# Modern English Version



## scottmaciver (May 9, 2014)

I know the issue of this new translation has been discussed in another thread, but how many of you are considering purchasing a copy of the Modern English Version?

Also whilst not wanting to deal with the TR-CT debate in this thread, does this video suggest that the MEV potentially departs from the TR at some points with mention of their use of various manuscripts or would their be any other legitimate reason for using other manuscripts?


----------



## JML (May 9, 2014)

I will most likely get it. The idea of a more modern translation of the TR is appealing. The fact that it is headed up by someone from the Assemblies of God gives me pause but one of the editors is from RPTS.


----------



## Logan (May 9, 2014)

I watched the video. It wasn't clear to me what other "best greek manuscripts" were consulted, or to what purpose, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not TR. I'd be curious to know.


----------



## JonathanHunt (May 9, 2014)

I wonder if it has 'the words of Christ in red'. If not, I would like it quite a lot!!


----------



## scottmaciver (May 9, 2014)

I agree Jonathan, I've never been too keen on the words of Christ in red. It seems to suggest that the words of Christ are somehow more inspired than the rest of Scripture.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 9, 2014)

scottmaciver said:


> I agree Jonathan, I've never been too keen on the words of Christ in red. It seems to suggest that the words of Christ are somehow more inspired than the rest of Scripture.


I heard a minister once repeat the story of a man that went into a bookstore asking for a bible in which all the the words inspired by the Holy Spirit were in black.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 10, 2014)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> I heard a minister once repeat the story of a man that went into a bookstore asking for a bible in which all the the words inspired by the Holy Spirit were in black.



I probably don't know the minister, but that used to be my practice when I went to bookstores looking for a Bible.


----------



## One Little Nail (May 12, 2014)

It will be interesting to see how this comes out, though looking at there translation in John 3:16 methinks that they have made an unnecessary change, eternal for everlasting, even the KJV does use eternal as a translation for the same word
in John 3:15, the word aionois , strongs G166, translated eternal 42 times, everlasting 25 times, ever & world once each.
the translation is correct, though unnecessary, why change the most famous & well known verse in the Bible for no apparent reason, no gain in understanding or meaning.
on there website it says," The Modern English Version is a clear and concise translation that will appeal to modern Bible readers." Eric Mitchell, PhD. Associate professor of Old Testament and archaeology, is this an example of being clear & concise, concise maybe eternal has 7 letters & everlasting has 11, they've saved 4 letters in the interests of concision.

MEV John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

KJB For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

NKJV For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.


----------



## ElainaMor (Jun 7, 2014)

The publisher ran a contest a couple weeks ago to win an advanced copy of the MEV. I won and I'm eagerly looking forward to checking out this translation. Should be getting it in the mail any day now. If there are any scriptures anyone is eager to see let me know and I'll post them when I receive my MEV.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 7, 2014)

I am taking this translation every bit as seriously as I take its publisher.

I mean come on, the tag line on their site is:

*The most modern word-for-word translation produced since the King James tradition within the last thirty years.
​*Now to put it succinctly... that doesn't make any since!

Your probably better off just sticking with the translation that started the "King James Tradition." Just my


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 7, 2014)

I'm waiting for the "Spirit Led Woman's Bible" edition of the Modern English Version coming out November 4. I would love a modern English version of the TR; not sure that this is the one yet. I will, however, be looking for reviews.

Unfortunately, the guy doing the YouTube video left me napping while sitting at my desk at 7:30 p.m. Oh my!


----------



## Edward (Jun 7, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The most modern word-for-word translation produced since the King James tradition within the last thirty years.
> 
> that doesn't make any since!



It seems to be saying "The best thing since the NKJV came out in 1982!" Which suggests that you probably should just get one of those 'last century' NKJV. 

Hmm. I went to their site. It appears that MEV is a word for word translation. Perhaps they translated the tag line word for word from someone speaking in tongues, and those of us who are used to dynamic equivalence are having some problems with what they have written. 

It does sound like it will be the perfect gift for one's charismatic friends.


----------



## JML (Jun 7, 2014)

Edward said:


> It does sound like it will be the perfect gift for one's charismatic friends.



There are reformed men among the editors & translators.

MEV | Modern English VersionEditors | MEV | Modern English Version


----------



## Edward (Jun 7, 2014)

John Lanier said:


> There are reformed men among the editors & translators.



But they certainly seem to be marketing it to the continualists.


----------



## JML (Jun 7, 2014)

Edward said:


> But they certainly seem to be marketing it to the continualists.



Yes, I would agree with that assessment.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 7, 2014)

Why not market it to themselves? They sponsored it. I'll wait to see the review to form an opinion on its usefulness.

I'm still KJV/NKJV for TR; ESV for CT.


----------

