The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.

Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of "literal" that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the "you" reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun tu instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in morieris. It would arguably be less literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.

Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Notice that Latin reverses the S-V order: "creavit Deus." There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translate that is so.

The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.

Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of "literal" that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the "you" reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun tu instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in morieris. It would arguably be less literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.

Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Notice that Latin reverses the S-V order: "creavit Deus." There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translation that is so.

The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.

Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of "literal" that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the "you" reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun tu instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in morieris. It would arguably be less literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.

Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Notice that Latin reverses the S-O order: "creavit Deus." There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translate that is so.

The Douay-Rheims and its progeny are well known for being literal translations of the Vulgate, and certainly fit the bill.

Unfortunately, you seem to be adopting a very extreme notion of "literal" that includes identical sentence structure. In your first example, the "you" reflects the fact that Latin includes the pronoun tu instead of just having the second-person verb-ending in morieris. It would arguably be less literal to translate without the repetition. In the second example, such an order would simply be awkward (Yoda-like) English, only fitting in a poetic context.

Consider a less controversial example of the same principle: "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth." Notice that Latin reverses the S-V order: "creavit Deus." There is nothing to be gained by being so slavishly literal to the text, and I am unaware of anyone who has made the effort to provide a translate that is so.