Your thoughts on the New Living Translation

[Prodigal Daughter]

I bought a copy of this so that I could better understand some of the verses, but I can't say that it appealed to me. Yes, it puts thing in modern jargon, but there isnt a good reference to look up things tha tyou may need.

Your thoughts?

 

[Keith M]

I normally steer clear of the more dynamic translations like the NIV and the NLT, especially the gender-neutral ones. That isn't the way the Bible was written and it shouldn never be so loosely translated. I totally avoid the paaraphrases. Give me a good mostly litral translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) any day. They are much more accurate to what the orignlal-language manuscripts say.than the less literal versions.

 

[go2church]

Literal (better formal) translations are often confusing and hard to understand for the average bible reader. Get a good middle of the road translation and you should be fine in most cases. I would recommend the TNIV and if you're looking for a study bible, the TNIV Study Bible is one of the best.

NLT is fine for what it is, a dynamic translation. It was updated recently and for my money I think it moved a bit closer to the middle of the road, like the NIV, then when it originally came out, which is fine.

I use the TNIV specifically for the gender related issues. Dobson and his self-righteous crowd (SBC included) are hypocrites when it comes to this issue, because they destroyed one version, while all the while promoting another version that used the exact same translation philosophy as the TNIV. Shame on them!

 

[Rippon]

AMEN, GTC , preach it brother ! The TNIV is essentially literal in its translation philosophy . Aside from archaic wordings in the ESV it's only marginally more formal than the TNIV . The much-hyped differences are fractional . BTW , most NT scholars have no problem with the TNIV . History will vindicate it's accuracy and clarity . When a faithful translation has received so much unwarranted vituperation by professing believers I liken the sad series of events to the early Baptists in America who were persecuted for their faith . It's uncalled for . We need a later day Cotton Mather from the ESV side to publicly apologize for their disgraceful conduct and for besmirching the motivations of the TNIV team .

And yes , the NLT2 moved even closer toward the formal end of the spectrum while remaining in the dynamic camp for the most part .

 

[tinytim]

I like to read the NLT for devotions.

My wife has a reading disability, and the KJV was always tough. She dreaded Bible study... until.... she opened a NLT.

She can now understand the Bible. Gotta be a good thing there.

 

[PeterM]

I like to read the NLT for devotions.

My wife has a reading disability, and the KJV was always tough. She dreaded Bible study... until.... she opened a NLT.

She can now understand the Bible. Gotta be a good thing there.

Excellent example of why multiple translations are a good thing...

The Bible was meant to not only be read, but comprehended as well. Literal translations are great but if basic comprehension is at issue, the more dynamic efforts can be wonderful tools.

Grateful your wife found what works... and had the freedom to do so.

Blessings

 

[Rippon]

And don't forget about people for which English is not their first language . The NLT2 is more suitable for their needs than the NKJ, NASU , ESV and certainly the KJV . I prefer to give out the even better suited NIrV most of the time .

 

[webdog]

AMEN, GTC , preach it brother ! The TNIV is essentially literal in its translation philosophy . Aside from archaic wordings in the ESV it's only marginally more formal than the TNIV . The much-hyped differences are fractional . BTW , most NT scholars have no problem with the TNIV . History will vindicate it's accuracy and clarity . When a faithful translation has received so much unwarranted vituperation by professing believers I liken the sad series of events to the early Baptists in America who were persecuted for their faith . It's uncalled for . We need a later day Cotton Mather from the ESV side to publicly apologize for their disgraceful conduct and for besmirching the motivations of the TNIV team .

And yes , the NLT2 moved even closer toward the formal end of the spectrum while remaining in the dynamic camp for the most part .

^ what he said
While I haven't read the TNIV, the NLT2 is excellent. Might I also suggest the HCSB? I would get 2 dynamic and 2 formal (and one optimal, a "mixture" of both...the HCSB) translations. ESV, NASB, NKJV are all good formal, while NLT, NLT2, and NIV are all good dynamic translations.

 

[Brother Randall]

I normally steer clear of the more dynamic translations like the NIV and the NLT, especially the gender-neutral ones. That isn't the way the Bible was written and it shouldn never be so loosely translated. I totally avoid the paaraphrases. Give me a good mostly litral translation (KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) any day. They are much more accurate to what the orignlal-language manuscripts say.than the less literal versions.

Me too. I stick to the literal translations. I have NASB and KNJV Study Bible and like them alot especially the NKJV.

My first bible was a NLT, but I feel some things were being lost in translation. I do sometimes use is it like a commentary if I want another perspective on a difficult passage. I just wish my NASB and NKJV had the quality of my NLT...the bible construction, paper, font and printing quality are outstanding. Tyndale Publishing did a great job. Foundation publishing (NASB) and Thomas Nelson (NKJV) could learn alot from them.

 

[palagislandgirl]

Thoughts on the NLT

I have to ditto what has already been said as far as using it when studying. It helps to clear up a few questions. For the most part though, I still use my NKJV.

 

[gb93433]

Any translation that uses archaic language is not faithful to the original impact of the language and message because when the Bible was written nobody read the message at that time meant for the people it was written to in an archaic language. It was a current message for the people at that time using the language of the modern-day culture.

When a translation is translated into an archaic language it is impossible to conveys its full accuracy. It comes across as an archaic document at a time in history and not a living document inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Martin]

I bought a copy of this so that I could better understand some of the verses, but I can't say that it appealed to me. Yes, it puts thing in modern jargon, but there isnt a good reference to look up things that you may need. Your thoughts?

==The translation itself is very good. Different publishers will put different things in their different version. So you may need to get another publisher's edition (same text but it would probably have a better reference tools).

My grandmother, who died in '00, went legally blind in the last four or so years of her life due to a vision disorder. She started with a big print (KJV) Bible, but after a while, she could not read that anymore. We started buying her books on tape/cd (etc) so she could "read" books like she always enjoyed doing. I also started bringing her tapes from my church since she could no longer get to her church because she was crippled and usually in some sort of pain. She had a Bible on tape that a friend had given her many years earlier (the Lord's providence? I think so). I never gave it any thought until I went into her room one day while she was listening to it. She was asleep in her chair, with the tape player running, so she did not hear me enter the room. I stood there for a moment and listened to the tape. O, it was terrible! It was the King James Version being read in this mono-tone voice. No wonder the woman was asleep! Anyway I did not say anything about it but I went out the next day to find her something better. I would have been happy with any good translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, etc) as long as the recording was done better. Anyway I ran accross the NLT New Testament on tape (w/ dramatic voices). I knew the NLT was a good translation, had a written copy myself, so I was thrilled to see at least the New Testament on tape. I purchased a copy and listened to some of Matthew in my car that night. It was done really, really well. I was very pleased. The next day I took her the tapes and she was thrilled. She admitted that it was hard listening to what she had but it was all she had, either way she put up with it because she wanted to read the Bible (like she always had). She lived another two years (or so) after that. After she died someone gave me the tapes back. She had worn them out...literally.

About a year ago I purchased the entire NLT version Bible on cd. It is the same thing she had but it also has the Old Testament. I still have her tapes but, as I said, they are in very bad shape. She use to tell me what she was listening to. I did not keep a track of it but I suspect, due to the condition of the tapes, that she listened to each tape more than several times!

 

[Rippon]

That was an encouraging story about your grandmother Martin . The Lord honors His Word . Some may deride the NLT as not among the "valid or faithful" MV's but that attitude is pitiful and wrong .

BTW , she was using the NLT1 which came out in 1996 . I have that and the NLT2 . I appreciate the wording of some verses which were removed in the 2004 version . Perhaps they should introduce a hybrid edition which combines the best of the two .

 

[Faith alone]

AMEN, GTC , preach it brother ! The TNIV is essentially literal in its translation philosophy . Aside from archaic wordings in the ESV it's only marginally more formal than the TNIV . The much-hyped differences are fractional . BTW , most NT scholars have no problem with the TNIV . History will vindicate it's accuracy and clarity . When a faithful translation has received so much unwarranted vituperation by professing believers I liken the sad series of events to the early Baptists in America who were persecuted for their faith . It's uncalled for . We need a later day Cotton Mather from the ESV side to publicly apologize for their disgraceful conduct and for besmirching the motivations of the TNIV team .

And yes , the NLT2 moved even closer toward the formal end of the spectrum while remaining in the dynamic camp for the most part .

Amen! And always get the NLT2.

 

[Faith alone]

Literal (better formal) translations are often confusing and hard to understand for the average bible reader. Get a good middle of the road translation and you should be fine in most cases. I would recommend the TNIV and if you're looking for a study bible, the TNIV Study Bible is one of the best.

NLT is fine for what it is, a dynamic translation. It was updated recently and for my money I think it moved a bit closer to the middle of the road, like the NIV, then when it originally came out, which is fine.

I use the TNIV specifically for the gender related issues. Dobson and his self-righteous crowd (SBC included) are hypocrites when it comes to this issue, because they destroyed one version, while all the while promoting another version that used the exact same translation philosophy as the TNIV. Shame on them!

I agree. But, what is that translation they have been supporting? ...the NLT? If so, I agree again. The NLT is just about as gender inclusive as the TNIV. Most of the leaders who renounced the TNIV are ignorant of G-I issues.

FA

 

[go2church]

The last time I was at Focus on the Family, they a scripture verse on the wall with brass letters from the Living Bible. My point is that they did not rain down on Tyndale about the NLT, or try and hold them hostage to get their way.

 

[TomVols]

Remind me what the difference is between the first NLT and the new NLT, and how we know the difference when we see it. Thanks!

 

[Keith M]

Maybe it would be a good idea if all revisions of all Bible versions included a number in the reference for every edition after the original - NLT2 has set a good example.

 

[Martin]

Some may deride the NLT as not among the "valid or faithful" MV's but that attitude is pitiful and wrong .

==Many of the men who worked on the NLT are top of the line, solid, Christian, conservative scholars. I was not aware that a new "version" of the NLT was out. I knew about the updated NASB, since I use one, and the updated NIV, but I was unaware of the updated NLT. I will have to look into that.:thumbs:

 

[go2church]

Check the copyright date inside the front cover, the first one is 1996 or something like that and the new one has a 2004 or 5 date. And if you read them side by side you will see differences