What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Most Literal Bibles

K

King James

Guest
Bible
Acquisition
Disorder

This is something I suffer from. Lately, I have been looking for the most literal bible versions. It seems that the YLT Young's Literal Translation is the most literal. Some don't like it because it uses Victorian English. For specification of singulars and plurals in many cases, there is no substitute in modern English. Others don't like that it uses the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. One thing I have determined, I don't think there is a more literal Old Testament.

For the New Testament, there are some modern language versions I have been looking at. The Christian Bible 1991/1995, and the ALT3 Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Third Edition.

TCB or The Christian Bible makes a lot of claims as you can see on these links:
http://www.theexaminer.org/volume7/number6/best.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308195836/http://www.christianbiblesociety.org/bible.shtml

The TCB claims primacy of the Westcott-Hort text [1881 A.D.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek
The only other new testaments I know of that use these base texts are the ASV 1901, the RV, and the Ivan Panin Numerics New Testament. Here is a PDF of it: http://www.ubp1.org/pdf/NENT.pdf

Attached is a comparison of the TCB and the Numerics. I put them in the right order but the website reversed them as usual:
 
ALT3 Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Third Edition is based off of the Byzantine Majority Text 2005. Just as TCB seems like a modern version of Ivan Panin's Numerics NT, the ALT3 seems to be a modern version of the YLT. Some information on the ALT 1st Edition, there is an indication that it was the general idea behind the translation to update the YLT. Of the ALT's I prefer the ALTD which has more of the extra info in the footnotes so it is less distracting for me. For the purposes of the comparison since I'm also trying to compare the TCB with the ALT, I chose the ALT3 for these thread comparisons since it has the extra information within the text like the TCB has. Attached is a comparison of Matthew 3 with the ALT3 and the YLT:
 
Interesting. I thought the KJV and NKJV were the only still-in-use versions which used the Textus Receptus.
 
You also have Jay P. Green's works: The MKJV, LITV, and KJ3. These are all bibles listed from first to last. The KJ3 was the final work before he passed. Also considered a very literal bible version. Your still-in-use term is interesting. If I read a Geneva wouldn't it be still-in-use? If still-in-use actually means mainstream use, then all of the bible versions on this thread are not still in use. The still-in-use or mainstream bibles or the frankentexts, don't have the most literal versions. NIV for instance, uses 9 other variant texts other than the OT and NT base texts that they use. Sometimes they footnote the usage of the variant, sometimes they don't. Not saying this practice is a bad thing, just clarifying what the majority of the still-in-use versions use. They only have literal versions within or in comparison to the still-in-use versions. So for a mainstream literal, you could say NASB and ESV perhaps. Maybe it's harder to make a more literal version when you are sampling form 11 texts opposed to just 2. Also, a most literal type doesn't rake in the big bucks like the still-in-use ones do and it would call attention to the mainstream that there may be a problem with their current versions as a plague of bible version snobbery might emerge. As you can see, the most literal versions mentioned here, with the exception of TCB, were done by a single person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yes but well its ok if we want to learn what it does say but as I was told with teaching kids."dumb it down" most American believers want an easy read. I hate to say that. if we are that worried about a bias then learn Hebrew and greek. good luck as that will take a while to be proficient enough with both. as then you have to learn the old Hebrew and koine greek neither of which is used daily.
 
farouk said:
questdriven said:
Interesting. I thought the KJV and NKJV were the only still-in-use versions which used the Textus Receptus.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

There's also the KJ21.

Blessings.
Click to expand...

I could have mentioned that but it's really just an attempt at language modernization like the KJV2000. Webster's Bible is the same as the KJV as well, just some grammar changes.
 
King James said:
farouk said:
questdriven said:
Interesting. I thought the KJV and NKJV were the only still-in-use versions which used the Textus Receptus.
Click to expand...
[MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION]:

There's also the KJ21.

Blessings.
Click to expand...

I could have mentioned that but it's really just an attempt at language modernization like the KJV2000. Webster's Bible is the same as the KJV as well, just some grammar changes.
Click to expand...

I guess there are various editions based on the King James, modernized a little.
 
Yes. They aren't going back to the original texts in some cases. Just hacking thru trying to modernize some words, sometimes with no knowledge of how to read the original texts. Usually these types of versions never fail to miss some of the old English as well as muddy some of the meaning. Kind of like Joseph Dumkin's "transliterations" of the Public Domain R. H. Charles works amongst others works of pseudepigrapha. The KJV doesn't own the Ben Asher and the TR. Let's not confuse actual translations with hacks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King James said:
Yes. They aren't going back to the original texts in some cases. Just hacking thru trying to modernize some words, sometimes with no knowledge of how to read the original texts. Usually these types of versions never fail to miss some of the old English as well as muddy some of the meaning. Kind of like Joseph Dumkin's "transliterations" of the Public Domain R. H. Charles works amongst others works of pseudepigrapha.
Click to expand...

Do you know of the 21st Century King James Publishers, Gary, South Dakota?

Blessings.
 
Original intention of the thread. To discuss what is the most literal version for the OT and NT. Any argument that the YLT is the most literal OT and most literal OT/NT combination? The only one in question that could come close is the KJ3 since it is complete. Questioning the Possibilities as far as the NT if the TCB or ALT3 or even the NENT is more literal that the YLT or KJ3 NT's and if so which of these is the most literal. Anyone interesting in discussing these questions? If the KJ21 maker is here and if I unfairly lumped him with the hacks instead of the scholars than apologies. The thread was derailed from the start and my desperate attempts to get it back on track never worked so I was kind of loosing it before.
 
jasoncran said:
yes but well its ok if we want to learn what it does say but as I was told with teaching kids."dumb it down" most American believers want an easy read. I hate to say that. if we are that worried about a bias then learn Hebrew and greek. good luck as that will take a while to be proficient enough with both. as then you have to learn the old Hebrew and koine greek neither of which is used daily.
Click to expand...
My aunt has a Bible with Hebrew and English side-by-side.


King James said:
Original intention of the thread. To discuss what is the most literal version for the OT and NT. Any argument that the YLT is the most literal OT and most literal OT/NT combination? The only one in question that could come close is the KJ3 since it is complete. Questioning the Possibilities as far as the NT if the TCB or ALT3 or even the NENT is more literal that the YLT or KJ3 NT's and if so which of these is the most literal. Anyone interesting in discussing these questions? If the KJ21 maker is here and if I unfairly lumped him with the hacks instead of the scholars than apologies. The thread was derailed from the start and my desperate attempts to get it back on track never worked so I was kind of loosing it before.
Click to expand...
I apologize. I don't know enough to discuss that particular topic.
You may be able to get a more serious discussion in the Bible study forum. If you like, you can ask one of the general talk mods to move this thread there.
 
while I understand that [MENTION=89910]questdriven[/MENTION] but she like all those that don't know the original tounges are subject to the bias of the translators.
 
Hmm...if that is a good idea. Thanks questdriven for the suggestion and Edward if you could. I'm regretting my user name now. King James was a bad name. I'm more like the jester.
 
I think that it's useful to remember that the term 'literal' is sometimes used interchageably with 'formal equivalence', in reference to Bible translations.

Blessings.
 
TRUTH over TRADITION said:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050308193313/http://christianbiblesociety.org/ntest.shtml

A translation known as 'A Non-Ecclessiastical New Testament as well as the 2001 Translation have been proven to be at the top of the literal and accuracy charts. The first can be googled and downloaded via pdf while the other is an online version that is easy to access by clicking on the link below.

www.2001translation.com
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link to that bible translation and to the link to the literalness test. You have the exact results of the version you linked? I'm going to run some bibles thru this test. From this link, many have already been ran thru this. Look towards the bottom of this page: http://www.theexaminer.org/volume7/number6/best.htm So the ones already done are: KJV, NIV, NASB, TEB, LB, NKJV, NCV, SEB, YLT, and CB.

FYI everyone, this is going to take a while. I'm testing 5 right now at the same time. After that, I'm going to have to test ones that are only in paper form or pdf form separately. I'll post the results in detail.

The current 5 I'm working on are: Geneva 1599, Darby, ESV, ASV, and CJB.
My future projects are ALTD, KJ3, and the Numerics or NENT.
I mention these now so in case other people want to get to work on some translations, we won't be doing double the work on the same ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
King James said:
The current 5 I'm working on are: Geneva 1599, Darby, ESV, ASV, and CJB.
Click to expand...


Just an update. My progress is slow as I don't have much time and I want to make sure my work is right. I'm also doubting the test itself as sometimes the tests correct word isn't the same as the inter-linear.
 
King James said:
King James said:
The current 5 I'm working on are: Geneva 1599, Darby, ESV, ASV, and CJB.
Click to expand...


Just an update. My progress is slow as I don't have much time and I want to make sure my work is right. I'm also doubting the test itself as sometimes the tests correct word isn't the same as the inter-linear.
Click to expand...

Remember also that an Interlinear has been described as a 'sideways word list'; it isn't a source of full definition, and language can be complex and rich.

Blessings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top