Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Young's Literal Translation
5 years ago  ::  Oct 24, 2008 - 11:24PM #1
acomtha
Posts: 97
Hello A Composer,

Would you recommend the Young's Literal Translation as a good enough translation for serious bible study? Is it one that would be easy to understand? This is one translation that I do not have which is why I'm asking.

How does it read on verses that are commonly used for proof of the trinity such as John 1:1 and others?

Thanks,


Acomtha
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 31, 2008 - 5:42AM #2
Australian_Composer
Posts: 2,331
[QUOTE=acomtha;849035]Hello A Composer,

Would you recommend the Young's Literal Translation as a good enough translation for serious bible study? Is it one that would be easy to understand? This is one translation that I do not have which is why I'm asking.

How does it read on verses that are commonly used for proof of the trinity such as John 1:1 and others?

Thanks,


Acomtha[/QUOTE]
Hello,

The YLT is very useful. It also never says ' Satan ' but uses ' adversary ' which is the proper meaning.

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;  2  this one was in the beginning with God; (John 1: 1) YLT

You may well be able to find an Online source for the YLT if you try a Google, I don't know for certain but you could try.

For your added info' I have examples from the earliest of Protestant Bibles before the KJV -

A Review of Protestant Bibles Before the KJV:

The Geneva Bible – 1560
In the beginning was the Worde, and the Worde was with God and that Worde was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, & without it was made nothing that was made.


Tyndale’s Bible – 1525
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God: and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing: that made it.

etc.

Tyndale’s New Testament – 1530
In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God.
All thinges were made by it, and with out it, was made nothinge, that was made.


Matthew’s Bible – 1537
Used “it” instead of “him" in John 1:3-4.


Coverdale’s Bible – 1539 & 1540
In the begynnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and God was ye worde. The same was in the begynnynge with God.
All thinges were made by the same, and without the same was made nothinge that was made.


The “Great Bible” of 1539
Used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3-4.


The Bishop’s Bible – 1568
Used “it” instead of “him” in John 1:3-4.
There is no justification for seeing the logos as a "he" instead of an "it." The sheer consistency of the OT and NT militates against such a proposal.

Source:  http://www.thechristadelphians.org/foru … wtopic=158

AC
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2008 - 11:22PM #3
acomtha
Posts: 97
Thanks A Composer so much. Sorry that I wasn't on sooner. And thanks for the added info about John 1:1 and how it reads in older translations. I like that it (YLT) uses adversary instead of satan, thanks for pointing that out. I was wondering does it use God's name instead of LORD in all the verses that should have God's name in them? I'll try to find the YLT online.

Acomtha
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2008 - 11:49PM #4
acomtha
Posts: 97
Hi A Composer, I was reading the thread on satan, and I see that the YLT that you used there does use God's name...

Thanks again,

Acomtha
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook