Customer Reviews

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Hebrews had a dynamic way of saying things. They would speak of past circumstances in the present tense to pull you into the middle of it, to let you experience it. They would use the past tense to show that future things will definitely come to pass, thus assuring that God's promises are a sure thing. Also, there are many times when modern translations hide the actual meaning of the Hebrew by converting a present-tense verb into the future tense, thus veiling the fact that the verse is speaking of what should be a present, everyday experience rather than one waiting to happen. Good examples would be Psalm 1 where the last verse is usually translated "shall perish" wheras the Hebrew tense says "has perished" showing the definiteness that the ungodly will definitely perish; in other words, the Hebrew says that it's as good as done. Also, verse 3 ususally reads "whose leaf also shall not wither, and whatever he does shall prosper." But the actual Hebrew tenses agree with New Testament teaching, for it truly says "whose leaf also does not wither, and whatever he does propers." That's right: It's not simply a promise for the future, but a promise for the present everyday life of God's people. And there's more than that. Other translations of the Old Testament reset the tenses of the Hebrew verbs based on a fallicy that the Hebrew letter Waw or Vav had a converting power over the tense. But no language of that time including Hebrew showed any such conversive grammar. And the translators have broken their own rule about the Waw conversive uncountable times. If you want to read the Old Testament in the dynamic presentation of actual Hebrew tenses, this is the only Bible that stays true to it. And don't worry about knowing how the Hebrew tenses work. Young explains it pretty simply in the front of the Bible and also gives more details for the "intellectual." If you read this translation in the Old Testament, you won't read the Old Testament the same way again.

Contrary to the Amazon note on this book, the book is not out of print.

When I read alone or really need to know what GOD thinks of a situation the Young's Literal is the bible I grab.The verb usage is as close to GOD speaking as I can find,and I have 30 years of study,and taught the manifestations of Holy Spirit.If the King James seems contradictory this Bible will help show you how the Word fits,that there are no contradictions just different circumstances and events that make it seem contradictory.The only weakness is the binding,I've worn out four of this edition.This is the translation to seek if you want clear insight into the Father's ways. Ted

Thanks be to the Lord God for a second English translation Bible with the Textus Receptus-based New Testament.

Together with Mr J.P. Green's LITV, it has formed "the tripartite" for this reviewer, viz. KJV-LITV-YLT.

Feedback:
Has unusual binding for such a thick 'book'- looks dangerously weak.
It being paperback may well limit its robustness.
The font size is small, tough on the eyes truly.

not withstanding the its physical form, precious 66 books to possess & read.

may the authorized publisher see this review and give us a bigger font and leather bound version very soon.

Not just like normal Bibles, it gives the literal words that GOD used. It sounds like the sentences are written backwards, but Young says that most translators changed the Hebrew and Greek tenses around to fit it into english grammar, so he uses the literal tenses. A normal Bible might say "Thou shalt not murder", but this one says "Thou DOST not murder", as if GOD is saying it in faith, and He is.

Not just like normal Bibles, it gives the literal words that GOD used. It sounds like the sentences are written backwards, but Young says that most translators changed the Hebrew and Greek tenses around to fit it into english grammar, so he uses the literal tenses. A normal Bible might say "Thou shalt not murder", but this one says "Thou DOST not murder", as if GOD is saying it in faith, and He is.

After quite an extensive search from Wycliffe through Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, KJ1611 and on through more modern attempts, I've found as many others, that Young's Literal Translation (3) of 1898 stands as what is likely the most accurate "transliteration" of the earliest available manuscripts. This of course keeping in mind that there are no "originals" existing (or at least known) of either the Hebrew OT or Greek NT, without which we are still standing on faith and the promise of GOD'S own preservation of his word. It's unfortunate that Young's work is not made more widely available on the market for those of us in search of the closest English version of the earliest works, keeping in mind too that "GOD'S Word" is quite a different concept than "GOD'S WordS" in that the spiritual understanding of THE WORD as a whole is much more desired than the literal WORDS themselves. But as others have commented in the past, we are much more likely to understand what the Bible tells us if we have the words relayed in their closest form of meaning and usage that is understandable in our own language.

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 wjcharliee@hotmail.com and put in the Subject Line: "Greek Questions".

I really love how this translation gives you a more precise understanding of how the Bible was actually written. For instance, there is a chapter in Matthew (KJV etc) that has confused a lot of Christians for many years. But, in the correct translation as in YLT, it is not confusing at all. I find myself reading from the Young's version rather than the KJV now.

My husband and I have been studying nearly every night, and have learned so much more with this version. I feel this also reaffirms the fact that early Christians kept the Feasts and the Laws as Jesus, the Disciples, and Apostles did. And, as God has commanded.

One of the most obvious examples of a transliteration that has changed our (modern-day Christians) way of thinking, in terms of Christianity, is the word "church." The KJV and other versions have all implemented the Greek "frame of thought" for the words "synagogue" and "assembly" (both meaning the same). The word "synagogue" was thought to be too Jewish, therefore changed to "church" (new word) in the common versions. The word "church" is not even a word in Hebrew..or Greek for that matter, but used instead by the Greek translator(s) to disassociate with Judaism, or Messianic Judaism (Judeo-Christians). This is one reason we have so many religions/beliefs throughout Christianity unfortunately.

Another example is the word "Hell". This is not used in Hebrew, and it does make a big difference when you put the correct word(s) and use in context of the verse(s). The tenses are also very important, as I have learned, as to how you understand God's word. It makes all the difference in most cases. Again in Matthew, there is an example where Jesus (Yeshua=Salvation) speaks in the past tense, however it is translated in KJV etc, to mean in the future tense. It does mean in the future tense, however, it also means in the past tense...it's complicated to explain, but blew our minds when we realized how prophetic and miraculous this revelation is. And the birth and death of Christ Lord was so planned out, that Jews have been practicing for His arrival since the beginning.

The tenses also change how we perceive punishment etc. God clearly states that He "punished those" and "will punish". We translate it to mean the future tense with "will punish", but the true translation makes it clear that many have already been punished, therefore it is a definite thing..and there's no room for interpretation or negotiation. When you read the true word of God, it leaves less wiggle room to use our own words to interpret the truth. In which case, if we were to use our own words, it would be blasphemous and a lie. I think I will stick with what God says, because with the YLT I don't really have to assume or guess as much.

In other words, I find the Young's translation to be more understandable because God's true word is not meant to confuse anyone who believes, I get that now. Having the more true word of God has actually answered a lot of lingering questions that we had. I was very surprised. Actually, it has made God's word seem so much more deep, yet much more understandable. I'm so glad God brought this to my attention!

I am not saying that anyone who reads the usual translation won't receive the message that is intended, however, if you are studying the Bible and have questions, the YLT would be the way to go.

The draw backs are (and why I gave it 4 stars) that the words are very small. I had to order a magnifying glass. And the sentences in many cases do not fit on the line, therefore, in some cases, a word at the end of a sentence is sometimes added above or below the end of that line. I believe that instead of adding as much space as they did between each sentence, they should have just added additional lines so that the complete sentence would flow as it should. It has been a little difficult determining if the word that is added above or below the last word of a sentence actually belongs to the sentence you are reading, or if it belongs to the one below it..if that makes any sense? You have to read the sentence in that case a couple of times to make sure that it does belong to the sentence you are reading. I'm getting used to it, and it certainly doesn't keep me from reading it.

So, the format of the text is not ideal. But the text itself is very informative and useful. That's why I have picked up the Young's every night since I got it, more than the KJV.

Hope this helps.

Young's is MY favorite English version (and I've read through at least 5 others: KJV, NEB, old ASB, NIV, and CEV), but it may be too difficult for some people, so get an easier Bible if you need to. (CEV's the easiest I've read.) And you might not understand Young's unless you already know what the text means. And on its own lines, it could be more literal and more accurate, though probably only an interlinear Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/English would do this.

Around 20 Jan. A.D. 2011, (boring?) videos of me reading it, and making such improvements as I can while I read, should start appearing on associated content, D.V. Psalm 119 is up already. Nice not to have to worry about copyright. Lohr's Literal Translation...

Young made a terrific effort and a tremendous contribution, trying to translate what the text said instead of what he thought it meant in his (Victorian) English. (Leland Ryken, I think, wrote a book defending more literal translation against the "dynamic equivalence" or 'meaning-for'meaning' that is all the rage these days.) Leave that to commentators and preachers, Young would say; explain and apply the text, but don't rewrite it.. I think looser translations have their place, and sometimes being literal at one point forces the translator to loosen another point in his translation, but I thank God for Young. Imagine doing this with a pen that you had to dip into an inkwell!

I think it was reprinted from printer's plates made in A.D. 1898, with small print and probably some missing pieces of letters--you should be able to figure such places out, but be warned. And lines are crowded; I think the ends of some long lines appear on the lines above, not just below. Watch out. But if you want the Bible in English raw rather than cooked, Young's is hard to beat (except maybe by an interlinear).

I read the reviews that warned about it but disregarded them and now I find myself wondering why, with such a small typeface, is it still so thick?