Young’s Literal Translation Insights
Some time ago, I met a professing believer who was using a Bible version I hadn’t heard of, called the Young’s Literal Translation (YLT). This Bible version supposedly uses the received text of the King James Bible (the same manuscripts), but attempts to translate the original languages “more literally.” Without resources to purchase on YLT (or the desire to financially support it), I took to the internet and God’s wisdom (James 1:5) for more insights. After all, it sounds really great to have a very “literal” Bible!
Since I had never heard of this YLT, I assumed that it was simply another version among dozens of others that had recently come out. So I was amazed to find that it had actually first been published in 1889! Some 120 years of history behind it, and yet it somehow escaped my notice. Of course, that fact alone speaks volumes!
There really was not much information to look at regarding the YLT. It was written by the Scottish minister Robert Young, in 1889, who was self-taught in the “original” languages of Greek and Hebrew. You will note the timing and location of this work; the island of Britain, at approximately the same time (1871-1881) of the revised translation done through Westcott and Hort. It seems that one work possibly could have had an influence upon the other! Even if that influence wasn’t of a scholastic nature, they came about at the same time in rebellion against God’s Word. Listed below, numerically, but in no particular order of importance, is a list of some problems with the YLT.
(1) It is the work of one man. I found no references that Robert Young had any help doing his work of “translation,” only hints of the influence of the other early revisionists, Westcott and Hort.
The King James Bible was brought forth through the authority of a king. 48 of the most qualified linguistic scholars brought forth the KJV, every word being agreed upon at least 14 times! Nor did these scholars work in isolation, but freely consulted with other qualified individuals regarding their translation work.
(2) Robert Young was self-taught. While this may sound like an accomplishment, it is not possible to be self taught in accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek. You need to understand the historical use of these words to convey the proper translation of meaning into English. You will not get this from teaching yourself out of a book! The KJV translators not only were knowledgeable in word definitions, but also in usage. This cannot always be attained from reading definitions in a book!
(3) Limiting the way God can work. Robert Young believed the Bible to be inspired by God only in the original language it was given in. That’s a nice theory, but where are these languages today? They don’t exist. The Greek and Hebrew of the Bible long ago went out of usage! And God himself makes it clear that He puts no stock in “original” writings; it is a man-made criteria. See our Word of God section for more.
The historical usage of Greek/Hebrew was also passed along in education, down through the years after the manuscripts were written. This type of education reached its pinnacle in the late 16th and early 17th century, just before “new world” exploration took off. Mankind’s focus then shifted from the old paths (Jeremiah 6:16) to newer, more exciting horizons—evangelism was a key part of this.
This is why we can’t place our self-taught word knowledge of Greek/Hebrew above that of 48 scholars in the early 1600’s, 400 years ago! Neither could Robert Young do this, nearly 200 years after the KJV.
(4) Readers had to decipher meaning. Though some parts are clear, others are not. Translating from one language into another is tricky, and a literal word-for-word translation is not possible. Words sometimes need to be added, and the sentence sequences rearranged. The KJV translators were eminently qualified for doing this; and they did so, causing the words and meaning to make sense in English. Robert Young left the words very literally, and is forcing entirely unlearned individuals to make sense of it! In the years since the YLT came, another YLT version has been produced which supposedly helps it make more sense. Here again, however, you come back to the difficulty with self-taught scholars.
(5) How were definitions chosen? When the Revised Translation (RT) of the Bible came out, many meanings of Greek/Hebrew words were altered by Wescott and Hort. Did Robert Young actually use the more historically accurate definitions of the KJV, or the dynamic equivalence definitions of the RT? What evidence I found, clearly supports the less accurate definitions.
(6) Young had contempt for the KJV. Unlike the KJV translators, who compared their work with the translation predecessors, and gratefully acknowledged their contributions (such as William Tyndale, or the Geneva Bible). Robert Young went so far as to proclaim that those who used the King James Bible were as unsaved heathens! He also claimed that the KJV was a work of the devil! Such proclamations are ill-befitting of anyone who proclaims the name of Christ. I dare say that Mr. Young fell into the original sin trap of Eve, declaring his own knowledge of good and evil to be on par with God!
(7) The YLT is not blessed. God blessed England and the KJV, spreading them across the globe in the years following the translation work. Everyone first thinks of the KJV when they think of a Bible! It is obvious that this didn’t happen with the YLT; 120 years after its first printing, relatively few have even heard of it. God promised us that He would perfectly preserve (Psalm 12:6,7) His Word forever, and He wanted us to have it. How can we please Him, without knowing His instructions? If the YLT were that perfect Word of God, it would be flourishing in our world today. Instead, it is not even of significance within the professing church!
David W. Daniels has been doing much work defending the King James Bible. His work is well-researched and understandable, and you can access his work through www.Chick.com, as we have. When first exposed to this YLT, I was able to ask him for any helpful insights which he may have gained by his research (via e-mail).
David was kind enough to reply within 24 hours. Frankly, it seemed that even he had had only minimal exposure to the YLT! Yet he exposed one verse which dissented significantly with the KJV, stating that he intends to do a more exhaustive study of the YLT in the future. The verse he provided was I Corinthians 1:18. The KJV reads “…unto us which are saved…” the YLT reports this as, “…to us who are being saved…” In the KJV, you are either saved or lost. The YLT renders salvation as a process; which would be a works salvation, favorable to both the Catholic Church and the Revised Translation! Such influence speaks volumes, even if only by implication.
There are definite problems that arise when considering the Young’s Literal Translation. Even if the premise seemed to be good and noble, Satan had another purpose for it; to steal God’s pure words, and instill doubt and confusion among those looking to God’s Word for direction. We have been provided all that we need, by faith, in the King James Bible. No one, and nothing, can steal your faith-based relationship with Jesus Christ! Take heed—be diligent and watch; let not the devil trick you into trading away that most priceless gift, which is God’s Word (II Timothy 3:15-17)!
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: I Peter 5:8
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. II Corinthians 11:14,15