Jump to content

Submitter



SUPPORT TOPIC File Information

  • Submitted: Jun 15 2011 11:14 AM
  • Last Updated: Sep 30 2017 09:37 PM
  • File Size: Unknown
  • Views: 9668
  • Downloads: 2,582
  • e-Sword Version: 9.x - 10.x
  • Tab Name: ALT

Support BibleSupport.com

  • If our e-Sword and MySword modules have blessed you, please consider a small donation.


    Your donation pays only for dedicated server hosting, bandwidth, software licenses, and capital equipment (scanners, OCR equipment, etc).


    Enter Amount $


    You do not need a paypal account to donate online.



    Bitcoin Donations: 1GnBesZLESuE8oPYW4WF63vuAgVKVK4Ajk

Other Modules By Same Author

  • No modules found

e-Sword 9+ Module Download:
Download Analytical Literal Translation NT

* * * * - 5 Votes

e-Sword Version:
9.x - 10.x

Tab Name:
ALT

Removed at the translator's request because the translator is selling it.

WARNING: This Bible has not been through a formal review process or recognized by translation peers or committees. It's a Bible with a few words substituted and does not constitute a legitimate translation.


I downloaded this and did a comparison of several passages.  This appears to be a rewording of Young’s Literal Translation, completed in 2001 by Gary F. Zeolla, so publishes some good articles, but for I think that is translation relied too much on Young.  On Amazon, his it is advertised as the most accurate translation available.  I can't agree with that, since his ALV it is not a new translation from the ground up. Young’s Literal Translation (1898) was based his work upon the Textus Receptus and the ALV admits to using the Majority Text, which some scholars believe lacks the best critical attention.  Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, of Dallas TS, has written good articles on the MT compared to the N-A 27 and USB 4.

-kvg

How can this use Young's Literal, yet use MT, when YL was based on Textus Receptus? Does not make sense to me.

I downloaded this and did a comparison of several passages.  This appears to be a rewording of Young’s Literal Translation, completed in 2001 by Gary F. Zeolla, so publishes some good articles, but for I think that is translation relied too much on Young.  On Amazon, his it is advertised as the most accurate translation available.  I can't agree with that, since his ALV it is not a new translation from the ground up. Young’s Literal Translation (1898) was based his work upon the Textus Receptus and the ALV admits to using the Majority Text, which some scholars believe lacks the best critical attention.  Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, of Dallas TS, has written good articles on the MT compared to the N-A 27 and USB 4.

-kvg

 

The above quote is misleading.

Gary F. Zeolla doesn't "admit" to using the MT (Majority Text).  That makes it sound like he is hiding something and the MT is something scandalous.

The author has written a book about Differences between Bible versions in which he takes the position that he prefers the MT.  

The ALT is his own translation based upon the Greek MT and this is not a secret.

YLT is based upon the TR.

The MT and TR are very similar, and as both the ALT are YLT are literal translations it stands to reason that they would result in very similar readings.

There are many differences of opinion regarding the merits of the TR, MT and CT versions.  

None of this is a secret that one would have to admit to, and you will find 'scholars' who have beliefs and opinions supporting all three textual bases.

 

 

Stating that Mr. Zeolla relied on YLT appears to be a conclusion without any actual backing that is designed to cast doubt upon Mr. Zeolla's work. 

Perhaps he did rely on YLT, I don't know, but if he did please explain how you know it.

Implying that using an existing translation as a base as opposed to making "a new translation from the ground up" automatically equals a not accurate translation is also misleading.  It is a form of poisoning the well.  I think you will find that using an existing translation as a base is a common practice.  An example of this is the Bishops Bible being prescribed as a base for the KJV or AV1611.

( https://www.gotquest...hops-Bible.html )


Other files you may be interested in ..





23 user(s) are online (in the past 30 minutes)

3 members, 19 guests, 0 anonymous users


ConradRieger, apologiapm, Google (1), Sdj