Talk:Young's Literal Translation

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Translation studies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project's importance scale .

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

I have taken this list of things the article could use from a posting by User:Quuxplusone Triddle July 1, 2005 05:27 (UTC). This article could say more about Young, his translation, his reasons for making the translation, the idiosyncrasies of phrasing in the translation, and so on.

From which documents or books did Young make his New Testament translations? —The preceding

-dlj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLJ (talk • contribs) 12:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this meta-discourse from the article and am placing it here instead:

What was the source material for the Old Testament?

Please give evidential substantiation for the claim that the Westcott & Hort text was used in the Revised Edition of 1887.

Also what was the source material for the Revision of 1898? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.34.251 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does YLT use British English (to use NonOxford spelling with -ise suffix), and use archaic capitalized pronouns? 124.106.138.104 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about stylistic issues, but it's definitely different from the KJV. AnonMoos (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that supposed to say October 14, 1898, and not 1888? Misty MH (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]