HELP! I am beginning to like the NLT!

[GordonWayneWatts]

(-: Cool Blessings

Good advice. With all of the online helps available today, Greek and Hebrew are not as difficult as they once were.

Cool - I'm glad that technology has made it easier - - Thx 4 reminding us of our blessings.

 

[Rippon]

I simply prefer literal -- that's just me. "Mo literal is Mo better!"

More literal is less meanful i.e. full of meaning.

I didn't know that, but it still is pretty accurate -- if I got 3 or 4 good literal translations, then a few bobbles in the KJV out [sic]to be no problem.

What are you basing the accuracy of the KJV upon?

 

[Yeshua1]

More literal is less meanful i.e. full of meaning.

Depends upon IF more literal means more accurate to the original texts or not!


What are you basing the accuracy of the KJV upon?

Don't thank anyone could show why it would be superior to modern versions!

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

@ Rippon - replying to all queries de GORDON Watts//

More literal is less meanful i.e. full of meaning.

Eh? If the translation is literally accurate (and not a paraphrase), then it should be more correct - except in cases where, for example, the literal saying is a phrase with a different meaning -- such as:

"You're just pulling my leg" does NOT literally refer to the limbs on your body, but rather, refers to someone joking or trying to trick you.

In such cases, a good footnote, explaining the meaning and context, would be appropriate, but really: I don't see why ANYONE would want anything less than a literally accurate translation -- for example, if I'm asking for directions to the mall to see a movie, and then directions to a gun shop BEFOREHAND, so I can defend my myself in case there is a shooting aimed at movie-goers, for example ... I'd like LITERALLY ACCURATE translations, if the speaker is using another language besides English:

My LIFE could depend on it! (And same w/ Bible, except the stakes are even higher: One's SOUL is at stake.)

What are you basing the accuracy of the KJV upon?

I'll be bluntly honest with you: I have heard this claim numerous times in the past, from various Bible scholars, and have heard NO contrary claims -- and no real complaints of great substance (just minor things like words are out-dated & hard to understand) -- but I admit I have not done a DEEP word and grammar study myself.

OK, not the best answer, but I'm a Christian, and I believe in honesty -- aka "keepin' it real."

:thumbs:

oh, I forgot one other reason why I trust the KJV: I recall the history of King James, who was under political pressure to turn out an accurate translation, so I infer he tried his best.

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

debate on both sides re KJV

Don't thank anyone could show why it would be superior to modern versions!

It is a matter hotly debated, actually...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=kjv+accurate

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...curate&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

See THIS telling quote, though:

"I do not trust the NIV in all instances because of certain prejudices on the part of the translators. Anytime I use it, I compare it with the KJV and several other translations to assure accuracy. It is, as you note, much easier to read in many cases and even helps clarify the Old English language. It is my experience that one can use almost any translation of the Bible and, if enough attention is paid, find the truth."

source: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/is-kjv-bible-more-accurate-than-niv.html

Oh, I'd like to add one other small 'FAIR USE' quote:



"Let's talk about Bible translation.

I see that you are using the King James version. That is generally an accurate translation and beautiful translation. However, at times there can be some problems with using the King James version. For example, the English is not the English we use today. So although it is an accurate translation, many people can not accurately understand what is being said in the King James Version.

You are correct, the NLT is not a word-for-word translation. It is a paraphrase translation, which we chose because it makes the meaning clear to non-Christian readers."

source: http://www.missiontoamerica.org/letters/bible-questions/good-bible-translation.html

 

[Yeshua1]

It is a matter hotly debated, actually...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=kjv+accurate

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...curate&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

See THIS telling quote, though:

"I do not trust the NIV in all instances because of certain prejudices on the part of the translators. Anytime I use it, I compare it with the KJV and several other translations to assure accuracy. It is, as you note, much easier to read in many cases and even helps clarify the Old English language. It is my experience that one can use almost any translation of the Bible and, if enough attention is paid, find the truth."

source: http://www.biblestudy.org/question/is-kjv-bible-more-accurate-than-niv.html

Oh, I'd like to add one other small 'FAIR USE' quote:



"Let's talk about Bible translation.

I see that you are using the King James version. That is generally an accurate translation and beautiful translation. However, at times there can be some problems with using the King James version. For example, the English is not the English we use today. So although it is an accurate translation, many people can not accurately understand what is being said in the King James Version.

You are correct, the NLT is not a word-for-word translation. It is a paraphrase translation, which we chose because it makes the meaning clear to non-Christian readers."

source: http://www.missiontoamerica.org/letters/bible-questions/good-bible-translation.html

Agree with all those quotes!

the KJV good translation, its just that sometimes lack of knowing what the englsh meant over 400 years ago means need to read modernversion to get full gist of it!

 

[Rippon]

You are correct, the NLT is not a word-for-word translation. It is a paraphrase translation, which we chose because it makes the meaning clear to non-Christian readers."

Your source is incorrect. The NLTse is not a paraphrase. It employs dynamic equivalence.And it sometimes is literal even.

 

[Yeshua1]

Your source is incorrect. The NLTse is not a paraphrase. It employs dynamic equivalence.And it sometimes is literal even.

One of the translators on it as stated though that he views NLT as being best for either new christians , or else those with English as secondary language! he would look to using others versions for serious reading!

 

[Rippon]

Eh? If the translation is literally accurate (and not a paraphrase), then it should be more correct - except in cases where,...

In some cases a dynamic rendering is best rather than a literal attempt."Literally accurate" is rarely possible.

I don't see why ANYONE would want anything less than a literally accurate translation --

Well,wake up and smell the coffee. I think many prefer a more functionally equivalent approach which generally is more accurate than a so-called word-for-word affair.

oh, I forgot one other reason why I trust the KJV: I recall the history of King James, who was under political pressure to turn out an accurate translation, so I infer he tried his best.

King James did not do any translating or revising. He was absolutely no political pressure whatsoever --he exerted the pressure!

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

In some cases a dynamic rendering is best rather than a literal attempt."Literally accurate" is rarely possible.



Well,wake up and smell the coffee. I think many prefer a more functionally equivalent approach which generally is more accurate than a so-called word-for-word affair.




King James did not do any translating or revising. He was absolutely no political pressure whatsoever --he exerted the pressure!

When I said that King James was under pressure to turn out a good translation, I did not mean to suggest that he, himself, was doing the translation (but thx 4 clarifying) -- I meant that HE was under pressure (by whom, exactly, I do not know -- various churches and politicians --and the public, maybe?) -- but, yes, he, in turn, also exerted political pressure, I would imagine, for them to do the best job possible, so that he would incur the least political fall-out.

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Your source is incorrect. The NLTse is not a paraphrase. It employs dynamic equivalence.And it sometimes is literal even.

You could be correct, and I'm sure that SOME of the NLT is literal, but when I say that it's a paraphrase, I mean that at least some of it's a paraphrase --and not "zero percent" as you'd expect in a literal translation.


Also, another poster, Yeshua1, says that: "One of the translators on it as stated though that he views NLT as being best for either new christians , or else those with English as secondary language! he would look to using others versions for serious reading!"

While I can't prove this, it's the same type of thing I've heard down through the years, ad I trust that it's accurate.

I don't have a problem with paraphrases, but they are only good if you can compare them with a literal translation, and footnotes to explain the grammar and context (such as cultural context, idioms, and such).

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

questions / comments @ Rippon

In some cases a dynamic rendering is best rather than a literal attempt."Literally accurate" is rarely possible.

Why do you say that? With all the modern technology & research, I'd say it is VERY possible im most (if not all) cases.

Well,wake up and smell the coffee. I think many prefer a more functionally equivalent approach which generally is more accurate than a so-called word-for-word affair.

I don't care what most might possibly prefer (and you're only guessing that most would prefer less literal translations -- but you may be right: Most walk the WIDE path to destruction too)... -- I only care what most people NEED.

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Apology to Yeshua1 - I think I mis-read your post...

Agree with all those quotes!

the KJV good translation, its just that sometimes lack of knowing what the englsh meant over 400 years ago means need to read modernversion to get full gist of it!

from earlier...
(Rippon said) "What are you basing the accuracy of the KJV upon?"
(Yeshua1 said) "Don't thank anyone could show why it would be superior to modern versions!"

- - - (end of quotations)

When I first saw your reply to Rippon, above, I think that I was understanding you to mean that you didn't think anyone could defend the KJV as more accurate than modern translations.

But I guess I mis-read your take on it -- I apologize for that.

Of course, it wasn't totally clear in my reply, as I simply said it was still a hotly debated issue, but I figured I'd apologize and clarify just to be on the same side.



Also, it's good to have several translations AND footnotes "just to be on the safe side."

 

[Yeshua1]

In some cases a dynamic rendering is best rather than a literal attempt."Literally accurate" is rarely possible.



Well,wake up and smell the coffee. I think many prefer a more functionally equivalent approach which generally is more accurate than a so-called word-for-word affair.




King James did not do any translating or revising. He was absolutely no political pressure whatsoever --he exerted the pressure!

best version to use for study IF being accurate only would be the 1901 Asv, but think that MOST would benefit far more from the NASB update, or such as the Niv/HCSB/ESV, as those ALL do a good job in transalting the word of god from the greek/hebrew texts to English!

 

[Rippon]

when I say that it's a paraphrase, I mean that at least some of it's a paraphrase --and not "zero percent" as you'd expect in a literal translation.

You are mistaken. There is no "zero percent" in any Bible translation including the KJV. The KJV has a number of instances in which it employs paraphrases.

Examples of true paraphrases would be the old Living Bible and the Phillips. Don't confuse dynamic equivalence with paraphrases.

 

[Rippon]

I don't care what most might possibly prefer (and you're only guessing that most would prefer less literal translations -- but you may be right: Most walk the WIDE path to destruction too)... -- I only care what most people NEED.

Most people do not need a literal translation. Most need an accurate version in their heart language.

And you had best avoid the comparision with people on the wide path of destruction. You are walking on thin ice there.

 

[Rippon]

I meant that HE was under pressure (by whom, exactly, I do not know -- various churches and politicians --and the public, maybe?) -- but, yes, he, in turn, also exerted political pressure, I would imagine, for them to do the best job possible, so that he would incur the least political fall-out.

You're confused. King James was in control. He didn't have to worry about "political fallout". He was the one who tried with his authority to stamp out the Geneva Bible if you know church history.

 

[Yeshua1]

Most people do not need a literal translation. Most need an accurate version in their heart language.

And you had best avoid the comparision with people on the wide path of destruction. You are walking on thin ice there.

ALL of us have our "favorite version", but to be honest, nearly all modern versions that have been down by evangelicals/reliable scholars, are ALL trustworthy to read and study from!

So feel free to use ole Nasb/Niv/ESV/HCSB/NKJV, and KJV if thats your cup of tea!

 

[alexander284]

I use the Nasb/Esv for 'serious studies', but also like to read from either the HCSB or Niv!

i am right there with you, brother!

 

[GordonWayneWatts]

Sorry for my grammar, Rippon: You could be right...

Most people do not need a literal translation. Most need an accurate version in their heart language.

And you had best avoid the comparision with people on the wide path of destruction. You are walking on thin ice there.

perhaps you are correct here:

I did not mean to imply that adherents to one translation or the other were intrinsically evil -- that was bad phrasing on my part - I apologize.

But, the comparison was valid: Sometimes the majority (many people versus few) can be wrong: The majority is not always right.