• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Where would you Place the NLT version?

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In a graph where an interlinear is at the extreme left and The Message is at the extreme right -- here's the turf area at which I would place it:

NJB -- REB -- CEB -- NLTse -- GW
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Isn't it regarded as being essentially in the same line of say the Niv?

By ill-informed folks,yes.

The NIV occupies the same territory as the HCSB,NAB,ISV and NET Bible. The NLTse is several more notches to the right of the NET Bible.

However, the NLTse is considerably closer to the NIV than the NCV,TEV and CEV.Those last three are much more on the right side of the scale.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
By ill-informed folks,yes.

The NIV occupies the same territory as the HCSB,NAB,ISV and NET Bible. The NLTse is several more notches to the right of the NET Bible.

However, the NLTse is considerably closer to the NIV than the NCV,TEV and CEV.Those last three are much more on the right side of the scale.

Would it be fair to say that current NIV/HCSB would be more in tradition of being "mediating" translation between "purely" literal versions exampled by NSV and "purely" Dynamic exampled by Message?
 

sdonahue1

New Member
I simply do NOT trust the NLT. It's an ok read lying in bed with a soda on the nightstand next to you. I would also read it with a ballpoint pen handy to change the ridiculous gender-inclusive language and unwarranted plurals.
 

sdonahue1

New Member
Would it be fair to say that current NIV/HCSB would be more in tradition of being "mediating" translation between "purely" literal versions exampled by NSV and "purely" Dynamic exampled by Message?

The HCSB is more literal than the 1984 NIV, and MUCH more literal than the NIV2011. It is termed 'Optimal Equivalence' by it's publisher.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The HCSB is more literal than the 1984 NIV, and MUCH more literal than the NIV2011.

Only by a smidgen.

You make it sound as if the 2011 NIV is an all-together different species than the HCSB. Whereas in reality. they are rather close.


It is termed 'Optimal Equivalence' by it's publisher.

And the ESV uses the term "essentially literal" for their version. So what?

Since the HCSB and the 2011 have so much in common with virtually the same translating philosophy when it comes down to it -- the 2011 NIV might as well use the same kind of terminology to describe their own translation.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Only by a smidgen.

You make it sound as if the 2011 NIV is an all-together different species than the HCSB. Whereas in reality. they are rather close.




And the ESV uses the term "essentially literal" for their version. So what?

Since the HCSB and the 2011 have so much in common with virtually the same translating philosophy when it comes down to it -- the 2011 NIV might as well use the same kind of terminology to describe their own translation.

Think many of us here on the BB posting on modern versions mistakenly think that IF anything other than a literal translation made in English, by definition MUST be worse/inferior...

Think that is why we should have and study from both say NASV/ESV/NKJV, along with either HCSB/NIV, as there are some passages where the more strictly literal ones make it awkward to follow!
 
Top