Customer Reviews

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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".

Was this review helpful to you?

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.

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.

This book is really great! most common translations of the Bible are translated sentence by sentence. this means that the translators must interpret what they read. This translation is word by word, so The Holy Spirit can help you interpret what God inspired His prophets to write!
Because I don't know who are the Bible translators, what their faith is and if they are inspired by God to translate according to His will, I was very happy to find this translation, even though I can read three languages and compare the verses.

One Bible scripture caused me to buy this book. If you like a little Bible study read on :)
Ecclesiastes 3:11
(King James Version)
"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end."

(English Standard Version)
He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.

(Young's Literal Translation)
"The whole He hath made beautiful in its season; also, that knowledge He hath put in their heart without which man findeth not out the work that God hath done from the beginning even unto the end."

Apparently the word 'which' has not been translated in the KJV and the word 'knowledge' has been translated to 'world'. And the Standard Version translation translates 'knowledge' into 'eternity'. But then it states that God gives eternity so that man cannot understand? Does God want man to be without understanding so He gives him eternity in his heart?
This doesn't really make sense to me or match the rest of God's word which states in different places that man can't find out God's plans on his own but God certainly gives His divine Spirit to His people to walk in the light because He wants us to have understanding. see Romans 1:19-20, Ecc 8:16-17, 1 Corinthians 2, Colossians 2:2
I was happy to find this translation which at least in this case is more in harmony with the rest of the scripture.

I read all of the reviews I could find on this title before purchase. I have accessed the YLT for many years as it is built into my Online Bible program. It was only in recent months that I was doing a study and tarted noticing modern translations were missing some very clarifying words and translational issues that i was finding in the YLT, so I began looking into a hard copy. After reading all the pro and cons, I bought this edition and am now contemplating buying a Bible cover for it to begin carrying it as my normal Bible.

From a non technical side of things, the pros I found with this volume are the nice bright white pages that are very easy to read. Also, the pages are on thicker paper, unless most thin Bible paper, making them appear whiter, as well as keeping highlighting and writing from bleeding through.

Pitfalls: The pages are cut so close to the text that their is literally NO room to write any notes. I guess this was geared more to be just a reference book, so they felt no need to make room for notes. I guess that may be the reason there is also no paragraph markings in the text.

I would love to see a version released more similar to a regular Bible. My ultimate goal is to find one with decent sized border room to write; thick pages to stop bleed through; center column cross references; and I would really love to find one with a removal of chapter and verse numbering, and restoration of paragraph breaks, making for a truly "readable" letter format (so much emphasis and thought process can get lost because of these man made divisions). But until such a dream comes true, this version will suffice.

Young's strict adherence to the accurate rendition of what the original Hebrew/Greek text says is very refreshing in this era of making the bible "easy to understand" which really amounts to clouding the real meaning of the word.

He makes a particular point of following the Hebrew writers habit of
1. using the past tense to express the certainty of an action -especially to Language as used by God for example Gen 17:6 side by side with KJV

KJV: Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

YLT: Gen 17:6 and I have made thee exceeding fruitful, and made thee become nations, and kings go out from thee.

As you can see YLT writes it as Moses said and as Hebrew writers would write to depict certainty.

2. YLT also makes a strong point of reverting more to using the present tense.

This may seem innocuous to faithful translation of the bible, but as Young puts in his words
"if a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; ... it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence." YLT's Preface to the Revised Edition.

I love this translation. It is extremely literal - very - and that is why I would gladly recommend this bible to anyone even to the beginner.

Paul

dissapointing on kindle, I was not able to use this at all, there are no table of cont or book, chapter, or verse shortcuts, this is totally a waste to buy for any e-book reader, I write this with a heavy heart and hope this review will save others this same heartache

This is an excellent Bible to have as an additional resource. In my personal studies I have found that on occasions it provides a better depth and level of accurcy than the King James. Below I will give a couple of examples:

[1] Proverbs 29:18

King James Version:
Where there is no vision, the people perish: ....
Young's Literal Translation:
Without a Vision is a people made naked, ....

The accuracy of the Young's Translation is seen in Exodus 32:25 - And when Moses saw that the people were naked; {They had lost their vision of following the LORD and made unto themselves a golden calf}

[2] Acts 12:4

King James Version:
.... intending after Easter to bring him forth ....
Young's Literal Translation:
.... intending after the passover to bring him forth ....

At that time the Jewish people never celebrated anything such as Easter. The term Easter was developed from the old english word Eastre or Eostre, this was around the year 899. This term was developed from a month on the germanic callender: Eostur-monath. This month (April) was named after the pagan goddess Eostre.

Maybe the King James translaters were influenced by the german Lutheran translators, but it was erroneous.

I like just the translation of the original words. For example every other bible I have or looked at, in Genesis 6:4
uses the word (Giants or Nephilim) Youngs translation says (Fallen Ones) then in Numbers 13:33 everyone else is still using the words (Giants or Nephilim) and Youngs uses the word (Nephilim) here . This says to me the (ONES) in Genesis 6 are different from the (ONES) in Numbers 13:33. To me I conclude fallen "Angels" are being spoken of in Genesis 6:4 and offspring of Fallen Angels or Nephilim, which were giants, are being spoke about in Numbers 13:33. This changes your understanding of why God sent the flood upon the world to destroy all of the flesh corrupted by the fallen angels, by the way Youngs calls them "Messengers" not angels.

There is so much more to be learned by comparing the original words and the translations of what the translators thought the original was trying to say. This is a very worthwhile book if you're a thinker looking for answers.

The cover, print and paper are fine and sturdy. For some reason, the more I use it the more I like the binding and it's red, white and blue. There are no typical extras. It does come with a chronological order of the books of the Bible and a few other things. Bottom line: if you like Young's you won't be disappointed. The Concordance is nice too and if you've never used one, it comes in handy. Particularly, for folks who go to the trouble to read Young's.