Featured New Living Translation

I haven't read this new edition, but I rejected the old one when I came across "SOB" in 1 samuel 20:30 ! I was casually reading it, planning to read it all the way through when I came across that outright scatology. Sorry, Sportzz Fanzz, that phrase does NOT equal "rebellious, perverse woman"; its meaning is much worse ! Once the shock at seeing those words in a BIBLE subsided, I shelved it & haven't opened it since!

I can't tell ya if that same phrase is in the new edition, but if it is, I'd abandon it instantly !

 

The NLT is better termed the "New Loose Translation". I suppose it serves a purpose for those who need a primer before they delve into a more reliable translation. I would not recommend it, but I also will not get bent out of shape if someone reads it. I certainly would not use it as a primary English translation while doing a serious study.

 

Gideons Canada "primarily uses the New Living Translation, a clear, modern translation that is as accurate and reliable as any other Bible available today."

The Gideons International in Canada | Help | FAQs

 

I regularly use the NLT.

The translation is not word-for-word. Its intention is to translate the Bible in so that a modern audience will understand it. For example, in Luke 18:13, instead of just saying "beat his chest", it says "beat his chest with sorrow." because most modern readers would interpret beating the chest with Tarzan and not with sorrow.

Nothing online is reputable in my opinion. However, evangelical theologians were the primary ones involved in the translation, but the Catholic Church still decided to endorse it.

I have not seen the NLT attempt to be PC. Every Bible version I've read has done what it can to be PC to their audience. I haven't found a single version appropriately translate Phillipians 3:8 in my opinion.

The NLT version is easy to read. When large passages are read aloud to audiences which haven't read them and are unfamiliar to the Bible, they will more likely understand what is being said. You'll be understood and not just sound cool like you would reading KJ. You'll be able to read 4 times the Bible people using word-for-word translations are going to read.

The NLT is not afraid to admit error in translation or to give alternate versions. They definitely do not puff themselves up and are willing to change if they believe a clarification or correction is needed. They allowed the Catholics to modify their version when the Catholics approved the Catholic version. The NLT first came out in 1996 and has gone through numerous revisions. The latest revision is dated 2015.

In many passages which are controversial in translation, NLT provides the alternate forms in the notes.

I have a different opinion than many here on how to read and interpret the Bible. I don't believe the Bible should be read with a razor blade and a glue stick. Not all verses have equal weight. The Bible should be studied as a whole and not verse by verse. Hanging your entire life and salvation on what is said in a few verses is a very bad idea in my opinion.

The Bible includes 4 Gospels - not one. Regardless of which Gospel you read, the overall meaning of what Jesus did remains the same. I believe this is the same for Bible translations.

Word for word is a very poor if not the worst way to translate in my opinion. If you want a word for word translation, take the time to read the classics in their original Greek and Hebrew and then start reading the Bible from the original manuscripts - whichever set you choose.

 

Yes, it uses "inclusive language," probably to the same extent as the NIV2011. They all seem to be going in that direction. Check out the NASB 2020, from which excerpts have been appearing on the Lockman website. I guess younger readers no longer relate to generic masculine pronouns. I believe NKJV is the only commonly used modern translation that has not gone in that direction.

 

I won't suggest I know either is reputable, but here are pro and con reviews:
Brief Thoughts on the New Living Translation | King's Evangelical Divinity School Blog
Review of the New Living Translation, second edition

 

In context, the humor is transfered to the reader more reliably in Kings using the NLT.

1 Kings 18:26-27 NLT
[26] So they prepared one of the bulls and placed it on the altar. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning until noontime, shouting, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no reply of any kind. Then they danced, hobbling around the altar they had made. [27] About noontime Elijah began mocking them. "You'll have to shout louder," he scoffed, "for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is daydreaming, or is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!"

Once again, “is busy somewhere else” or “is engaged in business” is in the footnote.

Personally, I like the SOB translation and I think it is most appropriate translation to the situation. The NLT now uses “whore” with “perverse and rebellious woman” in the footnote. What translators will do for the “bad” words police . . .

 

It reads to me pretty much like the Niv 2011 lite edition!

 

More dynamic than even the Niv, and about the same for Inclusive language...
Superior to the first edition of it, and not totally bad translation, but something that seems to be better suited to say a newly saved person, or else one who has problems in understanding English !

 

It's a paraphrase, and in my opinion, not a very good example of translation.
As for the other questions, I've only read enough of it to know that it follows what appears to be the Critical Text, leaving out passages that are present in the Reformation-era Bibles and a few modern ones.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find that strange...I ask myself, "Why would the Roman Catholic Church endorse anything done by "Protestants"?"
Things have changed quite a bit in the past 100 years, it seems.

With respect, I believe every word to be important:

" But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ( Matthew 4:4 )

" And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." ( Luke 4:4 )

This is one of the places I see the Lord is referring:

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." ( Deuteronomy 8:3 )


Here's another verse where I believe that the term, "the word", is very important:

" Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." ( Luke 8:12 )

The very words of God are taken out of a person's heart by the Devil, to avoid the possibililty that they should believe and be saved.


May God bless every one of you abundantly.

 

You do not demonstrate that you apply your standard/measure consistently and justly including to the KJV.

The Church of England makers of the KJV in effect admitted that they did not provide an English word for a number of original-language words of Scriptures found in the texts from which they translated. Several examples are given in the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the KJV.

If the KJV translators are given the interpretive latitude of not having to give an English word for each and every original language word found in a verse, why are other Bible translators not given the same latitude?

When the KJV translators are sometimes allowed to interpret what God meant instead of translating literally and word-for-word what God said, why should other Bible translators not be given the same latitude?

If the KJV translators are permitted to omit providing a rendering for one original-language word based on their understanding of the literal meaning of the entire sentence instead of the literal meaning of each individual word, will other Bible translators be given the same discretion?

 

That's your opinion, and I recognize that as equal to mine.

Yes, and I realize that.
But did they attempt to come as closely as possible to word-for-word?
I say that they did.

Now...are all of today's translators being completely faithful to the process, or are some "fudging it" to try and put out more competing translations to sell, because their backers are paying for it to be done?

I think that they should be given the same latitude as the AV translators...
The problem is, many or most of them are NOT doing it the same, exacting way, in my opinion.

Case-in-point:
The New, Living Translation ( snappy marketing technique, in my opinion...advertise it as "living", thereby implying that others are "dead" ).

With that said, please answer me one question:

How many more English translations are necessary before it occurs to you that the ball keeps rolling for no good reason?

To me, it's as if you see no problem with the fact that there are 900+ translations of the Bible ( mainly New Testaments ) in English, and a new one keeps being introduced to the Western market every 5 years, on average.
From my perspective, your entire position only encourages the ball to keep rolling.
You never really get to the point of asking yourself, " Why do they keep trying to re-invent the wheel?"

Respectfully, every argument I've seen you bring up against the AV as being the very word of God, is based on this idea that today's translators should be given the latitude to keep right on translating, and we as believers are supposed to sit back and accept the fact that there are now over two dozen major English "Bibles" on the market, most of which are based on a very small representative of the entire bulk of existing manuscripts...and we're not supposed to investigate it any further?

What's taking so long, if it's really about delivering a better translation?

I say let them.
Let them be given the exact, same latitude...and no further.
But I think that the question remains:

Why isn't the work finished yet?
Because of changes in the English language?
That's a smoke screen, at least to me.

No, I think the whole thing is based on Bible sales, not a need to get a fully up-to-date translation into the hands of God's children.
That should have happened long ago, in my estimation.

To me, you're missing the point.
The work has already been done many dozens of times now.

IMO, it's as if you're advocating that each competing publishing house keep rolling out Bibles using this argument as justification to keep doing it.
I never said that they didn't have the same latitude as the KJV translators;
I said, "Are we there yet"?...the same as other threads I've posted to.
I also said, "are they doing it word-for-word" ( incidentally, the answer to that is "No" in many cases ) or as closely to it as possible?"


So, at the end of it all, I not only am convinced that most of today's translators aren't doing it with the same motivation that the AV translators performed their work ( to get a better translation into the hands of the people ), but that they are being hired by competing publishing houses to get their own, copyrighted Bibles into a market that reaps millions of dollars a year in Bible sales.

In the process, they are deliberately using an apparatus that is specifically limited to mostly Alexandrian text types, and ignores, for the most part, the Byzantine ones.
You don't see anything wrong with all this?

I do.

With all the above stated, I'm curious:

What do you believe is actually being accomplished with all these recent English translation efforts?

 

A consistent, just application of the same measures/standards concerning word-for-word translating would demonstrate that there were times that the KJV translators did not come as closely as possible to word-for-word.
Some 1611 marginal notes demonstrate that the original-language text could have been translated more closely to word-for-word as they did in the marginal note. In addition, there is the fact that other English translations sometimes have a more word-for-word translation than that found in the KJV, which would prove that the KJV did not come as close to word-for-word as possible whenever possible.

There are renderings in the KJV that can be considered dynamic-equivalent renderings instead of literal, word-for-word.

 

I already know that, and I'm not denying it.
But it seems to me that you're still choosing to stick to your current line of declarations and assertions, and are not choosing, in your prior post, to answer my last question:

I would appreciate an answer, if you are willing.

 

I am not convinced that all the motives and reasons behind the making of the KJV were sound and pure.

One motive and goal stated in the dedication to King James was the hope of benefiting or helping the Church of England. One motive and goal involved in the making of the KJV was to try to replace the 1560 Geneva Bible or in effect to try to get the good Geneva Bible out of the hands of the common people.

The motives of translators may be different from the motives of printers or publishing houses so perhaps the motives of publishing houses should not be imposed on to the translators.

After 400 years of changes in the English language, there would be more need of an English Bible translation in present-day English today than there may have been a need for yet another English translation in 1611. I have not suggested or advocated a need for many present English translations.

Without a state church, without denying religious liberty, without religious persecution, or without book censorship or control of the press by a state church, how do you expect to accomplish what you seem to prefer [the publishing of only one English translation]?

 

I didn't ask you about the motives behind those that translated the KJV....we have those motives written down by the translators themselves in their Preface to the Reader and in other places...

I asked you:

Thus far I am in agreement with some of what you hold to...
But to me, much of what you're still stating doesn't answer the question.

 

Are the Nkjv/Nas/Esv/Niv the English word of the lord to us now then?