Modern Literal Version

[Ziggy]

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.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

You are correct, thanks for the clarification!

 

[Jerome]

the translation team....was from either liberal seminaries, or else from charismatic ones!

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."

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[37818]

It is claimed that MLV follows a majority text Well. . .

". . . And it happened [during] supper, the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, in order that he should give him up. . . . " -- John 13:2.

I added the brackets. The word "during" is in italics in the MLV indicating the word is not from the Greek but provided by the translators. The majority text would read "supper being ended."

We know from Luke after the supper, Judas was at table prior to him going out. (Luke 22:20-21.)

 

[Ziggy]

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.

 

[loDebar]

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,

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[loDebar]

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

yes it is not smooth

 

[Yeshua1]

yes it is not smooth

Makes the Nas read like the Message!

 

[loDebar]

Makes the Nas read like the Message!

but I think it accurately reflects the original languages or thought

 

[Yeshua1]

but I think it accurately reflects the original languages or thought

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

 

[37818]

I ment post the following here.

The MLV renders the emphatic Greek for "not in any way" as "may never*." In the 2019 revision "should never*." A little better. Still wishy-washy.
". . . and I give to them everlasting life, and they should never* perish . . . ." -- John 10:28.

I would think, "will never*" would have been better.