Col. 1 in the NLT

[Yeshua1]

Very poor so far.

Would you say that the Niv 2011 is better then the NLT then as a translation?

 

[Van]

Here we go:

4 For we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and your love for all of God’s people, (Why not “holy people” as in v.
4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους,

This is a fairly straight rendering, except for one thing. Compare ἁγίοις (dative case, saints), "God's holy people"in v. 2, to ἁγίους (accusative), "God's people" here. In the exact same word (only different in case) in the context of only 2 verses later, they have changed the rendering. So, God's people in v. 2 are holy, but they are not here. Wow, what a weird translation! To these Greek experts, the word changed in meaning in the same context, and God's people became unholy, apparently.

"Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God and Timothy the brother, to the set apart and believing siblings in Christ in Colosse, grace to you and peace from our Father. We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love for all those set apart.

 

[Rippon2]

Would you say that the Niv 2011 is better then the NLT then as a translation?

Refer to my post #14.

 

[John of Japan]

Interesting comparison. Note how "election" has been poured into the text. A literal translation would read "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God and Timothy the brother.

So right off the bat we get DN, dynamic non-equivalence. The changes did not result in clarity but rather corruption.

Correct. No form of "elect" or "chosen" is in the Greek.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a verse where the adverb translated as "always" appears to modify "praying" but at least one translation concluded it modified "thanks." Other than nearness, is there a basis for the overwhelming preference for praying?

Yes, the fact that "always" comes just before "praying" indicates it modifies that participle and not "We thank." it is possible that it modifies "We thank..." but not likely. The distance the adverb is from that verb is significant.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is v. 6.

6 This same Good News that came to you is going out all over the world. It is bearing fruit everywhere by changing lives, just as it changed your lives from the day you first heard and understood the truth about God’s wonderful grace.
6 τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς, καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ·

There is some significant semantic change. Assuming the reader cannot understand the metaphor "bearing fruit," the translators added "by changing lives...." I am convinced that paraphrases and DE translations dumb down the Word of God and over explain it because there is a belief that the average Christian is not capable of understanding the Bible unless they do this. I'm sure the scholars don't intend to look down on the reader, but that is what they are doing when they put simplifications and explanations into their translation.

God has some tough sentences and concepts in the Word of God to force us to meditate. Remember, "But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night" (Ps. 1:2). When you try to take ambiguity out of the Bible, there are two possibilities: (1) you'll get it wrong, and (2) you'll steal the blessing of meditation from the reader.

After having emergency surgery on Christmas Eve, then coming home finally after 13 days in the hospital (where I couldn't sleep), I've been repeating Ps. 23 in my heart before sleep every night, and it's been such a blessing. Yes, let's make a translation clear and readable, but we do a huge disservice to the reader when we dumb down and over-explain the ambiguities.

 

[MartyF]

as if the reader couldn't figure that out for itself

95% of native English speakers would not be able to figure that out. If you went out among the common English-speaking people, you'd know that.

The structure of letters from the 1st century to the 21st century have changed. Should we remove all punctuation and spacing in the New Testament as well? They weren't in the original and were added later on. Of course, because in a true translation you translate the form and words.

Again, "chosen" is not in the original, which has simply "Paul, an apostle through (or by) the will of God. This is a more serious addition to me, because it distracts from the phrase "will of God" to another thought, "chosen." Of course Paul was chosen to be an apostle. But Paul never uses that term in relation to his apostleship. He reserves it for salvation. If I were going to add a word here, it would be "called," not "chosen," since that is how Paul referred to his apostleship in other passages.

This is a translation opinion which is also not aired by the NASB - although the NASB likes to use "called" in the footnotes.

At no point does Paul say he reserves the word "chosen" for salvation. Now you're adding to the Bible. And then there is the counter-example of 1Corinthians 1:27

Another added datum is "our" towards the end. I don't see a problem semantically here, but once again, there is no need for the addition. The average (or even below average reader) can figure it out.

Have you met a below average native English reader who hasn't read the Bible yet? In addition, brother used in this way could mean a brother as in a monk in a Catholic order. "Our" is also added by the NASB.

The head translator of NLT Colosians is not hidden. Why not send an e-mail expressing your reservations and see if you get a reply?

 

[MartyF]

Extraneous data in this verse includes "and sisters," and "May...." We talked already about the "and sisters" addition on the other thread, so I'll not belabor it here.

So you believe he didn't want the women to read the letter? . . . interesting . . .

The word "may" makes us think that there is a Greek subjunctive here, but there is not. The usual translation would be, "Grace to you and peace from God our Father." This is completely understandable by any English-speaking person, so there was no need to add "May...give you." News programs use a similar syntax: "Breaking news to you from New York." Toasts and similar "blessings" in English use this syntax. This is a clear case of overreach in the name of clarity.

Anyone who speaks like that in today's English would be considered haughty. And I don't believe Paul was conveying a haughty manner when he originally wrote the letter. So, the polite "may" is used as well as a less haughty tone.

Also the NLT syntax is different. The second part of the verse is actually double-spaced to separate it from the rest of the text.

We are writing to God’s holy people in the city of Colosse, who are faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[MartyF]

Here is one more verse from the NLT.

3 We always pray for you, and we give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, πάντοτε περὶ ὑμῶν προσευχόμενοι,

I have no real objection to this rendering except for no understandable reason the order of the phrases is altered.

In the original order, people might think that the Father is always praying for them.

 

[MartyF]

Very poor so far.

Of course! It wasn't meant for you. In addition, you're reading it wrong.

 

[MartyF]

Here we go:

4 For we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and your love for all of God’s people, (Why not “holy people” as in v.
4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους,

This is a fairly straight rendering, except for one thing. Compare ἁγίοις (dative case, saints), "God's holy people"in v. 2, to ἁγίους (accusative), "God's people" here. In the exact same word (only different in case) in the context of only 2 verses later, they have changed the rendering. So, God's people in v. 2 are holy, but they are not here. Wow, what a weird translation! To these Greek experts, the word changed in meaning in the same context, and God's people became unholy, apparently.

That's not the way someone would read it in today's vernacular. Since at no point did the text say that they became unholy. So, in today's English they would still be considered holy.

In addition, "saint" would be a very poor translation. It does not mean the same thing to you as it does to most people.

 

[Rippon2]

I've been repeating Ps. 23 in my heart before sleep every night, and it's been such a blessing. Yes, let's make a translation clear and readable, but we do a huge disservice to the reader when we dumb down and over-explain the ambiguities.

Here is Psalm 23 in the NLT. I hope you will find that it is perfectly fine. It is indeed a blessing. It is clear and readable and with no so-called dumbing down.

The Lord is my shepherd;
I have all that I need.
He lets me rest in green meadows;
he leads me beside peaceful streams.
He renews my strength.
He guides me along right paths,
bringing honor to his name.
Even when I walk
through the darkest valley,
I will not be afraid,
for you are close beside me.
Your rod and staff
protect and comfort me.
You prepare a feast for me
in the presence of my enemies.
You honor me by anointing my head with oil.
My cup overflows with blessings.
Surely your goodness and unfailing love
will pursue me
all the days of my life,
and I will live in the house of the Lord
forever.

 

[MartyF]

Now we have an antecedent problem. This verse is phrased oddly. What does the "which come" refer to here in v. 4, faith and love, or "God's people"? Syntactically it could refer to either, but the original phrases it quite differently. The preposition διὰ plus the accusative is used to give a reason, as any first year textbook will teach: "because of" or "on account of" are the usual glosses. Translating "because of" instead of "which come from"

The NLT has decided not to recombine verses as other dynamic translations have. However, the phrase "which come from" more accurately translates the text. "Because of" is more likely to imply a direct cause and effect in today's vernacular.

"confident hope" instead of just "hope,"

Hope implies a great amount of doubt in today's vernacular as in the phrase "a hope and a prayer". Hope would be an incorrect translation

"what God has reserved for you in heaven" instead of "reserved for you in the heavens,"

The first is clear and the second is vague and can have many meanings.

"You have had this expectation" instead of "which you heard about."

Once again, the form is translated as well as the words. You know that Paul spoke the lowest of sentences. However, where possible, the NLT tries to translate this into the modern form of communication. As a result, sentences get broken up. In order to keep the same meaning, the words to keep the same meaning of the original statement need to be used.

“Paraphrase falls short of maintaining a semantic correspondence and is actually transformative.” Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., p. 18.

“Highly paraphrastic translations result from a theory of interlingual communication which justifies the addition of extraneous material or the need to ‘improve’ on the original by rewriting it.” On Translation, by Jin Di and Eugene Nida, p. 8.

These are people who received their money based on taking on religious donations. None of them had to translate for a living. If they had ever had to translate for a business or scientific paper, the would understand translation better.

 

[John of Japan]

95% of native English speakers would not be able to figure that out.

Are you kidding me? Don't you read email? The average millennial these days could easily figure out Paul's epistles. His opening greetings--to someone from Paul--are actually more elaborate than the average email.

If you went out among the common English-speaking people, you'd know that.

We've been back in the States for almost 6 years now. I teach Bible, Greek, etc., to millennials. Don't underestimate them. I know how they learn and how they understand things.

The structure of letters from the 1st century to the 21st century have changed. Should we remove all punctuation and spacing in the New Testament as well? They weren't in the original and were added later on. Of course, because in a true translation you translate the form and words.

Sorry, this is not how optimal equivalence translates.

This is a translation opinion which is also not aired by the NASB - although the NASB likes to use "called" in the footnotes.

At no point does Paul say he reserves the word "chosen" for salvation. Now you're adding to the Bible. And then there is the counter-example of 1Corinthians 1:27

These statements have no relation to what I said or think. Please don't talk down to me--I know very well how Paul used the words "chosen," "called," etc. And in no imaginable way did I add to the Word of God. That is an insulting false witness.

Have you met a below average native English reader who hasn't read the Bible yet? In addition, brother used in this way could mean a brother as in a monk in a Catholic order. "Our" is also added by the NASB.

You missed my point. Christianity is a family, so the word "brother" is important. And bikers and gang members use the word "brother" too. So what? Irrelevant. As for "friend," Quakers call each other that, as do many others. So what?

Now, are you familiar with the linguistic theory of universal grammar? Secular linguist Noam Chomsky gives more credit to the average person's understanding of language than the translators of the NLT.

The head translator of NLT Colosians is not hidden. Why not send an e-mail expressing your reservations and see if you get a reply?

I've written and talked to scholars numerous times, especially in the areas of Biblical languages and translation: Price (Hebrew, NKJV), Black (Greek), Robinson (textual criticism), Nord (skopos theory), Wendland (translation) and others. They are normally a lot more gracious than you are being.

 

[John of Japan]

So you believe he didn't want the women to read the letter? . . . interesting . . .

Didn't say that, don't believe it. Please represent me honestly, or I see no reason to further interact with you here.

Anyone who speaks like that in today's English would be considered haughty. And I don't believe Paul was conveying a haughty manner when he originally wrote the letter. So, the polite "may" is used as well as a less haughty tone.

"May" is passe. No one says "May I please..." anymore. And I disagree that my suggestion is "haughty." Can you give an illustration from contemporary English showing me how that works?

Also the NLT syntax is different. The second part of the verse is actually double-spaced to separate it from the rest of the text.

Point taken.

 

[MartyF]

I am convinced that paraphrases and DE translations dumb down the Word of God and over explain it because there is a belief that the average Christian is not capable of understanding the Bible unless they do this.

Now this is where you differ with some of the translators. This translation is not just for the Christians. It is for those who do not believe. In addition, it promotes an entirely different method of reading the Bible.

When people read the Bible verse by verse, they usually can't see the forest for all the trees. If someone is reading the Bible verse by verse, the NLT is not the translation to use. It's not meant for a verse by verse reading.

 

[John of Japan]

The NLT has decided not to recombine verses as other dynamic translations have. However, the phrase "which come from" more accurately translates the text. "Because of" is more likely to imply a direct cause and effect in today's vernacular.

Point taken.

Hope implies a great amount of doubt in today's vernacular as in the phrase "a hope and a prayer". Hope would be an incorrect translation

Your illustration is an idiom, not a standard use of the term "hope." Using an idiom to explain the meaning of a lexical item is inexact.

The first is clear and the second is vague and can have many meanings.

So as I've been saying, sometimes God makes a statement that is purposefully ambiguous. To clarify such ambiguous statements is to take away the reader's option of personal interpretation.

Once again, the form is translated as well as the words. You know that Paul spoke the lowest of sentences. However, where possible, the NLT tries to translate this into the modern form of communication. As a result, sentences get broken up. In order to keep the same meaning, the words to keep the same meaning of the original statement need to be used.

What in the world is "the lowest of sentences"? You must mean "longest." And I have no problem with breaking up Paul's sentences. Did not say I did. Again, you are putting words in my mouth, and that is wrong.

These are people who received their money based on taking on religious donations. None of them had to translate for a living. If they had ever had to translate for a business or scientific paper, the would understand translation better.

Are you referring to the secular scholars I quoted from? They are actually well known translation studies scholars (not religious at all) in the secular world. They actually do make their living from translation. Lawrence Venuti is a prof at Temple U., and Jin Di is a leading Chinese translation scholar, based in Hong Kong, I believe.

 

[MartyF]

Are you kidding me? Don't you read email? The average millennial these days could easily figure out Paul's epistles. His opening greetings--to someone from Paul--are actually more elaborate than the average email.

No, I'm not kidding you. And you haven't met an average American Millennial - so how would you know?

 

[John of Japan]

Now this is where you differ with some of the translators. This translation is not just for the Christians. It is for those who do not believe. In addition, it promotes an entirely different method of reading the Bible.

When people read the Bible verse by verse, they usually can't see the forest for all the trees. If someone is reading the Bible verse by verse, the NLT is not the translation to use. It's not meant for a verse by verse reading.

Most people I know read chapters at a time. Our church recently had a program where we passed out Gospels of John and encouraged people to read them. Then we got back to them and discussed the book (the whole book and nothing but the book) with them Huge blessing! And we did not have to use the NLT.

 

[MartyF]

We've been back in the States for almost 6 years now. I teach Bible, Greek, etc., to millennials. Don't underestimate them. I know how they learn and how they understand things.

These aren't average. In fact, they are abnormal.