Featured New Living Translation

How much would have been different if that translation team would have been Baptist instead of Anglican then?

 

You already know my position:

Not if they leave out verses and whole passages that were trusted as the word of God during the Refomation and up until 1881.
To me, the ones on your list contain the word of God, but they are not His word in its entirety.
The NKJV is closest, as I see it.

The "New Living Translation"?
Not even close.


Now, I answered your question, so please answer mine:

Read it word-for-word, and please, if you're so-inclined, answer it with your honest opinion...

 

With respect, I believe that you're being too denominational in your thinking...
We "Baptists" don't have the corner on God's truth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit:

God's children do.

To me, its presumptuous to believe that everyone on on the AV committee was unsaved.

I think a better question would be,"How much would our opinions have differed, if we knew for sure that God, and God alone, influenced the efforts of the team that translated the AV?"

 

Likewise, you have the stated motives written down by the other translators in the prefaces of their English Bibles, but you do not seem to accept them in the same manner than you do those of the KJV translators.

It would be fair and just to try to see if you apply the same measures/standards concerning motives of the KJV translators as you would the motives of other English Bible translators.

 

I take it that is your final answer, and that you're not willing to answer, straight-up, the question that I have posed.
Again, it seems that you are side-stepping it, and are simply trying to avoid the ramifications of the problem...that there's something more than a better translation at the heart of most of today's English translation efforts.

In my estimation, if it were really about getting to the best, in English, we would have had it by now.
As it stands, I do have it, and until today's scholars convince me that they are making progress, I will stand with what I know to be the word of God in English:

"The Despised Authorized".

As for the "New, Living Translation", I've read some of it, and to me it's nothing more than a paraphrase of God's words, using a very small representation of all the available manuscripts...the NA / UBS apparatus, and by extension the Critical Text.


This is my final reply to you in this thread.
I wish you well, sir, and may God bless you.

 

Would it be just as presumptuous to believe that every member of the KJV committee was saved and was sound in doctrine considering their acceptance of the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration and their actual involvement in the persecution of others for their faith?

 

You assume and take it incorrectly and presumptuously.

It can be straight-up, sound, and proper to answer a question with a question, to encourage another poster to apply their own measures/standards consistently and justly, and to seek to determine whether a question is valid or invalid. Perhaps the premises and assumptions behind your question were unproven or unsound, which would make a question invalid.

It would be proper not to answer an invalid question that assumes as true claims that have not been proven to be actually true.

 

I think that they would have gotten Baptism right if Baptists translated it, and also think that the translators of modern versions were guided JUST as much by God as those on the Kjv team were!

 

Its like reading the Niv 2011 edition, but even more gender inclusive...
Would prefer to have the Gideons stick with Esv now....

 

Because you may assume or claim something is a problem does not prove that it is actually one. Because someone may disagree with your assumptions or speculations does not mean that they are side-stepping.

Do you fail to practice what you preach since you avoid the ramifications that there could have been something more than a better translation at the heart of the making of the KJV?

On what consistent, sound basis do you accuse others of side-stepping when you have avoided or side-stepped actual facts that are problems for the inconsistent, unproven claims or opinions that you have posted?

Perhaps one thing being accomplished by multiple English Bible translation efforts is that it would affirm that there is freedom of religion or Christian liberty, freedom of the press, and no state church with control over printing. There is no Star chamber and Church of England Court of High Commission to make it a high commission crime to print, bind, buy, or sell a good English Bible such as the Geneva Bible, as there was in the 1630's.

 

With an attitude like that I’m sure you will find fault with it ... best save your money. I can find problems in every verson I own, but I can also learn from them.

Or you could hear what others that use the verson say about how the NLT has helped them read and understand God’s word... ‘so that even a plow boy can understand’.

The NLT is a literal verson.
IMO it’s a tad bit heavy on interpreting the words, but that is the nature of the translation, make it simple and clear.

There are times where the NLT clarifies things that many commentaries mention.
I truly enjoyed the last chapter of Ecclesiasties. The translators took great liberty in the translation but brought out something that the common reader would probably miss in other translations.

I’ve got an old friend with very little education. He reads through a Study Bible each year and on Saturdays he tells the men’s group that meets what he read and we discuss it for a bit.
Most years I purchase the Bible’s so I get to pick what he reads.
He claims he likes the old KJV the best, it looks good on the shelf but truly he can hardly read from it.
The NLT was a great blessing to him.

If the people of your country that need the gospel are biblically illiterate, perhaps the NLT is the translation that will reach them the best.

Rob

 

Its not a bad translation, but is not really that formal of one....

 

No, it's not my favorite translation,
but you need to look to the purpose to which it is being used.
For the Gideon's purposes I think that the translation is an excellent choice.

Rob

 

I would prefer them to go the Esv route as here, and have the TR renderings used in places where they want to be inserted in....

 

One should note that the NLT includes translation notes as integral to the translation. Where it uses inclusive language, it also gives the original.

I never said otherwise. I said not all verses have equal weight. What you wrote and what I wrote do not share the same meaning.

I do need to correct this slander. The original Living Bible didn't even even start as the full bible. It was a short book which paraphrased the American Standard New Testament letters into modern American English. It was called "Living Letters". Kenneth Taylor called it that because of the following verses:

2 Corinthians 3:2-3 NLT
The only letter of recommendation we need is you yourselves. Your lives are a letter written in our hearts; everyone can read it and recognize our good work among you. [3] Clearly, you are a letter from Christ showing the result of our ministry among you. This “letter” is written not with pen and ink, but with the Spirit of the living God. It is carved not on tablets of stone, but on human hearts.

I would say that many Bible translations are a "hobby" effort primarily made to push one view or another. But Taylor tried using other versions of the Bible to teach his children. He found that those versions failed horribly. He wrote the Living Letters to fill a need.

Tyndale is a non-profit. The money it makes is spent for translation efforts into languages which would earn little money. NLT charges far, far less for their translation than most Christian writers. I believe the same is true for most Bible translations.

I apologize for the delay in my writing this.

 

I know that the group behind the Nas translated it in order to bring the word of God to us in modern English, and to retain accuracy!

 

If you do not want a Bible that has any interpretation, you cannot read any Bible translation.

Bible translators translate as they interpret or misinterpret the original-language words of Scripture.

John William Burgon wrote: “The mere English reader can scarcely require to be reminded that, reading his Bible in a translation, he is in the position of one who receives a message through an interpreter” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 65).

 

Only a few translations show you when some words are added by the translator.
KJV. NKJV.
ASV. NASB.
MLV.

It can be a mix. For example: the NKJV uses the same interpreation as the NIV for Colossians 1:15 adding the word "over" instead of translating the grammar as "of."