Ridiculous or merely surprising?

Well, I was skeptical, and since it's a rainy day I decided to conduct an experiment while I'm stuck in the house watching the olympics.

I copied & pasted samples of text from NIV and KJV (Genesis 1 from each) and entered them into the Lexile Analyzer (Lexile gives you a reading level for a student and the Analyzer analyzes a piece of text and calculates the lexile (reading) level). Surprisingly, the lexile level for the KJV is 1460 (about HS junior/senior - early college). The lexile level for the NIV is 1610 (graduate level). So I guess the person conducting the research was correct.

Just thought I'd share my nerdy findings. I have no clue how the Lexile Analyzer determines the rating. I just know it works for teachers in helping them find texts for their students to read at their specific levels.

That article is a great example of modernist thinking. We hear a good bit about who post-modern people are and how they think, but this is a beautiful example of what I understand of how modern people think.

Do you think the KJV is hard to read? Well, you can shut up because experts who understand real easy reading agree that the KJV is easier than any of the other translations. We have broken down easy reading to an exact formula, and by that scientific process have determined that our preferred translation is the easiest to read. You can't argue with scientific authorities.

In case I'm losing anyone, let me say that modernists are described as seeing the world from an angle in which everything can be studied, broken down into elements, and understood. It isn't simply that truth is real and can be understood; it's that man can understand anything given the time to work on it.

The problem is that they are only considering lexical issues. The biggest problem with the King James is not its lexicon but its morphology and syntax. Thee, thou, ye, -est, -eth, etc. are archaic and, as such, are, at best, confusing, at worst, deceiving to someone who is not accustomed to or aware of early modern english morphology. As far as syntax, the "easy to read" english of the KJV often resembles Yoda's language. In other words, their facts are correct (in that particular article), but incomplete. They leave out important facts that would change their conclusions.

I know very few teens who can even appreciate the KJV's eloquent style, much less understand it.

Not to mention, some of the statements elsewhere on the website remove credibility from the authors. They completely ransack some of the facts concerning manuscripts and texts. They have a clear misunderstanding of textual criticism. They call Sandi Patti a "rock star."

And then there is this, concerning Michael W. Smith and his occult background:
"But something even more frightening appears on the album . . . The M in Michael and the T in Smith is part of the Runic (runic means secret) alphabet used in witchcraft and satanism! Only someone involved in the occult would know such an alphabet exists!"

The author knows it exists; therefore, he must be involved in the occult.
Not to mention, the only parts of me scared of Michael W. Smith are my ears.