NKJV vs. NLT

[Eternally Grateful]

So, provide details and comparisons for us that make the NLT so bad. Your claim here demand you prove your claim.

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

 

[AustinC]

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.

 

[AVL1984]

one, I am not KJV only. why do you assume things

two. In interpretive types. Bibles like the King Jimmy, NASB and ESV are considered a word for word translation. While your correct that it is impossible to have a true word for word. That is what the people call it. because it is the closest we can get

Bibles like the NIV and New Living are not word for word. they interpret far different that the w for w translations.

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]

If you don't like 'word for word,' try 'accurate.'

Are they? I believe they fit closer to their corresponding underlying texts than the majority of the others....

Also, anyone who supports the NKJV cannot , by definition, be KJV-only

Please, pray tell, where I have implied any such thing. This board is full of people who "assume" things they ought not. Typical I'm finding of "Christian" boards.
.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@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.

 

[AVL1984]

@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.

 

[Conan]

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.

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

 

[AVL1984]

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.

 

[37818]

. . . why is it so hard for most KJVo's to admit this?

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Wow...using one MV to correct another? I hate to voice this opinion again, but, it's true....there is no such thing as a "word for word" translation, try as they may...even the translators of the KJV admitted this. why is it so hard for most KJVo's to admit this?

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.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

kind of hard to compair the 2.

The KJV or NKJV is a word for word translation. While the NLT, like the NIV is not.. The NLT is actually a poor translation there are many errors in it. I would not recommend it to anyone. even though it is so much easier to read

Again, you do not know whereof you speak.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

All translations are paraphrases of the originals. All translations are approximations. All translations are interpretations. One can't translate without interpretation.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Nearly every translation is sense-for-sense --phrase-for-phrase and clause-for-clause.
Word-for-word is an impossibility.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Col. 1:15

"Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation." (NLT)
The above is superior to all translations on BibleGateway. It is like the REB here "He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all creation."

John Murray writes in The Goal Of Sanctification that the term firstborn (which most translations have) "reflects on the primacy and supremacy of Christ." [Collected Writings, 2:316]

In the New Bible Commentary Revised, 1970 edition, page 1144, it states "The word first-born must be understood in the sense of 'supreme' rather than in the temporal sense of born before."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

It use to be the Living Bible, a paraphrase of the old American Standard Version. The author did not know Greek or Hebrew and was known to be inaccurate. But they sold so many editions because people were desperate for an edition that they could understand! Now that was a good idea.

But after a while the not accurate reputation caught up with it, so the author, owner, copyright holder learned Greek and Hebrew, and added a scholar or two that knew Greek/Hebrew. Of course the results were no doubt an improvement. But how much an improvement? All one has to do is compare it with an accurate one to check it's accuracy. I am behind the times on most of these Bibles so my information is old, and maybe out of date. There may be revisions making it much more accurate since my day. One would hope.

But it seemed to me to be an inaccurate version. Compare it to the Greek, or a Greek/English Interlinear, or even more literal English Translations and you will find out.

Your information is faulty. Kenneth Taylor who did the work on the Living Bible did not learn Greek and Hebrew and added a Greek and/or Hebrew scholar since to assist and improve the production.

In 1996, after several years of labor many Bible scholars translated the Bible. It has been updated several times over the past quarter of century.

I will list 13 translators of the NLT; there are many more. But you should be familiar with these men.

Phil W. Comfort, Tremper Longman, Daniel Block, Darrell Bock, Doug Moo, Moises Silva, Thomas Schreiner, Craig Blomberg, D A Carson, Harold Hoehner*, Robert Mounce*, Richard Platt and Robert Stein.

[* means deceased]

Shame on anyone casting aspirations on these and other translators of the NLT. (I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but it does apply to some]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Col. 1:15

"Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation." (NLT)
The above is superior to all translations on BibleGateway. It is like the REB here "He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all creation."

John Murray writes in The Goal Of Sanctification that the term firstborn (which most translations have) "reflects on the primacy and supremacy of Christ." [Collected Writings, 2:316]

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.

In the New Bible Commentary Revised, 1970 edition, page 1144, it states "The word first-born must be understood in the sense of 'supreme' rather than in the temporal sense of born before."

Quite right. It's the New Bible Commentary.

 

[AVL1984]

I will just repeat what I said before; anyone who supports the NKJV cannot be KJV-only.

I never implied they were...Again...COMPREHENSION!


And you need to stop being so grumpy.
You're attemp at deflection is laughable. I'm being direct, not grumpy!
I hereby withdraw my apology.
That's your prerogative!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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,... 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.
It's the New Bible Commentary.

What's your point? A commentary is a commentary. What masterful insight.

Yes, 'firstborn does denote primacy or supremacy. So we are in agreement.

A translation has to interpret. It is impossible otherwise. Translating is interpreting.

There is no one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English or Hebrew to English.

 

[37818]

There is no one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English or Hebrew to English.

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