Your thoughts on the New Living Translation

[David Michael Harris]

How to get saved in the NLT:

Romans 10:9-10 (NLT = the New Living Translation):
9 For if you confess with your mouth that
Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from
the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are
made right with God, and it is by confessing with
your mouth that you are saved.

That's what I like, this one time believing. Transaction. Being made right is eternal, although you will be disciplined. Why? Because we as Christians will not be condemned with the rest of the world.

O happy day....

 

[Ed Edwards]

That's what I like, this one time believing. Transaction. Being made right is eternal, although you will be disciplined. Why? Because we as Christians will not be condemned with the rest of the world.

O happy day....

I believed what Romans 10:9-10 in 1952.
It has stuck with me for 55 years so far.
I think it will last forever, for it depends on Jesus
not on me. :godisgood:

 

[Rippon]

More NLTse Passages -- Romans 8:18-25

Yet what we suffer now is nothing to be compared to the glory he will reveal to us later . For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are . Against its will , all creation was subjected to God's curse . But with eager hope , the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay . For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time . And we believers also groan , even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory , for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering . We , too , wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children , including the new bodies he has promised us . We were given this hope when we were saved . ( If we already have something , we don't need to hope for it . But if we look forward to something we don't yet have , we must wait patiently and confidently . )

 

[TCGreek]

Yes, it does; this verse was an example of one Person of the Trinity being identified by a neuter pronoun.

1. So then, what is your opinion on the many versions (NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Young, etc.) that have "himself" at Romans 8:16? Is there a scriptural basis for a masculine Holy Spirit? The NLT side-steps the issue here by rendering it thus --

For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children.​

1. While the neuter pronoun auto agrees with its grammatical gender pneuma, I suspect that the reason why those versions go with "himself" is based more on natural, masculine gender that is ascribe to God in the rest of Scripture and the Spirit is God. And I think they are right.

2. But in John we have something different: John 16:13, 14, we have ekeinos, the masculine demonstrative, referring to to pneuma, which is neuter, and therefore warrants the form ekeino, grammatically (Mark 7:20).

2. Is the NLT justified to make (autos)"his" refer back to "Abba, Father" (v.15)?

2. The NLT has committed several grammatical errors:

a. It has changed the intensive use of the pronoun to its possessive use.

b. This occurred when they changed auto, which is what is in the text, to autou, "of him."

Two more questions for you:

3. Is Tyndale's translation confusing or ambiguous on the Deity of Christ in John 1:1-5 & 14?

4. Is Tyndale's rendering of (autos)"it" as a pronoun for (logos)"the worde" a 'flawed' translation?[/QUOTE]

3. Grammatically speaking, Tyndale should have stuck with the masculine use of autos until v. 3.

4. Because from v.4, John changes imageries, from Logos to Light, but v. 4 begins with en autw, which I think should agree with it antecedent, "in Him."

5. In v.5 we have to phos, "light," so we expect its pronoun to agree grammatically, and it does, auto, "it."

6. For Tyndale to translate autos as it is owing to some philosophical approach to the text, where he sees "Word" as a thing and not as a person. However, ho logos is masculine and therefore we expected its pronouns to agree.

 

[franklinmonroe]

1. While the neuter pronoun auto agrees with its grammatical gender pneuma, I suspect that the reason why those versions go with "himself" is based more on natural, masculine gender that is ascribe to God in the rest of Scripture and the Spirit is God. And I think they are right.

So, in this case you approve of a philosophical approach (non-literal translation) of the text. But, for example, Jesus says that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life (all feminine nouns in Greek); the grammatical gender of The Word cannot dictate physical gender (if any).

2. But in John we have something different: John 16:13, 14, we have ekeinos, the masculine demonstrative, referring to to pneuma, which is neuter, and therefore warrants the form ekeino, grammatically (Mark 7:20).

Is this the only instance of a masculine reference towards the pneuma in the GNT? Isn't the evidence overwhelming that the Holy Spirit is neuter.

6. For Tyndale to translate autos as it is owing to some philosophical approach to the text, where he sees "Word" as a thing and not as a person...

I think it would be more generous to guess that Tyndale sees "the worde" not as a 'thing', but as a Person (of the Godhead), and that this Person (prior to the Creation, and prior to the Incarnation) has uncertain or unnecessary gender.

 

[TCGreek]

So, in this case you approve of a philosophical approach (non-literal translation) of the text. But, for example, Jesus says that He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life (all feminine nouns in Greek); the grammatical gender of The Word cannot dictate physical gender (if any).

1. Yes, while the grammatical gender is neuter, theologically "himself" would work. At another level, we are addressing issues beyond Greek grammar.

2. There's a difference with the John 14:6 construction as opposed to the 1:1-5, 4: In 14:6 we have the speaker standing outside himself and putting labels on aspects of himself; the same as when you say, "You are the teacher of a Physics 101.

3. Consider 1John 1:1-3, where the relative pronoun is neuter and it refers to both a masculine noun, ho logos, "the Word" and a feminine noun, "he zoe."

4. Again, at another level, theology transcends Greek grammar.

Is this the only instance of a masculine reference towards the pneuma in the GNT? Isn't the evidence overwhelming that the Holy Spirit is neuter.

5. Spirit, pneuma, is neuter by its makeup; that's the gender of the word itself. In Eph. 1:14, we have the masculine relative pronoun hos, instead of ho, in reference to the Holy Spirit.

I think it would be more generous to guess that Tyndale sees "the worde" not as a 'thing', but as a Person (of the Godhead), and that this Person (prior to the Creation, and prior to the Incarnation) has uncertain or unnecessary gender.

6. Now, we are going beyond Greek grammar to matters of Theology.

 

[franklinmonroe]

1. Yes, while the grammatical gender is neuter, theologically "himself" would work. At another level, we are addressing issues beyond Greek grammar...

I think this is an interesting discussion and worthy of further pursuit. However, it has become off topic, so we should seek another venue.

You were critical of the 1996 NLT's rendering of Romans 8:16 --

For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children.​

Has this been changed at all in the newer version? The 1996 NLT also avoids the gender issue in Romans 8:26 --

And the Holy Spirit helps us in our distress. For we don't even know what we should pray for, nor how we should pray. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words.​

How do you feel generally about this rendering (like adding "Holy" which is not in the Greek, and using "prays" instead of 'to intercede'), and the fact that auto is left untranslated?

 

[bobbyd]

I have a copy from Southern Seminary that was given to all of the students for free, i guess since Daniel Block was involved in it's production.
I use it sometimes for teaching the kids or youth when i work with them, or to high light verses during sermons.

 

[TCGreek]

I think this is an interesting discussion and worthy of further pursuit. However, it has become off topic, so we should seek another venue.

You were critical of the 1996 NLT's rendering of Romans 8:16 --

For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children.​

1. They missed it at v.16, changing the intensive use of auto to possessive autou.

Has this been changed at all in the newer version? The 1996 NLT also avoids the gender issue in Romans 8:26 --

And the Holy Spirit helps us in our distress. For we don't even know what we should pray for, nor how we should pray. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words.​

How do you feel generally about this rendering (like adding "Holy" which is not in the Greek, and using "prays" instead of 'to intercede'), and the fact that auto is left untranslated?

2. It's unfortunate that they did that, not translating auto and rendering hyperentygchano as "pray," rather than "intercede."

 

[Faith alone]

FIRST, Tyndale's translation states clearly that "the worde was God", and as long as "the worde" is understood as being a Christ reference there is no issue concerning the Deity of Christ here. The two versions are virtually identical; any decent college professor could recognize that the KJV text is plagiarized straight from Tyndale. Notice that the KJV oddly capitalizes the 'w' of "Word" but does not practice this convention for pronouns of Deity (see "him" v.3-4). Although "life" and "light" are not capitalized in verses 4-5 in my KJV source, "Light" is capitalized in verses 7-9 (but not other identifying terms like the "way", or the "truth" later in John).

John 1:1-5 & 14 (Tyndale above, KJV below)​

In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the worde was God.
and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginnynge with God.
The same was in the beginning with God.

All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten

of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite.
of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

SECOND, it seems that what you call a 'flaw' has to do with the neuter pronoun "it" (Greek autos meaning he, she, or it depending upon antecedent) being used with "the worde". God has chosen to refer to the Persons of the Godhead in the scriptures mostly with masculine terms, but that is not necessarily demanded here in John 1. I hope you will agree that the Trinity is neither male, nor female. It is true that the Greek word logos (Strong's #3056) is grammatically a masculine noun, but in Greek the grammatical gender does not always correspond to the physique of that noun; and the term logos (meaning: a word of speech) being inanimate has no natural sexual attributes. It seems that Tyndale made less of an interpretative translation here than the KJV revisors (although he inserts into the English "sonne" and "which worde was").

Yes, I agree. But Jesus IS a male human being. As the only member of the trinity who is a human being, that makes it significant. I hope you agree with that. The text in question is referring to the incarnation of Christ. Referring to AUTOS as "it" has led some to think that this is not referring to the Word as someone actually coming in the flesh, but as simply a reference to God being revealed. IOW, they do not see this as a reference to the Christ as God in the flesh, but merely a revelation of God - a personification as wisdom is personified in Proverbs. Since the Word became flesh, the context indicates a human being, not an "it." I am confident that Jesus' human body was fully... masculine, in every way. Do you agree? If so, then since hO LOGOS was referring to a male human being, why refer to Him as "it"?

I do agree that hO LOGOS being a masculine noun does not necessarily indicate a correspondence to it being masculine. No assumptions should be made there. Now the KJV may have made more of an "interpretive" translation, but if so, then so have virtually all other translations here. Now since "the Word" was identified as "the only Son from the Father," why refer to it as "it"?

Also, The Father is a reference to a male Person. I do not think that was accidental, and we can simply refer to Him as "the Parent." That does change how God intended to communicate to us... agreed? Hence we should not, and no significant Bibles do, refer to the Father as "it." The Spirit is neuter. Yet some Bibles refer to the Spirit as "he/him." Why? Mainly due to what is referred to as "male representative" speech. That was common in 16th and 17th century England and the US, and it has been common until relatively recently. It was also common in koine Greek speech. In English there was and is no singular pronoun which could be understood as eitehr a man or a woman (such as "they"). Hence masculine singular pronouns ("he," "him") were and still often are used to refer to either a man or a woman.

But the KJV also identified one Person of the Godhead with a neuter pronoun --

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16, KJV)

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, KJV)​

The Greek word pneuma (Strong's #4151) is a neuter noun.

Undoubtedly there are flaws in Tyndale's work; but here the KJV has done almost no revision, no correction, and only a very little 'modernizing' of spellings and punctuation.

See my last paragraph above in reference to the Spirit. My preference is to refer to "Him" as "He"/"Him." This is not due to thinking that the Spirit is masculine, but IOT communicate the Personage of the Spirit. The Spirit is not a thing and this is not referring to the spirit of the Father, but a distinct Person of the trinity.

I hope you agree with this. (That is classical traditional trinitarian thought.)

I agree that in general the KJV did not modify Tyndale's work much. (I see it, disregarding the spelling differences, as 90 - 95% the same.) But the changes made here were, in general, an improvement. I do not say this was always the case. Most of the improvements had to do with updating the spelling.

FA

 

[franklinmonroe]

...the 1996 NLT's rendering of Romans 8:16 --

For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children.​

Has this been changed at all in the newer version?...

I do not have the NLTse version, and the question remains unanswered.

 

[TCGreek]

I do not have the NLTse version, and the question remains unanswered.

Here's the newer version:

"For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. "

 

[franklinmonroe]

2. Here's an example of the changes in the NLT2004 from 1996:

a. NLT1996: "to make her holy and clean, washed by baptism and God's word." (Ephesians 5:26)--supports baptismal regeneration.

b. NLT2004: "to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word." Agrees with John 15:3 and so on.

I agree that there is an improvement, because the NLT1996 implies that the washing is by two things ("baptism and God's word"), when the Greek really states there is only one thing doing the washing. According the the NLT, the washing is done by God's word; but is that right?

But both examples leave the Greek form of hudor (Strong's #5204), always water in English, untranslated. The verse in Greek states that the bathing (or "washing" in NLT2004) is done by the water, NOT directly by the "word" (the NLT adds "God's" which is not in the Greek). The water does come from, or is brought by, the "word" (FYI - rhema here, not logos), but it is the water that does the washing. Doesn't water usually have a spiritual significance? Water is a noun, while "cleansing" is another verb. Can water be eliminated here without losing something of importance?

 

[TCGreek]

I agree that there is an improvement, because the NLT1996 implies that the washing is by two things ("baptism and God's word"), when the Greek really states there is only one thing doing the washing. According the the NLT, the washing is done by God's word; but is that right?

But both examples leave the Greek word hudor (Strong's #5204), always water in English, untranslated. The verse in Greek states that the bathing (or "washing" in NLT2004) is done by the water, NOT directly by the "word" (the NLT adds "God's" which is not in the Greek). The water does come from, or is brought by, the "word" (FYI - rhema here, not logos), but it is the water that does the washing. Doesn't water usually have a spiritual significance? Water is a noun, while "cleansing" is another verb. Can water be eliminated here without losing something of importance?

1. τω λουτρω του υδατος εν ρηματι--"The washing of water by the word."

2. What the NLTse has done with hydatos is to give the sense of the word, water refers to cleansing.

3. They have done some interpretation at this point, but helps the reader at one level.

4. But it seems best to go with "the washing of water by the word" and leave it up to the reader.

5. Unless one sees "water" as metaphoric, baptismal regeneration can still be concluded: This is what it will look like: There's a washing of water that is mediated by the Word, taking "washing of water" to refer to the baptismal pool.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Here's the newer version:

"For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. "

Thanks! It doesn't fix our Greek grammar criticism of "his", but it is significantly better: it drops the non-existent "Holy"; the idea of joint affirmation is much better than "tell"; and spirit (pneuma) is much more accurate than "deep in our heart" (plus it makes these improvements using 5 fewer words)!

 

[TCGreek]

Thanks! It doesn't fix our Greek grammar criticism of "his", but it is significantly better: it drops the non-existent "Holy"; the idea of joint affirmation is much better than "tell"; and spirit (pneuma) is much more accurate than "deep in our heart" (plus it has 5 fewer words)!

As I pointed out about, the NLTse has changed the intensive use of auto to its possessive use, and that is why it is render "his."