MEV Bible Personal Size Large Print Cherry Brown: Modern English Version Imitation Leather – Large Print, May 19, 2015

I have used the NKJV since it's first publication, and although it intends to update the KJV, I was never really pleased with it since it varies too much from it's predecessor to "sound" like it. The MEV is an excellent translation, staying truer to the KJV more consistently. I get the same warmth from reading it as the KJV, only it more readily speaks to a modern English speaker.

This Bible has an impressive concordance, much more extensive than usual Bible concordances.

The producers of the MEV apparently did their research and published the most popular large print, personal size edition with sewn binding. It's easy to hold and read.

I am extremely happy with this Bible, and it has become my main Bible.

I received my Modern English Version (MEV) today. Since I wanted an accurate translation from the majority text, I took some time to look at a few verses in the New Testament to see if the verses match the meaning of the King James. Here are my initial findings:

- Matthew 19:17 - "That is God" was left out of the part of the verse "there is none good but one, that is, God"
- John 1:14 - "Begotten" was changed to "the only son" in the part of the verse "... the glory as of the only begotten of the Father..."
There were some interesting changes, one was in Acts 9:5-6 in the part of the verse "... it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." The word "pricks" was changed to "goads". I understand the King James version of this more than I do this change. What is a "goad"? A "goad" is a pointed stick. Why didn't the translation finish it up with something like "... it is hard to kick against sharp sticks" or something like that.

This is very minor compared to the "modern" translations that leave out and change many, many verses and words. I can recommend this bible, and also hope that there is a revision that will fix these issues and others - without adding more errors like the revisions of the modern translations do.

It is a very easy read, and much more accurate than most other easy to read translations. I came across a few strange words that should have been put into more common English. But overall, it is a great release. The changes I list are very minor and once you know these few things, you can put a corrective note with a pencil in these areas.

I will continue to review this bible and update my review if I find anything else. The Old Testament will definitely take more than one afternoon.

The binding, cover, layout is very nice. It looks like an excellent quality bible for the price. One thing that I do enjoy is not having footnotes that certain verses are "not in the most accurate and ancient manuscripts", which are very biased statements, and I believe untrue.

Update (11/27/2015):

At first glance I was excited to find a new, accurate version of the Bible based on the Majority Texts. Little did I know that the translators took some liberties with their translations of the words. This caused me to change my rating from 5 stars to 3. Don't get me wrong, this translation is much better than most modern versions and even better than the NKJV. I summarize this update with my findings below:

Bible translators have to select from several definitions to translate from the words used in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. Sometimes the choice they make doesn't align with the choices the King James translators made. I will let you decide which word in the MEV would have been proper or if the word they chose is clarifying the text without changing the meaning. Here are more findings:

1. Genesis 3:5 - "Gods" was changed to "God". I have a problem with this for 2 reasons, there is only one God and Adam and Eve knew that. Second, the serpent was speaking to both of them (Eve and Adam), because in the next verse it mentions that Adam was standing beside Eve during the conversation with the serpent. Also it breaks the cross references to Psalm 82, 1 Corinthians 8:5, and 2 Corinthians 4:4. Depending on your understanding of this verse, you may consider this critique "nit-picking".

2. Micah 5:2 - Changed the word "everlasting" to "ancient days". Again it may be one of the words that the Hebrew translates to, but (IMHO) a poor and not as accurate choice.

3. Zechariah 9:9 - Changed "just and having salvation" to "righteous and able to deliver". Really? "Able to deliver"? What is he going to deliver? Why leave out "salvation"?

4. John 1:14 - Why leave out the word "begotten"?

5. Acts 12:4 - This is a common change in the new translations. Do you really think that this is a mistake in the King James version? The word in Greek can be translated to "Passover" or "Easter". The King James translators realized in the prior verse that it said "then were the days of unleavened bread", so the "Passover" had already happened (see Leviticus 23:5-6). The Greeks celebrated the pagan holiday of Easter and at this time the Passover did not coincide with the pagan "Easter" holiday. Many times Easter and Passover fall on the same day of the year.

6. Romans 1:18 - The MEV changed "who hold the truth in unrighteousness" to "who suppress the truth through unrighteousness". You decide if these mean the same. Compare the words "hold" and "suppress" to each other in context. The word "hold" is a stronger term and more accurate in this verse than "suppress".

7. Romans 1:29 - The MEV changed the term "fornication" to "sexual immorality". You decide.

8. 2 Corinthians 2:17 - The MEV translators chose the word "peddle" instead of the more accurate (in context) word "corrupt". The verse in the MEV reads "For we are not as many are who peddle the word of God." This may be technically accurate, but not what (IMHO) the original author was trying to say.

9. Philippians 3:21 - The MEV uses the word "humiliation" instead of "vile"? I consider this a poor choice.

10. 1 Timothy 6:20 - The MEV uses the word "knowledge" instead of "science". In today's world, I consider the King James to be more accurate with "and oppositions of SCIENCE falsely so called". "Science" is the term people use to discredit the bible, while they pretend to have knowledge.

11. Isaiah 58:8 - The MEV translator got this one completely wrong. The last word was translated "reward". It is not reward, the King James word used is "rereward" (pronounced Rear Ward). It can be translated as "rear guard" and means that The Lord "has your back" or is protecting you from the unseen dangers. If you check other translations it is clearly translated as the King James did, only using a modern synonym. For example the NIV translation simply says "rear guard".

I am sure that there are many more of these changes, but these should be enough examples for you to make your choice. The worst part is that many of these changes can be found in the "new, modern" translations. I am disappointed in the translation of the MEV. I wish that they had stayed with the original intent of the King James translators as they say in the preface "to produce a more updated edition of the King James Version called the Modern English Version, which is based on a modern English vernacular."

Tom

Why I can recommend this particular Bible:

1. Large comfortable readable type.
2. Well laid out and invites reading.
3. KJV like reading but not archaic.
4. Seems durable.
5. Easy to handle.
6. Affordable. Even someone earning minimum wage in the USA could pay for one in four hours.
7. It is the Textus Receptus translated unabridged into contemporary English.
8. Many commonly memorized verses are virtually the same here as in the KJV.

I highly recommend this Bible. I was a KJV man for years, reading the 1611 almost exclusively. After reading the MEV I have made the switch and now read the Modern English Version in my daily devotions. The language has been updated without losing any of the reverence. The Old Testament poetry is especially impressive. The quality of the Binding is incredible for the price. In my opinion you cannot go wrong buying a smyth-sewn Bible. Should be around for years.

While this particular revision of the King James Bible is a definite improvement, it is still needs further revision. For instance, while the MEV does correct the King James regarding candles and candlesticks in the tabernacle (1 Chr. 28:15, 2 Chr. 4:7, 4:20) using instead lamps and lampstands, the MEV continues to use candles and candlesticks in all of the New Testament. All other translations used lamps and lampstands. Candles were not unknown in Biblical times but oil driven devices were lamps put onto lampstands, not candles on candlesticks - driven by wax or similar substances.

I am thankful that the translators no longer require the reader to believe in unicorns, satyrs, and cocktrices like the old King James will have us to do and we no longer have to believe that the ancestors of Esau were dukes, instead of clan leaders. Hopefully the next edition will correct the deficiencies found in this translation.