The Most Literal Version

Young's Literal Translation (YLT) seems to me to be the nearest an interlinear. Though, I've heard that it sometimes is faulty in tenses and nuances of the original languages. Not being an "expert" I'm not sure how much of a problem this really is.

Several Bible software programs have this version, as well as E-Sword.

 

According to my research the King James Bible is the only one that I have found that plainly says that it is a 'translation'. The others I have seen are labeled as 'versions'. However, since I do not have access to the original transcripts I cannot say which is the best. I prefer KJB.

 

Rev. Phil Parrish: "According to my research the King James Bible
is the only one that I have found that plainly says that
it is a 'translation'."

Did you mean to say this?
"According to my research the King James Bible
is the only one that I have found."

Personally I have three books on my computer
desk that i've seen called "the KJB".
So, I thought i might checked out what you said.
The first book i looked in was the Holman Christian Standard
Bible (HCSB). In the Introduction it says:
"The goals of this translation are: ... "

All four of the Bibles in my TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE
say they are translations right up front.

Save me some time. Tell me which Bible you found does NOT
plainly say translation. Thank you.

 

I'm not sure if the chart will appear above in the quote or not -- it doesn't show up here as I post.

First off, I don't like that they put The Living Bible and The Message on there since those are paraphrases and not translations. So many people seem unaware of that and putting them on the chart makes it seem like they are translations.

Also, I do not think the Amplified Bible belongs so far over to the left on the chart. Putting in all the different words a Hebrew or Greek word can mean in different contexts does not make it a good literal translation. In fact, the prof at my seminary who teaches Hebrew, Greek, OT, and Hermeneutics tells us that the Amplified makes a great doorstop.

Also, I am wondering where the NET Bible would fit on here? I think it is pretty literal and I tend to prefer it over the NASB. Does anyone else using the NET have an opinion as to where it should be on this chart?

You can read the NET bible and all its detailed footnotes at
http://netbible.bible.org/

 

I prefer the KJV [It has survived for almost 400 years with minor? changes] but I own, and on occasion use, a number of other Bibles including the 1611 KJV, the NKJV, the MKJV, Greens Interlinear Translation, the KJ2, the Third Millennium Bible, the ASV, the NASV [original], the ESV, the NIV, and have access to many other versions on the ONLINE BIBLE software. In my opinion you can take the various NIV's, the RSV, the NRSV, lump them in with all the so-called "thought for thought" versions and can them. I am not familiar with the NAB and the NJV. I had the HCSV New Testament but gave it away. From some of the reviews I have read of the completed version I am very disappointed that the Baptists couldn't do a better job.

 

Couldn't agree more

 

I'm not sure if the chart will appear above in the quote or not -- it doesn't show up here as I post.

First off, I don't like that they put The Living Bible and The Message on there since those are paraphrases and not translations. So many people seem unaware of that and putting them on the chart makes it seem like they are translations.</font>[/QUOTE]The Living Bible is paraphrased from the KJV but technically The Message is a translation (that takes the paraphrase form to the extreme, IMHO). It was translated from the Greek and Hebrew, not another English Bible.

My understanding is that the words in brackets are there to clarify an original-language when the English word could have more than one meaning. To me that makes it more literal, not less.

 

HUH?

They all say translations. Have you not read them?

By the way, which "VERSION" of the KJB are you referring to? Between Ed and I, we have about every version.

If you prefer the TR to other manuscripts, stick with the NKJV, too.

Of course, there is NOTHING wrong with a KJV, except that you may misunderstand many, many words that do not mean the same today as they did in the 17th century.

I got a kick at a mother saying her six year old could read the KJV and with a dictionary understand it. I wondered where she got a 17th century dictionary.

This is really a strange response, can you elaborate?

 

Joh 3:16

(ALT) "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten [or, unique] Son, so that every [one] believing [or, trusting] in Him shall not perish, _but_ shall be having eternal life!

(BBE) For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.

(CEV) God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never really die.

(Darby) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

(DRB) For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

(EMTV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

(ESV) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(GB) For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

(GNT-WH+) ουτως3779 ADV γαρ1063 CONJ ηγαπησεν25 V-AAI-3S ο3588 T-NSM θεος2316 N-NSM τον3588 T-ASM κοσμον2889 N-ASM ωστε5620 CONJ τον3588 T-ASM υιον5207 N-ASM τον3588 T-ASM μονογενη3439 A-ASM εδωκεν1325 V-AAI-3S ινα2443 CONJ πας3956 A-NSM ο3588 T-NSM πιστευων4100 V-PAP-NSM εις1519 PREP αυτον846 P-ASM μη3361 PRT-N αποληται622 V-2AMS-3S αλλ235 CONJ εχη2192 V-PAS-3S ζωην2222 N-ASF αιωνιον166 A-ASF

(KJV+) For1063 God2316 so3779 loved25 the3588 world,2889 that5620 he gave1325 his848 only begotten3439 Son,5207 that2443 whosoever3956 believeth4100 in1519 him846 should not3361 perish,622 but235 have2192 everlasting166 life.2222

(LITV) For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(UPDV) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

(YLT) for God did so love the world, that His Son--the only begotten--He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

 

"If you prefer the TR to other manuscripts, stick with the NKJV, too."

The NKJV is not translated from the TR, it comes from the MT.

 

Actually, the NKJV is more faithful to the TR than the KJV is. You may be thinking of its marginal notes that alert the reader to MT variations.

Andy

 

Research???

 

HUH?

They all say translations. Have you not read them?

By the way, which "VERSION" of the KJB are you referring to? Between Ed and I, we have about every version.

If you prefer the TR to other manuscripts, stick with the NKJV, too.

Of course, there is NOTHING wrong with a KJV, except that you may misunderstand many, many words that do not mean the same today as they did in the 17th century.

I got a kick at a mother saying her six year old could read the KJV and with a dictionary understand it. I wondered where she got a 17th century dictionary.

This is really a strange response, can you elaborate? </font>[/QUOTE]I refer to a 1613 printing of the King James Bible (Note: not King James Version) which has been in my family for many generations. Yes, there is a lot of difference between todays KJV and this edition. For those that find the KJV hard to read and understand you should try this one! Not a letter'J' in the entire thing. But it states that it is a translation from the original manuscripts. All other KJ Bibles I have seen state that they are revisions. As for NIV, KJV, LIV, ESV, ASV and other such as these, the name itself tells you it is a version of a Bible. I'm not saying the 1613 KJB is 100% accurate in its' translation (I don't have access to the original manuscripts to compare), I just haven't came across any other that doesn't say "revised" in it, didn't say they weren't out there. My resources don't allow me to purchase every Bible ever printed. I can just comment on the ones I have personal knowledge of.

 

The HCSB is not a revision of any previously existing Bible. It is a new translation from the original language manuscripts. It is not as literal as the NASB, but I like it. It is really easy to read, and I can get through large portions of it rather quickly compared to some other versions.

 

I believe a completely-literal English translation would be very hard to read for several reasons. First, the comprehension of English is very dependent upon the order of the words in the sentence, while Hebrew and Greek are much less dependent on word order & that's reflected in the old texts.

Second, every translator must make many choices of what are the best renderings in the particular uses of many words/phrases with multiple meanings. Since each translator is a unique person, no two translations will be 100% alike. A familiar example is the Hebrew word re'em. I recently asked a Jewish friend about it again, and he even called Hebrew University! He explained that re'em could have been almost any large, powerful horned animal with a wild and belligerent temperament, and that could include the auroch or its relatives, or the rhino, although he couldn't be sure how familiar the old Israelis may have been with this animal. And he reminded me that in the 16th-17th centuries, most of the peoples of Europe believed the horse-like unicorn was an actual creature, and that the Scottish royal coat-of-arms featured a unicorn...and that King James designed a new coat-of-arms for his House of Stuart featuring both the British lion and the Scottish unicorn. And, he also reminded me, THE MESSAGE OF THE VERSES IS STILL THE SAME, whether the actual re'em was a rhino, auroch, or some other creature with similar features.

Thus, the AV translators, knowing KJ's symbol included a unicorn, chose it as their re'em, while later translators, knowing, far as their knowledge went, that the unicorn was fictional and the auroch was real, chose 'wild ox'.

Thus, according to those Jewish sources, re'em woulf hafta be rendered 'large, powerful horned animal' in a strictly literal translation.

The same God who made all languages and causes/allows all changes within them is the God who's given us His word within HIS languages as He chooses. It's simply impossible to exactly translate any writing such as the entire Bible word-for-word from its original(far as we know)languages into any other language. God, of course, knew this before any translation of His word was ever done, but certain people devoted to just one version just cannot accept this.

This sounds escapist, but we must simply TRUST GOD to have presented US with His word as He chose for us to have it, same as He's done for the Chinese and the Ilyuts.

 

Thanks for the correction. My post should read Bishops' Bible, not Geneva.