# World English Bible



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2019)

Has anyone checked out the World English Bible? I have been searching for a Bible translation that uses the Majority Text for the New Testament, and the WEB is the only one I can find. I used to be skeptical of this translation, but I have been looking through it for the past few days, and it really appears to be a fine work. There is no official list of editors, and the chief editor doesn't have formal theological or linguistic training, but the work itself is based on the ASV (1901), and is edited for clarity, and according to the Majority Text.

So, yes, this is a public domain work done by an unnamed list of editors, on a website that frankly looks awful, and is not published by a major publisher. However, shouldn't a work be judged by the merit of its own product?

What do you folks think?


----------



## Timotheos (Dec 5, 2019)

I wish they were more clear as to what they mean by Majority Text.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2019)

Timotheos said:


> I wish they were more clear as to what they mean by Majority Text.



As far as I know, it is the Hodges-Farstad MT of 1982.


----------



## Jake (Dec 5, 2019)

You might be interested in the Evangelical Heritage Version: http://wartburgproject.org/

It does not strictly follow the Majority Text, but leans toward it in many important readings. 

It follows a translation philosophy more akin to the 1984 NIV, but in my opinion does a better job in some of its weak points.

It is produced by conservative, confessional Lutheran scholars. 

You can read more about the textual choices and translation philosophy here: http://wartburgproject.org/sp_faq/30/


----------



## Taylor (Dec 5, 2019)

Jake said:


> You might be interested in the Evangelical Heritage Version: http://wartburgproject.org/
> 
> It does not strictly follow the Majority Text, but leans toward it in many important readings.
> 
> ...



Yes, I have been reading this version as of late, as well. I like it. However, despite it's strong points, it still follows the annoying and yet-unexplained practice of translating a couple very important terms inconsistently. Δικαιόω in Romans is the first that comes to my mind. There simply is no reason whatsoever to translate this term "justify" in some places and "declare righteous" in others, even in close proximity in the same book. It's just plain annoying, and makes me wonder where similar choices might have been made throughout the text.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 5, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Has anyone checked out the World English Bible? I have been searching for a Bible translation that uses the Majority Text for the New Testament, and the WEB is the only one I can find. I used to be skeptical of this translation, but I have been looking through it for the past few days, and it really appears to be a fine work. There is no official list of editors, and the chief editor doesn't have formal theological or linguistic training, but the work itself is based on the ASV (1901), and is edited for clarity, and according to the Majority Text.
> 
> So, yes, this is a public domain work done by an unnamed list of editors, on a website that frankly looks awful, and is not published by a major publisher. However, shouldn't a work be judged by the merit of its own product?
> 
> What do you folks think?


Seems to be best of both MT and CT .


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 10, 2019)

I think the WEB actually used the ASV of 1901 as its starting text and then revised it, switching the textual basis of the NT to the Majority Text.

A couple you may want to look at:

The Modern English Version. I think this uses the TR rather than the Majority or Byzantine text. I don't know if there is any perceivable doctrinal slant, but it is published by a charismatic publisher and most of the people involved appear to have been charismatics. For that reason, I doubt it will ever have much impact beyond those circles. (But in a quick search, I found a Lutheran reviewer who said he didn't notice any bias toward charismaticism.)

The Analytical-Literal Translation. I believe the translator, Gary Zeolla, does use the MT, and there is a good bit of pro-MT material on his website, which regrettably looks like it is straight out of 1996. (I guess he's put his time in elsewhere!) I've never really felt the need to delve into this translation which on the surface appears to be something like the Amplified. But I could be wrong about that. He is Calvinistic but I think he holds to something like New Covenant Theology. I think this version is available for e-Sword and maybe elsewhere online for those who might be interested in sampling it.


----------



## kodos (Dec 10, 2019)

One of the translators of the MEV is an RPCNA minister and a professor of mine at RPTS. 

Jonathan M. Watt, Ph.D.
1 and 2 Thessalonians

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 13, 2019)

Jake said:


> You might be interested in the Evangelical Heritage Version: http://wartburgproject.org/



You know, I think I was actually wrong in my assessment above of the EHV. I have done some studying in the EHV's rendering of δικαιόω in Romans and Galatians today, and they are actually very, very consistent and thoughtful in their handling of it. Every time the text refers purely to trying to achieve righteousness by the Law (Rom. 2:13, 3:20; Gal. 3:11, 5:4), the EHV renders the term "declared righteous." It seems, then, that they are almost seeing a soteriological difference between being "declared righteous" and being "justified." It's as if being "declared righteous" is a fruit of our labor, while being "justified" is, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism calls it, "an act of God's free grace."

I think I actually like that.


----------



## Username3000 (Dec 13, 2019)

ESV all day!


----------

