Newer version: Modern Literal Version (MLV)

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by franklinmonroe, Jan 3, 2015.

  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    It seems that the Modern Literal Version (MLV) is a New Testament translation originally started in 1987 (online beta 1998) and has been updated regularly. Early on it may have been also known as the Open Bible Project. It has become better known lately through a 2011 release for E-Sword, and a popular MySword edition in 2012. The copyright is held by by G. Allen Walker as a co-editor (1999, 2014) --
    Copyright was done to stop some publishing company from copyrighting the MLV and then stopping free distribution like what happened to Vine’s Dictionary and to make sure the actual text is not changed by anyone but us. ...

    Our utmost desire is to have a translation that has no errors and we believe that the best way to produce an error-free translation is to keep it open to the public in the same manner as ‘open-source software’ is to programmers. ...

    The goal of the MLV was not to make it perfect everyday English, but try to make it understandable to the majority of English speaking people, while remaining literal. ...

    ~ from downloaded 2015 Bold Letter PDF edition ​

    The translation is based the Majority Greek Text (Robinson/Pierpont). They render the same Greek word into as few different English words as possible --
    The "Modern Literal Version" uses about 6257 unique English words which include all plurals and tenses. Only about 300 are used to render more than one unrelated Greek word(s) into the same English word.
    ~ from Amazon blurb ​
    Createspace.com publishes 8.5" x 11", wide margin paperback edition (about $10, or less). Amazon offers a Kindle version.
     
    #1 franklinmonroe, Jan 3, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2015
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    #2 franklinmonroe, Jan 3, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2015
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
  5. Getting it Right

    Getting it Right
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    Far from being "the most accurate," the MLV contains erroneous theological assumptions, as in water baptism essential, no musical instruments in the church building / worship service, and many more, typical of Church of Christ doctrine.

    The introduction, notes, comments and explanations are not scholarly at all. Linguistically, they are lacking.

    :flower:
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Could you give some specific examples of where (verse) the MLV promotes theological assumptions in it's translation? Thanks
     
  7. Getting it Right

    Getting it Right
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0

    The information at this link,

    http://www.churchesofchrist.net/bibles/MLV/preface.htm

    is full of grammatical errors.

    Since that is the case, how can one reach the conclusion that the MLV is the "most accurate"? Who among the writers composed the final MLV? Were those who prepared the preface / appendix involved? What's up with their grammar?

    The Appendix II explains the use of the asterisk applied to the word "for." Its usage as explained there, and as used in the MLV, is not necessary. The word "for" is understood in context. (I grew up listening to my grandparents use it as "because." I have no recollection of them using "because" instead.)

    "He went to prison, for he was a bad boy."
    "Do not be angry, for God is listening."
    "What are you doing that for?"

    The latter, of course, inquires as to purpose. (My typical answer was, "because," in an attempt to dodge grand-parental censor (grin); I was looking for an out!)

    For* God so loved* the world, that he gave his Son, the only begotten, in order that everyone who believes in him might not perish, but may have everlasting life. (MLV)

    THEIR EXPLANATION (not mine):

    "For*" has no English equivalent. It is a mild form of "because."

    "Loved*" is Christian love.

    "the only begotten" is better translated as "only special born," since, according to the Church of Christ, we are all "sons."

    "that everyone who believes," along with "in him," is conditional. That belief must be maintained in order that the Believer "might not perish."

    "he" and "him" is not capitalized because it isn't capitalized in the Greek. Wow!

    SO THE RESULT COULD BE:

    God loved so much as Christians do the world that he gave his only special born in order that everyone who believes in him perhaps might not perish, but perhaps might have everlasting life.

    The preface / appendix makes immersion in water mandatory for salvation. It states that one can lose one's salvation, citing John 3:16, when interpreted as above.

    i'll read some more............

    :wavey:
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Perhaps if we are really going to critique the MLV we ought to use their official website (not the Church of Christ website) -- www.modernliteralversion.org
    The Appendix II-Wording & Definitions informs the reader that two different Greek words may be translated into the English word "for" but can be distinguished by the asterisk either before or after the word (an interesting feature, I think) --
    For is a preposition that has no true Greek equivalent. ‘To’ is the literal translation in all places in the ‘Modern Literal Version.’ Asterisk (*) versions are below. All ‘because, because of, in or on behalf of’ in the MLV are translated as such.

    *For represents the Greek preposition G1519 (eis), that is literally translated as ‘into’, ‘to’ or ‘toward.’ It never means ‘because of.’ No translation has ever translated ‘eis’ as ‘because of.’ Sometimes to substitute ‘leading toward’ works very well to get the meaning across and has been used by many translations in some places. This preposition expresses forward action in the Greek verb where the English word ‘for’ can be used with verbs of actions past or future. All Greek words in the ‘Modern Literal Version’ that mean 'because' are translated as 'because'.

    For* represents the Greek word G1063 (gar). It is a conjunction with no exact English equivalent. It is a mild form of ‘because.’
    Likewise, the MLV Wording & Definitions (Appendix II) more fully explains that the English word "love" followed by the asterisk represents a specific Greek word (also the entry for "only begotten")--
    Love* is Christian love. This word in religious writings had an intensified meaning, sacrificial love, from the same Greek spoken outside of the Bible, ‘love of people’ or simply ‘like.’ The Greeks had different words for different kinds of love, unlike English. This word is G25 (agapao).
    ...

    Only begotten which literally means ‘only born of’ or ‘only born by’ would be a contradiction in the Bible since ‘we are all sons of God through Christ Jesus’ and Mary gave birth to multiple children. Its Greek synonym is ‘firstborn’ which too is a contradiction since Abraham had two sons to Sarah and the ‘only born of’ was the second son. Others have used ‘one and only,’ ‘only,’ ‘only born.’ All of these are also contradictions. One other translation used ‘only unique,’ but this removes the ‘born’ part. The way to think of this is that the physical ‘firstborn’ had special rights or privileges. ‘Only special born’ would then settle all instances in the New Testament and would still fit the Greek. It is the figurative ‘firstborn’ in respect to special privileges or rights. G3439
    We are sons of God (John 1:12, Rom. 8:14, II Cor. 6:18, Gal. 4:5-6, Phil 2:15, Heb. 12:7, I John 3:1-2).

    This is the MLV translation of John 3:16-21 --
    3:16 For* God so loved* the world, that he gave his Son, the only begotten, in order that everyone who believes in him might not perish, but may have everlasting life. 3:17 For* God did not send the Son into the world in order that he should judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 3:18 He who believes in him is not judged. He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 3:19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world and men loved* the darkness rather than the light; for* their works were evil. 3:20 For* everyone who is practicing evil, hates the light and is not coming to the light, in order that his works should not convict him. 3:21 But he who practices the truth comes to the light, that* his works might be manifest, that they have been worked in God.
    I don't have a problem with the rendering of 3:16.
     
    #8 franklinmonroe, Jan 5, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2015
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have not yet read either one. However, one or the other may be my next NT to read, but I prefer to get a paper edition.

    They are both interesting, in that many folks never thought another TR-based version would ever be produced (the MEB); and there scant few Majority Text versions available (the MLV).
     
  10. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I have not spent any time in study, but I did look at a few verses, such as John 3:16, and that verse alone convinces me the MLV is neither scholarly nor accurate. For example, monogenes = one of a kind not begotten.

    I see they paid lip service to translating each of the Greek words into as few English words as possible, but without a review of their Exhaustive Concordance, it may have the same weight as all those wonderful ESV claims.
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    So if ANY versions chose to translate that as only Begooten, not a good version then?
     
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Yeshua1, both the NKJV and the NASB95 translate monogenes as begotten. They are good versions. But should be compared with other translations such as the NET, WEB, and HCSB among others. All translations are imperfect, but after looking at a few from the MLV, I concluded the number of verses where it was more accurate than the NKJV would be few and far between.
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    That is why of one wishes to stay in the tradition of the Kjv itself, the NKJV would be the way to go, in my opinion...
     
  14. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    There are more than a dozen versions in the KJV family, what makes the MLV worth using, over and against say the NKJV and the WEB?
     
  15. Getting it Right

    Getting it Right
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    In Post #5 in this discussion I pointed out grammatical errors.

    After discussions with the presenters of the MLV, I was asked to submit grammatical suggestions for everything but the actual scriptures. I did so, including the appendices. About 90% were accepted. I did not ask for permission to comment on the scriptures, and did not do so. I was especially enthusiastic about two of the observations made by the presenters.

    I continue to evaluate the scriptures in the 2015 MLV.

    :jesus:
     
    #15 Getting it Right, Jan 14, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2015
  16. Getting it Right

    Getting it Right
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my Post #7 I associated the MLV with the Church of Christ. MLV presenters have informed me that, that is not the case.

    My apologies to the MLV presenters.


    :flower:
     
  17. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    To repeat, monogenes means "one kind" and is not the same word that means born or fathered. Thus to insert "born" is to mistranslate the word.
     
  18. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    One of the claims of the MLV is that the NASB contradicted itself at Matthew 5:17, and Ephesians 2:15. The NASB translated two Greek words (G2647 and G2673) into the same root English word (abolish) with Matthew 5:17 saying Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, and Ephesians 2:15 saying Jesus abolished the enmity contained in the Law.

    The MLV resolves this difficulty by translating G2647 as "tear down," and
    G2673 as "done-away-with."

    There is no doubt, tear down (torn down) better translates G2647 at Matthew 5:17, than abolish, but the apparent contradiction, not tearing down yet doing away with remains in the MLV.
     

Share This Page

Loading...