What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern Literal Version New Testament: BOLD Letter
This is the Modern Literal Version BOLD Letter Edition for "color blind" people or Kindles. Words of God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are in BOLD letters.n (5-7-2022) The “Modern Literal Version” uses the Majority Text (“The New Testament in the Original Greek", Byzantine Textform 2018, Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William Pierpont). Two distinct and opposite techniques are used in translating the New Testament from the Greek. The "Modern Literal Version" is the first type, a ‘literal' translation sometimes called ‘word-for-word' translation. The second and most common in the past 30 years is to paraphrase the Greek into English. The latter dynamic equivalence, free style, thought-for-thought , better than a word-for-word, essentially literal and so on. We understand the value of paraphrases for those looking for a Bible that reads as easily as a newspaper, however we feel strongly about having a Bible without opinions, instead faithfully reproducing the original Greek Bible into Modern English. One way to look at this if there was a court case with a particular document that was being used as evidence and this document was in a foreign language would a "thought-for-thought" translation be acceptable? The ‘document' we are talking about here is the ‘Last Will and Testament' of our Lord Jesus & Savior. The goal of everyone who worked on the "Modern Literal Version" was to keep any form of commentary or paraphrase out of this translation as is humanly possible. The MLV is not sold for profit because there is no denomination or publishing company or foundation behind it. All Christian groups have had the opportunity to propose fixes or assist. The only uninspired traditions kept in the MLV punctuation and capitalization; chapter and verse numbers; and book order. The Open Translation The Modern Literal Version Bible is considered ‘finished,’ although it has been open for revision by anyone since 1998. 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. In 15 years, we have found no better way than our ‘open translation’ idea to achieve this goal. Absolutely anyone in the world is able to contribute, including, of course, the several million who have visited the Christian Library. You, too, may make recommendations or help with the entire New Testament, with either Greek or English type proofreading. If the recommendations this next year warrant another update next year, we will do one per year in printed form & Kindle. We plan to update free electronic versions periodically throughout the year, if needed. The ‘cutting edge’ update is always the BOLD Letter Edition PDF at As far as we know, this 'open translation' idea is unique to the MLV. You are invited to participate in helping to make the MLV even better. There is even a Facebook group at All who have helped have contributed to further the readability or accuracy of this translation or simply have double checked previous efforts. Now is the time for the Bible to be placed in the hands of every day Christians, without employing a huge publishing company only out to make money. To God is the glory, power, and dominion forever and ever. Amen
456 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 4, 2013
233 people are currently reading
44 people want to read
About the author
Anonymous
791k books3,369 followersBooks can be attributed to "Anonymous" for several reasons:
* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author
Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.
See also: Anonymous
* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author
Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.
See also: Anonymous
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 15, 2017
A version seeking to as lightly translate the New Testament as might be considered feasible.
No one could accuse the translation itself of seeking to flow in good quality English. The only benefit it has over the American Standard Version is that it puts on no pretense of using antiquated English; the English is generally recognizably modern, but in terms of phrasing is entirely enslaved to the Greek. The mission of the translators, in general, is successful: the MLV renders the New Testament in almost as barely translated English as one can attempt to do.
The translators believe they are doing the reader a service by putting asterisks and note references in many places; I found the convention confusing and irritating, and it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to simply read the MLV text. The practice of hyphenating English words which reflect a translation of a single Greek term may have some benefit in terms of study but also makes for difficult and clunky reading. In positive terms there are a few times when the text as translated does illuminate some elements of the original which could otherwise be missed. If one is looking for an ASV type text but in more modern English, the MLV is it.
But then there's the pretension even listed on the cover: "The World's Most Accurate English Translation." Sure, if your philosophy is so thoroughly positivist and rationalistic that one would seek to participate in such an endeavor, perhaps; even then, the claim can be strongly questioned.
The translators attempt to make a science out of an art and decide nuance by fiat and mathematics, and none of this bodes well for the translation. Their claims to be the first to use a single word whenever possible to translate a given Greek word is wrong; the Jehovah's Witnesses were the first to do so with their New World Translation, and it is a debacle because of it. The MLV translators wish to avoid variety for variety's sake; well and good. But the oft repeated idea, "if God wanted a concept expressed in different terms He would have used different Greek words," is fatuous. Hebrew poetry, for instance, is defined by parallelism, frequently involving synonymous terms used in parallel to intensify or for other poetic effect. They do not even seem to understand the issue at hand: it is not as if different English terms are chosen to translate the same Greek word in different contexts just for the fun of it, but as a recognition that the semantic domains of English and Greek words do not line up in complete equivalence. At times multiple English words can be conveyed with a single one in Greek, and vice versa. Any translation that attempts to decide by fiat how to translate a term, and to justify it with math, has a serious philosophical problem.
I have written elsewhere about the fatuousness of the claim that "literal" means "accurate" (http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/... many times the literal may not fully convey meaning, and using different English terms or ideas to properly phrase meaning is not the boogeyman these translators would make it out to be. Their contempt for "theologians" is palpable and does a major disservice to the work.
The idea that they could somehow remove "opinion" from the process is utterly ridiculous, a relic of their positivist rationalism that presumes such levels of "objectivity." By the very presumption that "literal" is "accurate" they have established their opinion; their methodology is all based on their opinion. You cannot escape opinion in Bible translation: even how one decides to organize, on a text basis, a section like the Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1 indicates an opinion. The MLV, for instance, does not mark it as poetry, even though it manifestly is poetic and should be framed on the page accordingly. I have no difficulty with them having opinions and framing and translating the text accordingly; that's what all translators do. But own it, and drop the pretense of Objectivity From On High, because this translation doesn't deserve that standing.
And, for those who do not wish to insert their opinion on the text itself, the translators freely imposed their opinions about the dating of texts and circumstances and a presumption of the early date of Revelation. They establish in their introduction, as if from on high, that a Christian should not read the OT and NT together or they will be confused. Who are they to make such decrees?
For a group of people who seem quite intent on giving the reader the ability to do most of the interpreting, their introduction and notes seem to show that they don't really trust the reader very much. It's an odd juxtaposition.
And none of this, by the way, even begins to start with the translators' esteem of the Majority Text and their dogmatic insistence on it.
For a Bible student who has a decent handle on the text the MLV has some benefit as a study resource. If your philosophical presuppositions would lead you to really like the MLV, you're probably better off just learning Greek yourself. In the end, it would seem that the MLV is designed for those who would love the ASV except for its dated language and insistence on the eclectic text. Regardless, be quite wary of the translators' claims regarding the translation and much of what they have to say in their notes and commentary.
No one could accuse the translation itself of seeking to flow in good quality English. The only benefit it has over the American Standard Version is that it puts on no pretense of using antiquated English; the English is generally recognizably modern, but in terms of phrasing is entirely enslaved to the Greek. The mission of the translators, in general, is successful: the MLV renders the New Testament in almost as barely translated English as one can attempt to do.
The translators believe they are doing the reader a service by putting asterisks and note references in many places; I found the convention confusing and irritating, and it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to be able to simply read the MLV text. The practice of hyphenating English words which reflect a translation of a single Greek term may have some benefit in terms of study but also makes for difficult and clunky reading. In positive terms there are a few times when the text as translated does illuminate some elements of the original which could otherwise be missed. If one is looking for an ASV type text but in more modern English, the MLV is it.
But then there's the pretension even listed on the cover: "The World's Most Accurate English Translation." Sure, if your philosophy is so thoroughly positivist and rationalistic that one would seek to participate in such an endeavor, perhaps; even then, the claim can be strongly questioned.
The translators attempt to make a science out of an art and decide nuance by fiat and mathematics, and none of this bodes well for the translation. Their claims to be the first to use a single word whenever possible to translate a given Greek word is wrong; the Jehovah's Witnesses were the first to do so with their New World Translation, and it is a debacle because of it. The MLV translators wish to avoid variety for variety's sake; well and good. But the oft repeated idea, "if God wanted a concept expressed in different terms He would have used different Greek words," is fatuous. Hebrew poetry, for instance, is defined by parallelism, frequently involving synonymous terms used in parallel to intensify or for other poetic effect. They do not even seem to understand the issue at hand: it is not as if different English terms are chosen to translate the same Greek word in different contexts just for the fun of it, but as a recognition that the semantic domains of English and Greek words do not line up in complete equivalence. At times multiple English words can be conveyed with a single one in Greek, and vice versa. Any translation that attempts to decide by fiat how to translate a term, and to justify it with math, has a serious philosophical problem.
I have written elsewhere about the fatuousness of the claim that "literal" means "accurate" (http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/... many times the literal may not fully convey meaning, and using different English terms or ideas to properly phrase meaning is not the boogeyman these translators would make it out to be. Their contempt for "theologians" is palpable and does a major disservice to the work.
The idea that they could somehow remove "opinion" from the process is utterly ridiculous, a relic of their positivist rationalism that presumes such levels of "objectivity." By the very presumption that "literal" is "accurate" they have established their opinion; their methodology is all based on their opinion. You cannot escape opinion in Bible translation: even how one decides to organize, on a text basis, a section like the Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1 indicates an opinion. The MLV, for instance, does not mark it as poetry, even though it manifestly is poetic and should be framed on the page accordingly. I have no difficulty with them having opinions and framing and translating the text accordingly; that's what all translators do. But own it, and drop the pretense of Objectivity From On High, because this translation doesn't deserve that standing.
And, for those who do not wish to insert their opinion on the text itself, the translators freely imposed their opinions about the dating of texts and circumstances and a presumption of the early date of Revelation. They establish in their introduction, as if from on high, that a Christian should not read the OT and NT together or they will be confused. Who are they to make such decrees?
For a group of people who seem quite intent on giving the reader the ability to do most of the interpreting, their introduction and notes seem to show that they don't really trust the reader very much. It's an odd juxtaposition.
And none of this, by the way, even begins to start with the translators' esteem of the Majority Text and their dogmatic insistence on it.
For a Bible student who has a decent handle on the text the MLV has some benefit as a study resource. If your philosophical presuppositions would lead you to really like the MLV, you're probably better off just learning Greek yourself. In the end, it would seem that the MLV is designed for those who would love the ASV except for its dated language and insistence on the eclectic text. Regardless, be quite wary of the translators' claims regarding the translation and much of what they have to say in their notes and commentary.
October 26, 2018
The Modern Literal Version is a modern, "crowd-sourced" translation of the Christian Bible. Touting itself as the most statistically accurate translation of the Bible ever written (with an open invitation to point out any translation errors), I was definitely intrigued: they attempt to translate each Greek word into as few English words as possible, removing all cultural bias from the translation (for instance, removal of the word "baptism" since it is a fabricated denominational word, replacing it with the more literal "immersion.")
In a culture where the church refers to the letters written by the early church as inerrant, infallible, and to be taken literally, I always found the concept of translation and paraphrasing absurd and a huge logical blind spot. Reading the MLV was an opportunity for me to read the letters as close to the Greek as humanly possible.
Near the end, though, I realized how pointless even reading the Greek is for anyone other than a historian (or at least student of hermeneutics); the language used by the early church is so inseparable from the culture of the day, the political subtext within the phrases used, the nuance of idiomatic language... it's all so rife with low fidelity language and contains such a multiplicity of interpretation that I can't really see the personal difference between reading a perfectly transliterated translation such as the MLV and a highly paraphrased version, such as The Message.
I believe this translation serves a purpose, but it doesn't serve one for me.
In a culture where the church refers to the letters written by the early church as inerrant, infallible, and to be taken literally, I always found the concept of translation and paraphrasing absurd and a huge logical blind spot. Reading the MLV was an opportunity for me to read the letters as close to the Greek as humanly possible.
Near the end, though, I realized how pointless even reading the Greek is for anyone other than a historian (or at least student of hermeneutics); the language used by the early church is so inseparable from the culture of the day, the political subtext within the phrases used, the nuance of idiomatic language... it's all so rife with low fidelity language and contains such a multiplicity of interpretation that I can't really see the personal difference between reading a perfectly transliterated translation such as the MLV and a highly paraphrased version, such as The Message.
I believe this translation serves a purpose, but it doesn't serve one for me.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews