Modern Literal Version

[37818]

It touts itself as the most accurate translation of the Bible.

It is touted to be an open source work:



1. Literal translation; (no paraphrase anywhere).

2. Supplied words marked.

3. Removal of man-made implanted ideas and doctrines.

4. 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.

5. Each Greek word translated uniformly and accurately.

6. Each English word uniformly rendered from a single Greek word or Greek word group.

7. MLV is free in electronic formats.

8. One million plus proofreaders and growing daily.

8. One million plus proofreaders and growing daily.

Well let us check this out, shall we?

One individual owns the copyright: G. Allen Walker

 

[37818]

OK. This version has briefly been discussed in January 3, 2015 > Newer version: Modern Literal Version (MLV)

 

[Yeshua1]

It touts itself as the most accurate translation of the Bible.

It is touted to be an open source work:



1. Literal translation; (no paraphrase anywhere).

2. Supplied words marked.

3. Removal of man-made implanted ideas and doctrines.

4. 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.

5. Each Greek word translated uniformly and accurately.

6. Each English word uniformly rendered from a single Greek word or Greek word group.

7. MLV is free in electronic formats.

8. One million plus proofreaders and growing daily.

8. One million plus proofreaders and growing daily.

Well let us check this out, shall we?

One individual owns the copyright: G. Allen Walker

Check out the translation team....

 

[37818]

Check out the translation team....

Do you have anything to note about them?

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you have anything to note about them?

Just was from either liberal seminaries, or else from charismatic ones!

 

[rlvaughn]

I'm not familiar with it, other than noticing it was discussed on here once. I served for G. Allen Walker and found no biographical information on him, but found what appears to be the newest version. It also lists him as co-editor.

Holy Bible Modern Literal Version New Testament 2019 Update

 

[rlvaughn]

Looks like there is another site HERE.

 

[rlvaughn]

The ChristianLibrary.org, which is one of the sites hosting the MLV, holds a number of the doctrines of Alexander Campbell and the Restoration Movement. A writer named Butch Walker (who I wonder might be G. Allen Walker) writes on Just the Simple Facts about "How to Be Saved?" and gives the standard Church of Christ version of what one must do to be saved.

With that information, I would tend to think their translation is biased in that direction.

 

[Yeshua1]

The ChristianLibrary.org, which is one of the sites hosting the MLV, holds a number of the doctrines of Alexander Campbell and the Restoration Movement. A writer named Butch Walker (who I wonder might be G. Allen Walker) writes on Just the Simple Facts about "How to Be Saved?" and gives the standard Church of Christ version of what one must do to be saved.

With that information, I would tend to think their translation is biased in that direction.

That would make this translation suspect, if indeed true that it supports their peculiar beliefs!

 

[37818]

That would make this translation suspect, if indeed true that it supports their peculiar beliefs!

There is an article between John and Acts: " Harmony of the N.T. Conversions" And a table of scripture references.

Examples of those who are saved in the New Testament: Acts 2:14-42; 8:5-13; 8:30-39; 10:34-48; 16:13-15;
16:25-34; 18:8a; 18:8b; 19:1-7; Saul/Apostle Paul: 9:17-18, 22:6-16, 26:12-18 are in chart below and these are great
examples of Jesus' ‘great commission' in action (harmonized on page 7).
Others are possibly noted by Luke's term ‘believed' but not all details were given since the Greek word for ‘believed'
carries with it ‘obedience' and continued action: Acts 4:1-4; 11:21 (note ‘conversion' is the Greek noun form of ‘turned'),
13:12; 13:48; 14:1 & 2 (note the contrast of believed vs. disobedient) then later 14:21-23, (note they were called
disciples, Mat 28:19, ‘in the faith', elders, every congregation); 17:12-14; 17:32-34; 19:15-20. Now since Crispus listed
below was immersed as recorded in 1Co 1:14, this lets us know that even when all the elements of conversion aren't
specifically listed, it is still safe to assume they all occurred.
The Bible is not written in exhaustive encyclopedia form. God only told us what we need to know and practice if we
love him, John 14:15. The biggest lies ever told to a Christian is ‘The Bible doesn't say not to...' or that ‘It is okay to
substitute' and the O.T. is binding in any way on us Christians.

 

[rlvaughn]

So not just translation, but commentary with a Campbellite slant.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

5. Each Greek word translated uniformly and accurately.

6. Each English word uniformly rendered from a single Greek word or Greek word group.

This is actually not as wonderful as one might suppose.
The koine Greek vocabulary is much smaller than that of modern English. Therefore it is inevitable that some Greek words will have more than one meaning. For example, the Greek word teleios can mean 'perfect,' 'complete,' or 'mature.' The context will usually determine which is correct. By choosing only one meaning, the translation is made less accurate rather than more so,

 

[John of Japan]

This is actually not as wonderful as one might suppose.
The koine Greek vocabulary is much smaller than that of modern English. Therefore it is inevitable that some Greek words will have more than one meaning. For example, the Greek word teleios can mean 'perfect,' 'complete,' or 'mature.' The context will usually determine which is correct. By choosing only one meaning, the translation is made less accurate rather than more so,

Exactly. I saw a chart somewhere on the website that makes the claim that the MLV is the most accurate ever based on this attempt at translating by concordance. That's an arrogant claim on the surface of it, but furthermore, claiming superiority by simply translating with the fewest English words possible is linguistic nonsense.

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. I saw a chart somewhere on the website that makes the claim that the MLV is the most accurate ever based on this attempt at translating by concordance. That's an arrogant claim on the surface of it, but furthermore, claiming superiority by simply translating with the fewest English words possible is linguistic nonsense.

What did you think if the various scholars who were on this translation group, as many were charismatic or else from Harvard divinity?

 

[John of Japan]

What did you think if the various scholars who were on this translation group, as many were charismatic or else from Harvard divinity?

Please link to the list of translators. I haven't found it yet.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please link to the list of translators. I haven't found it yet.

I do remember reading before it came out that some were from Harvard Divinity and others were from oral Roberts...

 

[Jerome]

I do remember reading before it came out that some were from Harvard Divinity and others were from oral Roberts...

Think you are mixing up this 'Modern Literal Version' with the 'Modern English Version'!

 

[37818]

The following is the link about who works on the MLV:
Modern Literal Version Bible Official Site

It gives no list of names.

. . .
Now with all that, we have found that most all of us are from non-denominational or independent denominational churches because they are the ones who believe the Bible is a rule book not just a guide book. Other than the Mormons & Jehovah Witnesses, all major groups have contributed in some way or another.
. . .

 

[John of Japan]

The following is the link about who works on the MLV:
Modern Literal Version Bible Official Site

It gives no list of names.

Thank you for the link. I have some comments. First all, it only says that people worked on the translation. They could have been only proofreaders. So after reading some of the translation and its methodology, I am left with the impression that it was probably only a one man translation--never the best.

Secondly, it is an ethical matter to let readers know who the translators are, or at least give a source where they can find out who the translators are, and the MLV does not do so. Christiane Nord, a well-known secular translation studies scholar, wrote, "A team of translators and other experts who do not disclose their identity...can create the false impression of having translated objectively and thus violate their obligation to loyalty with regard to the target readership" (FUNCTION AND LOYALTY IN BIBLE TRANSLATION, in: María Calzada Pérez (dir.): Apropos of Ideology. Translation Studies on Ideology – Ideologies in Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome, 89-113).

Thirdly, the web page linked to gives no confidence that the translator(s) even know English very well, not to mention Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Examples: "bible" is not capitalized; "believe" instead of "belief"; two links to the same page ("Why Use the MLV"); "Everyone...have" instead of "has"; etc.

Fourthly, the website author does not know Bibliology. For example, he states, "We are a group of Christians who believe the Word of God was God-breathed but only when it is translated properly into English." That makes it sound like he thinks the originals were not God-breathed, but the MLV is.

I could go on. I'm not impressed at all with this translation effort.

 

[rlvaughn]

...I am left with the impression that it was probably only a one man translation--never the best.

Secondly, it is an ethical matter to let readers know who the translators are, or at least give a source where they can find out who the translators are...

I agree. It's like they want to hide whoever (one or more) actually translated the work. That makes me think they have something to hide.

Thirdly, the web page linked to gives no confidence that the translator(s) even know English very well, not to mention Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Examples: "bible" is not capitalized; "believe" instead of "belief"; two links to the same page ("Why Use the MLV"); "Everyone...have" instead of "has"; etc.

I usually don't make much of one's use or misuse of English (in general), but in the case of touting creating the best translation ever, this deserves notice!

Fourthly, the website author does not know Bibliology. For example, he states, "We are a group of Christians who believe the Word of God was God-breathed but only when it is translated properly into English." That makes it sound like he thinks the originals were not God-breathed, but the MLV is.

That pretty-much is what he says, but probably is not what he means.

Coming and going, I see nothing there (on the MLV site) that impresses me.