LSV and MEV are better than KJV.

[Blik]

For all those who think Greek or English can express Hebrew accurately, would you express the Hebrew words torah, shalom, or Passover with one word?

 

[fredoheaven]

I don't understand what this single (isolated) verse means. Would you translate it into the language that you and I and millions of others use every day?

Paul did not write in code! He wrote in Koine Greek, the simplified language spoken by the people of the Mediterranean world.

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the type of language that people, including Jesus, Paul, the Apostles, and everyone else of that era spoke/wrote/heard? An accurate translation changes the meaning, including the connotations and denotations of the source language as little as possible. Anything else is a distortion of the Word of God!

That's too funny my friend, you are engaging to a non-native English speaker and you don't understand it, exactly, what Paul says in the koine Greek is translated exactly in the KJV, but I do understand your dilemma. BTW, translation is not about the changing the word of God, it is an act of rendering into another language.

 

[fredoheaven]

Jaybo, I think you have many loopholes in the many of your post but that would not necessary for me to expose that. I just need to move on. God bless

 

[Laish]

I know the OP wasn't advocating KJV-only. However, I also knew the thread would devolve to that topic.

I have to disagree with you brother . We are not supposed to believe in devolution 😂
Blessings
Bill

 

[Dino246]

I agree.

21st century English has degenerated since the time of the Authorized Version.

Do you honestly think that "21st century (sic) English", which has only existed for 20 years, has "degenerated" for 411 years? Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it just patently ridiculous bias?

 

[Dino246]

Umm. I try to disengaged with those having circular reasoning.

Better not associate with KJV-onlyists then!

 

[Micaiah-imla]

Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it just patently ridiculous bias?

Perhaps it is bias.

But I hear how many people speak nowadays; perverting the language.

One example:

Using the word “wicked” for something pleasing.

 

[Dino246]

Perhaps it is bias.

But I hear how many people speak nowadays; perverting the language.

One example:

Using the word “wicked” for something pleasing.

That's called "slang", part of the class of language called "idioms". That sense will pass from popular usage, as did "groovy", "gnarly", and hundreds of other terms. It's not a perversion of the language, but a component part of it. You aren't the language police.

 

[jaybo]

That verse in the KJV sounds fine to me.

Does anybody have a problem with Yoda in Star Wars because of the way he speaks?

Are you seriously comparing Yoda, a 100% fictional member of a fictitious species created as movie entertainment, with those real people who communicate in the Bible?

SHAME ON YOU!!!

 

[jaybo]

For all those who think Greek or English can express Hebrew accurately, would you express the Hebrew words torah, shalom, or Passover with one word?

a) What does this have to do with the OP subject?
b) What is the point of your question?

 

[Micaiah-imla]

SHAME ON YOU!!!

Hey man, calm down.

I don’t care for Star Wars or Yoda.

It was an example.

This issue of “hard to understand” that is constantly leveled against the KJV is ridiculous in my opinion.

But I don’t take it personal. We can cease addressing each other if you’re going to get angry about the issue.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

It's not a perversion of the language, but a component part of it. You aren't the language police.

Well excuuuuse me.

Carry on.

 

[Dino246]

Are you seriously comparing Yoda, a 100% fictional member of a fictitious species created as movie entertainment, with those real people who communicate in the Bible?

SHAME ON YOU!!!

On him, the shame is.

 

[Dino246]

Well excuuuuse me.

Carry on.

I shall... in 21st-century English, no less.

 

[Blik]

a) What does this have to do with the OP subject?
b) What is the point of your question?

One of the arguments is that one language can be transcribed into another language accurately. My point is that Hebrew is very difficult to transcribe into another language. I thought my point would be clear to everyone, thanks for asking.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

I shall... in 21st-century English, no less.

I’ll take it in any language in any form.

 

[MattforJesus]

The Holy Bible, Modern English Version

Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. All rights reserved.

The text of the Modern English Version (mev) may be quoted or reprinted without prior written permission with the following qualifications:

(1) up to and including 500 verses may be quoted in printed form as long as the verses quoted amount to less than 50 percent of a complete book of the Bible and make up less than 50 percent of the total work in which they are quoted;

(2) all MEV quotations must conform accurately to the MEV text.
Any use of the MEV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

However, when quotations from the MEV text are used in church bulletins, orders of service, Sunday school lessons, church newsletters, and similar works in the course of religious instruction or services at a place of worship or other religious assembly, the following notice may be used at the end of each quotation: mev.

For quotation requests not covered by the above guidelines, write to Passio, ATTN: Bible Rights and Permissions, 600 Rinehart Road, Lake Mary, FL 32746.

Am I understanding this wrong, because this is funny.

How can you have a copyright on the word of God, and have used by permission.

It is the word of God so you cannot have a copyright on it, and say use by permission when it is not your own work, but the words of God.

Am I missing something.

How can any translation do that for that is strange.

God gives us the words, Jesus said freely you have received freely give, all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and then someone puts a copyright on the Bible, and says use by permission.

And is this a law that must be done that they have to have a copyright, and if so how do they explain the limiting of the use of it in quotes, and say use by permission if it is the word of God.

Any use of the MEV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

How can they actually say that when it is not their work but the word of God, and who cares if they translated it to where people might understand it better it is still the same meaning.

This is something that to me is ridiculous.

 

[Dino246]

The Holy Bible, Modern English Version

Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. All rights reserved.

The text of the Modern English Version (mev) may be quoted or reprinted without prior written permission with the following qualifications:

(1) up to and including 500 verses may be quoted in printed form as long as the verses quoted amount to less than 50 percent of a complete book of the Bible and make up less than 50 percent of the total work in which they are quoted;

(2) all MEV quotations must conform accurately to the MEV text.
Any use of the MEV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

However, when quotations from the MEV text are used in church bulletins, orders of service, Sunday school lessons, church newsletters, and similar works in the course of religious instruction or services at a place of worship or other religious assembly, the following notice may be used at the end of each quotation: mev.

For quotation requests not covered by the above guidelines, write to Passio, ATTN: Bible Rights and Permissions, 600 Rinehart Road, Lake Mary, FL 32746.

Am I understanding this wrong, because this is funny.

How can you have a copyright on the word of God, and have used by permission.

It is the word of God so you cannot have a copyright on it, and say use by permission when it is not your own work, but the words of God.

Am I missing something.

How can any translation do that for that is strange.

God gives us the words, Jesus said freely you have received freely give, all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and then someone puts a copyright on the Bible, and says use by permission.

And is this a law that must be done that they have to have a copyright, and if so how do they explain the limiting of the use of it in quotes, and say use by permission if it is the word of God.

Any use of the MEV text must include a proper acknowledgment as follows:

Scripture taken from the Modern English Version. Copyright © 2014 by Military Bible Association. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

How can they actually say that when it is not their work but the word of God, and who cares if they translated it to where people might understand it better it is still the same meaning.

This is something that to me is ridiculous.

This is the case with almost every translation. The MEV is not unique by any means.

 

[garee]

I like and only recommend literal Bibles based on Textus Receptus or Majoritarian Text.
LSV (Literal Standard Version) is a Bible based on YLT (Young's Literal Translation), LSV was published in 2020, as an update to YLT that is from 1898, LSV is extremely literal, the order of the words in the verses are based on the order of the words in Hebrew and Greek, but it is an excellent Bible for you to study. (LSV is my favorite)
MEV (Modern English Version) is practically an updated KJV, MEV was published in 2015, it is a little more literal than KJV, but in certain points it tries to "fix" the Bible as using terms according to modern logic and not the point of view of the ancient world (use of the term "epileptics" instead of "lunatick", "lunatick" is more similar to the original Greek "seleniazomai", etc.), MEV is an excellent alternative to KJV, in fact I believe that KJV should be replaced by MEV, because MEV is better, more literal, and in today English.
I do not recommend paraphrase or Critical Text based bibles.
I also recommend that you have a paper bible, because nowadays, we don't know what can happen, Christians can be tracked by governaments, and, electronic devices can fail, break, need battery charge, etc.
You will need to have a paper Bible, its more secure.

I would offer. If it follows the error of the YLT exchanging the word rests (sabbaths) for the word week in all but one reference .

The word week was not used in the Greek when it was inspired in its original autograph. Yet for some reason it is rendered week rather than rest (sabath )

 

[Grandpa]

Are you serious? There is nothing straightforward about the Englyshe of 400+ years ago. The English language has changed a lot in four centuries so the KJV is bound to be misunderstood by even those who think they understand it.

Your post and my post and every other post I have seen on this forum is written in today's English. That's the way we all read, write, and think. You would be a laughingstock if you went around spouting things like...

"But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." (Luke 14:10) Try saying that the next time you're invited to attend a dinner. I guarantee you will be laughed at!

The people of the Bible, including Moses and Jesus did not speak in some strange, affected manner and no translation should be written in that manner.

Can you explain this, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Deuteronomy 33:17

or this... "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." Numbers 23:22

or this... "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? " Job 33:9-10

or this... "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns" Psalm 22:21

or this... "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness." Isaiah 34:7

And those are just verses referring to an animal that never existed. And please don't come up with "what that really means is..." as an explanation, because if they need to be explained in terms of modern English, why is that the case?

And read my tag line below...

That's EXACTLY why the new versions are INFERIOR to the KJV.

WAY TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS BY "EDUCATED" PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY NEED TO CHANGE THE BIBLE FOR BETTER "UNDERSTANDING".


The KJV is perfectly straightforward and easy to understand.

What, in the text of what you have written, would cause you to think that the unicorn is an animal that never existed? Its obviously an animal that used to exist or an animal that does exist but the name of it has changed.

Just by the written text we can see that the unicorn was/is extremely powerful and follows its own will and can't be bridled.


Why do you find this so difficult? It was written specifically to be easy to understand. There is absolutely no reason to re-translate it if you don't know what its talking about in the first place.