[boaz212]

I was asked this question about Young's Literal Translation.

What do think of the Young's Literal Translation Bible and his view on how the Bible should be translated? Young makes some interesting comments in the preface to the Revised Edition with regards to a “strictly literal” translation. He makes an issue of the tenses (i.e. present, past, future, etc.) and accuses the KJV translators of altering them, hence altering the meaning of the original text.

BTW, Young’s translation is also based on the Received Text.

Any input/insight will be much appreciated. Thanks.
Tim

[boaz212]

Here's some examples of the statements made against KJB:

The translations available at the time that this one was published had frequent departures from the original. The meaning of what the writers did write was being replaced by what they ought to have written.

The King James translators were unacquainted with two peculiarities of the Hebrew use of tense of verbs. Although there are several pages dealing with Hebrew verbs, there is no reference concerning what text was used in translating the Old Testament.

http://www.innvista.com/culture/reli...rsions/ylr.htm

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

boaz212, your questions cover a wide swath. The unusual Hebrew grammar theories of Young. The theories of whoever is behind that innvista site. Various theories of Hebrew grammar. Various errors in Young's Literal, the use of the less precise TR editions by Young etc. A vague accusation against "translations available at the time" which were generally far superior than what is put out today by the Version Industrial Complex.

Young seems to have the very strange idea that translating one word in many ways -- depending on the exact nuance of the verse for the precise translation -- is wrong, when often doing so is simply excellent translation. That may be why his version is so difficult to read and comes across as compartively lifeless and wooden.

Robert Young's theory of Hebrew grammar hardly get any serious consideration today. Here is one comment in b-hebrew from Randall Buth, who teaches Hebrew in Israel.

Verb Trial Thesis
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...il/012808.html
"As for a historic present thesis of vayyiqtol. That's not Hebrew, but
a dead end alley pursued by robert Young in the 19th century."

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[boaz212]

Hi Steve:
Thanks so much for your reply and the link. I will send the info to my friend. There are a lot of attcks on the KJB from the "scholars". They make their arguement sound academically sophisticated and convincing to many.

Here's an example of a verse comparison.

Ecc 3:11 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.

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. (Young's)

Thanks for your help!
Tim

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Tim, You would likely have to go back to the time Young did his translation to find the most powerful and clear refutations of his theories and translation, looking at numerous verses.

As an example, Charles Henry Hamilton Wright has a letter in the Journal of Sacred Literature (the discussion is only one book, Job, since the full text was not out yet) where Charles Wright talks about how Robert Young overrides the vowel points like a Mack truck (my words, not Wright). And shows in detail how Young comes up with a number of truly absurd and inaccurate translations.

Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record
http://books.google.com/books?id=_6fIhPBL_s0C&pg=PA456

Shalom,
Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

I think it is important to add that many people will adopt unusual theories of the Bible .., not because they are sensible, but simply because they can then try to avoid the authority of the pure King James Bible. So you might get somebody proclaiming Young's translation and grammar theories, an Aramaic Peshitta based NT, Webster's attempts from the early 1800s, the Geneva Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Modern King James and dozens of other attempts (often TR-based) not because they really have done an examination or esteem these versions as the pure word of God. Instead simply to give an alternative, an "out" .. for not accepting the perfection and authority of the King James Bible.

This also goes to textual and historical theories, such as lifting up the socalled "LXX", or an "original Hebrew NT" or even rcc folks who bring up the vulgate or any rcc-endorsed text.

Often they really do not know or understand or care about the perfection of the word of God, they are simply trying to find an alternative .. any alternative .. to recognizing the purity and perfection of the Holy Bible, the Authorized Version, the King James Bible.

Keep that in mind with this Young's fellow, so that you do not spend too much time on rabbit-trails.

Shalom,
Steven Avery