Featured NKJV vs. NLT

if you knew the word and actually studied using the nlt. you would not ask such a question.. you would know..

 

You are avoiding and deflecting.

Show us examples of the NLTs terrible translation compared to the KJV. You have made this claim, now it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence or admit you have nothing to support your claim.

 

The NIV and the NLT use dynamic equivalence as their guide and are more of a paraphrase than a translation...the NLT is at any rate. To be honest and accurate, I NEVER accused you or assumed you were KJVO. So, stop trying to "read into" what I've said. The only assumption made was by you. I'm well aware of what most people refer to as a "word for word" translation...maybe they need to be seeking a better term, because this one is inaccurate. The NIV and the NLT also, as the MV's do, use a different underlying text for their translations, so, of course, they're not going to match the ones using the RT. UGH!

 

@AVL1984,
I did not mean to be offensive and I apologize if you found my post so.
But tell me, how does one characterize translations like the NKJV and NASB if not as 'word for word'? I suppose there is 'Formal Equivalence' but I'm not sure that means very much to most people. What I want is a version that expresses most nearly the words of the Greek, not just what someone thinks the Author of the Greek might mean. Hence 'accurate.'
Also, it was you who brought 'KJV-only' into the discussion. I was only pointing out that you were off-topic. It's about NKJV and NLT.

 

Bringing the KJVO into the subject is not "off-topic," as you suggested. The subject of the NKJV, NIV, NLT or any other version is valid. So I would suggest getting a grip. It encompasses ALL versions. "Word for Word" isn't an accurate, though it could be considered close to accurate, description. Still,, not being word for word, it shouldn't be implied that it is. It's intellectual dishonesty and opens the door for people to criticize the Bible even further.

 

You might want to read Post #94 on the previous page.

 

I read it, and I know what I wrote. There's NO accusation there. I take it comprehension isn't your strong suit. It was a question, not an accusation.

 

Who were the KJVo's you were referring to in this conversation?

 

I will just repeat what I said before; anyone who supports the NKJV cannot be KJV-only. And you need to stop being so grumpy. I hereby withdraw my apology.

 

First of all, 'visible image' is a tautology; there is not really any such thing as an invisible image. and the word 'visible is not in the Greek.
Secondly, prototokos means firstborn (c.f. Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7). In commentaries and in preaching it can (and should) be pointed out that the word can also denote primacy or supremacy, but if we change the words that the Holy Spirit has given to ones that we think might be better, we are committing the same arrogance as the J.W.s who do the same thing for different reasons. A translation is not a commentary. The NLT uses 21 words to say what the Greek uses only 10 words, and the NKJV only 13 words to express. It is not translating; it is interpreting.

Quite right. It's the New Bible Commentary.

 

Actual sometimes there can be. Not commonly, but can be.