An "easy-to-read" Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Skylar24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GNT (Good News Translation) the one with Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphia. Bears the Imprimatur of NCCB. Mine has the additional books found in Catholic Bibles in a section inbetween OT and NT. I love this version because it has been welcomed over time by Christians of such variety as Catholics, Orthodox, and Billy Graham, to Episcopal and PCUSA. But the preface states in response to Catholics desiring an edition of GNT with the additional books arranged in proper Catholic order, the American Bible Society was in the process of preparing one at the time mine was printed with the books arranged in Catholic order. Have no idea if the work was completed.

NAB better for an easier read than Douay or Jerusalem IMHO.

I have a question myself. What is the difference between NVSV and NVSV-CE? Just that the Deuterocanonicals are included?
 
CMatt25 said:
GNT (Good News Translation) the one with Deuterocanonicals/Apocryphia. Bears the Imprimatur of NCCB. Mine has the additional books found in Catholic Bibles in a section inbetween OT and NT. I love this version because it has been welcomed over time by Christians of such variety as Catholics, Orthodox, and Billy Graham, to Episcopal and PCUSA. But the preface states in response to Catholics desiring an edition of GNT with the additional books arranged in proper Catholic order, the American Bible Society was in the process of preparing one at the time mine was printed with the books arranged in Catholic order. Have no idea if the work was completed.
Click to expand...
I forgot they made a Catholic addition. It is also called Today’s English Version. Yes, it is very dynamic, but at least it is not a paraphrase like the Living Bible. It probably takes the prize as the single most readable translation.
 
pnewton said:
I forgot they made a Catholic addition. It is also called Today’s English Version. Yes, it is very dynamic, but at least it is not a paraphrase like the Living Bible. It probably takes the prize as the single most readable translation.
Click to expand...
I remember this one from my high school days–I:) did enjoy reading it, and I would color the line drawings, LOL!
 
ProVobis said:
😃 Easy-to-color is more important in learning to a 5-yr old so that will work. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well, my inner 5 year old is always close to the surface–sometimes I have to be that way in order to “get” what God is saying to me.😉
 
Here’s a more scientific way of determining an “easy-to-read” Bible, if anyone cares to actually do the calculations on each Bible:
In 1952, Gunning published a book, The Technique of Clear Writing and created an easy-to-use Fog Index.
Click to expand...
The Gunning’s Fog Index (or FOG) Readability Formula
Click to expand...
Step 1: Take a sample passage of at least 100-words and count the number of exact words and sentences.
Click to expand...
Step 2: Divide the total number of words in the sample by the number of sentences to arrive at the Average Sentence Length (ASL).
Click to expand...
Step 3: Count the number of words of three or more syllables that are NOT (i) proper nouns, (ii) combinations of easy words or hyphenated words, or (iii) two-syllable verbs made into three with -es and -ed endings.
Click to expand...
Step 4: Divide this number by the number or words in the sample passage. For example, 25 long words divided by 100 words gives you 25 Percent Hard Words (PHW).
Click to expand...
Step 5: Add the ASL from Step 2 and the PHW from Step 4.
Click to expand...
Step 6: Multiply the result by 0.4.
Click to expand...
The mathematical formula is:
Click to expand...
Grade Level = 0.4 (ASL + PHW)
Click to expand...
where,
Click to expand...
ASL = Average Sentence Length (i.e., number of words divided by the number of sentences)
Click to expand...
PHW = Percentage of Hard Words
Click to expand...
The underlying message of The Gunning Fog Index formula is that short sentences written in Plain English achieve a better score than long sentences written in complicated language.
Click to expand...
The ideal score for readability with the Fog index is 7 or 8. Anything above 12 is too hard for most people to read. For instance, The Bible, Shakespeare and Mark Twain have Fog Indexes of around 6. The leading magazines, like Time, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal average around 11.
Click to expand...
readabilityformulas.com/gunning-fog-readability-formula.php
 
ProVobis said:
Here’s a more scientific way of determining an “easy-to-read” Bible, if anyone cares to actually do the calculations on each Bible:
Click to expand...
That is a fascinating post. I am all on it.

I estimate I will have an answer by 2025.👍
 
ProVobis said:
Which version has the maps and other pictures in them? They’re pretty easy to color. 😉
Click to expand...
Ahh… oh yes mine has black and white maps 🙂 but no other pics. 😦 Mine is 1992 edition. So maybe older versions than mine. 🤷 Other than maps and contents,a word glossary and index, mine is over 2200 pages of all Bible (It’s lg print) 🙂
 
Skylar24,
Do you have the Confraternity New Testament? That’s my favorite translation. Another good, and yet easy-to-read translation would be the original Jerusalem Bible. The best modern translation is probably the RSV-CE. The translation I’d recommend least would be the NAB, because there are some questionable footnotes (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:15) as well as very questionable introductions to the Gospels (compare them to the Pontifical Biblical Commission decisions of the early 1900s, which still have magisterial force). If you’re Catholic, then you’ll want a ‘Catholic’ Bible. Again, try the RSV-CE or even the Jerusalem Bible.
 
CMatt25 said:
Ahh… oh yes mine has black and white maps 🙂 but no other pics. 😦 Mine is 1992 edition. So maybe older versions than mine. 🤷 Other than maps and contents,a word glossary and index, mine is over 2200 pages of all Bible (It’s lg print) 🙂
Click to expand...
The NAB is seriously “dumbed down”. I can’t stand that it uses “bad” instead of evil. “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad”. so lame. Also, it says “Hail, favored one!”. Instead of full of grace. This is wrong translation and does not support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The footnote for Cor. 3:15 says that it’s not about purgatory, even though it has historically been interpreted that way.
 
Link0126 said:
The NAB is seriously “dumbed down”. I can’t stand that it uses “bad” instead of evil. “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad”. so lame. Also, it says “Hail, favored one!”. Instead of full of grace. This is wrong translation and does not support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The footnote for Cor. 3:15 says that it’s not about purgatory, even though it has historically been interpreted that way.
Click to expand...
Most of the notes I have come across in the NAB have been problematic, as they discard Traditional views of dating and authorship in favor of modern “scholarship,” which is dependent on a hermeneutic of suspicion
 
Link0126 said:
The NAB is seriously “dumbed down”. I can’t stand that it uses “bad” instead of evil. “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad”. so lame. Also, it says “Hail, favored one!”. Instead of full of grace. This is wrong translation and does not support the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The footnote for Cor. 3:15 says that it’s not about purgatory, even though it has historically been interpreted that way.
Click to expand...
I think you are arguing the wrong point. This thread is about what is easier to read, not which is more literal. FYI calling something a “wrong” translation is not accurate either, less so than your accusation. It is not “wrong” it is different. As the word only appears once in the NT, right or wrong is not an issue.
 
pnewton said:
I think you are arguing the wrong point. This thread is about what is easier to read, not which is more literal. FYI calling something a “wrong” translation is not accurate either, less so than your accusation. It is not “wrong” it is different. As the word only appears once in the NT, right or wrong is not an issue.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
pnewton said:
I think you are arguing the wrong point. This thread is about what is easier to read, not which is more literal. FYI calling something a “wrong” translation is not accurate either, less so than your accusation. It is not “wrong” it is different. As the word only appears once in the NT, right or wrong is not an issue.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I’m the first to admit that the NAB has problems. My preferred ‘general use’ Bible is the RSV-CE, and I quite enjoy the Douay-Rheims as well…but if I were sitting down to read the Scripture at-length (more like a novel) then the NAB is definitely the better bet. It is an easier, more pleasurable read for the ‘casual’ reader.

For me, reading the Scripture is the central thing that led me to the Catholic Church (the Protestant understanding of ‘Church’ doesn’t mesh well with a simple read of the Book of Acts). I never would have been able to read it as deeply as I did if it weren’t for an easy-to-read version (as a Protestant, I used the Contemporary English Version for my casual reading).

So my two-cents: I’d rather that people read the Scripture from an imperfect-but-accessible translation than that they don’t read it at all ;). I do, however, recommend having RSV-CE and/or Douay-Rheims around to compare difficult or unclear passages with more ‘true’ translations.

God bless you!
 
pnewton said:
I think you are arguing the wrong point. This thread is about what is easier to read, not which is more literal. FYI calling something a “wrong” translation is not accurate either, less so than your accusation. It is not “wrong” it is different. As the word only appears once in the NT, right or wrong is not an issue.
Click to expand...
haha. Ok, go read your NAB then, might as well read a protestant Bible. Their notes and translations don’t support Catholic doctrines and it’s only slightly easier to read than the RSV-CE2. I know when I’m looking to buy something new I always appreciate getting as much info as I can about it.
 
Link0126 said:
haha. Ok, go read your NAB then, might as well read a protestant Bible. Their notes and translations don’t support Catholic doctrines and it’s only slightly easier to read than the RSV-CE2. I know when I’m looking to buy something new I always appreciate getting as much info as I can about it.
Click to expand...
I think the sarcasm is unnecessary. The NAB is the translation of the USCCB, and there is really no reason to disparage it. If you don’t like it, fine. Personally, I despise the thing. But if someone chooses to use that translation, then that is their choice, and we should welcome the fact that they are reading the Bible. Also there is nothing inherently “wrong” with historical and literary criticism. In fact, these forms of analysis are quite useful when applied correctly. As Jimmy Akin has said, the best Bible is one that you will read.
 
StTommyMore said:
I think the sarcasm is unnecessary. The NAB is the translation of the USCCB, and there is really no reason to disparage it. If you don’t like it, fine. Personally, I despise the thing. But if someone chooses to use that translation, then that is their choice, and we should welcome the fact that they are reading the Bible. Also there is nothing inherently “wrong” with historical and literary criticism. In fact, these forms of analysis are quite useful when applied correctly. As Jimmy Akin has said, the best Bible is one that you will read.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
I was just at the book store. Guidepost has a new book, “Learn the Bible in 30-Days” which you would use in conjuction with your Bible.

I admitt I didn’ read it but it sounds decent if your looking into gaining knowledge from another source? not sure.

Good Luck

God Bless, GT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top