Has anyone used or looked at the NLT version of the Bible? I have seen it used a few times and have noticed that some of its interpretations are quite “unique,” to the point where they are unjustified in their uniqueness and no other version agrees with them. I am thinking of calling it the “No Longer True version.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 10:31 AM]
Mike Albright 🙂 you are kidding right?
Mike Albright [01/04/2016 10:33 AM]
Not at all. It is a terrible version.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 10:34 AM]
we’ve been discussing with Tim Renneberg John and Ricky for a week now in this group 🙂 http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/ive-always-used-the-king-james-version-bible/
Mike Albright [01/04/2016 11:42 AM]
Sorry then. You can delete the post and I will put it into the KJV discussion.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 11:49 AM]
Oh no – we’ve been waiting for a dedicated #NLT discussion. There’s much to be said here. Just wanted you to be informed of what has been already said mainly against it 🙂
William Lance Huget [01/04/2016 3:23 PM]
The original Living Bible was one man’s paraphrase and not a good study Bible, but still helpful, especially for youth. The NLT is more dynamic equivalent, but a more solid translation effort. It is more to the right than NIV. Formal equivalent (NASB, ESV, KJV, etc.) are more to the left (words/grammar vs meaning/ideas). Both translation philosophies have a place with strengths and weaknesses. The literal ones (so-called) sometimes are more dynamic, while the meaning ones can even be more literal in places. Literal is not always more accurate, either.
www.biblegateway.com is a way to compared dozens of versions.
At the moment, I would not have a problem using this range of versions: ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT (I am liking HCSB and optimal equalivance, more use of Yahweh for YHWH, etc.).
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 3:39 PM]
I dont trust dynamic equivalents
William Lance Huget [01/04/2016 3:46 PM]
They probably don’t like you either.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 3:48 PM]
so are you saying NLT is all trustworthy ?
William Lance Huget [01/04/2016 4:01 PM]
No, not every word and verse of any translation is best. NLT, NIV, etc. are vilified too much due to a lack of understanding of textual criticism, translation theory, going from ancient languages to modern English, etc. NLT is superior to LB predecessor. It is readable, accurate, imperfect. I would not pick it for my main study Bible, but would consider its contribution.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 4:14 PM]
glad they changed the Bible from LB to translation in NLT to indicate properly what exactly is the reader reading
Mike Albright [01/04/2016 7:32 PM]
NLT Bad translation example #1: Gen. 3:16. I know there are some Hebrew experts in this discussion group. What say you?
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 7:34 PM]
the part about “you will desire to control your husband”?
Mike Albright [01/04/2016 7:36 PM]
Yes. This is not translated this way in any other version, and I cannot find a scholarly language book that will justify using this wording.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 7:38 PM]
“THE current issue of feminism in the church has provoked the reexamination of the scriptural passages that deal with the relationship of the man and the woman. A proper understanding of Genesis 3:16 is crucial to this reconsideration of the Biblical view of the woman.” Susan Foh, The Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75) 376-83 but let Tim Renneberg comment on NLT as a more of a devotional read
Tim Renneberg [01/04/2016 7:44 PM]
It is a bit interpretive in the translation, not too my liking… although it isn’t far off the mark. The punishment given to Eve is the pains of childbirth and being subject to her husband’s authority.
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 7:45 PM]
The same Hebrew word for desire is used two other times in the Old Testament. Genesis 4:7 … And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Song of Solomon 7:10 “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.
Mike Albright [01/04/2016 7:45 PM]
A desire to control?
Tim Renneberg [01/04/2016 7:48 PM]
that seems to be the understanding of Genesis 4:7
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 7:50 PM]
Genesis 4:7 is a personification of something that doesn’t actually have desires. Sin is not a person or entity with feelings or emotions. Genesis 4:7 is figurative while 3:16 is literal. Hermeneutically, one should proceed from the literal usage to the figurative usage if one’s exegesis is to have validity.
Tim Renneberg [01/04/2016 8:10 PM]
I am inclined to agree that the literal usage of of the sparsely used Hebrew word is more accurate. However, the NLT here should cause us to pause and wrestle with the word and ask the question why did they translate this way?
John Kissinger [01/04/2016 8:51 PM]
many respectable versions are accompanied with translators notes explaining the intent of word/expressions used
William Lance Huget [01/05/2016 1:55 AM]
A translation is more than one verse. The NIV used to translate ‘sarx’ as sinful nature, a theological bias. In response to criticism, it now has ‘flesh’.
Jimmy Humphrey [01/05/2016 5:45 AM]
I personally cut my teeth on the Bible with the NLT. I use the NASB today, but there are times where I pickup the NLT to see what they say. I’ve personally found it to be a delightful dynamic translation. But with any such thing, it’s not without the occasional flaw. But since they tell you in the preface exactly what they are doing, then it’s not hard to extend some mercy to the translators, who certainly put more time and thought into what they were doing than I ever have. And generally speaking, I think they came up with a good loose translation.
John Kissinger [01/05/2016 6:02 AM]
Humphrey on the move at 6AM 🙂