What do Christians think of the YLT version of the Bible?

The original KJV is the ideal way to go, honestly. I'm not one of those ridiculous 'KJV only' type, but it has substantial credibility.
If that doesn't suffice, the ESV is also good.Actually, the NIV- some might tell you otherwise, but that version is heavily peer reviewed.

If you want a really thorough exposition of the Bible, then you need a concord. Strong's is a good one.

I read my ESV bible with the YLT right next to it. If I come across a difficult verse in the ESV I open up the YLT,, and I use the YLT for most any eschatological time events exegesis

I use the YLT to check against occasionally, but I think inherent in the fact that it is a literal translation is that it's not fit nicely into modern English.

Soyeong said:

I use the YLT to check against occasionally, but I think inherent in the fact that it is a literal translation is that it's not fit nicely into modern English.

Click to expand...

A Bible should be idiomatic and at the same time scrupulously faithful to the original. If at the same type it is a powerful rendering of the words of God with simplicity and beauty, then it is worthy of being called The Bible. Since there were 54 translators involved with the KJV, there were built in checks and balances to ensure that the end result was a reliable rendering from the original languages (taking into account all the translations which had preceded the Authorized Version). YLT is more of a Bible study tool.

Crowns&Laurels said:

The original KJV is the ideal way to go, honestly. I'm not one of those ridiculous 'KJV only' type, but it has substantial credibility.
If that doesn't suffice, the ESV is also good.Actually, the NIV- some might tell you otherwise, but that version is heavily peer reviewed.

If you want a really thorough exposition of the Bible, then you need a concord. Strong's is a good one.

Click to expand...

The niv is extremely interpretive. The worst example being the interpretation of sarx as "the sinful nature". The word literally translates as "flesh" and there have been historical debates over the meaning of flesh, and a faithful translation will not force one particular interpretation on the text in such a horrid way.

I'm not an apologist for any particular translation, but I'm disheartened by how such a bad translation became so popular.

NIV= Nearly Inspired Version