+ reading level, which is the same as NASB and Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Do not know the source but it was said that the KJV, here rated at 13, was used as a reading primer, that is first grade.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057572#Comment_1057572

Do not know the source but it was said that the KJV, here rated at 13, was used as a reading primer, that is first grade.

That's a claim KJV-onlyists frequently make. I've recently seen a refutation. Maybe by James White? I can't remember... If I come across it again, I'll post a link.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057516#Comment_1057516

Would it make sense to maintain the entire list of Bibles in the Logos Wiki, so we have it in one central location, and users can add or correct data when necessary, and provide sources for the data?

Please comment on draft (daft) wiki page creation in progress:

Page Contents

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

Year released or revised
Bible abbreviation
Reading level (R#) reflects number of different words used and length of sentences.
Language (L) can be: A for Archaic (Ye), I for Inclusive, or N for Neutral.
* Apocrypha or DeuteroCanonical books are included in Bible Resource by Faithlife.

Word for Word

Formal equivalence seeks literal rendering.

Year	Bible	R#	L	*	Bible Description	Source	Affliation
2016	ESV	11+			English Standard Version	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
2014	MEV	11+			Modern English Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1995	NASB95	11+			New American Standard Update 1995	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
1987	AMP	11+			Amplified Bible	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1982	NKJV	7+			New King James Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1977	NASB	11+			New American Standard	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
1901	ASV	12+	A	*	American Standard Version	Masoretic Text, Westcott-Hort	Protestant
1900	KJV	12+	A	*	King James Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1873	KJV, AV	12+	A	*	Cambridge Paragraph Authorized Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1790	DR, DRA	12+	A	*	Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)	Latin Vulgate	Catholic
1769	AV, KJV	12+	A		Authorized Version (Dr Blayney)	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1560	Geneva	12+	A	*	Geneva Bible	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican

Thought for Thought

Dynamic equivalence seeks a mediating balance from stilted literal expression and current colloquialism. CSB and HCSB sought an optimal equivalence between formal and dynamic. Good News Bible was renamed Good News Translation in an attempt to change paraphrase perception.

Year	Bible	R#	L	*	Bible Description	Source	Affliation
2017	CSB	7+			Christian Standard Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland 28	Lifeway
2011	CEB	7+	N	*	Common English Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Alliance
2009	HCSB	7+			Holman Christian Standard Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Lifeway
1998	CJB	11+			Complete Jewish Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Messianic
1992	GNB	7+			Good News Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Protestant
1992	GNTa	7+		*	Good News Translation with Apocrypha	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Protestant

Paraphrase

Functional equivalence seeks meaning using contemporary colloquialism.

Year	Bible	R#	L	*	Bible Description	Affliation
1995	CEV	5+	N	*	Contemporary English Version	American Bible Society
1992	CPG	5+	N	*	Cotton Patch Gospel	Koinonia

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057572#Comment_1057572

A Bible Gateway article in 2016 shows MEV with 11+ reading level, which is the same as NASB and Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Do not know the source but it was said that the KJV, here rated at 13, was used as a reading primer, that is first grade.

Reading level reflects modern education goal. Truth Project (by Focus on the Family) has a segment that includes first grade vocabulary having many multisyllabic words.

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057581#Comment_1057581

Please comment on draft (daft) wiki page creation in progress:

Oh, you were faster than me...

Looking good at first sight. I'll in the process of finishing a paper, and will add all my knowledge of the matter to the wiki pages afterwards, early next month or so.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057581#Comment_1057581

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

These links display an "Access denied" error.

Would you please change them from edit links to page links, so non-editors like me can see them?

Thanks, and thanks for all the wiki improvements!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057590#Comment_1057590

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

These links display an "Access denied" error.

Page Content links will work after Wiki page is created (preview has Bold destination for content links). Currently have about a third of the bibles in Scott David's chart => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/182774/1057414.aspx#1057414

Keep Smiling [:)]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057581#Comment_1057581

1982NKJV7+New King James VersionMasoretic Text, Textus ReceptusAnglican

I would challenge the affiliation of NKJV with the Anglican denomination, but much more I would question that this bible is so much more readable that the other more recent translations in the "word for word" sections such as ESV and NASB. This low grading was surely only a marketing ploy

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057578#Comment_1057578

That's a claim KJV-onlyists frequently make. I've recently seen a refutation. Maybe by James White? I can't remember... If I come across it again, I'll post a link

If I recall correctly, Mark Ward discussed this in "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible". Unfortunately, I can't remember if it was the book, movie of maybe both.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057605#Comment_1057605

If I recall correctly, Mark Ward discussed this in "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible". Unfortunately, I can't remember if it was the book, movie of maybe both.

Correct. It's in the movie. (May be in the book too.)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057598#Comment_1057598

1982NKJV7+New King James VersionMasoretic Text, Textus ReceptusAnglican

I would challenge the affiliation of NKJV with the Anglican denomination, but much more I would question that this bible is so much more readable that the other more recent translations in the "word for word" sections such as ESV and NASB. This low grading was surely only a marketing ploy

Thanks for affiliation challenge so rechecked Jan's list with my work in progress (about halfway done) so updated several Affiliations plus included wiki page draft (daft) introduction for review & comment:

Bible Translation Spectrum

Bible Translating has a spectrum of target equivalence approaches ranging from formal to functional with dynamic in between. Formal seeks literal rendering of original language into target language, which wants to preserve original word order as much as practical. Also literal goal is one translated word for one original word. In contrast, functional equivalence focuses on phrasing meaning using contemporary colloquialism. In a sense, functional equivalence is an application commentary of the original text. In the middle of the spectrum is dynamic thought for thought, which seeks a mediating balance from stilted literal expression and current colloquialism.

Comparing Bibles from across spectrum of equivalent approaches can be insightful. Essentially all Bible translations are a commentary on the original text (within bounds of translator's believability) so look for commonality (agreement) between apparently different renditions.

For Bible Study of a passage, one practical approach is praying Psalms 119:18 followed by using S.O.A.P.
S = Scripture (Where’s it at ?)
O = Observe (What jumps out ?)
A = Apply (What to do ?)
P = Pray (about it)
At times, the “O = Observe” needs to seek meaning in Original Context to discover Truth gem(s).

Page Contents

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

Year released or revised (with ~ suffix for Bibles not offered by Faithlife)
Bible abbreviation for resource filtering
Reading level (R#) reflects number of different words used and length of sentences.
Language (L) can be: A for Archaic (Ye), I for Inclusive, or N for Neutral.
* Apocrypha or DeuteroCanonical books are included in Bible Resource by Faithlife.

Word for Word

Formal equivalence seeks literal rendering (albeit some word choices are closer to Thought for Thought).

Year	Bible	R#	L	*	Bible Description	Source	Affliation
2016	ESV	11+			English Standard Version	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
2014	MEV	11+			Modern English Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Ecumenical
2012	LEB	11+			Lexham English Bible	Masoretic Text, SBL Greek	Protestant
2012	LES	11+		*	Lexham English Septuagint	Swete’s LXX	Protestant
1995	NASB95	11+			New American Standard Update 1995	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
1987	AMP	11+			Amplified Bible	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Protestant
1982	NKJV	7+			New King James Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Protestant
1977	NASB	11+			New American Standard	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
1901	ASV	12+	A	*	American Standard Version	Masoretic Text, Westcott-Hort	Protestant
1900	KJV	12+	A	*	King James Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1873	KJV, AV	12+	A	*	Cambridge Paragraph Authorized Version	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1790	DR, DRA	12+	A	*	Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)	Latin Vulgate	Catholic
1769	AV, KJV	12+	A		Authorized Version (Dr Blayney)	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican
1560	Geneva	12+	A	*	Geneva Bible	Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus	Anglican

Thought for Thought

Year	Bible	R#	L	*	Bible Description	Source	Affliation
2017	CSB	7+			Christian Standard Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland 28	Lifeway
2011	CEB	7+	N	*	Common English Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Alliance
2011	ISV	7+	I		International Standard Version	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
2011	NABRE	9+	A	*	New American Bible Revised Edition	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland 26	Catholic
2009	HCSB	7+			Holman Christian Standard Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Lifeway
2006	NET	3+	N		New English Translation (NET)	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
2005	NCV	3+	N		New Century Version	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Protestant
2004~	ERV	4+	I		Easy to Read Version	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland 27	Deaf
2000	ISV-NT	7+	I		International Standard Version NT	Nestle-Aland	Evangelical
1998	CJB	11+			Complete Jewish Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Messianic
1997	JNT	11+			Jewish New Tstament	Nestle-Aland	Messianic
1995	GW, GWT	5+			God’s Word Translation (GW)	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Lutheran
1992	GNB	7+			Good News Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Protestant
1992	GNTa	7+		*	Good News Translation with Apocrypha	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Protestant
1991	NAB	9+	A	*	New American Bible (revised NT & Psalms)	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland 26	Catholic
1987~	ERV	4+			Easy to Read Version	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland 27	Deaf
1986~	ICB	3+			International Children’s Bible	Masoretic Text, Nestle-Aland	Protestant

Paraphrase

Functional equivalence seeks meaning using contemporary colloquialism.

Year	Bible	R#	L	*	Bible Description	Affliation
2005	MSG	4+	N	*	The Message	NavPress
1995	CEV	5+	N	*	Contemporary English Version	American Bible Society
1992	CPG	5+	N	*	Cotton Patch Gospel	Koinonia

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057590#Comment_1057590

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

These links display an "Access denied" error.

Would you please change them from edit links to page links, so non-editors like me can see them?

Logos wiki page => https://wiki.logos.com/Bible_Translation_Spectrum has working links:

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

Keep Smiling [:)]

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057671#Comment_1057671

Thanks, it looks great!

Sorry that I didn't understand that the earlier post was a proposal, and the page hadn't been created yet.

Thanks to everyone who contributed information for this very useful page!

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057683#Comment_1057683

While searching for ‘The Reading Level of the KJV’ I found this:

https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2015/02/23/the-reading-level-of-the-kjv/ [[Always put a space after a link to activate the link]]

They claim
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the New Testament
KJV: 4.32
ESV: 8.22

And they tell you how to make the calculation yourself. [[I have not tried it]]

THIS POST WILL ALWAYS CONTAIN THE LINKS TO THE MOST UPDATED CHARTS!

DIAGRAM BIBLE CHART

TABLE BIBLE CHART

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057552#Comment_1057552

... MEV with 11+ reading level, which is the same as NASB and Lexham English Bible (LEB)

Thanks so much; I'll include this in the next version of the chart!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057572#Comment_1057572

Do not know the source but it was said that the KJV, here rated at 13, was used as a reading primer, that is first grade.

LOL... I'm not saying that our society doesn't have knowledge -- but with less capacity in some way... but the reason KJV rates so high now, is because it is 1600's English.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057581#Comment_1057581

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

Thanks for posting all this Keep Smiling!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057705#Comment_1057705

... KJV ... They claim Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the New Testament KJV: 4.32 ESV: 8.22

Flesch-Kincaid is what Microsoft Word uses. MS Word > File > Options > Proofing > Show Readability Statistics > [F7] (complete spelling & grammar check)... At the end of the sMelling check, Word will popus stats including Reading Level.

The problem is, that even if we opened the entire KJV in Word -- it wouldn't work. Word is assuming contemporary, common (vulgar) English. It primarily does the math based upon how many multi-syllabic words there are; which doesn't translate accurately to the difficulty of reading Old English, Queen's English, etc.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057671#Comment_1057671

Logos wiki page => https://wiki.logos.com/Bible_Translation_Spectrum has working links:

Word for Word
Thought for Thought
Paraphrase

Thanks for reminding me of this link. I just went through all my tags to make sure they matched and found out that I had made a number of mistakes.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057611#Comment_1057611

my work in progress

How about the Phillips translation. Recently there has been discussion about it in this forum. Will it be included in your list?

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057608#Comment_1057608

If I recall correctly, Mark Ward discussed this in "Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible". Unfortunately, I can't remember if it was the book, movie of maybe both.

Correct. It's in the movie. (May be in the book too.)

It's been a while since I watched the movie but Chapter 4 in the book discusses this:

In the beginning of the chapter he mentions this: "

These are the relevant results as reported by av1611.org:

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the New Testament

• KJV: 4.32

• ESV: 8.22

At the end he comes to this conclusion...

"In my judgment, the KJV isn’t at any recognized “reading level.” Not fifth grade, not twelfth grade, not grad school, not age eighty-six. The whole concept of “reading level” assumes that we’re talking about more or less contemporary language. I’d be willing to stretch the definition of “contemporary” pretty far to preserve the values I enumerated in chapter one, but not four-hundred-years far."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057829#Comment_1057829

How about the Phillips translation... Will it be included in your list?

Absolutely, any translation (i.e. any non-heretical version) that is English, I'll add to the list. As long as someone provides me the following:

Abbreviation (e.g. LEB)
Name (e.g. Lexham English Bible)
Reading Level and / or Placement on the Equivalence Continuum (e.g. 11.5; falls between NKJV / ESV)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057829#Comment_1057829

How about the Phillips translation.

I've identified my Personal Book version as a paraphrase.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057829#Comment_1057829

How about the Phillips translation. Recently there has been discussion about it in this forum. Will it be included in your list?

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page => Bible Translation Spectrum

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057906#Comment_1057906

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page

I've always considered Phillips a paraphrase but you identified it as dynamic equivalent. What is your reasoning?

See http://www.bible-researcher.com/phillips.html

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057906#Comment_1057906

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page

Also, what others did you add?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057906#Comment_1057906

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page => Bible Translation Spectrum

Thanks Keep Smiling! Added those to the Table -- but not to the diagram (since I don't know where they fall on the Equivalence Continuum):

DOWNLOAD LINKS:
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/182774/1057777.aspx#1057777

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057947#Comment_1057947

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page

Also, what others did you add?

Logos Wiki diff of versions 1 & 2 shows four added to Word for Word

1997 WEB (Community Pricing needs more bids)
1961 Wuest (verbose expression of verbs)
1536 Tyndale
1535 Coverdale (First Complete English Bible)

Thought for Thought

1995 CEV (moved from Paraphrase to match Logos.com product page)
1959 EBR
1958 Phillips
1769 Harwood

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page

I've always considered Phillips a paraphrase but you identified it as dynamic equivalent. What is your reasoning?

See http://www.bible-researcher.com/phillips.html

Wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_New_Testament_in_Modern_English shows dynamic equivalence while The Living Bible shows paraphrase => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Bible

Added many See Also links to Bible Translation Spectrum

 Bibles @ Logos.com
Bible-Researcher English
Bible Gateway Reading Levels
Reading Level of the KJV
Scott David: Spectrum Chart
Scott David: Bible Table
Jan Krohn: Source&Affiliation

Moved two English Versions to Paraphrase per Bible-Researcher

1958 Phillips
1769 Harwood

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1057961#Comment_1057961

Added Phillips plus several more translations to Logos Wiki page => Bible Translation Spectrum

Thanks Keep Smiling! Added those to the Table -- but not to the diagram (since I don't know where they fall on the Equivalence Continuum):

DOWNLOAD LINKS:

Added Download links to Logos Wiki => Bible Translation Spectrum see also (for future reference).

NASB and NASU are revisions of ASV, which was the 1901 American revision of the Authorized Version. American Standard Version (ASV) includes "The ASV has long been regarded by many scholars as the most literal English translation since the King James Version—maybe the most literal translation ever."

While creating/updating Logos wiki page, pondered adding a column to Thought for Thought with three values for range:

< = Closer to Literal
> = Closer to Paraphrase
= Dynamic middle (space)

Perhaps NIV family of translations could be the middle of "Thought for Thought" dynamic range.

Challenging to numerically place Bible translations across spectrum, especially relative to each other (depends on passages considered for placement). FYI: a lesson learned from my college Greek class was KJV sometimes having Thought for Thought interpretation.

Logos wiki L column has three values:

A = Archaic (Ye)
I = Inclusive (corresponds to ^^ column inScott David: Bible Table)
N = Neutral (corresponds to ^ column in Scott David: Bible Table)

Logos wiki * column has an * for Faithlife Bible resources including Apocrypha or DeuteroCanonical books. Note: ESV and GW have Apocrypha or DeuteroCanonical books in print (on my bookshelves)

Suspect CPG is the farthest to the right for a paraphrase:

For example, in the Bible, the story of the Good Samaritan involves a Jew, a Samaritan, and an unnamed victim of a robbery on a lonely road in the Middle East, and it took place 2,000 years ago. In the Cotton Patch translation, the Jew becomes a white man, the Samaritan becomes an African American, and the crime victim is robbed and beaten in Ellaville, Georgia.

Clarence Jordan, The Cotton Patch Gospel (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Pub., 2004).

CJB (and JNT) are a bit more dynamic than NIV: especially for the phrase "under the law"

Keep Smiling [:)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1058006#Comment_1058006

While creating/updating Logos wiki page, pondered adding a column to Thought for Thought with three values for range:

< = Closer to Literal

> = Closer to Paraphrase

= Dynamic middle (space)

Perhaps NIV family of translations could be the middle of "Thought for Thought" dynamic range.

Added D column to Thought for Thought table on wiki page => Bible Translation Spectrum

Keep Smiling [:)]