New Living Translation

[greatestislove]

Could I get some feedback on this translation?

good or bad - both are welcome.

thanks

dave

[KrispyKritter]

I use the NKJV, and the NASV and the KJV. The New Living Bible is the worst one I have seen yet. Do a side by side comparison and you'll see what I mean. I would advoid it at all costs. I got my hands on one at a yard sale for $1 just becuz I wanted to do a comparison... it's awful. I burned it.

[greatestislove]

Should I put you down as undecided then?



:pound

[antsinmypants]

I use the NLT in daily study.

The mark where manuscripts differ etc.

I've not found any real problems with replacing words that aren't what the manuscripts really say, which I have found with a couple of other translations.

I use it alot in our investigative bible studies in Hebrew @ the Synogogue, and I've found it to be about 98% accurate with the Hebrew. I've not delved so much into the Greek with it though.

My dad and brother that are in Seminary and so far the Pastor who is teaching it, have not found any errors with it.

It's up there with the NASB and the Literal Translations. :thumb

[KrispyKritter]

Ants... so you're more of a textural critisizm person? You're not a fan of the "Received Text"? I figured you to be of a more traditional bent when it comes to transcripts.

[glorymj]

My mom likes the NLT - but I really don't care for it. I think they are a little to free with their interpretations a lot of the time. I prefer a more literal translation most of the time. I use the KJV & NASB for study. I like the NIV for late-night reading and devotionals, though.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by glorymj
I like the NIV for late-night reading and devotionals, though.

The NIV is another one I try to avoid. :wave

[Crescendo]

Originally posted by greatestislove
Should I put you down as undecided then?

:P:

[Crescendo]

I certainly hope this doesn't turn into another KJ only discussion. Hasn't that dead horse been beaten enough?

[Samer]

well, i've been going back and forth on these version debates for a few months now; everytime i read something from either side i see more points...so i've just decided, although i don't have the answer for sure, i might as well start practicing my Elizabethan English. ...so KJV for me. beside, i love breaking out 1 John 5:7 when the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons go after me. i've never read NLT, so i have no clue what it's all about. i used to read NIV.

disclaimer: i'm not claiming to be KJV-only, hehe. i claim to be a very, very confused little boy.

(edited to add that last part so this doesn't turn into yet another KJV-only debate.) :deadhorse

[greatestislove]

Originally posted by Crescendo
I certainly hope this doesn't turn into another KJ only discussion. Hasn't that dead horse been beaten enough?

:deadhorse


YES

[glorymj]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
The NIV is another one I try to avoid. :wave To each their own! :nod :thumb

[KrispyKritter]

I want to state for the sake of clarity that I am not a KJV-Only kinda guy, nor am I a fundamental Baptist (not that there is anything wrong w/that) ... but I do believe the Recieved Text is absolutely the most reliable manuscript. The modern versions are not based on the Recieved Text, and therefore I believe they are not as reliable.

[matheteou]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
I want to state for the sake of clarity that I am not a KJV-Only kinda guy, nor am I a fundamental Baptist (not that there is anything wrong w/that) ... but I do believe the Recieved Text is absolutely the most reliable manuscript. The modern versions are not based on the Recieved Text, and therefore I believe they are not as reliable. And you use the NASB? That's based on those 'corrupt' NA26 texts that the NLT, NIV, and other 'modern' "per"versions.

[col311]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
The NIV is another one I try to avoid. :wave


Right there that's telling me that you avoid something that is a dynamic translation.

to me you are saying, if its not literal then its not accurate.

which is wrong of course.

Dynamic is just AS accurate. and in some cases even more accurate.

[col311]

Originally posted by Crescendo
I certainly hope this doesn't turn into another KJ only discussion. Hasn't that dead horse been beaten enough?


you could say that again.

:deadhorse

[col311]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
I want to state for the sake of clarity that I am not a KJV-Only kinda guy, nor am I a fundamental Baptist (not that there is anything wrong w/that) ... but I do believe the Recieved Text is absolutely the most reliable manuscript. The modern versions are not based on the Recieved Text, and therefore I believe they are not as reliable.


so in other words your a Kjv only man

[SapphireGrl]

I'm a big fan of the NLT bible. It lets me understand the Bible in plain everyday language. However, I don't use it for bible study. I only use it to do a general reading through the scriptures. When I'm doing bible study, I use either a NKJV or I use my bible study book that has the KJV on one side of the page and the NLT on the other.

The Living Translation doesn't dive deep into the scriptures, and that's why I don't use it alone for studies, but I do love it for it's simplicity in reading the scriptures. Not everyone can understand some of the other versions all that well, so I'm a fan of this one for people that are just becoming introduced to the Bible and want a bible that speaks to them in a beginners way. :nod

[col311]

Now here's my 2 cents.


There was a time when I had a problem with the new living translation, because I thought it was a

Little Too Dynamic.

What I mean by that is,

I viewed it, ( and still do, but not as much as I once did. )

practicly as a paraphrase because of the
very loose usage of words.

However, I see it in a little better light than I once did.

And even though I don't whole heartedly endorse it.

I will say that it is okay for reading to get the general idea of what that paticular book of the bible is saying.

using it in that light would actualy be very good for studying.

If a person is new with the bible, then pick up the new living translation to get a rough idea of what the book of exodus is about.

Then pick up a Niv for light to heavy study, than Nasb for extra heavy study.

***
Like I said this, is my 2 cents.

[antsinmypants]

Krispy, I go for dynamic and literal.

I don't go for paraphrase.

What we're studying in Genesis right now on Shabbats, the NLT has been hands down accurate 98% of the time, whereas the KJV I have hasn't been on par.

We are taking and reading in English AND reading it in Hebrew and making sure things are lining up.


I use the NLT, KJV and Complete Jewish Bible for In-depth studies.
I also use several translations including the KJV+ on E-sword for the same thing.

And I'm so *not* KJV Only.. :deadhorse


The Facts on the King James Only Debate (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565074416/qid=1066695477/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-1887197-8083068?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[SeaDreamer]

I love my NLT. Its the only version I really enjoy reading. I use others (but include the NLT) for study but for pure enjoyment I pick up my NLT every time.

[psykon99]

I am NOT a KJV only person (I use NASB, ESV, NKJV, and NIV), but I'm not a big fan of the New Living Translation.

Here's why:

Although I prefer a more formal equivalent style in translating, I do recognize the benefits of using the dynamic method at times.

Unfortunately, the New Living Translation IS too dynamic. For example:

In Ephesians 5:18-21, we learn about being filled with the Holy Spirit. Here's what the text says in formal translation:

"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ."

Many don't know this, but there is actually a debate about whether Christian fellowship, worship, thanksgiving, and submission are RESULTS of being Spirit filled or the MEANS of being Spirit filled.

I lean toward the MEANS because of the simealtaneous action of the "ing" verbs "speaking, singing, giving, and submitting (in the grk)" and also upon the Greek construction of the verb.

[b] Unfortunately, the NLT doesn't give you an option in its translation. In an effort to translate in an easy to understand manner, the interpret this text FOR you (in my opinion the wrong way) and present you with this:

18Don't be drunk with wine, because that will ruin your life. Instead, let the Holy Spirit fill and control you. 19Then you will sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs among yourselves, making music to the Lord in your hearts. 20And you will always give thanks for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notice, they don't even give you the option to interpret it another way.

The same goes for the book of Jonah:

11But Nineveh has more than 120,000 people living in spiritual darkness,[1] not to mention all the animals. Shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?"

Notice that the translators refer to 120,000 people living in spiritual darkness. But the text would for formally read: 120,000 who don't know their right hand from their left.

Many people interpret these 120,000 to be infants. That would certainly fit. But the NLT translators don't even give you an option.

Ultimately, I'm not a big NLT fan. It is refreshingling easy to read though. But I'd recommend the NIV if you're shooting for easy reading with at least some semblance of accuracy.

[KrispyKritter]

Those who have flamed me for my comments concerning the Received Text have misunderstood my comments. But then, it's obvious that you have not studied the history of the Recieved Text. As for the NASB, I do use it because comparitively it is very accurate... but I use it in conjunction with a greek linear and the KJV.

And whats the matter with sticking with a Bible thats based on the Received Text anyway? People are really hostile toward the KJV, and it's kinda interesting to me that that happens.

As for the NIV ... read this link... this is one of many concerning the error of the NIV:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/niv.html

[col311]

As for the NIV ... read this link... this is one of many concerning the error of the NIV:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/niv.html [/B][/QUOTE]


....................Whatever!

[col311]

P.s


Just out of curiosity, if asked you to recommend a modern Dynamic translation would you recommend one ?

I suppose I would only be talking about something in the Alexadrian text.

I don't think there's a modern Dynamic translation of the received Text. ( at least to my knowledge )

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by col311
As for the NIV ... read this link... this is one of many concerning the error of the NIV:

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/niv.html


....................Whatever! [/B][/QUOTE]

Thats akin to sticking your head in the sand. Way to go... :thumb

[col311]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
....................Whatever!

Thats akin to sticking your head in the sand. Way to go... :thumb [/B][/QUOTE]


So you don't have an answer to my question.

Didn't think so.

[KrispyKritter]

What question? If you asked me a direct question, I missed it.

Why be such a smart allek anyway?