Young’s “literal” (Hah!) translation
I recently had another conversation at one of the Christian Forums about whether or not there exists such a thing as a complete, inspired and 100% true Bible in any language, and I ran into another guy who was trying to push Young’s ‘literal’ translation as being better than the King James Bible.
So, I addressed the points he raised and then finally decided to write something more about this bogus bible version so that everyone can see it for what it is - just another shabbily dressed impostor.
Here is our initial conversation, followed by some more examples of just how pathetic Young's so called ‘literal” translation really is.
Will (that’s me) said: "Young's has some very serious problems. Do you have eternal life or just "age during life"? Is God from everlasting to everlasting, or just "age during"?
The man recommending Youngs then responds: ”I believe that many people make the mistake of equating eternal to everlasting and the phrase age-during."
Eternal is uncreated and not bound by time. Everlasting, Forever, or Age-During is a created state, but may go on without end. A Hebrew age is a reference to a thousand year lifespan such as Adam and Methuselah experienced. If you accept the holy-day prophecy of 6 thousand years of work and 1 thousand year reign of God, age-during makes sense in a dispensational way.
The understanding of the Hebrew 'owlam' is persistent endurance which can render as everlasting, forever, or the during part of -age-during. As to your reference to Psalms 90:2, 103:17, and 106:48 the phrase "everlasting to everlasting" just as easily renders "age to age" without changing the context in any way." (End of quote)
Hi Allen. Sorry, but Young's completely messes up and changes the meaning. Here are some examples:
Psalm 119:89 "FOR EVER, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
Youngs - "TO THE AGE (there is an end) O Jehovah, Thy word is set up in the heavens."
KJB "The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms". Deut. 33:27 (there goes your theory about "everlasting" being a created state. Wrong.)
Youngs - "A habitation is the eternal God, And beneath are the arms AGE-DURING". (Again, there is an end to it)
KJB - Matthew 25:41 "Depart from me ye cursed, into EVERLASTING FIRE, prepared for the devil and his angels" 25:46 "And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT; but the righteous into ETERNAL LIFE."
Youngs - "Go from me, the cursed, to the fire, THE AGE-DURING (there is an end), that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers." "And these shall go away to punishment AGE DURING, but the righteous to life AGE-DURING." (According to Young's goofy translation there is an end to both the punishment of the wicked and even the life of the righteous)
John 3:16 "...that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have life EVERLASTING."
Youngs' - "everyone who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life AGE DURING." Again, there is an end.
If you think Young got it right, then there is little hope of you ever seeing it correctly.
God has completely passed over Youngs' version. It never did make an impact. No church uses it and it has rightly been placed on the dusty shelf of oblivion.
Second Part of Response to Allen
Allen posts: “Will said (that’s me again :-) "However, what specific translation error do you think you have found in the King James Bible?"
Allen says:[quote] “I will cite the most obvious example: G4521 'sabbaton'
This term can only reference the Hebrew sabbath of rest which was commanded on the last day of the week. But in the KJV (and others) it has been rendered as day or week.
The incorrect renderings are in Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2 & 9, Luke 6:1, 18:12, & 24:1, John 20:1 & 19, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:2
The reason for this mistranslation (allegedly) is to appease the catholic popes who thought to change God's sabbath of rest to sunday, the pagan worship day of the sun. See: Constantine” (End of quote)
I then respond: “Allen, quite frankly this has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. You say: “This term can only reference the Hebrew sabbath of rest which was commanded on the last day of the week. But in the KJV (and others) it has been rendered as day or week.”
Allen, the last “day” of the week IS a day! Get it? And the word sabbaton DOES mean both “the sabbath day” AND “the week”. Every Greek lexicon tells us this, as well as virtually every translation in any language ever made - except for this crack pot Young and his sidekick Green.
Let’s look at the utter nonsense Young comes up with when he MIStranslates the word.
You mentioned Matthew 28:1. Well, let’s look at it more closely.
KJB - Matthew 28:1 - “In THE END OF THE SABBATH (a specific day) , as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”
So read Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the RV 1881, Darby, ASV 1901, RSV 1954, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, NASB 1995, NIV 1984, NKJV 1982, and the Holman Standard 2003.
But what does Young’s say? “And ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATHS, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre”
WHAT in the world does “on the eve of the sabbathS” even mean? Were the sabbaths to end after this moment in time? How many sabbaths had been before this one? And what is "the first of the sabbaths". Does he mean to tell us that there were no Sabbaths before this one? It is a ridiculous translation, and Green’s “literal” is just as bad.
Greens “literal” (Yuk, yuk) says: “But late IN THE SABBATHS, AT THE DAWNING INTO THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS, Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary came to gaze upon the grave.”
This makes absolutely NO sense at all. Green also has a direct contradiction in just this one verse. We have "late in the Sabbaths" (how many days is that?), along side "the first of the Sabbaths". How many Sabbaths can there possibly be BEFORE the FIRST of the Sabbaths?
As for your claim that “This term can only reference the Hebrew sabbath of rest which was commanded on the last day of the week. But in the KJV (and others) it has been rendered as day or week.”, let’s take a look at one of the verses you referenced for us - Acts 20:7
It looks like Young’s did not agree with Green’s this time, and Green’s is the loopy one.
KJB - “And upon THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK (Sunday), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”
So too read the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Holman Standard and....(drum roll please) even your Young’s ‘literal”. -
“And ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, the disciples having been gathered together to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart on the morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight,” - YOUNGS literal translation.
The goofy one this time is Green’s - “And ON THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS, the disciples having been assembled to break bread, being about to depart on the morrow, Paul reasoned to them. And he continued his speech until midnight.”
You would be hard pressed to come up with something more ridiculous. “the first of the Sabbaths”?!!? Does Green mean to say that there were no Sabbaths prior to this moment? Hellooooo....Is anybody home?
Another minor example - "heaven" or "heavens"?
A man named Luke, who is his own authority and has NO infallible Bible to believe in, says "Young's literal translation often does a better job than the King James. Why did the King James bible translate the word "heaven" as a singular when in Greek it is plural?"
This is not hard to answer, and Young's itself sometimes does the same thing most bible translations do. There are a few words that can be either singular or plural, both in English and in Greek, that can be correctly translated either way.
The Greek word for "heaven" is sometimes singular and sometimes plural, and is translated as either "heaven" or "heavens", not only in the KJB but in virtually every Bible translation made in all languages, INCLUDING Young's "literal".
Young's ALSO translates the plural "heavens"
Hebrews 12:23 - Greek - εν ουρανοις (plural)
KJB - “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in HEAVEN”
Young’s - “to the company and assembly of the first-born in HEAVEN enrolled”
Hebrews 12:25 - τον απ ουρανων (plural)
KJB - “if we turn away from him that speaketh from HEAVEN”
Young’s - “much less we who do turn away from him who [speaketh] from HEAVEN”
Upon further study we see that the terms in Greek, whether singular or plural, are used interchangeably. For example:
in Matthew 24:31 we read: "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." ουρανων = plural
Yet in Mark 13:27 we have: “And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” ουρανου = singular
And in Matthew 24:36 we read: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” των ουρανων = plural
Mark 13:32 - “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” εν ουρανω = singular
Another example of a plural noun translated as a singular -
John 1:13 - οι ουκ εξ αιματων (plural)
KJB - “Which were born, not of BLOOD
Young’s - “not of BLOOD nor of a will of flesh”
Acts 13:22 - παντα τα θεληματα μου (plural)
KJB - “a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my WILL.”
Young’s - “a man according to My heart, who shall do all My WILL.”
More Dubious Gems from Young’s “literal” translation
Let’s take a closer look at several of the blunders Mr. Young committed in his “literal” translation that prove it to be no more than a misbegotten and foolish attempt to improve upon God’s majestic Book, the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
Genesis 4:8 KJB and the Hebrew text - "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."
Young's - "And Cain saith unto Abel his brother, LET US GO INTO THE FIELD; and it cometh to pass in their being in the field, that Cain rites up against Abel his brother, and slayeth him."
Where did Young get the phrase "LET US GO INTO THE FIELD" from? Not from the Hebrew, but from the so called Greek Septuagint. For further discussion of this verse, see Example #2. in my article "Answering a ridiculous video called “Errors in the King James Version”
Genesis 15:1 King James Bible - "I am thy shield, AND THY EXCEEDING GREAT REWARD"
Youngs - "I am a shield to thee, THY REWARD IS EXCEEDING GREAT."
Young's is clearly wrong. See why here -
Genesis 49:10 “UNTIL SHILOH COME”
Genesis 49:10 KJB - "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL SHILOH COME: and UNTO HIM SHALL THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE BE.”
ESV - "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, UNTIL TRIBUTE COMES TO HIM, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."
Young’s 1898 has - “And a lawgiver from between his feet, Till HIS SEED COME; And his is the obedience of peoples.”
There is no Hebrew text that reads “SEED” here as Young’s has it. See the complete article on this verse here -
Exodus 14:25 - "the LORD TOOK OFF their chariot wheels"
KJB - "And it came to pass that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians...and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF THEIR CHARIOT WHEELS, that they drave them heavily" Exodus 14:24-25
Young's "literal" (hah) says: "and TURNETH ASIDE the wheels of their chariots." This would mean they swerved, but not that they actually came off.
ESV - "And in the morning watch the LORD looked down on the Egyptian forces...CLOGGING their chariot wheels so that they drove heavily."
Footnote "Or, binding (compare Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac. HEBREW - REMOVING" (caps are mine)
NASB - "At the morning watch, the LORD looked down on the army of the Egyptians...He CAUSED their chariot wheels TO SWERVE and He made them drive with difficulty"
NIV 1978 and 1984 editions - "He made the wheels of their chariots COME OFF so that they had difficulty driving"
NIV 2011 edition - "He JAMMED THE WHEELS of their chariots so that they had difficulty driving."
Footnote - "See Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint and Syriac; Masoretic Text REMOVED.
The ISV 2014 (International Standard Version) - “He MADE the wheels of their chariots WOBBLE so that they drove them with difficulty.”
Judges 15:19 - Did God cause water to come out of the jawbone of an ass? Really?
KJB - "But God clave AN hollow place THAT WAS IN THE JAW, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived...."
Young's - (Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic New Jerusalem) - "And God cleaveth the hollow place WHICH IS IN LEHI, and waters come out of it, and he drinketh, and his spirit cometh back, and he reviveth"
Daniel 9:26 What Did Christ Accomplish With His Death?
KJB - "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"
ESV (NIV, NASB, NET) - "an anointed one shall be cut off AND SHALL HAVE NOTHING."
Young's 'literal' translation 1898 has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."
Habakkuk 2:4 KJB “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his FAITH.”
Romans 1:17 “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by FAITH.”
Young's 'literal'- Habakkuk 2:4 "Lo, a presumptuous one! Not upright is his soul within him, And the righteous by his STEADFASTNESS liveth." Yet when Young give the quote in Romans 1:17 he has: "according as it hath been written, 'And the righteous on by faith shall live."
Habakkuk 2:4 NIV 1984 - ““See, he is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous will live by his FAITH—”
Habakkuk 2:4 NIV 2011 - “See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright— but the righteous person will live by his FAITHFULNESS—”
Yet when the NIV quotes the verse in Romans 1:17 it still says: “as it is written, the righteous will live by faith.”
The big theological question to ask is this - Does the just live by FAITH, meaning by what he believes about God or by his FAITHFULNESS, meaning how he lives?
All these Bible versions I looked at say in Habakkuk “the just shall live by his FAITH” including Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Darby, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV 1984 edition, NKJV, JPS 1917, the 2004 Complete Tanach, the Syriac, the Douay-Rheims and the Syraic by Lamsa.
Bible versions that translate Habakkuk 2:4 (which is “quoted” in Romans 1:17) that says “the just (or righteous) will live by HIS FAITHFULNESS” instead of “by his faith” are the Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation “the righteous one by HIS FAITHFULNESS he will keep living” and Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version.
Wallace’s NET version amply displays the typical “Every Man For Himself Bible Versionism” mentality so common today. Every body thinks he’s an expert and they have no final written authority and no complete and infallible Bible. Their “final authority” is their own mind and peculiar and personal understanding.
Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version Romans 1:17 - “just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.” Footnote - A quotation from Hab 2:4.”
Yet in Habakkuk 2:4 Wallace’s NET version reads: “but the person of integrity will live because of his FAITHFULNESS." Footnote - “Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness...The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct.”
Is Daniel Wallace a Catholic plant? Or is he just being seduced and deceived by the spirit of the whore of Babylon? According the the “new” NIV and the latest Catholic bible version like the New Jerusalem bible, and the works salvationists like the Jehovah Witnesses, the just shall live by how he lives (his faithfullness) rather than by what he believes (his faith). The whole Reformation is being overturned by these fake, new “Catholic” bible versions and the sad part is, few Christians even care.
The whole Reformation began with God opening the eyes of Martin Luther when he read the passage "The just shall live by his FAITH." He was finally freed from the heavy yoke of trying to obtain his own righteousness through the works and self merit system of the Roman Catholic Church.
More Examples from Young's "literal"
"Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox" or "they eradicated a prince"?
Genesis 49:6 - KJB - "...for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."
Genesis 49:6 NKJV, ESV, NIV - "...For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX."
Genesis 49:6 Youngs - "For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will ERADICATED A PRINCE."
In 1 Samuel 6:19 the true Bible tells us that God smote of the people “fifty thousand and threescore and ten men” (50,070). There is real confusion here among the bogus bible versions, with Young’s being one of the more unique.
The Bible versions that correctly read that God struck down 50,070 men are Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1587, the King James Bible, the NASB 1977 - 1995, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster’s 1833 translation, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960, the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991, Modern Greek bible, the Portuguese Almeida, French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 and Rumanian bibles, the World English Bible, both the 1917 (JPS) and 1936 Hebrew-English translations from the Masoretic text, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version as well as the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB and the Jubilee Bible 2000. These versions translate what the preserved Hebrew texts actually read - 50,070.
However the RSV, NRSV, NIV and ESV tell us that God slew 70 men while Young’s tells us it was “70 men - 50 chief men” . Green’s “literal” is different still, reading: “Yea, He struck SEVENTY among the people, FIFTY OUT OF A THOUSAND MEN.” and the Holman Standard says it was “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000”.
Here is an explanation of why the KJB is correct.
Judges 15:16 KJB - "And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, HEAPS UPON HEAPS, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men."
Young’s ‘literal’ (hah!) - “And Samson saith, With a jaw-bone of the ass -- AN ASS UPON ASSES -- with a jaw-bone of the ass I have smitten a thousand men.”
NIV "Then Samson said, With a donkey's jawbone I HAVE MADE DONKEYS OF THEM. With a donkey's jawbone I have killed a thousand men."
NIV footnote: "The Hebrew for 'donkey' sounds like the Hebrew for 'heap'.
Oh, well THAT makes sense, right? And "sounds" and "towns" and "mounds" and "clowns" all sound alike too, so they must be the same things! Duh. And these are the "scholars" who are translating the Bible for you?
Agreeing with the King James Bible and the Hebrew text and referring to "HEAPS UPON HEAPS", which would be the piles of dead bodies of the Philistines Samson had killed are the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, the RSV 1971, NRSV 1989, ESV 2011 "HEAPS UPON HEAPS", the NASB 1995, NKJV 1982, Lexham English Bible 2012, Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jewish Orthodox Bible 2011 - "HEAPS UPON HEAPS".
Even Dan Wallace's NET, Holman Standard 2009, New Living Translation 2013 and The Voice 2012 versions agree with this reading, and the Common English Bible 2011 says "stacks upon stacks".
Youngs often does not follow the Hebrew texts, but not so badly as the more recent versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard.
Here are some examples of where Youngs leaves the Hebrew and goes off into something else.
2 Chronicles 22:2 Here the Hebrew texts as well as the KJB, Geneva, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, JPS 1917 AND GREENs all tell us that Ahaziah was 42 years old. - “FORTY AND TWO years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.”
However Youngs joins several other modern versions in rejecting the clear Hebrew number of 42 and instead goes with the Syriac and a few LXX copies and has 22 instead. Youngs reads: “A son of TWENTY AND TWO years [is] Ahaziah in his reigning, and one year he hath reigned in Jerusalem”
For more of an explanation of this apparent contradiction and why the Hebrew texts and the KJB are correct, see:
Hosea 6:5 KJB - “Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and THY judgments are as the light that goeth forth.”
Youngs - “Therefore I have hewed by prophets, I have slain them by sayings of My mouth, And MY judgments to the light goeth forth.”
Here the Hebrew Masoretic texts read THY judgments, and so do the Jewish translations JPS 1917, the Geneva bible, RV, ASV, NKJV, Greens, Darby and Douay.
The NASB goes off on its own with : “And the judgments on you are like the light that goes forth. “
But the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman and Youngs reject the Hebrew reading of THY (YOUR) and, as they tell us in their own footnotes, go with the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac reading: “MY judgments”.
The NRSV, NET and the Holman Standard all footnote that MY comes from the LXX and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads “YOUR” (thy).
Job 39:13 - "Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?"
This is another verse that is so mixed up in the Bible Babel versions that it is virtually unrecognizable. The KJB as well as the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, and the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and the 1999 edition as well as the Reina Valera Gómez Bible of 2010 all equal the KJB word for word saying: "Diste las hermosas alas al pavo real, o alas y plumas al avestruz?" = "Have you given the beautiful wings to the peacock, or wings and feathers to the ostrich?".
The reading of the King James Bible is also that found in the French Martin 1744 - "As-tu donné aux paons ce plumage qui est si brillant, ou à l'autruche les ailes et les plumes?" - = "Have you given to peacocks this plumage which is so brilliant, or ostrich wings and feathers?", Bishop's bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 -"Hast thou giuen the pleasant wings vnto the peacockes? or winges and feathers vnto the ostriche?", Webster's translation 1833, KJV 21st Century version 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 - "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"
Now for a list of various translations, all of which wildly disagree with each other.
Young's "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."
NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"
NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."
NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."
Judaica Press Tanach - “The wing of the RENANIM REJOICED, OR THE WINGED STORK OR THE NOZAH.”
RSV, ESV 2001 - “"The wings of the ostrich wave proudly; BUT ARE THEY the pinions and plumage OF LOVE?”
NRSV : "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."
Lamsa's : "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY,THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."
LXX "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."
New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."
Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The wings of the ostrich BEAT IDLY, HER PLUMAGE IS LACKING IN PINIONS."
Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Can the wing of the ostrich BE COMPARED WITH THE PLUMAGE OF STORK OR FALCON?"
NET version by Daniel Wallace and company - "The wings of the ostrich FLAP WITH JOY, BUT ARE THEY THE PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF A STORK?"
Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"
The Message - “"The OSTRICH flaps her wings FUTILELY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!”
Psalm 7:4 KJB "If I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me; Yea, I HAVE DELIVERED HIM THAT WITHOUT CAUSE IS MINE ENEMY."
NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman - "If I have repaid evil to him who was at peace with me, OR HAVE PLUNDERED MY ENEMY WITHOUT CAUSE"
NET - "or have wronged my ally, OR HELPED HIS LAWLESS ENEMY".
Young's - ""If I have done my well-wisher evil, AND DRAW MINE ADVERSARY WITHOUT CAUSE."
See Bible Babble Buffet in Psalms for the explanation
Young's completely misses this prophesy about Christ and mistranslates the Hebrew
Isaiah 32:1-2 KJB - "Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment. And A MAN shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land."
Youngs - "Lo, for righteousness doth a king reign, As to princes, for judgment they rule. 2 AND EACH HATH BEEN as a hiding-place [from] wind, And as a secret hiding-place [from] inundation, As rivulets of waters in a dry place, As a shadow of a heavy rock in a weary land." See why Young's totally missed it here -
Likewise Young’s does not always follow the same Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible.
For example: In Matthew 6:1 instead of reading “Do not your ALMS before men”, Youngs has “your KINDNESS not to do before men”. In Luke 2:22 instead of reading “HER purification” (Mary, according to the law), Youngs has “THEIR purification” See why the KJB is right and Young's is not in Luke 2:22 here -
in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 instead of “after the tradition which HE received of us” Youngs has “the deliverance YE received of us”, and in Revelation 16:16 instead of “HE (God) gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon” Youngs reads: “and THEY did bring them together to the place that is called in Hebrew Armageddon.”
Youngs has an unbelievably stupid theological blunder in Psalms 78:36 where translations like the Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, NIV, NKJV AND Greens all tell us that the children of Israel “FLATTERED” God with their mouths.
But Youngs, along with the NASB says “they DECEIVE Him with their mouth”.
Does it really have to be pointed out that it is utterly impossible to DECEIVE GOD? See more about this huge blunder here:
Youngs’ “literal” has many examples of mind-boggling, ridiculous readings as well.
In Psalms 141:7 we read: “Our bones are scattered at the grave's mouth, as when ONE CUTTETH AND CLEAVETH WOOD upon the earth.
But in Youngs we see: Psalm 141:7 “As ONE TILLING AND RIPPING UP THE LAND, Have our bones been scattered AT THE COMMAND OF SAUL.” (Say What?)
1 Samuel 25:22 “So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL.” (Green - “urinates against the wall.”)
But Young has: “thus doth God do to the enemies of David, and thus He doth add, if I leave of all that he hath till the light of the morning -- of THOSE SITTING ON THE WALL.”
Proverbs 30:1 KJB - “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, EVEN UNTO ITHIEL AND UCAL.”
So read the Geneva bible, Jewish Publication Society translation 1917, the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, Holman Standard and NET versions.
Proverbs 30:1 NIV 1984 - “The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an ORACLE: This man DECLARED to Ithiel, TO ITHIEL AND TO UCAL.” (Equals KJB and others mentioned)
Proverbs 30:1 NIV 2011 - “The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh—an INSPIRED UTTERANCE. This man’S UTTERANCE to Ithiel: “I AM WEARY, GOD, BUT I CAN PREVAIL.”
So read the NRSV 1989, ESV 2001 and now the NIV 2011. The Message says: “The skeptic swore, "There is no God! No God!-I can do anything I want! “Young’s ‘literal’ is virtually unrecognizable with: “Words of a Gatherer, son of an obedient one, the declaration, an affirmation of the man: -- I have wearied myself for God, I have wearied myself for God, and am consumed.” The so called Greek Septuagint is not of any help here because the most common versions has absolutely NOTHING for all 33 verses of Proverbs 30:1-33 and is missing verses 1 through 9 of chapter 31.
One that made me laugh out loud when I first saw it was 1 Kings 18:21.
Here we read: “And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long HALT YE BETWEEN TWO OPINIONS? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.”
But Youngs “literal” has: “and Elijah cometh nigh unto all the people, and saith, `TILL WHEN ARE YE LEAPING ON THE TWO BRANCHES? -- if Jehovah [is] God, go after Him; and if Baal, go after him;' and the people have not answered him a word. “
Zechariah 9:9 KJB - “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, AND HAVING SALVATION; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.”
Youngs - “Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, Lo, thy King doth come to thee, Righteous -- AND SAVED IS HE, Afflicted -- and riding on an ass, And on a colt -- a son of she-asses.”
Deuteronomy 33:2 KJB (and Green’s) - “And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went A FIERY LAW for them. “
Youngs - “...And hath come [with] myriads of holy ones; At His right hand ARE SPRINGS for them.”
Proverbs 30:1 KJB (and Green’s) “The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal,”
Youngs actually reads: Proverbs 30:1 “Words of a Gatherer, son of an obedient one, the declaration, an affirmation of the man: -- I have wearied myself [for] God, I have wearied myself [for] God, and am consumed.”
Proverbs 22:20 KJB - “Have not I written to thee EXCELLENT THINGS in counsels and knowledge” (RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, JPS 1917).
Youngs “literal” - “Have I not written to thee THREE TIMES With counsels and knowledge?”
Green’s “literal” - “Have I not written to you YESTERDAY AND THE DAY BEFORE with counsels and knowledge”
NIV - “Have I not written THIRTY SAYINGS for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge”
Let’s see “excellent things”, “yesterday and the day before”, “three times” and “thirty sayings”. Yep, looks like James White is right. By comparing several different versions we can get a better idea of what God really said, huh?
Job 1:5 “And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, AND CURSED GOD in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.”
So read Greens, the NASB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Geneva, Holman, JPS 1917 etc.
However Young’s “literal” has: “...for Job said, `Perhaps my sons have sinned, YET BLESSED GOD in their heart.' Thus doth Job all the days.”
And in Job 1:11 Satan challenges God saying: “But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and HE WILL CURSE THEE to thy face.”
So read the Geneva bible, the JPS 1917, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, Darby, Holman Standard and Green’s .
But Youngs “literal” says: “The work of his hands Thou hast blessed, and his substance hath spread in the land, and yet, put forth, I pray Thee, Thy hand, and strike against anything that he hath -- if not: to Thy face HE DOTH BLESS THEE!”
Again, in Job 2:9 we see where Job’s wife says: “Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? CURSE GOD, and die.”
So read Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, the JPS 1917, Darby and even The Message.
But both Young’s ‘literal’ and Green’s loopy version say the exact opposite - “And his wife saith to him, `Still thou art keeping hold on thine integrity: BLESS GOD and die.'
“Bless God” or “Curse God”? - Yep, pretty much the same meaning, right?
Anyone who tries to palm off Young’s “literal” translation as being the infallible words of God simply does not know what he is talking about. It is not even a good translation. It is little more than a passing footnote in the ever changing panorama of perverted bible versions that have come and gone over the years.
There is only one Bible that has stood the test of time and its critics. There is only one Bible that is believed and defended by thousands of Bible believers today as being the true “book of the LORD”- the Authorized King James Holy Bible - now about to celebrate 400 years of being THE Bible of the English speaking people.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm