/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

lmao never heard of it, until now…

>>784762

its open source. Anyone is able to challenge the translation done. I found I learned a lot reading it.

The pdf is free. http://www.modernliteralversion.org/bibles/MLV/MLVBL.pdf

It's a great idea with an unprofessional presentation.

>>784817

>trusting the Word of God only to technocrats

>>784817

it's not like wikipedia at all. First it is translated. They translate each greek word into 1 or two english words and use no overlap. So each translated word represents a only single greek word and thus you don't have confusions were concepts are tied to each other that shouldn't have been. Also every word that was supplied in order to make the English grammatical (lots of subjects and contextual words) are done in italics so when reading one always knows exactly what is The Word of God and what words had to be added to make the English readable.

The open source part is that after this whole process any Christian can come on and send them feedback and identify translation errors etc and they will look over the point raised and respond. MLV has been around since the 80s though so there hasn't been all that much to change in the last few years.

How can you trust another bible that hasn't gone through a process like this? Especially when we know parts have been manipulated throughout the years (look at all the converged cucked churches now). Even a thought for thought translations is technically a bundle of lies. Think about it, there is only one Word of God. Can you trust another person to interpret the bible for you and not show you plain as day all the work they have done? Why are so many bibles not literal translations doing each word 1:1? Does this not mean they somehow believe they are refining the words of the lord? How can you refine that? I don't want to know how a denomination or priest caste thinks I should understand the bible. I want a bible where I can see and trust that it is the unaltered Word of God as first presented thousands of years ago. Everything else is necessarily lesser.

The only downsides to the MLV are that the formatting in the print versions occasionally messes up cause its primarily a pdf version and that the MLV can be a little harder to read than most versions. The English is choppier cause of how it has translated.

I like that it's open source, but with all of that open invitation to talent, is "assuredly, assuredly I say to you" the best they were capable of? That's pretty bad - both as a translation and as English.

I've said before that I prefer transliteration when the writers themselves transliterated Here, for example, Jesus' "Amen, amen" sayings deserve to be left alone.. since the gospel writers could have translated fully into Greek but it didn't. They sometimes liked keeping Aramaisms in, such as "Amen", "Maranath", etc.. But if you are going to go for "modern" English, then "Truly, truly" is actual English (or "verily, verily", like the KJV's day).

>>784907

In this specific case I do not know the rationale behind the words used but I can guess that truly and verily are both used to represent different Greek words. Thus tying their hands.

>>784907

Why do you find "truly truly" to be superior over "assuredly assuredly"?

>>784908

In those same verses, such as in John 3:3, the same word in the NT is "Amen" (not Aramaic, but Greek, as I pointed out).

>>784910

Because it's actual English. No one says "assuredly, assuredly". Although you definitely hear the NKJV version "Most assuredly" very often. That's English too.

>>784912

what do you mean "actual english"?

>>784912

Doh. I meant "Not Greek, but Aramaic". Brainfart. Apologies.

>>784913

I mean the receptor language is just as important as the original. It's not good English if it doesn't actually reflect English usage. Go on the street or read any novel or ask a English professor if "Assuredly, assuredly" is something that's in their usage. It's strange.

>>784915

You're being arbitrary.

Their objective is strict formal translation. As with all literalist/formal equivalence translations, they prioritize the direct meaning over readability.

>>784912

based on what you have said my guess is that when amen was used as a relevant word in the sentence it was translated to show its meaning but when used to close a passage (Amen at the end, it was left. I'm opening john 3:3 right now to check)

As for assuredly, assuredly is used, I see the word all the time and in the context it is being used here. Assuredly, assuredly is nonsense however but so would be verily, verily or truly, truly. Doubling any of those words in this context is silly in English and is definitely only something you would see in spoken English.

>>784916

If it's direct meaning they want, then just do what the Gospel writers themselves did: Don't translate it at all. Make people learn the actual word. It was supposed to capture an Aramaic quirk in Jesus' speech in the first place and never meant to be straight Greek, even for Greek readers. They didn't use "Amen" until they became Christians.. and even then, speaking like this was still different even by Jewish standards. There's no evidence of anyone in history talking like this, which is why it's so cool. I'd prefer people just left it alone, like St Jerome did in his Vulgate.

But if your goal is "modern" or straight vernacular/vulgar, then I think a better word can be used.

>>784756

Its translation choices are strange, such as translating pagans as tax collectors in parts.

>>784756

>I have a KJV and a few other bibles but for me MLV was always the best.

What's up with this sentence?

Colossians 2:2

>MLV: to the full knowledge of the mystery of God and Father and of the Christ,

It's not even grammatically correct.

See Colossians 2:2

>KJV: to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

The MLV also changes 2 Corinthians 2:17, which says "corrupt the word of God." In the MLV though it says "peddling the word of God." This is a direct change from the received text.

It also removes "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," from Revelation 1:11, which establishes that the Lord is speaking. I've heard people argue based on the fact this is removed in their bible that Jesus isn't the same Lord as was speaking in Revelation 1:8.

But if you use the KJV, which keeps this, you will see that Jesus is the same speaker in both Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 1:11. The more you know.