Featured Modern Literal Version

JJ: "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"

Agreed -- and yet for more than a quarter-century the Lockman Foundation steadfastly refused to give the translators' names for the original NASV, claiming it would take away from the glory to be given only to God.

At least now, everything is plain and above board for both the earlier and more recent NASV editions.

 

I did not know they had come clean with the translators' names. It's about time.

Now maybe the Lockman Foundatiuon will apologize for suing TEAM mission for copyright issues on the Japanese Shinkaiyaku (which Lockman sponsored), and taking valuable funds from the mission field when they won the suit.

 

That part about the Bible as word of the lord when only properly translations sounds like KJVO position, and you are right, any valid translation always will give you their list of scholars when requested or right on the web site!

 

You are correct, thanks for the clarification!

 

You said it!

FAQ's - MEV | Modern English Version

"the Committee on Bible Translation....represent institutions such as the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary, the College of William and Mary, Evangel University, Fuller Theological Seminary, Geneva College, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Harvard University, Hebrew Union College, Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Oklahoma Baptist University, Oral Roberts University, the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Pentecostal Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Saint Leo University, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Stanford University, the University of Notre Dame, Vanguard University of Southern California, Westminster Seminary California, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Yale University."

 

That reads like a whos who of liberals and charismatics!

 

Sounds like someone is either allowing their theology to determine the text ("can't have an unbeliever present throughout the institution of the Lord's Supper") or is simply following the Nestle/UBS critical text (in which case no italics would be necessary).

I suspect the former.

 

Young provided a Literal Transition in the 1800's which is not as fluid as this Modern effort. The few verses I compared were appropriate,

 

The Young literal version has been compared to being close to an interlinear by some!

 

yes it is not smooth

 

Makes the Nas read like the Message!

 

but I think it accurately reflects the original languages or thought

 

Yes, but not something that would be used say in the pulpit!