a genuine Bible discussion

[hornetguy]

I recently heard of the Modern Literal Version of the New Testament. It is purported to be as close to a literal, word for word translation of the Koine greek into English as you will find. I have not spent any time reading through much of it, but I did check out a couple of "sample" verses.

The language, to me, is much easier to follow than even the (thunderclap) KJV.. I'm thinking of getting a digital version to add to my Nook, so that I'll have three versions to compare during study. I'll very likely get a printed version, as well. The digital versions are supposed to be free of charge, and the printed versions are around, or under $10.

The translators said that it was not for profit, which explains the low cost.

Looks interesting to me.. does anyone have any objective opinions on this translation? It is said that the translation was done from the Majority Text, Byzantine?

 

[Willie-T]

I recently heard of the Modern Literal Version of the New Testament. It is purported to be as close to a literal, word for word translation of the Koine greek into English as you will find. I have not spent any time reading through much of it, but I did check out a couple of "sample" verses.

The language, to me, is much easier to follow than even the (thunderclap) KJV.. I'm thinking of getting a digital version to add to my Nook, so that I'll have three versions to compare during study. I'll very likely get a printed version, as well. The digital versions are supposed to be free of charge, and the printed versions are around, or under $10.

The translators said that it was not for profit, which explains the low cost.

Looks interesting to me.. does anyone have any objective opinions on this translation? It is said that the translation was done from the Majority Text, Byzantine?

Well, I "attempt" to speak three languages, and my wife speaks seven. Both of us agree that "literal" translations are not only difficult, but usually fail miserably in conveying the true intent of the original language.

I hope this that you have found does not actually just literally translate words.

 

[oldhermit]

I recently heard of the Modern Literal Version of the New Testament. It is purported to be as close to a literal, word for word translation as you will find. I have not spent any time reading through much of it, but I did check out a couple of "sample" verses.

The language, to me, is much easier to follow than even the (thunderclap) KJV.. I'm thinking of getting a digital version to add to my Nook, so that I'll have three versions to compare during study. I'll very likely get a printed version, as well. The digital versions are supposed to be free of charge, and the printed versions are around, or under $10.

The translators said that it was not for profit, which explains the low cost.

Looks interesting to me.. does anyone have any objective opinions on this translation? It is said that the translation was done from the Majority Text, Byzantine?

Any time some one claims to have a 'literal, word for word translation of the Koine Greek into English,' this automatically sends up a red flag for me because no such thing is possible.

 

[trofimus]

I recently heard of the Modern Literal Version of the New Testament. It is purported to be as close to a literal, word for word translation of the Koine greek into English as you will find. I have not spent any time reading through much of it, but I did check out a couple of "sample" verses.

The language, to me, is much easier to follow than even the (thunderclap) KJV.. I'm thinking of getting a digital version to add to my Nook, so that I'll have three versions to compare during study. I'll very likely get a printed version, as well. The digital versions are supposed to be free of charge, and the printed versions are around, or under $10.

The translators said that it was not for profit, which explains the low cost.

Looks interesting to me.. does anyone have any objective opinions on this translation? It is said that the translation was done from the Majority Text, Byzantine?

Do you think that "word for word" translation is a good idea?

Because various languages use different words to express the same thought.

For example in my language, I can say "I have an handle" which expresses "I have a luck". If I translate it word for word, you will loose the meaning and will not understand what I am saying.

Or we have a saying "How many cherries - the same amount of sour cherries." Again, translated word for word equals nonsense. I would have to translate the thought, meaning that everything has its counterpart or how many question, the same amount of solutions etc.

So it depends on the grade of literal translation they are trying to get.

 

[trofimus]

Looks interesting to me.. does anyone have any objective opinions on this translation? It is said that the translation was done from the Majority Text, Byzantine?

Where did you see what sources they use?

I checked 1J 5:7 and it really seems to be the byzantine reading. But I have not found any info about their source text.

 

[hornetguy]

Yes, I believe that... all the scholars I trust have convinced me that is not possible. It is said that the translators took the best, or most likely translation of the Greek word, and used that word throughout the whole document.

I can see how that could create some difficulty, if there was "nuance" involved in the Greek. I'm not sure how much of that was possible in Koine.

I believe that once the words were established, they used a computer to do the translating.

This is from their website..... it seems to be an interesting concept in scriptural accuracy.

The Modern Literal Version Standards
We have often been plagued by those who are not willing to upgrade to a far superior translation of the Greek Bible into English– The Modern Literal Version. The MLV theologians, have held themselves to have a higher standard for more accuracy (what saith the Greek), than the bible theologians of many versions that are in the book stores today. It would serve those who use other versions of the Bible and teach from such, to start using the MLV for a more accurate study of God’s word. The MLV Bible strives to be one hundred percent accurate in accordance to God and His original spoken word and the reader would serve themselves well to take the MLV and compare it to the Greek and see how accurate it really is. Then, compare it to any version on the book shelves and see for themselves, the true meaning from God and His true word not tainted by man. We can see through the reading of the MLV how accurate this Bible is, so accurate that those who try to stand against it, cannot. They have seen how diligent the MLV's accuracy is of the original Greek and the words of God which we find printed on the pages. By stepping out of your current version into the MLV, the reader will be amazed how things are cleared up in scripture that were clouded before. The MLV has achieved high standards, higher than all other versions on the bookshelf today. Purchase a MLV today and see what you are missing from the true word of God. Take the time to read the book.


Below are some achievements the MLV has over other versions of God’s word:

Literal translation; (no paraphrase anywhere).
Supplied words marked.
Removal of man-made implanted ideas and doctrines.
Verses used by many false religions to proof their doctrines whereas God does not. The MLV sticks with “thus saith the Greek” in pleasing God to keep His original word from corruption.
Each Greek word translated uniformly and accurately.
Each English word uniformly rendered from a single Greek word or Greek word group.
MLV is free in electronic formats.
One million plus proofreaders and growing daily.


The Modern Literal Version is like a concordance with links to the Greek Lexicon and Greek Concordance. Any mistakes found in the MLV will be corrected immediately by the original Greek that we find making up God’s word. Rest assured the reader is reading the true word of God and one that will guide them to eternity. The question comes then, as to why would someone seeking God, not want to use the World’s Most Accurate Bible?
Note: If a mistake is found in the MLV, email the recommendation to MLVbible (at) gmail (dot) com, and please the theologians and bible scholars make the necessary corrections using the Greek from the original time of Christ to continue to make the MLV an error-free Bible in English.

 

[Locutus]

I'll have to check it out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Literal_Version

 

[hornetguy]

Where did you see what sources they use?

I checked 1J 5:7 and it really seems to be the byzantine reading. But I have not found any info about their source text.

This is from their Amazon website Createspace....

QUICK OVERVIEW:
The "Modern Literal Version" uses the Majority Text ("The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform 2005/2010 Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William Pierpont" ISBN-13: 978-1540415585).

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, I believe that... all the scholars I trust have convinced me that is not possible. It is said that the translators took the best, or most likely translation of the Greek word, and used that word throughout the whole document.

I can see how that could create some difficulty, if there was "nuance" involved in the Greek. I'm not sure how much of that was possible in Koine.

I believe that once the words were established, they used a computer to do the translating.

This is from their website..... it seems to be an interesting concept in scriptural accuracy.

My biggest question would be, what are they going to do with Greek words that have no translational equivalent in English?

 

[hornetguy]

My biggest question would be, what are they going to do with Greek words that have no translational equivalent in English?

Yes, that is a puzzle.... I don't know. But, they say if you have any questions or concerns about a word, to simply contact them, and y'all can work it out.

Here's 1 Corinthians 12...

[SUP]12:1[/SUP] Now brethren, I do not wish you[SUP]*[/SUP] to be ignorant concerning spiritual gifts. [SUP]12:2[/SUP] You[SUP]*[/SUP] know that when you[SUP]*[/SUP] were Gentiles, you[SUP]*[/SUP]were being led away to those voiceless idols, as you[SUP]*[/SUP] would be led now. [SUP]12:3[/SUP] Hence I make known to you[SUP]*[/SUP], that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, Jesus is accursed, and no one is able to say, Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit.
[SUP]12:4[/SUP] Now there are diversities of gifts[SUP]*[/SUP], but the same Spirit. [SUP]12:5[/SUP] And there are diversities of services and the same Lord. [SUP]12:6[/SUP] And there are diversities of workings, but it is the same God, who is working all things in all. [SUP]12:7[/SUP] But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is advantageous: [SUP]12:8[/SUP] for[SUP]*[/SUP] the word of wisdom is given to one through the Spirit, and the word of knowledge to another according to the same Spirit; [SUP]12:9[/SUP] and miraculous faith to differentone in the same Spirit; and gifts[SUP]*[/SUP] of healing to another in the same Spirit; [SUP]12:10[/SUP] and workings of miracles to another; and prophecy to another; and the discerning of spirits to another; varieties of languages to a different one; and the translation of foreign languages to another; [SUP]12:11[/SUP] but the one and the same Spirit is working all these things, sectioning off to each one in his own way just-as he wills.

[SUP]12:12[/SUP] For[SUP]*[/SUP] just-as the body is one and has many members and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body; so also is the Christ. [SUP]12:13[/SUP] For[SUP]*[/SUP] also, we were all immersed[SUP]*[/SUP] into one body, in one Spirit, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bondservants or free men, and all were made to drink into one Spirit. [SUP]12:14[/SUP] For[SUP]*[/SUP] the body is not one member, but many. [SUP]12:15[/SUP] If the foot says, Because I am not the hand, I am not from the body; contrary to this, is it not from the body? [SUP]12:16[/SUP] And if the ear says, Because I am not the eye, I am not from the body; contrary to this, is it not from the body? [SUP]12:17[/SUP] If the whole body were an eye, where is the hearing? If the wholebodywere hearing, where is the sense of smell? [SUP]12:18[/SUP] But now God has placed the members in the body, each one of them, just-as he willed. [SUP]12:19[/SUP] Now if they were all one member, where is the body? [SUP]12:20[/SUP] But now they are indeed many members, but one body. [SUP]12:21[/SUP] Now the eye is not able to say to the hand, I have no need of you; or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you[SUP]*[/SUP]. [SUP]12:22[/SUP]But much rather now, those members of the body that seem to be[SUP]*[/SUP] weaker are necessary; [SUP]12:23[/SUP] and those things of the body which we think to be more dishonored, we place even-more honor upon these, and our indecent parts have even-more decency; [SUP]12:24[/SUP] but our decent parts have no need. But God mixed the body together, having given even-more honor to the ones which are lacking;[SUP]12:25[/SUP] in order that no splits should be in the body, but in order that the members should have the same anxiety on behalf of one another. [SUP]12:26[/SUP] And if one member is suffering, all the members are suffering together with it. If one member is glorified, all the members are rejoicing together withit. [SUP]12:27[/SUP] Now you[SUP]*[/SUP] are the body of Christ and members individually. [SUP]12:28[/SUP] And indeed God placed some in the congregation[SUP]*[/SUP]of believers, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, thereafter miracles, thereafter gifts[SUP]*[/SUP] of healing, helps, those who pilot others, those with varieties of languages. [SUP]12:29[/SUP] All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? [SUP]12:30[/SUP] All do not have gifts[SUP]*[/SUP] of healing, do they? All do not speak with foreign languages, do they? All do not translate, do they? [SUP]12:31[/SUP] But be zealous for the better gifts[SUP]*[/SUP]. And I will show to you[SUP]*[/SUP] still a surpassingly-better way.

 

[Stephen63]

It is said that the translators took the best, or most likely translation of the Greek word, and used that word throughout the whole document.

Sounds like a "cheap" way to translate.

 

[trofimus]

I saw randomly this passage from it:
"Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God and everyone who loves the one who fathered us, also loves the one who has been born from him."
1J 5:1

Byzantine text:
Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν ὁ χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν γεγεννημένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ.

1. You can clearly see that it is not word for word. English needs more words to say the same thought.

2. Also, it is not very literal.
There is no "fathered" in the Greek text and no "us". It should be literally "everyone who loves the (one who) begot, also loves the (one) begotten of him".

 

[Dan58]

Its always good to have a language concordance so you can check the actual meaning of the Greek word used. That's an advantage of using a KJV, you can cross reference the Greek & Hebrew with a Strong's concordance. Many new translations are more difficult, because someone translates what they interpret it to mean, instead of transliterating what's written word for word from the majority manuscripts... jmo

 

[Stephen63]

Did the site actually say they did a word-for-word translation?

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, that is a puzzle.... I don't know. But, they say if you have any questions or concerns about a word, to simply contact them, and y'all can work it out.

Here's 1 Corinthians 12...

The idea of an exact word for word translation in nothing more that a fantasy. There are so many words that have no English equivalent. This usually does not really present a problem in translation. It is simple enough to translate the idea the word conveys. You see this all the time in the translation of verbs. For example in Matthew 28:18 Jesus used the word ἐδόθη - aorist, indicative, passive. Since English does not use the aorist tense the idea represented by the single word ἐδόθη requires the addition of two other words - has been - to convey the idea in this one word. The problem that shows up in some translations is that Greek verb tenses are often misrepresented.

 

[oldhermit]

The other problem that would be inherent in a word for word translation is that of syntax. Since Greek syntactical structure differs from that in English, such a translation would more often than not make no sense in English. Here is an example, if we follow the word for word syntax of Heb. 1:4, what we have is "Superior having become to the angels, as much as more excellent beyond theirs, he has inherited a name." This becomes cumbersome and difficult to process in English.

 

[Willie-T]

This was so massive, my computer wouldn't even copy it all.

Just take a look at all the meanings of the word, "run" in English. And this is not even from an unabridged dictionary...... THAT would possibly double what is found here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run

 

[Nehemiah6]

Looks interesting to me.. does anyone have any objective opinions on this translation? It is said that the translation was done from the Majority Text, Byzantine?

Sorry, but Christians should not get their hopes up with another modern version.

1. The MLVB claims that the American Standard Version (ASV)is the most accurate. That is patently false, since the ASV is just another modification of the Revised Version (RV) of 1881, which was produced primarily by Westcott & Hort. You can expect many of the same issues with this version, e.g. 1 John 5:7 has been EXPUNGED.

"...They discovered that the ASV was the most accurate translation, and initially started a study Bible cross
reference section for it..."

2. The quality of the translation itself is not outstanding. Here is a sample with the literal interlinear translation shown below.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

In [the] beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.

1:2 This one was in the beginning with God. Why "this one" when "the same" is perfectly adequate, and in fact "he" could be used?

He was in the beginning with God

1:3 All things became through him, and without him nothing became that has become into being. Why "became" (which is meaningless) when "emerged" is the actually word, and and "made" makes perfect sense?

All things through him emerged, and without him emerged not even one [thing] that has emerged

1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

In him life was, and the life was the light of men

1:5 And the light is appearing in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it. Why "is appearing" when it actually means "shines" and is translated as "shineth"? Why "overtake" when it is runners who overtake each other in a race, but darkness tries to "overcome" light because there is an ongoing battle between Light and Darkness?

And the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not overcame

 

[DJ2]

The other problem that would be inherent in a word for word translation is that of syntax. Since Greek syntactical structure differs from that in English, such a translation would more often than not make no sense in English. Here is an example, if we follow the word for word syntax of Heb. 1:4, what we have is "Superior having become to the angels, as much as more excellent beyond theirs, he has inherited a name." This becomes cumbersome and difficult to process in English.

What do you see as the best overall version of the Bible?

 

[trofimus]

Sorry, but Christians should not get their hopes up with another modern version.

You can expect many of the same issues with this version, e.g. 1 John 5:7 has been EXPUNGED.

1J 5:7 in the KJV has no basis neither in the majority texts nor in the most ancient ones. It is taken from Latin.