Modern English Version

[John81]

http://modernenglishversion.com/comparison/

 

The MEV is supposed to be an update of the KJB, using the KJB and the textual line the KJB translators used.

 

The link above shows some comparison verses, with the MEV verse and the KJB next to it, followed by some other versions.

 

Some have said they would like to see an updated KJB, others have said they would not be opposed to such. What are your thoughts on this particular attempt? Does anyone have any more insight into this translation?

 

I've not yet been able to read a large selection, only a few verse comparisons. Has anyone had the opportunity to read more of this version for a more in depth "feel" for the work?

[Ukulelemike]

I have thought about such, and would not be opposed were it done correctly. So many words have changed or diminished so much in their meanings that it might behoove the change, but I don't think getting rid of the thee's and thou's and ye's would be a good idea, since they have such a specific meaning and our English doesn't have it, (unless we start adding "y'all" to the text, which might give a homey flair, but not really keeping in line with the beauty of the text).

 

And that's another thing-we can't just write it-part of the magnificence of the KJV is the beauty of the textual poetry. I don't see a change such as, "Verily, verily I say unto thee", to "Really, seriously, dudes!" as being an appropriate change. It may be technically correct, (more or less), but ugly.

 

Edit after reading the article:  Not liking it. Some is alright, but some seems to make minor changes to the text.

 

For instance, in the first, Eve, in the KJV, says "I have gotten a man from the Lord", while the MEV says, "I have gotten a man  WITH THE HELP of the Lord". KJV attribute it all to God, which MEV, well, God helped. NIV and ESV say the sme thing, basically.

 

Also, as I thought might be the case, they removed the articles "Thee, thou, ye" and left only the generic "you", which can seriously confuse the issue depending on the context.

 

In Heb 4:12, if the word of God POWERFUL or ACTIVE? Some active MIGHT be powerful, but not necessarily. No reason to change this word and give it less, well, power. Powerful means the same thing now as it did before. Again, follows the NIV and ESV, not the KJV or even the NKJV. 

 

So, another failed attempt, just from these few examples given. Seems to try and follow the worst of the modern versions, rather than a simple update of the KJV language.

[prophet1]

I would love to see the KJV updated.

Apparently, everyone who has "attempted" it so far, had a bias against the Received Texts that the Reina Valera and KJB were translated from.
See the editor of the NKJV's thesis on the textual transmission issue.

The hurdle now, is that the common use of words found in the Scriptures has been twisted since the RV was released (ASV in the U.S.).
Even our dictionaries reflect the redefining of terms.

Example:
'Talent' has now come to mean: 'ability', even though , in the KJB, it is OBviously not a metaphor for ability, 'ability' is found in the sentence as 'talent'.

Many, and I count myself among these, fear that there would never now be a consensus among updaters.

Some of us ,who read Middle and early Modern English literature unabridged, as children, have a much easier time with the archaic terms, cuz we've seen em in context many times.
We see people delve into the 'original languages' for additional light, and find instead, darkness.

Most people can't even define the word "believe", now.

Someone, out of ND, updated the KJV 20 years ago or so, and people knee-jerked. I never saw a copy of it.

The courtroom legaleze, into which our Bible was translated, is of utmost importance.
Literary wise, the AV is the greatest literary work in any language , translated at the height of the English language.

It is a treasure.

The Holy Spirit teaches it.

He, The Word, died for our sins.

The Spirit is just as capable of teaching updaters to update, as he was at translators to translate.

Random thoughts, cuz you asked.

[paid4]

The King James Bible is the infallible, inerrant, indisputable written Word of God.

 

What's the point of ever changing or swerving away from it?

 

Sinful man will never understand it because it is a spiritual book.

God's people have a hard time understanding some parts of it because they have not grown that much yet.

If you couple the KJV with the Holy Spirit there's nothing that you cannot understand.

 

I think sometimes they just want to get a paycheck when they try to rewrite it.

[John81]

Whatever our person thoughts on the KJB, the fact does remain many Christians (not speaking of lost folks here even though they could be included) do indeed have a difficult time with the language in the KJB. Most aren't going to take the time (most don't even know it can be done or how to go about it) to learn to understand the KJB. This is especially true when Christian bookstores are filled with dozens of other versions that each tries to corner the "easy to read" market.

 

As Mike pointed out, words such as "ye, thou, thee" have a different meaning than a simple "you". Yet even there, most folks have no clue about that fact. I've even heard preachers who use the KJB substitute "you" for these words as they try to read from their KJB without using the words actually written there.

 

Recent studies indicate that nearly 20% of Christians never read the Bible while only 20% say they read the Bible regularly. The other 80% of Christians fall in the category of reading the Bible maybe a couple times a month or a couple times a year. That's a very dismal report. That tells us that even with a plethora of "easy to read" Bibles out there, most American Christians still aren't reading them. This when nearly every American home has over 4 Bibles, according to surveys.

 

Likely as not, even if an updated KJB that everyone here would find acceptable were to be produced, it would draw few new Bible readers.

 

Removal of the Bible from public schools and colleges has given us generations in America now who are biblically illiterate. Couple that with the poor Bible teaching in many American churches and things only get worse. Added to that is the lower literacy rate in America as fewer Americans can even read or read at a 6th grade level.

 

It's not only the Bible that's not being read, according to surveys, fewer Americans today read any books at all.

 

The whole argument that "if we had an easier to read Bible more people would be reading the Bible" has proven to be false. There are far more than enough easy to read, watered down Bibles out there and people still aren't reading them.

 

By both conviction and preference, I'll be sticking with the KJB.

[Ukulelemike]

True words, John. If people are determined to read the Bible, they will learn it and read it. If not, it doesn't matter if a toddler could understand it, they wouldn't bother. I mean, seriously, we have the Bible on CD, easy enough to pop it into the radio and listen while you drive, but how few do even that?

 

It isn't the translation or readability, its the heart.

[Ukulelemike]

The King James Bible is the infallible, inerrant, indisputable written Word of God.

 

What's the point of ever changing or swerving away from it?

 

Sinful man will never understand it because it is a spiritual book.

God's people have a hard time understanding some parts of it because they have not grown that much yet.

If you couple the KJV with the Holy Spirit there's nothing that you cannot understand.

 

I think sometimes they just want to get a paycheck when they try to rewrite it.

I agree, though even til now there have been minor changes, to update spelling and punctuation and such, and there's nothing wrong with that. So I also don't see an issue with making a few changes that would update some words that have so vastly changed in meaning.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying it must be done, and I'm not saying that we can't understand it otherwise, but I would also not see a prOBlem with it, so long as it was done with great care and eyes toward, not money, but God and honoring Him. And of course, that's been the prOBlem up til now-ungodly people changing the Bible for money, not to please the Lord, but man.

 

But I agree that the KJV is fine as it is, and I will stick to it, absolutely.

[Alimantado]

True words, John. If people are determined to read the Bible, they will learn it and read it. If not, it doesn't matter if a toddler could understand it, they wouldn't bother. I mean, seriously, we have the Bible on CD, easy enough to pop it into the radio and listen while you drive, but how few do even that?

 

It isn't the translation or readability, its the heart.

 

I don't see it as a black and white issue whereby so long as we accept that people are on the whole lazy and don't bother to read what's put under their noses that therefore it's not worth expending any effort on making it easier for folk to read the Bible--you and I prOBably agree on that, Mike.

 

The fact that the Bible was translated into English at all surely reflects a desire on God's part for us to be able to read scripture in our own language, so the principle is there. If it wasn't, we could just extend your own argument above, Mike, and say that if folk are really determined to read the Bible then they will learn the original languages, and an English translation is therefore unnecessary.

 

I'm also not sure I agree that English has ever reached a 'height' of perfection. English evolved out of other languages and if the Lord agrees then in hundreds of years it will have become another language still, something unrecognisable from what we speak now and maybe having a different name. But there's never been a standard for it to morph into. For example, you could argue that 9th century English was the height of 'perfection' since at that time it was almost based on just one root language (Germanic) and had more consistent grammar rules (e.g. fully inflected). By the time of the KJV, English was a hybrid of German, Latin, French and others.

 

So how far down the road from when a translation was made must a language have journeyed on its way to becoming a new language, before another translation is deemed appropriate? If the AV had been translated in the 9th century instead of the 17th, and reading it was like reading Beowulf, would it be ok to ask for a new translation now?

[Ukulelemike]

I don't see it as a black and white issue whereby so long as we accept that people are on the whole lazy and don't bother to read what's put under their noses that therefore it's not worth expending any effort on making it easier for folk to read the Bible--you and I prOBably agree on that, Mike.

 

The fact that the Bible was translated into English at all surely reflects a desire on God's part for us to be able to read scripture in our own language, so the principle is there. If it wasn't, we could just extend your own argument above, Mike, and say that if folk are really determined to read the Bible then they will learn the original languages, and an English translation is therefore unnecessary.

 

I'm also not sure I agree that English has ever reached a 'height' of perfection. English evolved out of other languages and if the Lord agrees then in hundreds of years it will have become another language still, something unrecognisable from what we speak now and maybe having a different name. But there's never been a standard for it to morph into. For example, you could argue that 9th century English was the height of 'perfection' since at that time it was almost based on just one root language (Germanic) and had more consistent grammar rules (e.g. fully inflected). By the time of the KJV, English was a hybrid of German, Latin, French and others.

 

So how far down the road from when a translation was made must a language have journeyed on its way to becoming a new language, before another translation is deemed appropriate? If the AV had been translated in the 9th century instead of the 17th, and reading it was like reading Beowulf, would it be ok to ask for a new translation now?

Good point, Al: at what point will the English language have degraded, or changed, or whatever we want to consider it, before the KJV NEEDS to be translated again? Its true that English is not the same as it was when Beowulf was written, (though it's not as different from the KJV as it is from then). Is it degradation or just natural change that is bringing about the differences? Certainly the language is clearly not nearly as rich in meanings, and some words have completely changed meanings since then, but will really minimal effort, the KJV can still be understood. But if there comes a time that it is fairly unfeasible to continue it due to changes, then of course, a new translation, based on the TR, would become necessary. I don't believe it has reached that point.

[John81]

The MEV may be a "better" MV than many of the others; I won't be able to say until I've had the opportunity to read at least large portions of it. That said, for the most devout KJB folks, it's likely no updating will make us shelve our KJB.

 

It's not really the main point that there is no need for an updating, but moreso with such being properly done (and who will do that and judge it?), and with the fact there are dozens of English translations out there along with scores more of speciality adaptations of these various versions. Still, with this extreme abundance of Bibles here in America, each year fewer and fewer are reading the Bible.

 

The claim can't be made that there are no Bibles easy to read. While the accuracy of them could be argued, the fact is there are dozens of versions out there which almost anyone would find easy to read if they actually bothered to read them. The fact fewer read the Word now than in previous generations indicates the lack of Bible reading isn't due to a readability issue. It's due to that heart issue Mike referenced earlier. If folks don't have a heart to actually read the Bible, it doesn't matter if they have a KJB, NIV, Message and NASB in their house, they aren't going to read any of them.

 

Considering history, with the English being the first to greatly spread the Word, followed by English speaking Americans, and now that England has greatly fallen from the faith and America is doing so, it's possible another language may come to dominate the world Bible scene.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

But, at what time it is changed, even when leaving the thee's thou's & ye's in but changing words like besom to broom, it no longer is the KJV. One has written one's own version.