Bible Study Most Literal Bibles

[Asyncritus]

Just a question here guys.

Why do you want (or need) a literal translation?

A completely literal translation would be totally incomprehensible to us, because of the syntax and the completely different arrangement of the word order.

I used the interlinear Greek/English Diaglott for a while, but I was unable to read the english translation under the greek, and make a great deal of sense of it.

In my opinion, to the great majority of us average guys, a literal translation won't be of much use. YLT is nearest, but even that doesn't use the word order of the originals.

 

[Deborah13]

I used the interlinear Greek/English Diaglott for a while, but I was unable to read the english translation under the greek, and make a great deal of sense of it.

I only use it for studying difficult passages. The one I use online has the parsing for the grammar.
I have another Gk study site I use and connected to that site is a Christian site, that can be helpful with the grammar, too.

 

[Deborah13]

I have heard of a concordance type computer program where one can mouse over a word and it brings up the greek or hebrew right then...anyone know what it's called?

esword ?? A mod here told me about it. You can download it for free. It's wonderful. Even a place for your own study notes. What you are talking about is the Strong's Concordance comes up by pointing at a Strong's number in the verse. You can set it for the numbers to show and with a click they are gone.

 

[Deborah13]

esword ?? A mod here told me about it. You can download it for free. It's wonderful. Even a place for your own study notes. What you are talking about is the Strong's Concordance comes up by pointing at a Strong's number in the verse. You can set it for the numbers to show and with a click they are gone.

Ahh, thank you! Free also huh? you can't beat that! I'm off to download it. I have been using ISA, but is is confusing and hard to use, for me at least.

There is a tutorial on the esword site. There is a charge for extra versions of the Bible and commentaries, but I don't remember how much.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hey Edward

Why not have a look at the Online Bible? It's free too (unless you want to buy the locked versions on which they have to pay royalties.

It's simpler than esword, and uses Strong's concordance too.

If you're that way inclined, there are dozens of commentaries and books on tap in the program (for free, as well).

Enjoy!

 

[farouk]

It's good when Bible programs use the Strong's numbers.

Blessings.

 

[Asyncritus]

It's all there in OLB. Like this: Just hit the Strong's tab and...

16 For <1063> God <2316> so <3779> loved <25> (5656) the world <2889>, that <5620> he gave <1325> (5656) his <846> only begotten <3439> Son <5207>, that <2443> whosoever <3956> believeth <4100> (5723) in <1519> him <846> should <622> <0> not <3361> perish <622> (5643), but <235> have <2192> (5725) everlasting <166> life <2222>.

But only if you want it.

Click on the number, hit the FIND function button, and immediately all the places where that particular GREEK (or HEBREW) word is used, appears

This is far more useful than finding a list of where the same ENGLISH word is used, because as you know, the same English word can hide the fact that there are several Greek (or Hebrew) words being used.

'Love' being the classic example: agapeo, erotaw, phileo and maybe others are all translated 'love'. It's useful to know which one you're thinking about.

But that's my experience, and I hope you get what you need and are looking for.

 

[Sparkey]

Lately, I have been looking for the most literal bible versions.

Translators have a difficult job especially when translating into English. Our language has so many overlapping meanings among words. Finding the best English word to carry a specific meaning can be daunting. Young's Literal does an excellent job of preserving the tense of the verbs. Consider the familiar Genesis 1 passages:

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth —
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3 and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.
4 And God seeth the light that it is good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,
5 and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one.

The Hebrew shows the construction of the heavens and earth as an action in progress, not a completed act. Bere++++h bara elohim.

There are four kinds of translations:

• Literal,
• Paraphrase,
• Thought-for-thought,
• Hybrids of the above that don't fit into a single category.

Personally, I enjoy reading translations that are not familiar because they preserve a quality of "otherness". Very interesting to me is how the Holy Spirit spoke of the Law and through the Prophets using highly poetic language of Hebrew. The ministry of Love (through Jesus) was spoken of in the very precise wording found in Greek. I would have done that the other way around, right?

 

[Chopper]

I have been looking for the most literal bible versions

Hi there King James, I too am interested in a Literal translation, but for a dummy like me. I have found that, for now, the ESV satisfies that need.

 

[King James]

After much searching, I decided to settle on this one. End thread.

View attachment 3466

 

[Sparkey]

Have you considered different translations for different purposes? Here is one of my favorites:

The Five Books of Moses: The Schocken Bible, Volume 1

There is another set that has been recently published and I look forward to reading it too. Here's the link where one may "look inside" posted on Amazon: Give Us a King!: Samuel, Saul, and David Hardcover.

I would not say these bibles are 'the most literal' at all. To quote a review they are more, "masterful translation[s that] re-creates the echoes, allusions, alliterations, and wordplays of the Hebrew original..."

 

[King James]

Instead of trying to find "the most literal version", the thread turned into, "hey guys, recommend me a version". You can never control what your thread turns into. Well, anyhow, my problem was that I ended up looking at mainly the new testament since that is where the controversy is of what base texts. From my first two posts on this thread I was looking at the The Christian Bible vs. the ALT3. I ended up choosing the ALTD as my New Testament choice. Publisher's site http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/gary...ion-paperback/paperback/product-18962654.html
I'm not going to try to prove why this is my choice of why I reject the Critical Texts. A most likely small known fact I'd like to point out is here is a difference between Byzantine and Textus Receptus. Here is something I found about it. I'm not sure how many of the distinct differences are translatable.

Here is a comparison of the Scrivener 1881 Text(KJV converted back to Greek) vs. the Byzantine Textform 2005 (updated Majority Text).


These are actually pretty good numbers, and I think it makes the case *FOR* using a Byzantine like RP2005. Here is a summary of the comparison for the Gospels:

In Matthew, there are 159 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 109 of those differences are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in four cases, occur where Byz is divided. 46 are distinctive disagreements.


​

In Mark, there are 142 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 69 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in 11 cases, occur where Byz is divided. 73 are distinctive disagreements.
​

In Luke, there are 221 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 67 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacism, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or, in 15 cases, occur where Byz is divided. 140 are distinctive disagreements.
​

In John, there are 158 differences between RP2005 and Scriv1881. But 51 are either the kind of mistakes that two copyists could make copying from the same exemplar (involving itacisms, orthography, word-division, and parableptic error), or occur where Byz is divided. 107 are distinctive disagreements.
​

So in the Gospels as a whole, Scrivener's TR varies from R-P's Byzantine text 680 times, and in 366 of these cases, the TR contains a distinctly non-Byzantine reading (i.e., a reading that implies non-Byzantine ancestry). So when you collate, you are looking at only the differences. If R-P is a good representation of the typical Byzantine tradition, then your analysis says that the typical Byzantine manuscript will likely have about 700 differences between it and the TR, of which roughly 1/2 will be TR specific.
​

How big a difference is that? Well, betweenNA25 and NA27, there are 115 differences in Mt., 82 differences in Mk., 97 differences in Luke, and 114 differences in Jn. -- 408 in all. But I'm pretty sure that the textual character of any MS could be identified confidently whether it was collated against NA25 or against NA27. So the 680 differences (or, the 366 distinct differences) between Scrivener's TR and R-P's Byz in the Gospels probably are not big enough, collectively, to obscure the textual character of complete Gospels-MSS collated against the TR."
​

 

[Sparkey]

Instead of trying to find "the most literal version", the thread turned into, "hey guys, recommend me a version".

The definition of "most literal" is obviously subjective. Case in point:

After much searching, I decided to settle on this one. End thread.

View attachment 3468

To me, understanding Hebrew in the most literal manner includes understanding, or at minimum, an attempt at understanding all of the allusions, alliterations, and wordplays of the Hebrew original... This is something that Jason also addressed when he said that the only way to accomplish what you seem to want is to learn the original Hebrew and Greek. My thought is that there are so many exceptional versions that taken together yield greater understanding, something that I presumed you were interested in.

 

[King James]

The definition of "most literal" is obviously subjective. Case in point:

Well, that was a joke...I know that the best way for understanding is to learn Hebrew and Greek or at the very least study from interlinears with a Strong's Concordance. I have also learned that in my searching that the English language is not really good enough to express the Greek correctly, not sure if it is as much of a problem with the Hebrew/Aramaic. I was more searching for most literal and then came to the conclusion that base text was a higher priority to me. With that said, I chose the ALTD for the NT. For the OT, to be honest I prefer the KJV. I know that the YLT is more literal, I just don't like how Young let his personal beliefs affect some of his translations.

 

[Sparkey]

You may notice that I speak as a layperson but that's just because of my limited knowledge on the subject, which comes from a beginner's course of study too many years ago on basic Greek and Hebrew.

It was my impression that the Young's translation distinguished itself by assigning very specific and unique English words to correspond to individual words and especially the tense found originally in Greek and Hebrew. Therefore, Young used the present tense in many places in which other translations use the past tense. One of the main problems that was encountered during translation was that in English there is no easy way to speak about an action that started sometime in the past, continues through the present and will continue into the future.

This is seen readily in the translation of "In the beginning, God created," passage of Genesis where the Hebrew shows a continuing action and not a past or completed act.

(Gen 1:1 YLT): In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

(Gen 1:2 YLT) the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness `is' on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

(Gen 1:3 YLT) and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

There are many other things to consider (that remain beyond my abilities). My "solution" is to focus on those aspects of Scripture that are clearly communicated (the basics) while still seeking greater understanding of the finer points. Something that our Lord referred to as the "weightier matters of the law".

The reason that I give the Amazon link: Give Us a King!: Samuel, Saul, and David Hardcover was because it gives a "look inside" to a candid discussion about various translation methods, their focus and intent.

 

[farouk]

You may notice that I speak as a layperson but that's just because of my limited knowledge on the subject, which comes from a beginner's course of study too many years ago on basic Greek and Hebrew.

It was my impression that the Young's translation distinguished itself by assigning very specific and unique English words to correspond to individual words and especially the tense found originally in Greek and Hebrew. Therefore, Young used the present tense in many places in which other translations use the past tense. One of the main problems that was encountered during translation was that in English there is no easy way to speak about an action that started sometime in the past, continues through the present and will continue into the future.

This is seen readily in the translation of "In the beginning, God created," passage of Genesis where the Hebrew shows a continuing action and not a past or completed act.

(Gen 1:1 YLT): In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

(Gen 1:2 YLT) the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness `is' on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

(Gen 1:3 YLT) and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

There are many other things to consider (that remain beyond my abilities). My "solution" is to focus on those aspects of Scripture that are clearly communicated (the basics) while still seeking greater understanding of the finer points. Something that our Lord referred to as the "weightier matters of the law".

The reason that I give the Amazon link: Give Us a King!: Samuel, Saul, and David Hardcover was because it gives a "look inside" to a candid discussion about various translation methods, their focus and intent.

[MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION]:

Although they probably mean much the same thing sometimes, there is probably a nuanced distinction between 'literal' and 'formal equivalence'...

But then there is also the task of defining precisely which versions are 'formal equivalence' and 'literal' or even 'concordant'.

Meanwhile (back at the ranch), a truly concordant version is more like an interlinear, which is a sideways wordlist...

Blessings.

 

[Sparkey]

The difference is found when the translator looks at the tree limb (the sentence) vs. the individual leaf (each particular word). Literal pays close attention to the individual word. I try to balance the many aspects but would say that praying and asking for God's help is more critical to my understanding than finding the 'right' translation.

 

[farouk]

The difference is found when the translator looks at the tree limb (the sentence) vs. the individual leaf (each particular word). Literal pays close attention to the individual word. I try to balance the many aspects but would say that praying and asking for God's help is more critical to my understanding than finding the 'right' translation.

I know what you mean.

Context is also very important.

It's not Biblical to treat Scripture as a list of words in a lexicon, or otherwise juxtapose phrases that have nothing to do with each other in isolation.

Example:

"And Judas went and hanged himself."

"Go thou and do likewise."

 

[Chopper]

study from interlinears with a Strong's Concordance.

I have a great tool you might be interested in. "The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English. Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers" by Jay P. Green, Sr. "Hendrickson" publishers ISBN: 978-1-56563-977-5. It sounds like just what you are looking for. I use it a lot!

 

[farouk]

study from interlinears with a Strong's Concordance.

I have a great tool you might be interested in. "The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English. Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers" by Jay P. Green, Sr. "Hendrickson" publishers ISBN: 978-1-56563-977-5. It sounds like just what you are looking for. I use it a lot!

The Jay Green set can certainly be useful, especially in the NT; it is said that some of the Hebrew pointing, etc. in the Old Testament part might not be printed as clearly as in some other editions, though.