New Living translation !

I have been using the NLT for the last couple years in my devotional time. I have enjoyed it. I think there were many good translators involved with it, especially Dr. Daniel Block in the OT. I do not care for it as well as some of the more literal translations out there.

 

I haven't read it, since I prefer more literal versions, and the "old" Living Bible had "cussing" in it.

 

For real?

I know that the LB that I have has Elijah saying maybe the pagans' god is "on the toilet" so he can't answer "by fire" as God did.

 

I have an NLT, it is easy reading and I have liked reading it in the past, but I find that I spend much more time now in the HCSB and NKJV. Not long ago I became a little dubious of the NLT when I was reading the story of Christ and the Centurion (Matt 8:5-13). In the NLT the Centurion refers to his superior officers, I stopped and thought that I had never read it that way before, I only remembered the Centurion referring to his subordinate soldiers. Checked it out in other translations (NASB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB, NIV) and no where else are any superior officers referred to. Made me question the accuracy of what I was reading and the reasoning for the change. I don't know Greek or Hebrew and have to depend on an English translation to be accurate - I am not saying that the NLT Is inaccurate, but I wonder why such a significant change? Bruce

 

Good dynamic translation

 

settle for some variation of "son of a perverse and rebellious woman."

. . . an excessively long phrase which can be summed up in a single word of five letters.

Vulgar? Heck yeah. But neither was Saul being nicey-nicey when he said it.

 

First off, the Living Bible is a paraphrase and the NLT is a translation. Is there any connection between the two?

My OT prof, who also teaches Hebrew, told us that in that passage about Mr. Carmel, the Hebrew there really is an idiom that means "on the toilet." Elijah was really saying that.

 

The NLT is a fraud! It pretends to be a translation, but it is not. It is a revision of the Living Bible, Paraphrased. Hundreds of verses and phrases could be posted that prove this to be a fact, and even the publishers of the NLT have admitted in some of their literature that the NLT is not really a translation of the Bible in the usual sense of the word, and they say that it is a “translation in it’s own right,” whatever that is supposed to mean.

Read the publisher’s literature for yourself. A revision of the Living Bible, Paraphrased was sent to a team of Bible scholars and they were asked to make comments on the revision, and the revision was further revised. Therefore the “translation committee” was in reality a committee that “sent in suggestions” for revision. One of the so-called translators wrote in personal correspondence to me that the NLT is “a good paraphrase.” (My emphasis in bold type).

Matthew 7:21 is a good example where the original wording of the Living Bible, Paraphrased has been retained almost to the letter. I chose to post this example because, even though this passage in the Living Bible, Paraphrased was theologically inaccurate, it is still found in the NLT.

Are we really saved by grace through faith, or are we saved through obedience to our Father in heaven:

21. "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as 'Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven.
22. On judgment day many will tell me, 'Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.'
23. But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized.'
Matthew 7:21-23 (NLT)

21. ``Not all who sound religious are really godly people. They may refer to me as `Lord,' but still won't get to heaven. For the decisive question is whether they obey my Father in heaven.
22. At the Judgment many will tell me, `Lord, Lord, we told others about you and used your name to cast out demons and to do many other great miracles.'
23. But I will reply, `You have never been mine. Go away, for your deeds are evil.'
(LB)

21. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
22. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
23. "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (NASB, 1995)

 

and even the publishers of the NLT have admitted in some of their literature that the NLT is not really a translation of the Bible in the usual sense of the word

By saying they "admitted" it, you give the false impression that this is a dirty little secret that they are forced to acknowledge after being confronted with the evidence.

But, in fact, they have been up front about this since before the version was released.

Try using a little less loaded language. In particular, the term "fraud" is especially inflammatory considering the NLT is precisely what its publishers claim it to be.

 

The word fraud is not needed ....Ransom is exactly right!

 

The publishers talk out of both sides of their mouth. In most of their literature they call it a translation, without qualifying the word. This is outright dishonesty! And, of course, there is the matter of the name that they gave their revised paraphrase, New Living Translation.

 

This is outright dishonesty!

Um, no, it is ambiguity. This is what I mean about loaded language. How do you know the choice of the word "translation" was not merely sloppiness rather than "outright dishonesty"? Are you a mind reader?

 

I'll stick with the more literal translations,or even the dynamic equivalency translations like the NIV or HCSB for my own use...