Thoughts on the NLT

[AVL1984]

Though I'm not particularly fond of the NLT, we used it in our men's Bible studies at the Cowboy Church. It seemed to be fairly accurate and dependable on the subjects we were studying, and I use it at times in my daily Bible Study. I've heard good and bad, but I've never really posted a query on what others thought of the version. What are your thoughts? I consider it more of a paraphrase...a thought for thought or concept for concept version, and not a true translation. Thanks in advance.
BT

 

[Scarlett O.]

The text in these links is good, but too long to copy and paste. I think they would be helpful to answer the questions you are asking. I've read them. They are very informative.

The New Living Translation - A Critical Review (bible-researcher.com)

What is the New Living Translation (NLT)? | GotQuestions.org

Tyndale | About The New Living Translation

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The NLT is a true translation. It's predecessor, The Living Bible was definitely a paraphrase --a rewording of the 1901 ASV. The NLT has had several editions in which improvements have been made. It was first published in 1996. Then it was tightened up in 2004 and 20015. There were minor updates in 2007 and 2013.

It's my second favorite Bible translation after the 2011 NIV. When I go through the Bible I switch to the NLT, NJB and other versions to keep things fresh and compare.

It's a fine orthodox translation. Here are some of the more prominent names associated with it in the last 26 years :
Gary Beal, Grant Osborne, Tom schreiner, Daniel Block, Phil Comfort, Tremper Longman, Doug Moo, Moises Silva, D.A. Carson and Harold Hoehner.

 

[AustinC]

The difference between NLT and KJV/ESV/NASB is the NLT translates by the meaning provided in the text while the others are by exact greek word for word translation. This is why the NLT reads so much smoother and is easier to follow the train of thought of the author.

 

[Reynolds]

Though I'm not particularly fond of the NLT, we used it in our men's Bible studies at the Cowboy Church. It seemed to be fairly accurate and dependable on the subjects we were studying, and I use it at times in my daily Bible Study. I've heard good and bad, but I've never really posted a query on what others thought of the version. What are your thoughts? I consider it more of a paraphrase...a thought for thought or concept for concept version, and not a true translation. Thanks in advance.
BT

NLT is NOT a paraphrase.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The difference between NLT and KJV/ESV/NASB is the NLT translates by the meaning provided in the text while the others are by exact greek word for word translation.

There is no such thing as exact w-f-w translation. That is absurd. Phrase-by-phrase and clause-by-clause -- yes.

 

[AustinC]

There is no such thing as exact w-f-w translation. That is absurd. Phrase-by-phrase and clause-by-clause -- yes.

True, but the KJV/ESV/NASB try hard to translate as close to word for word as possible, which is why they are not necessarily easy to read.

 

[Reynolds]

True, but the KJV/ESV/NASB try hard to translate as close to word for word as possible, which is why they are not necessarily easy to read.

NASB nor ESV is hard to read. KJV is hard to read because you have to know mid 1700s English language. Even if you know it, you have to make your mind switch to it.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

NASB nor ESV is hard to read. KJV is hard to read because you have to know mid 1700s English language. Even if you know it, you have to make your mind switch to it.

The KJV uses 16th century English. It used language that was archaic in 1611.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

the KJV/ESV/NASB try hard to translate as close to word for word as possible, which is why they are not necessarily easy to read.

"Even translations that claim to be essentially literal constantly modify Hebrew and Greek forms to express the meaning of the text."

"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning."

[Both quotes taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss. Page 28.]

 

[Dr. Bob]

Good quotation from Fee, Brother Rippon. I used his works teaching Bible courses and found little of his AOG philosophy permeated sound writing. I agree that there really cannot be a true word for word translation of God's actually chosen words into a receptor language because of the vagaries of each language. Hence there always will be "choices" of the translation team as to how best to bring a 2000-year-old Greek idiom into a modern language.

Not used NLT translation much because I found they jump to that "personal choice" more quickly than I like. It is readable, but I sense too much "interpretation" leaking into "translation". Of course, I am not a fan at all of the NASB because it tries to make fewer choices and is thus less user-friendly.

Honestly, not a fan of any translation And I look at my OWN translation from a sermon 50 years ago and disagree with me!!

 

[Reynolds]

The KJV uses 16th century English. It used language that was archaic in 1611.

Notice I said you had to understand 1700s English. Mid 1700s is where most KJV Bibles today fall.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"The problem is that by focusing first on form, the result is often 'Biblish' -- an awkward and obscure cross between Bible language (Hebrew and Greek idioms) and real English. No one speaking English in the real world would use an expression like 'there is news in his mouth' or 'he opened his mouth and taught them.
Such examples confirm that, in principle at least, a functional equivalent approach --one that focuses on meaning first --is superior to a formal equivalent, or 'literal,' approach...the best translation is one that remains faithful to the original meaning of the text, but uses language that sounds as clear and natural to the modern reader as the Hebrew or Greek did to the original readers."

Taken from How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and mark L. Strauss, pages 28,29.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Notice I said you had to understand 1700s English. Mid 1700s is where most KJV Bibles today fall.

Okay, I understand.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

From the Introduction to the New Living Translation; an excerpt :
"On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.
On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable."

 

[AVL1984]

From the Introduction to the New Living Translation; an excerpt :
"On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.
On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable."

Do YOU hold to their statement? Dynamic equivalence doesn't automatically make something right in the translation. I'm not really a fan of it.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Do YOU hold to their statement? Dynamic equivalence doesn't automatically make something right in the translation. I'm not really a fan of it.

Do I hold to their statement? That can be taken several different ways. I take as a true description of their method of translation. The means by which they out to do their translation is fine and appropriate. They lean more to the dynamic side of things and that's fitting according to their intended audience.

 

[JesusFan]

Though I'm not particularly fond of the NLT, we used it in our men's Bible studies at the Cowboy Church. It seemed to be fairly accurate and dependable on the subjects we were studying, and I use it at times in my daily Bible Study. I've heard good and bad, but I've never really posted a query on what others thought of the version. What are your thoughts? I consider it more of a paraphrase...a thought for thought or concept for concept version, and not a true translation. Thanks in advance.
BT

Much better then the Living bible , is a true translation, good to reads thru the bible, but should use a formal translation such as the nas/esv/Nkjv also!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The NLT is a modern english easy to read bible. From my experience. It is an ok bible for someone who is knowledgeable in the word. But I would not give it to a new believer for the following reasons.

1. Our church tried to go to it (some still use it and love it) because compaired to told old English bibles. which are hard to read and outdated language wise (especially the old KJV and ASV) it is much easier to read and understand.
2. While using it. there were many places where we actually had to (in our church service) use a NASB or NKJV to correct the interpretation. because the NLT was that far off.
3. I myself (because they asked us all to use it in our teachings) had to do the same. and I finally gave up and went to my preferred NKJV study bible for my teachings.

There is no perfect bible in my view. All versions, based on language differences, have issues. You in fac't cant have an actual word for word bible (it would almost be to big, and there are greek words or phrases which can not be accurately translated in a word for word format) and bibles like the NIV and NLT are scorned because they are not word for word..

some of these differences, are in my view, are to important to overlook. And the New Living in my view breaks this standard. A new person reading this could be led to some doctrines which are not scriptural. and may even be led to a different gospel.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The NLT is a modern english easy to read bible. From my experience. It is an ok bible for someone who is knowledgeable in the word. But I would not give it to a new believer

There is no perfect bible in my view. All versions, based on language differences, have issues. You in fac't cant have an actual word for word bible (it would almost be to big, and there are greek words or phrases which can not be accurately translated in a word for word format) and bibles like the NIV and NLT are scorned because they are not word for word..

some of these differences, are in my view, are to important to overlook. And the New Living in my view breaks this standard. A new person reading this could be led to some doctrines which are not scriptural. and may even be led to a different gospel.

Yeah, it's silly for the NIV and NLT to be scorned because they aren't w-f-w.

The NLT is exactly what I would give a new believer. It would be a perfect fit for most. If someone has reading deficiencies then I would urge them to use the NIrV.

People who are newcomers to the Faith would not be led astray in any doctrine. Take a look at post number 3 of mine. It lists some of the more prominent Bible scholars who are noted for their conservative and quite orthodox understanding of Scripture.

After the NIV the NLT is #2 for me.