Young's Literal Translation of the Bible [Hardcover]

Robert Young (Translator)

Book Description

Publication Date: March 1, 2005

Robert Young's 1898 edition of his translation. This is the third and last edition that he produced. Translation uses the same Elizabethian language that the King James Version uses. However, being a strictly literal translation, the word order is different from the KJV, so it does read different than the KJV and can be difficult at times to read. Being a strictly literal translation makes it the perfect study tool. You can now see exactly what God said and how He said it. There is no changing of words, no softening of words or passages, just translated strictly as it was written in the original languages. Text is done in 9 point print, which is larger and easier to read than the print sizes used in the past by other publishers. Sturdy 4-color hardback cover. This translation will allow the reader to see exactly what God said and will allow a more precise study of the Bible. How can a reader study a Bible when the translators have have interpreted instead of translated? The vast number of modern translation interpret (tell you what they thought God meant) instead of translate (tell you what God actually said). When Robert Young translated this edition, he was not trying to please or appease someone, he was not trying to be politically correct, he was not translating in an attempt to rewrite the Bible to fit his theological beliefs. With this Bible, you get the word of God and nothing but the word of God.

Editorial Reviews

Review

Robert Young (1822-1888) was a Scottish editor and publisher who became proficient in several ancient languages through self-study. He received his education at private schools, 1827-38; served an apprenticeship to the printing business, 1838-45, using his spare time to study the oriental languages; became a communicant in 1842; joined the Free Church, and became a Sabbath-school teacher in 1843. In 1847 he took up printing and bookselling on his own account, proceeding to publish books that tended to further the study of the Old Testament and its ancient versions. He was a strict textual critic and theologian. His important work was the Analytical Concordance to the Bible (Edinburgh, 1879). Young was celebrated as an editor and translator of Jewish and Biblical writings in various languages, especially in Hebrew, Samaritan, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Gujarati, thus and in other ways contributing to the apparatus for textual criticism. --This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 740 pages
• Publisher: Greater Truth Publishers; 3rd edition (March 1, 2005)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0965307859
• ISBN-13: 978-0965307857
• Product Dimensions: 10.6 x 6.6 x 1.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 3.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (35 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #50,208 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

171 of 180 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Most Accurate Translation to date, August 18, 2004

By 

Douglas Krause "WJCharliee" (Delaware, OH [USA]) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (Paperback)

I have in my personal library (hardback and electronic) 70+ bible translations from Hebrew, Greek, Latin to English, German, French, etc. I use the 100% free downloadable E-Sword program (www.e-sword.net) that has 67 Bibles 27 English & 40 Foreign (Asian, European, African, North/South Americas, & Australia) including Greek/Hebrew MSS of Critical, Majority, and Textus Receptus; 15 Commentaries(e.g., Matthew Henry); 13 Dictionaries/Encyclopedias (e.g., Vine's); 7 Graphics(e.g., Rev. Larkin's "Dispensational Truth"); 37 Christian Classic Books(e.g., John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion"; 3 Devotions(e.g., Spurgeon's "Morning & Evening"). In addition, I have used hardback Interlinear Bibles (Marshall's, McReynold's) as well as those on E-Sword.

After taking Greek Courses online, I have found the YLT is the most-accurate/best of all English Bibles Old and New Testament (w/ Darby a close 2nd) of all time-- better than ASV 1901, NASB, NKJV, or any other formal/literal translation.

Dynamic translations are not as accurate, but readable (e.g., NIV, RSV, NLT); however, the interlinear translations (Young's, Green's, Darby's, McReynold's, Marshall's, Morris') are the most accurate than the formal translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB). Dynamic translation translate using a "thought-for-thought" methodology whereby the translator "translates" as well as "interprets" the bible. This allows the "translators" to become "commentators" whereby he/she can interject (consciously or unconsciously) his/her doctrinal bias which are not supported/found in the Original Greek and Hebrew O.T. and N.T. The Formal and Interlinear/Literal translations translate using a "word-for-word" method whereby the translator "translates" only. This prevents him/her from interpreting or imputting any doctrinal bias not found in Original Word of God (Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts). The Interlinear translation is more accurate than the Formal because it follow the Greek Grammar and Syntax (word order), while the Formal follows more of an English Grammar and Syntax to improve readabibility, but at the cost of accurancy. The Interlinear translation has the Greek text with the his translation underneath each hebrew & greek word.

So after comparing for the 5+ years the following Interlinear translations of Old & New Testament [Jay P. Green's LITV, Zondervan's Parallel N.T. by Alfred Marshall, Young's Literal Translation (YLT), Analytical-Literal Translation (ALT), Darby's Translation, Morris's Literal Translation] as well as formal translations (ASV, Amplified Bible, NASB, NASB update, NKJV, MKJV) with respect to the Greek and Hebrew, YLT is the best with Darby's as a strong 2nd place. Because it follows the Hebrew and Greek Grammar and Syntax the best of all.

The only disadvantage of YLT is that it does not use the latest Critical Texts as NASB. However, the Textus Receptus (YLT, KJV) and Critical Text (NASB, NRSV, NIV) agree 99.9% in the text and the footnotes at the bottom of NIV, NASB, and NRSV, since all include the ending of Mark 16 and John 8 adulteress woman. Anyway, Darby supplements the difference between Majority text vs. Critical text if one is picky in this respect.
[NOTE: McReynold's Interlinear is the BEST N.T. translation than even YLT or Darby's; however, it does not do the Old Testament!]

If you have any further questions, e-mail me at [e-mail] and put in the Subject Line: "Greek Questions".

Was this review helpful to you?

74 of 79 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars About as Good as It Gets, October 20, 2006

By 

Christopher C. Alsruhe (Baltimore, Maryland United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (Paperback)

I have long enjoyed, as a studious person [...] about knowing things exactly as they really are, the YLT. My two preferred English versions of the Bible for study are the YLT and Green's Interlinear. Both are very literal and far more consistent, and thus accurate to translating words and verb tenses. I'm not sure which I'd put over the other, for both have their need for updating for even better accuracy. But, where one falls short, relatively rare, the other often has the repair.

The YLT holds to the old view that Ancient Hebrew and other Semitic languages had tense embedded in their verbs. This view has long come under strong challenge for good reason and must be rethought, but not necessary replaced in the end. "An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Grammar" does great in revealing the latest results of vast studies. Young also denies the Waw Conversive/Reversive. Modern investigation has proven the need for denying the converting Waw also, but rather suggests a Waw Relative. Again the book mentioned above explains this well. But in the end, Young's view may still very well stand, and I personally tend to think it probably does.

One of the advantages of Young's translation of Hebrew verbs into past or present tense only is that one can tell which type of Hebrew verb is actually used: perfective suffix form, imperfective prefix form, participle, command, cohortative, and so forth. Just knowing this improves one's understanding, though studying Hebrew for about a year, and the studying the Introduction book above is absolutely necessary to know what this is about.

But where every translation fails, even the most literal to this point, and the Introduction book mentioned is amazing on understanding this point, Hebrew verbs fall into catagories called stems, and each stem has a specific literal meaning which must be added to the lexical meaning of the verb itself if a true literal meaning is to be translated. To say it differently, not to translate the stem meaning fully is to leave out half the meaning intended, and leaving for speculation four possible meanings which the reader cannot discern without a good study of Hebrew. For example, the Qal stem may say David obeyed God. But the Piel stem would say David was in a continuing state of obeying God. Further, the Piel and Hiphil stems can differ on the action of the subject. In the statement, David built the wall, in Piel, it means that David put the wall into a state of being built, but David didn't likely get his own hands dirty in building it. He built it by commanding its building. But the same statement in the Hiphil stem would mean that David literally built the wall, got his hands dirty, and himself put stone upon stone. An active verb can use 5 of the stems, each with its own meaning. Without translating this, it a guess. But Young is not to blame for two reasons: no one has ever done it, and secondly. . . .

The reason such consistency of translation is not performed, and though it is really needed because of inaccuracies of understanding without it, such a translation of the OT would be huge because of the needed addition of the words which translate the stem idea. Imagine tranlating every Piel verb (into the 10's of thousands) as "X put Y into a continuing state of Z-ing." (No, that's not sleeping. he he)

I would only mention at this point some of the shortcomings of this translation where one would not expect them, which deal with incorrect words. The first example would be the word "temptation." The Greek word used in Matt. 6 and elsewhere does not mean temptation at all, but trial. There is a different word for temptation, such as later in James 1 where it says God cannot be tempted. A second example involves the subjunctive, "if," which in Greek has 3 or 4 roots, each with a different meaning. In 1 John 2, ("and if anyone sins") and in Mt. 4 (If You are the Son of God), the meaning of this particular Greek root is "If such and such is true, AND IT IS." A literal word-for-word translation would thus be "Since you are the Son of God" and "Since anyone sins."

It is for these missed translations and the lack of translating verb stems full that I give 4 stars. But compared with all other translations out there, based on accuracy and manuscripts used, YLT and Green's Interlinear, being so far out ahead of the rest, I give 7 stars.

On the other hand, Young accurate translates words such as parousia (presence, not coming), and meno (about to be/happen [meaning right around the corner, as it were; not shall be/happen). This is a big plus for the preterist brethren. Mt. 18:18 is also very important. It's not "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" using an ambiguous verb "shall" that can be in any tense, but "whatever you bind on earth shall be, having already been bound in heaven" or as Williams states it, "shall have already been bound in heaven." Our charismatic/Pentecostal brethren need to consider trusting literal translations much more than popular translations, and that really goes for everyone, such as our KJV-only brethren.

A final note on that last comment. The KJV has many poorly translated words, and this after 12 revisions. And to return to the 1611 edition is unwise since right after putting it out, the very original translators worked to put out new editions to correct their own mistakes, and some were real doozies (such as "thou shalt murder," "thou shalt commit adultery"; the translators had a tendency to forget the word "not" in various places as did Green's Modern KJV). The KJV also is poor in translating verb tenses and conditions, translating passives as actives, participles as perfects, and on and on. I'm not saying abandon the KJV; I'm saying put the YLT or Young's Literal (both based on Textus Receptus/Maj. text manuscripts as is the KJV) next to it, for by itself, the KJV does teach inaccurately when compared with the very manuscripts it was translated from.

One last note, in reference to another review, the reason literal translations have odd word orders for us is because just about any word order was allowed in Greek, and almost to the same extent in Hebrew. This is because of using a case system. You could put, for instance, a subject in any position in the sentence and still know it was a subject because it had the subject case ending, and the same with the object of the sentence. The advantage is that word order could be used to produce emphatic structures. Whereas we use bold, underline, capitals, or italics to emphasize, the Greek bumped the emphatic word, syntagm, or phrase to the front of the sentence. Consider that each time you read a phrase or sentence, and especially when you notice that the word order is somewhat backwards from the way we write, note that the words seemingly out of place by being the in front are emphasized. For example, I can say, "I love you." Or I can can say "I love YOU." The Greeks would have said "You I love," meaning I love YOU, not someone else. If it is left as "I love you," the 'I' is emphasized meaning that "It is I that loves you." This could mean that it is I, not him, that loves you. Or, if God is speaking, "It is I, who am holy beyond imagination, who loves you (a sinner). In other words, can you believe that it is I that actually loves you? So again, the words in the front are the emphasized words.

42 of 45 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Best study version yet, August 6, 2005

By 

A. LeClaire (Indiana, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (Paperback)

Young's Literal Translation is considered one of the most accurate and literal translations that has been done. Robert Young did a very good job in creating a word for word translation. It is based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, the same texts that were used for the King James Version. For this reason, it reads similiar to the King James Version, right down to the Elizabethian English (thee, thou, etc.).

For the most part, Young put down the English words in the order that he translated them. This does make it a little harder to read than the King James Version, but it is still pleasant to read and is a huge study help. Being in this format though does promote deeper thought on a lot of the verses, because you are seeing them in a different light.

Unlike the dynamic equivalent translations today (the NIV is an example), Young's Literal lets you know exactly what God said (without a "translator" telling you what he thought God meant instead of what God actually said). If you do not know exactly what God said, how can you do exactly what God tells you to do?

This edition is done in 9 point print. This makes it larger print than most of the recent editions, some of which make you want to grab a magnifying glass. It is 2 columns per page on sturdy paper. It is a little thick (about 1 13/16 inches thick), but it is a good trade-off because of the thicker paper, which makes note taking a bit easier, even though the margins are very small.

I would say that this is an excellent translation and that this edition of it was very well done. Large page size, larger print size than most editions, sturdy pages and low price (being a paperback) makes this edition an excellent choice.

For those wanting something without the Elizabethian English, the publisher (Greater Truth Publishers) is getting ready to release a Modern Young's Literal Translation New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs at the end of August 2005, and a complete Bible towards the end of the year. They are modernizing the language to today's English and re-arranging sentence structures to today's structures. I do not think that this will detract from the original translation, I think that it will actually make it more readable and easier to use. A word-for-word translation is not based on writing down the words in the exact order of translation, it should be based on using ALL of the translated words set into a readable format. I think that the Modern Young's Literal Translation will do well and will definitely be one that I use.