Is there bible translation that is more literal than Young Literal Translation [closed]

Question

That's it. The translation should not favor any theology and should allow readers to read texts the way it really is

For example

Elohim -> gods

Yea, I know that Elohim are often followed by singular words. So, why not just preserve that grammar missmatch. Bara Elohim, for example, can become gods creates. Why let the translators decide whether God is one or many. Why not let every readers decide what it means by it self.

1. El -> God
2. Elyon -> Most High (El Yon) so not to close possibility that Elyon may be a different God than Yahweh or Elohim.
3. El Roi -> God who see (Roi God/El Roi) again, not to close possibility that El Roi may simply be a different God.
4. Yahweh -> Yahweh (He is/He causes).

I mean, duh... Translating Yahweh into Lord simply doesn't make sense.

Atheists often say that Torah has polytheistic root. Christians believe that there is only one God. Then Jews have slightly interpretation.

In all cases, every interpreters interpret bible according to their theology.

Why not let the readers decide what it really means and translate the bible as faithfully as possible? Is there such translation.

Most bible translation for example, uses LORD to replace YAHWEH. Well, that alone shows that the translator has a hidden agenda. Namely that he has a theology that Yahweh name is too sacred to pronounce.

I want translators that translate for the sake of translating. If possible, I prefer atheistic or agnostic translators. Are there any?

Answer 1

The first part of the question, about "singular elohim" already has an excellent answer to a related question. I will pass over the flawed commentary (which also gets a response at the answer linked above) to get to the main question posed here:

Why not let the readers decide what it really means and translate the bible as faithfully as possible?

Because it takes linguistic competence to give a "faithful" translation, and a simply providing an interlinear does not provide that competence. I would ban them, if I could. Simply aligning a Hebrew (or Greek) term with an English gloss is no basis for making interpretative decisions about the text in the absence of knowledge of the language ... in which case the interlinear is not needed in any case.

At least OP could spend some time with a classic work like Eugene Nida's Toward a Science of Translating (2nd edition, 2003; the 1964 first edition has a preview on Google Books) to get an insight into the issues involved, and to understand why the question as posed is misguided.

Is there such translation.

There are some very literal translations. The New American Standard Bible is among the best of them, as it sets out to be as literal as possible while rendering a sensible English text. It is widely available online, conveniently at the BibleGateway.

Answer 2

You are probably best off looking at an interlinear Bible, rather than a translation. Then you can read the meanings of each word or phrase in context, in the order in which they were presented. If something seems odd or raises questions, you know precisely which (original-language) word to go look up.

The trick here is that any translation involves restructuring of the original language's grammar and syntax. There simply aren't equivalent words in English for every word or grammatical unit in the source languages, but that doesn't mean that those original words lack meaning in context. In other words, the problem is that a word-for-word translation is not merely difficult, but impossible.

Imagine, for example, the classic example "eats shoots and leaves" (there is a famous grammar/punctuation book with this title). If you read this as written above, it may refer to the daily activities of a panda. If you read it as "eats, shoots, and leaves," it implies dining, violence, and a flight from justice. These are very different concepts, and a word-for-word translation that ignores context might render very different results, no matter how literal the translation is intended to be. In French, for example, "eats shoots and leaves" becomes "mange du pousses et du feuilles" (roughly; my French is rusty), while "eats, shoots, and leaves" becomes something like "mange, pousses, et quitte." In other words, there is no way to translate this phrase without some context. Given the near-total absence of mid-sentence punctuation in Hebrew and many of the Greek texts, this kind of situation arises a lot. It's why most translations have so many footnotes with alternative translations for a phrase.

Answer 3

As other parts have been addressed, I will not restate them. However,

El -> God Elyon -> Most High (El Yon) so not to close possibility that Elyon may be a different God than Yahweh or Elohim. El Roi -> God who see (Roi God/El Roi) again, not to close possibility that El Roi may simply be a different God. Yahweh -> Yahweh (He is/He causes).

The problem with thinking that El Roi might be a different God from Elohim-YHWH (and the same for Elyon, etc.) is simply that those names are used in conjunction with Elohim-YHWH to show they are the same. For example:

In Genesis 16:13 So Hagar named the Lord who spoke to her, “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “Here I have seen one who sees me!”

The Bible specifically states that El Roi is YHWH.

I mean, duh... Translating Yahweh into Lord simply doesn't make sense.

This is an ancient tradition. It actually started in Judaism to keep from breaking the commandment "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain." YHWH is the personal name of God and should never be uttered lightly. Therefore, a tradition of writing "YHWH" but reading it as "Adonai" developed. This is called Kethiv/Qere (sometimes spelled Kethib) and means "what is written" and "what is read." There are actually many such in the Hebrew Bible. YHWH/Adonai is called a perpetual kethiv/qere, meaning that only the first instance is marked and the reader is expected to know it every other time it is encountered in the text.

Hebrew was originally written without vowels. These kethiv/qeres will have the consonants of one word in the text and the vowels of another underneath it (Hebrew vowels are almost all below the consonants they pair with). The resulting word may make no sense, but if the vowels from the marked word are placed on the consonants in the margin, it will have the word the scribe wanted.

The tradition was picked up in the Septuagint in part because there simply aren't the right letters in Greek to transliterate YHWH.

Why not let the readers decide what it really means and translate the bible as faithfully as possible? Is there such translation.

You don't mean as "faithfully as possible," you mean as "literally as possible." Those are two very different things. Every Bible translation attempts to be as faithful as possible within their translation philosophy. Translated literally it becomes a mess. The purpose of translation is to render the original text so that the reader does not have to become an expert on Hebrew/Greek grammar.

There are countless idioms which do not render word-for-word into English in an immediately understandable way. Since we want English and not English-vocabulary-with-Hebrew-syntax, we don't render them word for word. For example, the Hebrew way to tell a persons age is "son of X years." Another example comes in Gen 11:1, which literally says, "And was all the earth language one and words ones." Yeah, "ones" is plural. There are reasons for that in the grammar, BUT since the reader shouldn't have to learn Hebrew to read the Bible, the translators render it singular.

Answer 4

I can’t speak to whether it’s translation reflects a particular theology, but the Lexham English Bible (2011) may get a little closer than the NASB to the ‘transparent’ translation the OP suggests, if less literal than Young’s. Most helpfully, idiomatic phrases, supplied words, and textual variants are clearly indicated, either in the text itself – using brackets and italics – or in its copious footnotes. By contemporary standards it’s more readable than Young’s, though still a bit ‘wooden’ (not entirely a bad thing, says the editor). It uses the name 'Yahweh' where indicated in the Hebrew text but 'God' for other Hebrew god-words (e.g. elohim, el, eloah). According to the editor, because it had as its starting point Lexham’s interlinear Bibles, “the LEB achieves an unparalleled level of transparency with the original language text,” particularly when connected to its online tools.

More generally I’d suggest studious lay readers use a good, academic study Bible to keep informed of relevant textual concerns without getting bogged down in interlinear minutia or sidetracked by any narrow theological biases of translators. As examples:

• New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (NRSV): “The notes and the study material feature in-depth academic research from non-denominational perspectives, specifically secular perspectives for ‘Bible-as-literature’ with a focus on the most recent advances in historical criticism and related disciplines, with contributors from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and non-religious interpretative traditions” (Wikipedia).

• Jewish Study Bible (JPS): Also from Oxford University Press, the Jewish Study Bible includes a running commentary on almost every Hebrew Testament verse. On the question of the development of monotheism in ancient Israel, I think the OP would be pleased with the academic orientation of these Jewish scholars, both in the notes and essays. Highly recommended.

Answer 5

Young's may be more literal than the KJV but it is not even close to a true literal word for word translation. If literal is what you are looking for see the following translation:

Literal Translation of the Bible.