List of English Bible Translations with Equivalence & Grade Reading Levels
Regarding the Lexham English Bible - can anyone tell me the following:
A) Grade Reading Level
Where it would fall on the continuum from Formal to Functional (Equivalent)?
Also, if you can answer Question A) or for any bibles not on this list -- I'd be immensely grateful. Please post here and I'll update and repost the charts as they are innovated.
And finally, if you feel that there are critical changes that need to be made to these charts -- please post that here as well.
PS - for a list of Logos English Bibles and whether or not they have interlinear, please see this post: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/182773.aspx
Comments
-
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! [:)]
0 -
THIS CHART IS SORTED by EQUIVALENCE.
LEGEND is in the bottom right.
0 -
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.)
0 -
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.
0 -
Steve Maling said:
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.
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
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.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
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!
0 -
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)?
0 -
Scott David said:Jan Krohn said:
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.
0 -
Where would the Modern English Version (MEV) fit into this?
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
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!
0 -
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)?
0 -
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.
Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!
0 -
Wow Petah... thanks; I have a lot of questions
)PetahChristian said: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.
PetahChristian said:... 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]
0 -
DanC said:
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.
0 -
Scott David said:Jan Krohn said:
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.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
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.
Jan Krohn said: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!
0 -
DanC said:
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 [:)]
0 -
-
David Ames said:
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.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
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
ParaphraseYear 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 [:)]
0 -
David Ames said:
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 [:)]
0 -
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.
0 -
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!
Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!
0 -
PetahChristian said:
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 [:)]
0 -
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
Have joy in the Lord!
0 -
Jan Krohn said:
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.
0 -
Rick said:
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.)
0 -
NB.Mick said:
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
ParaphraseYear 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
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 to change paraphrase perception. Dynamic gamut ranges from close to literal to almost a paraphrase.
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 [:)]
0 -
PetahChristian said:
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
ParaphraseKeep Smiling [:)]
0
said: