Best literal Bible?

[zoidar]

I use different Bibles, often NASB, BLB, YLT ...
Which would you say is the best literal Bible? I would like to have a truly literal one, were the words are placed in the same order as in the Greek translations.

 

[Inkfingers]

Your best bet there would be to learn Koine Greek and read in the actual language (but that's a heck of a task as its not just a new language but a new alphabet - akin to learning Russian or Japanese).

 

[zoidar]

Your best bet there would be to learn Koine Greek and read in the actual language (but that's a heck of a task as its not just a new language but a new alphabet - akin to learning Russian or Japanese).

Would be supercool, but don't think I got time to do it.​

 

[Dave-W]

I would like to have a truly literal one, were the words are placed in the same order as in the Greek translations.

That would become incomprehensible in English. In languages like Greek and Latin, the word order is very different than English. What adjective goes with what noun (or adverb and verb) are indicated by suffixes (endings). In English they are determined by word order. Even subject and object are determined by word order. Not so in those languages. It would be very confusing.

You can get a Greek or a Hebrew interlinear that would give you that, and you will see just how much English is dependent on word order.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Young's Literal Translation is quite literal, at times painfully so. There also exist a fringe translation called the Concordant Version, which tries to be as literal as possible. Here are a few samples.

Young's Literal Translation:
Mark 1:1-8

A beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, Son of God.
As it hath been written in the prophets, `Lo, I send My messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee,' -- `A voice of one calling in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, straight make ye his paths,' -- John came baptizing in the wilderness, and proclaiming a baptism of reformation -- to remission of sins, and there were going forth to him all the region of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and they were all baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. And John was clothed with camel's hair, and a girdle of skin around his loins, and eating locusts and honey of the field, and he proclaimed, saying, `He doth come -- who is mightier than I -- after me, of whom I am not worthy -- having stooped down -- to loose the latchet of his sandals; I indeed did baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.'

Genesis 1:1-3

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 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, and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

Concordant Version:
Mark 1:1-8

The beginning of the evangel of Jesus Christ, Son of God,
according as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, (Lo! I am dispatching My messenger before Thy face, who shall be constructing Thy road in front of Thee.) "The voice of one imploring: 'In the wilderness make ready the road of the Lord! Straight...be making the highways'" of Him!
John the baptist came to be in the wilderness and is heralding a baptism of repentance for the pardon of sins. And out to him went the entire province of Judea, and all the Jerusalemites, and they were baptized by him in the Jordan river, confessing their sins. And John was dressed in camel's hair, and had a leather girdle about his loins, and was eating locusts and wild honey. And he heralds, saying, "Coming, after me, is One stronger than I, the thong of Whose sandals I am not competent to stoop and loose. I, indeed, baptize you in water, yet He shall be baptizing you in holy spirit."

Genesis 1:1-3 (the bolded words have an exact counterpart in Hebrew, and yes, it's printed this way. There is also a complicated system of marking direct objects and other grammatical function in the text, but those are not reproduced here)

In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. As for the earth, it came to be a chaos and vacant, and darkness was over the surface of the abyss. And the spirit of Elohim was vibrating over the surface of the waters. And Elohim said: Let light come to be! And light came to be.

However, Adolph E. Knoch, the translator of the Concordant Version, was rather unorthodox in his theology (did not believe in Hell or the Trinity), there is always a question on how this affects the translation itself. But as I said, it remains a fringe translation.
Young's Literal Translation is a good one, but it is old, and used the TR as its basis.

Maybe what you're really looking for is a interlinear Bible. There are plenty of those, and some online as well.

*EDIT* Just saw you mention YLT in the Opening Post.

 

[dysert]

You can get a Greek or a Hebrew interlinear that would give you that, and you will see just how much English is dependent on word order.

If you want literal, including word order, I agree with Dave that an Interlinear is the way to go.

 

[Radagast]

I use different Bibles, often NASB, BLB, YLT ...
Which would you say is the best literal Bible? I would like to have a truly literal one, were the words are placed in the same order as in the Greek translations.

That would make very little sense, especially if you don't understand the Greek grammar rules that tell you what word order means.

Your best bets are:

1. A translation into English at the more literal end of the spectrum (like the ESV): In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2. A translation into English with guides to the Greek words used (e.g. Strong's numbers). This can be deceptive, though: In (G1722) the beginning (G746) was (G1510) the (G3588) Word (G3056), and (G2532) the (G3588) Word (G3056) was (G1510) with (G4314) God (G3588 G2316), and (G2532) the (G3588) Word (G3056) was (G1510) God (G2316).

In a similar vein, Mounce's Reverse Interlinear uses English word order but also gives the Greek words: In (en) the beginning (arche) was (eimi) the (ho) Word (logos), and (kai) the (ho) Word (logos) was (eimi) with (pros) God (ho theos), and (kai) the (ho) Word (logos) was (eimi) God (theos).

3. A traditional interlinear. Here you really need to understand the Greek grammar rules that tell you what word order means: Ἐν (in) ἀρχῇ (beginning) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word), καὶ (and) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word) ἦν (was) πρὸς (towards) τὸν (the) θεόν (God), καὶ (and) θεὸς (God) ἦν (was) ὁ (the) λόγος (Word).

Note: grammatical knowledge is required here on Greek prepositions -- πρὸς (towards) in this context means something like "face-to-face with." Grammatical knowledge is also required here on the implications of Greek word order and the implications of the presence/absence of articles with the verb "to be." In particular, in the last part, the word with "the" (λόγος) is the subject, and the word with "the" omitted (θεὸς) is the complement (hence this does not mean "the Word was a god").

You will also notice that my explanation of grammar was longer than the verse itself!

4. Learning Greek (the hardest option): Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

 

[Radagast]

but that's a heck of a task as its not just a new language but a new alphabet

If learning Greek is Mount Everest, learning the alphabet is merely a tiny pebble. That's not the hard part.

 

[Valetic]

I think when you are reading to get a basic message, it doesn't matter as long as it is written in a way you can understand, such as the NLT or NIV, whereas you may have a more difficult time getting proper modern English out of the KJV.

For this reason I use multiple translations, I do have preferences. For instance, my favorite translation is the NLT. While my opinion of the best modern day translation is the NIV. I only use the KJV for parallels for other reasons concerning original translations.

I also own an interlinear bible and a greek/hebrew lexicon when something really sparks my interest and want to do some deeper digging. Also parallel-ing translations helps get the message out.

There is no perfectly translated bible by your definition of a translation that is truly literal. A lot of the words in the original languages have more than one meaning per word and sometimes one word is a phrase in English.

 

[redleghunter]

I use different Bibles, often NASB, BLB, YLT ...
Which would you say is the best literal Bible? I would like to have a truly literal one, were the words are placed in the same order as in the Greek translations.

Good advice above, especially the interlinear. Biblehub.com has one such on line free.

example: John 1:1 Interlinear: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

For literal word for word translation in modern English the NASB is by far the best. If you want to use the English language version those who have Logos software use that would be the Lexham English Bible (LEB). The older word for word literal translations are the old reliable KJV and YLT.

Also consider the manuscript tradition. The KJV used the Byzantine origin Textus Receptus (received text or RT) manuscript tradition; the YLT used the RT and Majority Text (MT) which is also an offshoot of the Byzantine tradition. Note the Eastern Orthodox follow the Byzantine tradition text in various Patriarchal versions. The World English Bible (WEB) is a free on line version using the Majority Text (MT) which is of the Byzantine tradition. These manuscripts are the majority of the manuscripts in existence but of later dates. The Eastern Orthodox view the Byzantine text 1907 Patriarchal edition as the tradition received from the church from antiquity. The Reformers used a variant of this tradition in the Textus Receptus (RT).

The NASB and most of your modern versions of the Bible follow the Alexandrian type text manuscript tradition. Mostly today referred to as the Critical Text. In Bibles you will see footnotes where it has NU which means Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societie's third edition (U), hence the acronym "NU-Text." These are fewer in number of manuscripts but are the earliest by date.


The above is why when reading the NASB some verses or passages are 'bracketed' to show the difference between the MT and the NU.

There are many more nuances, branches and sequels to what I wrote above but probably an adequate summary of the differences.

Below is an good representation of the English language Bibles out there today on the spectrum of how literal word for word, thought for thought or paraphrase.

 

[Acts2:38]

I use different Bibles, often NASB, BLB, YLT ...
Which would you say is the best literal Bible? I would like to have a truly literal one, were the words are placed in the same order as in the Greek translations.

Like the first poster said, Koine Greek would be your only best bet for complete accuracy.

If you grab a Greek to English interlinear and compare it to the rest of the versions like KJV or ASV or NASB, you will see a difference.

However, if you do not have time or ability to learn Koine Greek (and I wouldn't blame you ) Then the most literal versions would be KJV and ASV.

The KJV, for example, will have some changes of words made, but it does not mess with the overall idea the writer gets across. See example:

Hebrews 6:6 - The "IF" should be "And" I believe, but it doesn't change what the context/meaning was meant to be.

After those version, the scriptures start to get "fluffy" and sacrifice context/meaning. And we all know what happens when we want to change the word of God.

See NASB example:

Luke 4:4 - KJV
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:4 - NASB
4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

NASB completely removes "but by every word of God"

Matthew 9:13 - KJV at the end of the verse has "to repentance"

Matthew 9:13 - NASB and NIV and a hand full of other REMOVES "to repentance", thereby removing the punchline and requirement for forgiveness. Jesus wants sinners to repent.

Matthew 27:35 - NASB completely removes this entire segment from scripture:
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

NASB completely removes that entire part, thereby removing a fulfilled prophecy that scripture puts there on purpose to prove the gospel prophecy completed here. This isn't a little mistake.

Tons of other mistakes and fluffiness that change the whole meaning of the scriptures.

 

[zoidar]

That would become incomprehensible in English. In languages like Greek and Latin, the word order is very different than English. What adjective goes with what noun (or adverb and verb) are indicated by suffixes (endings). In English they are determined by word order. Even subject and object are determined by word order. Not so in those languages. It would be very confusing.

You can get a Greek or a Hebrew interlinear that would give you that, and you will see just how much English is dependent on word order.

Geee! Why is it so hard to translate the Bible! To bad it is, probably one reason we got so many different denominations.

 

[Dave-W]

Geee! Why is it so hard to translate the Bible!

It sounds like you have never studied another language.

There is NEVER a 1:1 word equivalent from one language to another, even if the languages are related. When you go to Greek, or even farther to Hebrew, very little lines up.

 

[zoidar]

Young's Literal Translation is quite literal, at times painfully so. There also exist a fringe translation called the Concordant Version, which tries to be as literal as possible. Here are a few samples.

Young's Literal Translation:
Mark 1:1-8


Genesis 1:1-3


Concordant Version:
Mark 1:1-8


Genesis 1:1-3 (the bolded words have an exact counterpart in Hebrew, and yes, it's printed this way. There is also a complicated system of marking direct objects and other grammatical function in the text, but those are not reproduced here)


However, Adolph E. Knoch, the translator of the Concordant Version, was rather unorthodox in his theology (did not believe in Hell or the Trinity), there is always a question on how this affects the translation itself. But as I said, it remains a fringe translation.
Young's Literal Translation is a good one, but it is old, and used the TR as its basis.

Maybe what you're really looking for is a interlinear Bible. There are plenty of those, and some online as well.

*EDIT* Just saw you mention YLT in the Opening Post.

The Concordant version looks interesting! I will check it out! Thanks!

 

[zoidar]

Like the first poster said, Koine Greek would be your only best bet for complete accuracy.

If you grab a Greek to English interlinear and compare it to the rest of the versions like KJV or ASV or NASB, you will see a difference.

However, if you do not have time or ability to learn Koine Greek (and I wouldn't blame you ) Then the most literal versions would be KJV and ASV.

The KJV, for example, will have some changes of words made, but it does not mess with the overall idea the writer gets across. See example:

Hebrews 6:6 - The "IF" should be "And" I believe, but it doesn't change what the context/meaning was meant to be.

After those version, the scriptures start to get "fluffy" and sacrifice context/meaning. And we all know what happens when we want to change the word of God.

See NASB example:

Luke 4:4 - KJV
4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:4 - NASB
4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone.’”

NASB completely removes "but by every word of God"

Matthew 9:13 - KJV at the end of the verse has "to repentance"

Matthew 9:13 - NASB and NIV and a hand full of other REMOVES "to repentance", thereby removing the punchline and requirement for forgiveness. Jesus wants sinners to repent.

Matthew 27:35 - NASB completely removes this entire segment from scripture:
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."

NASB completely removes that entire part, thereby removing a fulfilled prophecy that scripture puts there on purpose to prove the gospel prophecy completed here. This isn't a little mistake.

Tons of other mistakes and fluffiness that change the whole meaning of the scriptures.

ASV, I never used it. Thanks!

 

[zoidar]

It sounds like you have never studied another language.

There is NEVER a 1:1 word equivalent from one language to another, even if the languages are related. When you go to Greek, or even farther to Hebrew, very little lines up.

I know ...

 

[Radagast]

Geee! Why is it so hard to translate the Bible!

Because it's written in Hebrew and Greek -- although translating any book is hard.

To bad it is, probably one reason we got so many different denominations.

Not really; most good modern translations produced by experts translate almost everything pretty much the same way.

I would encourage you to use the ESV -- probably the best translation out there.

 

[salt-n-light]

Im in love with the ESV. Coming from a church that strictly use KJV, the version makes it feel like a lecture. But the ESV, especially in audio, makes it sound like a conversation.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Here's one you can have a look at 'The Hebraic-Roots Version'
http://www.nazarite.net/translations/hrv.pdf

 

[Radagast]

Here's one you can have a look at 'The Hebraic-Roots Version'
http://www.nazarite.net/translations/hrv.pdf

That is an utterly anti-Christian "Bible," which makes many alterations in order to promote an anti-Trinitarian agenda.

Consider Romans 10:13: πᾶς γὰρ (for everyone) ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται (who calls upon) τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου (the name of the Lord) σωθήσεται (will be saved).

Paul is quoting the Septuagint version of Joel 2:32 here (πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου σωθήσεται), and connecting it to the Lordship of Jesus (verse 9: because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved). In this way, Paul implicitly claims that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament.

This "Hebraic Roots" nonsense has "For all who will call on the Name of YHWH have Life."

The original Greek does not have "YHWH," and this version (like the Jehovah's Witnesses version) adds that in so as to remove the claim that Jesus is God.

This "Hebraic Roots" nonsense also changes "will be saved" to "have life," presumably to attack the idea of needing salvation.

All in all, this "Hebraic Roots" nonsense is wildly inaccurate, is anti-Christian, and will draw the reader away from God. Avoid it.