Ylt?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sovereign Grace

Sovereign Grace

Puritan Board Sophomore
What are you opinion(s) on the Young's Literal Translation? I have it on my Nook, and hopefully I'll have it in book forum before too long. Any thoughts, opinions, suggestions greatly appreciated...
 
Look it's worthwhile consulting as I think its a translation of the Received Text though it will give you more splinters than a NASB ( it's a little bit wooden).
 
It has Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 in brackets; though I do consult it once in a while to see how it translates certain passages. It is of value.
 
I use it fairly frequently in conjunction with the KJV. When I am reading on my tablet or smartphone, I have apps that will allows me to have to translations side by side. These translations are generally YLT and AV, as they are based on the same manuscript from my understanding, and sometimes the YLT is helpful in that it's more literal and another translation of those manuscripts. I do not have a print copy.
 
One Little Nail said:
it's a little bit wooden
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. And that is the point. It is painfully literal. I think the YLT is an excellent resource for those studying the Biblical text. Especially for those lacking a knowledge of the biblical languages. I interact with it on a weekly basis in sermon preparation.
 
Last edited:
I just a YLT in book form t'other day. I have been reading this translation on my Nook, but I prefer a book when truly studying. I was reading through Acts on my Nook, and I have read through chapter 18 of Matthew with the book. It's a most excellent read. I highly recommend it.
 
I have, Patrick. I use his three-column Gr.-Eng. Interlinear fairly often; it has a note in the Preface which disallows the authenticity of 1 Jn 5:7 and Acts 9:5, 6. It also is a very helpful version, but I disagree with this note.
 
Ask Mr. Religion said:
Have you looked at Jay Green's LITV translation?
Click to expand...

I've found the LITV to contain some incomprehensible rambling in its translation, most seemed to alright though it is wooden also & doesn't read smoothly, from a completely personal subjective assessment I've found that it lacks the
Spiritual savor or unction that say the KJB has. :think:
 
One Little Nail said:
it is wooden also & doesn't read smoothly
Click to expand...

The purpose of a very literal translation is to give, as far as possible, the closest rendering of the text in English. This means that proper English usage will set aside so as to reflect the word order of the Hebrew or Greek. Consequently you get a very literal rendering of the biblical text that sounds awkward and stilted to the modern English reader. But an easy-reading translation was not the goal. In fact, the more easy a translation is on the modern English ear, the less literal it likely is.

So translations like the YLT (and probably the LITV) serve a unique and invaluable role role in the field of translations. They are of great use to pastors and serious students of the Bible in gaining a better understanding of the original text (especially those without an understanding or Greek and Hebrew). They are not ideal for everyday reading as a "general purpose" Bible.
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
It has Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 in brackets; though I do consult it once in a while to see how it translates certain passages. It is of value.
Click to expand...

Do you know if this is the case with every version? I only have the YLT in digital copy, where mine lacks the brackets. I ask because I understand that Young also made a version based on a critical text.
 
From what I understand, the YLT was translated by one individual. Which means it reflects one man's beliefs, although "He was a moderate Calvinist, a simple Presbyterian, and a strict textual critic and theologian." Should this concern us? It does me. You are putting all your trust in one man's skills with no serious checks on his work. I have read some sentences of his work and found them to be completely incomprehensible and the meaning completely lost.

I've also read many negative comments (I have not verified all of them) about his translation philosophy in seeking to be more literal than the KJB and to translate every single word with one meaning despite the context. An example of the criticism would be like this: ever single time he came across a Greek word that might have 10 different meanings that changed depending on context, he tried to translate every single use as the most common definition and ignored the context and so never used the other 9 meanings. So he got the meaning incorrect many times because he ignored the context and focused too much on the form. I can't remember specific words but I have read he gets Eternal Life wrong and translates it often as "age".

Criticism from WIKI: "Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word αιων. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-enduring”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternality (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc.).

Tit 1:2 upon hope of life age-enduring, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages,"

How accurate is this ultra-literal translation? I do not trust it.
Does it lose the meaning in its attempt to cling to the form? I think yes. I do not believe that ultra-literal at the expense of meaning is the best philosophy. It produces an incorrect translation.
 
psycheives said:
From what I understand, the YLT was translated by one individual. Which means it reflects one man's beliefs, although "He was a moderate Calvinist, a simple Presbyterian, and a strict textual critic and theologian." Should this concern us? It does me. You are putting all your trust in one man's skills with no serious checks on his work. I have read some sentences of his work and found them to be completely incomprehensible and the meaning completely lost.

I've also read many negative comments (I have not verified all of them) about his translation philosophy in seeking to be more literal than the KJB and to translate every single word with one meaning despite the context. An example of the criticism would be like this: ever single time he came across a Greek word that might have 10 different meanings that changed depending on context, he tried to translate every single use as the most common definition and ignored the context and so never used the other 9 meanings. So he got the meaning incorrect many times because he ignored the context and focused too much on the form. I can't remember specific words but I have read he gets Eternal Life wrong and translates it often as "age".

Criticism from WIKI: "Another important feature of YLT is its treatment of the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word αιων. These two words have basically the same meaning, and YLT translates them and their derivatives as “age” or “age-enduring”. Other English versions most often translate them to indicate eternality (eternal, everlasting, forever, etc.).

Tit 1:2 upon hope of life age-enduring, which God, who doth not lie, did promise before times of ages,"

How accurate is this ultra-literal translation? I do not trust it.
Does it lose the meaning in its attempt to cling to the form? I think yes. I do not believe that ultra-literal at the expense of meaning is the best philosophy. It produces an incorrect translation.
Click to expand...
Many of the same criticisms would apply to Jaye Green and his KJVII. I find the KJVII and YLT to be a helpful resource to check against whatever I am currently reading.
Young's translation 'age-enduring' might have been better rendered 'unto ages of ages.'
 
F. F. Bruce was not exactly a fan of Young's Literal Translation. Here are Bruce's observation concerning Young's Literal Translation:
"Some versions and editions of the Bible which appeared in the 19th Century were designed to put the English reader as far as possible
on a level with the reader of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Such a work was Robert Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (1862). Young
best known for his Analytical Concordance of the Bible, was an Edinburgh bookseller with an insatiable appetite for the mastery of eastern
languages, ancient and modern (among his minor works is a translation of the Book of Chronicles into Gujarati). His Literal Translation is
practically a word for word translation of the original texts into English, but in the Old Testament it is largely vitiated by an eccentric theory about the
tenses of the Hebrew verb.The impression one gets from Young's translation with regard to Naaman the Syrian's compromising behavior in the house
of Rimmon is quite different from that given by other versions...."
History of the Bible in English, Third Edition, F. F. Bruce, New York, Oxford University Press, 1978 pages 132-133
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top