New version: Majority English Bible (MEB)

[franklinmonroe]

The Majority English Bible has not yet been the subject of a thread on the BB, to my knowledge. The publisher is iUniverse.

No doubt, this recent translation (copyright 2013) will be often confused with the even newer TR-based Modern English Bible (also MEB). The Majority English Bible (which is actually just the NT) is produced by a non-profit organization that calls itself Common Bible, Inc. and claims to be committed to the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures as a "conviction".

The name may also mislead some to expect that this translation is based upon the Majority Text, which it is not. The MEB states that it has "conflated" underlying sources (from the MEB's Preface, vii) --

The process consisted of extracting the majority word, grammatical construction, syntax, even paragraph division from twenty established English New Testament versions, ranging over a period of 200 years of Bible translation history. Major issues -- such the word best expressing the Greek, the grammatical form best converting the Greek into English, the Greek textual variance closest to the original intent -- are all settled objectively.​

Their translation philosophy is described as a blending of "literal, traditional, and modern" concepts. The layout is two column with every verse indented and preceded by the verse number (KJV-style).

 

[John of Japan]

The Majority English Bible has not yet been the subject of a thread on the BB, to my knowledge. The publisher is iUniverse.

No doubt, this recent translation (copyright 2013) will be often confused with the even newer TR-based Modern English Bible (also MEB). The Majority English Bible (which is actually just the NT) is produced by a non-profit organization that calls itself Common Bible, Inc. and claims to be committed to the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures as a "conviction".

Thousands of languages without even a portion of Scripture, and they use the money for a new English one?

The name may also mislead some to expect that this translation is based upon the Majority Text, which it is not. The MEB states that it has "conflated" underlying sources (from the MEB's Preface, vii) --

Definitely misleading about the "majority" meaning.

The process consisted of extracting the majority word, grammatical construction, syntax, even paragraph division from twenty established English New Testament versions, ranging over a period of 200 years of Bible translation history. Major issues -- such the word best expressing the Greek, the grammatical form best converting the Greek into English, the Greek textual variance closest to the original intent -- are all settled objectively.​

It is impossible to settle all those issues objectively. Subjectivity is the norm. That's why every translation is different.

Their translation philosophy is described as a blending of "literal, traditional, and modern" concepts. The layout is two column with every verse indented and preceded by the verse number (KJV-style).

I don't plan to buy it.

 

[Rippon]

The MEB states that it has "conflated" underlying sources (from the MEB's Preface, vii) --

The process consisted of extracting the majority word, grammatical construction, syntax, even paragraph division from twenty established English New Testament versions, ranging over a period of 200 years of Bible translation history. Major issues -- such the word best expressing the Greek, the grammatical form best converting the Greek into English, the Greek textual variance closest to the original intent -- are all settled objectively.
​

The extract above from the Preface is enough to convince me that the translation is rather poor. Here are some ungrammatical constructions:

"The process consisted of extracting the majority word..."

"Major issues --such the word best expressing the Greek..."
​

 

[franklinmonroe]

..."Major issues --such the word best expressing the Greek..."

I apologize for my typo. In their Preface it is "such as the word" (I accidently omitted "as").

 

[franklinmonroe]

The MEB includes Mark 16:9-20 without comment, footnote, or brackets. But there is an interesting bracketed insertion at John 8 (actually before 7:53). A "special oddity" of the MEB is that they fit the chapter and verse divisions into paragraph divisions (thus, every chapter begins with a new paragraph and causes a few verse numbers to be omitted). So in this case, the notation below the Chapter 8 subtitle (although they follow traditional chapter & verse numbering) is followed by 7:53 --

[Ed. Note -- While this paragraph is not in the oldest manuscripts, The Majority Bible does not question its authenticity. In the early centuries some might have thought the subject too lawless or indelicate, but ant one who has been cleansed from sin can only love the Lord Jesus and hate their sin the more after reading this touching account.]​

 

[Van]

The idea of "conflating" about twenty English translations, starting with the KJV and including many others, is an interesting concept. But without a site where samples can be seen, little can be said.

I watched a video that referenced a site (The Majority English Bible.net) but when I tried to Google it, nothing popped, at least on the first page.

 

[Van]

The goals of the MEB were to be literal, traditional and modern. But traditional and modern do not fit into the conflation model. Thus we find "thees and thous." Apparently a "majority" of the versions conflated were old, and thus contained archaic words.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The goals of the MEB were to be literal, traditional and modern. But traditional and modern do not fit into the conflation model. Thus we find "thees and thous." Apparently a "majority" of the versions conflated were old, and thus contained archaic words.

They claimed that the versions merged spanned 200 years, so some were old. Yes, "thee" and "thou" were retained but only for second person address to Deity.

Rev. Kenneth Becker (editor) received his B.A. in Bible (with Greek and English proficiency) and an M.A. in Christian Education from BJU. He claims to have served many years in the pastorate, in mission administration, as a teacher of English (high school and university levels), and a self-supported missionary. He answers some question here --
http://www.themajoritybible.com/blogs

 

[Van]

The English Bibles used in the conflation start with the 1769 King James Version and end with the 1973 New International Version. Among the versions used are the American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version.

 

[Van]

During these 200 years (204 to be precise) a lot of scholarship produced many differing views of God's word. But many more modern versions, i.e. NASB95, NET, HCSB and WEB came out after 1973. Too bad the conflation did not spring from modern versus traditional translations.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Too bad the conflation did not spring from modern versus traditional translations.

You might want to investigate the New Testament of the Open English Bible (OEB) which is being created by taking existing English language translations, especially the Twentieth Century New Testament (1904 edition) and "and conforming them to modern English". The portions of the Old Testament which have been completed at this stage lean heavily on the work of John Edgar McFadyen and Charles Foster Kent.

 

[Van]

Yes, the OEB reads very well to my eye, but seems to include translator choices that are, to be kind, questionable.

Here is the link where anyone can read the text of the NT:
http://openenglishbible.org/oeb/2014.11/read/

I did not see anything wrong with John 1:1-3, or John 3:16.

And while I totally agree (because of my doctrine) with their rendering of John 6:29, I my quite sure every Calvinist will cry foul.

John 6:29 “The work that God wants you to do,” answered Jesus, “is to believe in him whom God sent as his messenger.”

 

[franklinmonroe]

… And while I totally agree (because of my doctrine) with their rendering of John 6:29, I my quite sure every Calvinist will cry foul.

So, it seems that belief is a "work"?

 

[Van]

Absolutely! The line we draw differentiates a work (singular) with works (plural). Dr. Wallace (NET) also translates it that way. Salvation is not of works (plural) where we earn it by various "good works." Scripture teaches faith is not works (plural.)

Now is putting our faith in Christ a "good work?" Nope, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. It is God alone who either credits our worthless faith as righteousness or not.

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely! The line we draw differentiates a work (singular) with works (plural). Dr. Wallace (NET) also translates it that way. Salvation is not of works (plural) where we earn it by various "good works." Scripture teaches faith is not works (plural.)

Now is putting our faith in Christ a "good work?" Nope, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. It is God alone who either credits our worthless faith as righteousness or not.

God credits us with the Grace of Jesus, with his rightiousness, as its faith in HIM that counts, not our faith itself, as God gave that to us any ways!

 

[Van]

Yes another post, devoid of any scriptural reference, asserting unbiblical doctrine. Read Romans 4:5, if we believe in the One who justifies the ungodly, then our faith is credited as righteousness. God turns, so to speak a sows ear into a silk purse. Does our faith merit our salvation? Nope, it is a filthy rag. God's action turns it into righteousness!

So both the OEB and NET translate John 6:29 the same way - that the work God requires of us is to believe in Him.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes another post, devoid of any scriptural reference, asserting unbiblical doctrine. Read Romans 4:5, if we believe in the One who justifies the ungodly, then our faith is credited as righteousness. God turns, so to speak a sows ear into a silk purse. Does our faith merit our salvation? Nope, it is a filthy rag. God's action turns it into righteousness!

So both the OEB and NET translate John 6:29 the same way - that the work God requires of us is to believe in Him.

And also the truth is that since even that faith required is a gift from god to us, how could we get any crediting other than from the Cross of christ?

 

[Van]

And also the truth is that since even that faith required is a gift from God to us, how could we get any crediting other than from the Cross of Christ?

The gift is God created us, even in our fallen state, to able to receive spiritual milk, including His revelations to us through what He has made, and through Jesus Christ as described in the inspired New Testament. If we were not able to receive spiritual milk, the Law (OT scripture) would not be able to guide us to Christ. But the view of Limited Spiritual Ability is well supported, as in John 6:29.

 

[Van]

In the thread discussing the Baptist earliest confessions, Smyth's 1606 give this for the #8 point:

(8) That the grace of God, through the finished redemption of Christ, was to be prepared and offered to all without distinction, and that not feignedly but in good faith, partly by things made, which declare the invisible things of God, and partly by the preaching of the Gospel.

Only if all, or essentially all, can receive the spiritual milk of the gospel, can it be offered to all. Thus, at least some of the earliest Baptists believed in the Limited Spiritual Ability of many fallen people.

Then in Helwy's 1611 document, we find:

...yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or may reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live.

Once more we find the some of the earliest Baptists thinking fallen people could accept or reject the gospel and choose life!

 

[Yeshua1]

In the thread discussing the Baptist earliest confessions, Smyth's 1606 give this for the #8 point:


Only if all, or essentially all, can receive the spiritual milk of the gospel, can it be offered to all. Thus, at least some of the earliest Baptists believed in the Limited Spiritual Ability of many fallen people.

Then in Helwy's 1611 document, we find:


Once more we find the some of the earliest Baptists thinking fallen people could accept or reject the gospel and choose life!

True, but the prominent position among those in the reform tradition would be the other side, and that just shows that among we baptists are both sides been represented and held!