Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Mike Albright | PentecostalTheology.com
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 🙂
Varnel Watson
Rob Franzen give us the scoop here brother I will go on a limb here and say that you are an avid NIV user who reads NLT in his spare time. Some call it THE No Longer True version I call it the Nearly Laughable Translation – how much of it did I get right again?
Robert Franzen
Troy Day None. I’m a literal guy. I study from formal equivalent translations like, KJV, ESV, NRSV, LEB, NASB, & few others.
Now that i know Greek, i do some of my own translating with both Hebrew & Greek.
After I study a portion and discover what the author is communicating then go to all translations and find the one that communicates it the best. I usually give a literal translation first and then one that may better communicate to the principle. So I don’t typically read dynamic equivalent or thought for thought translations but I do use em a lot to communicate.
Are you a KJV only guy?
Robert Franzen
Troy Day, (sorry late to the party, busy night).
Hey, an interesting thing I discovered about translations & the gap theory. –
The Perversions
Many uniformitarian theorists like to use the different Bible translations to prove their points. However, I want to bring to your attention as to when these newer translations came out. The translation of the word “was” in Gen. 1:2 was never a problem before the 19th century. That should tell you something. The translations that most uniformitarian theorists use are these newer versions that all came out after society was indoctrinated with the new scientific theory of uniformitarianism. Consider the examples below (which are just a few of many we could use).
The First Day
Most Christians believe that Jesus’ first witnessing miracle was changing water into wine. Why? Because the Bible says it was, (John. 2:11). Yet when Genesis says the evening and the morning were the first day, those same Christians don’t believe it. Go figure? One example of how our society has been molested by secular science and humanistic worldviews is the changing and tampering with the Word of God to fit with supposed uniformitarian theories. For instance, the writers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) believed in the gap theory and had to make the Bible agree, so they strayed from the original manuscripts and incorporated their own opinions. Here is one example of how they did this:
Genesis 1:5 (RSV) “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.”
RSV Gen. 1:8 “And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.” And so on, and so forth; these translators knew what they were doing. They were trying to make the Bible to be more in accord with the increasingly new favored theories of uniformity. I remind you again that the Apostles Peter predicted this would come in II Pet. 3:4.
The King James Version says, “… and the evening and the morning were the first day.”
The Septuagint (LXX) also translates this as “the first day.”
Young’s Literal Translation: “and God calleth to the light ‘Day,’ and to the darkness He hath called ‘Night;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning—day one.”
Along with many others like the OJB.
The historian Josephus records, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light: and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day: and he named the beginning of light, and the time of rest, The Evening and The Morning, and this was indeed the first day… Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world, and all that is therein, was made.” (The Antiquities of the Jews: AD 93).
Notice how the RSV conveniently changed the original text and the genuine article from saying “the first day,” or “day one” to say just “one day” and “a second day” and so on. After all, they only reversed two words: “day one” to “one day.” So subtle, yet it changes everything! This little change weakens the entire Word of God by putting a flaw in the foundation. The translators of the RSV (as well as some other translations) allowed the secular opinions of their day to influence their integrity. They allowed uniformitarianism to make them believe that Genesis Chapter One is not the real beginning and they do not believe that the original manuscripts say these “days” are the first original days. Those “days” in their perverted view interpret “The first day,” as not the genuine article, but just “one day” of many. …
Rico Hero
Robert Franzen I believe the first day began with light as stated- not sure how those who see first day starting with darkness can justify that claim:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Varnel Watson
the first day actually began with the first night 🙂
Rico Hero
If it began with night day 1 would be about 12 hours for Evening passed, and morning came day 1.
John B. Gaither
Rearly. I’m not an NIV’er anymore. Been using NKJV for 18 years. Will use the NLT on real familiar verses to get a different perspective.
Brian Roden
I believe Pentecostal scholar Dr. Doug Oss was on the NLT translation team
Robert Franzen
Brian Roden yeah, the NIV & NLT we’re done by highly skilled committee of scholars. I know two of them from the NIV committee, they are super awesome people. Many poobah the NIV because there was a pro-homosexual lady on the committee. However, they also never to bother asking why. the reason for this was balanced scholarship from both conservative & liberal scholarship. And the NIV is more clear on the subject (anti-homosexual) then the KJV and many other translations.
Varnel Watson
1 & 2 Corinthians right? But he quickly left them to work on ESV Brian Roden
Tim Dalton
Robert Franzen – she was living in that sin. You softened that. Why didn’t the scholars discern that? I don’t hate the NIV. I just like other versions so much better. I too do some exegesis, but I also use english translations.
Robert Franzen
Tim Dalton hi, I do not know personally if that lady was a practicing homo or not, that’s why I phrased it like I did. I don’t want to start rumors. The point was, the committees effort to include liberal scholarism to have a good translation of integrity that is excepted across the board. That’s all I am pointing out – right, wrong or indifferent that’s what their goal was.
My personal thoughts: I personally do not agree with people who do not believe in the Virgin brith, miracles, physical resurrection, etc. however, in my academic journey I have learned that liberal scholarism exceeds conservative scholarism & they know it. Therefore, I think it was wise for them to do so.
Tim Dalton
Robert Franzen yes she was. Do your research as she admitted it and lived with her lesbian partner.
Tim Dalton
From her website. It can’t be any plainer. On February 22, 2018, Virginia Mollenkotts partner, Judith Suzannah Tilton, passed away. She was 82 years old. Suzannah met Dr. Mollenkott in the Spring of 1996, and they lived together as domestic partners until the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. They sealed their vows in Holy Matrimony on September 26, 2013. Suzannah will be greatly missed for her quiet strength, compassion, loving presence and wonderful dry wit. All I am pointing out that the translators of the NIV lacked discernment in both people and the things of God.
Tim Dalton
In 1992 Mollenkott received the New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Achievement Award, and in 1999 received a Lifetime Achievement Award from SAGE (Senior Action in a Gay Environment).[2]
She has also won awards for her writing. Is the Homosexual My Neighbor: A Positive Christian Response won the Integrity Award in 1979. In 2002, her book Omnigender: A Trans-Religious Approach won the Lambda Literary Award and the Ben Franklin Award.
Tim Dalton
The bible points this out and perhaps the committee left it out. No I checked it is in the NIV Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 2 Cor 6:14 – I guess they hurried over this as well – Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. James 1:22
Robert Franzen
Tim Dalton ok, if she was, she was. I’ll believe you. I don’t doubt it
Tim Dalton
It did sell a lot of copies though. Make a few changes and beat the copyright infringement law. So many new translations make you wonder. Publishing is a big business and few do it out of the goodness of their heart.
Robert Franzen
Tim Dalton wow, thanks for sharing Tim. That was helpful
Tim Dalton
Did you know the parent company of the NIV publisher (Zondervan) also owns the largest publisher of porn. You have to do real research, but it is there. I did work in the 90’s for a christian group against porn. I documented that.
Robert Franzen
Tim Dalton I didn’t know that Zondervan also owns porn publishers. I’ll have to check that out. Smart business move from a worldly prospective cuz it’s a money maker. Poor Christian decision of integrity.
But things like this have been done in the past – (there’s a similar story I can’t think of at the moment)
Haha “Bibles funded by perverts all over the world” LOL God knows how to transfer the wealth of the wicked for His purposes lol
Tim Dalton
Robert Franzen You won’t find it by looking at Zondervan as it is just a subsidiary of a larger corporation. Once you find the ultimate owner , then see what else they own. They are also the largest publisher of Homo/lesbian materials. I can see why they don’t see a conflict of interest regarding living the Bible.
Robert Franzen
Tim Dalton oh, so Zondervan is a separate entity, really it’s own company, a Christian company but the owner owns other companies as well
Brian Roden
Zondervan was founded in 1931 as a Christian publisher. It was purchased in 1988 by HarperCollins, part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
The copyright on the NIV is help by Biblica, formerly called the International Bible Society. The Committee on Bible Translation works under the auspices of Biblica, not Zondervan. Zondervan simply has a long-term contract to print English editions of the NIV, which was entered into over a decade before Zondervan was acquired by HarperCollins. So neither Zondervan nor their later secular owners HarperCollins had anything to do with the actual translation work.
Varnel Watson
Zondervan Thomas Nelson and even Strang media are secular owned today AS are most of popular Bible versions out there Very few and mainly private Bible publishers are still Christian / church owned like DAKE A.J. Bible can possibly attest to that
Louise Cummings
Louise Cummings
I have got a Thompson Chain Reference Bible. K J V. , a Dake’s Annotaten Bible. Doesn’t say anything else. I’ve got Spirit Filled Bible. N J J V. Put out by Nelson it says 1255. I’ve got David Jeremiah Study Bible ,NKJV Then I’ve got the Expositor’s Study Bible the Jimmie Swaggert , concordance Bible KJ V. And a Bible like I have never seen one like in my life. Shows a lot of pictures. But it says NIV Learning Bible. New International Verson. It has been the most difficult Bible, the way it is payed out. I went to pray for a man that my daughter worked for , many years. He always tried her to come to just one Christmas party, where they cranked and danced. He said I’m going to dance with you. And she would tell him back. Tommy I’m not going to let you go to hell. But on his death bed. I felt if I didn’t get to him , he would die lost. When I got there I told him. Tommy I came just for you. Ended up he prayed and he gave me this Bible. And told me. I want you to have it. I took it and I have looked through it. It has pictures of things in the Middle East. But it’s been so hard for me to keep chapters in a row. First Bible I have seen like it.
Ray E Horton
My main bible is NASB, but I will compare a variety of translations,including TLB to get various perspectives.
Varnel Watson
most of my professors back in the day insisted on NASB
Varnel Watson
WOW Robert Franzen you actually have a KJV?
Robert Franzen
Troy Day born & raised on the KJV. – (another hyperbole).
So Troy, what about you? Are you a KJV only guy?
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen I’ve only held 2 (two) KJV Bibles in my hand in all my studies and know but a hand full of people who own a KJV. I for one cannot afford to purchase one and like most – you including – have modern KJV prints which have hardly the original 1611 content
Robert Franzen
Troy Day ??? That doesn’t tell much of anything.
Troy, what’s your scoop with this subject?
BTW: I own dozens of translations from original Hebrew/Greek/Septuagint/Even the 1611 & the other 3 versions of the KJ.
Michelle Neff
Yes
Michelle Neff
It’s great in the life recovery bible study I teach. Most in attendance do not read well. They are recovering addicts, they get a grasp on the promises if God fast, they will read it on their own and are prepared and excited about thuer new life– they see God come alve to them in those pages.
Rico Hero
NLT is an easy read. A teacher (cant recall his name)suggested every Christian who is serious about studying the Bible own at least two translations. He should have at least one dynamic equivalence translation and one formal equivalence translation.
The reasoning behind this, is that in the dynamic equivalence translations,the translators are also the interpreters.If his interpretation is correct, the verbal equivalence can only clarify the meaning of the text; if it is
incorrect, then it only clarifies the interpretation of the translator!
Varnel Watson
NLT is plain wrong
Michelle Neff
Troy Day Troy a new convert recovering from heroine about can hear Jesus through its pages. It’s a paraphrase. It’s very useful when put in the right hands, used by a teacher that can add facts when needed. A poor addict with little education can read it, grasp onto Christ through it. It happens right in front if my eyes. Want a PhD in theology no it won’t help with that
Varnel Watson
Joe Absher could speak to that better than me BUT I’ve known many new recovering converts who have done just fine using KJV and NIV – wouldnt you agree?
Michelle Neff
Troy Day, how many have you worked with?
Michelle Neff
Look Troy Day you have some stinking thinking. The king isn’t the answer if you are Truly Pentecostal you would use a Darby
Joe Absher
We just use the ones people are kind enough to give us. One is Gideons. They use ESV, which is easy to understand. Truthfully I haven’t done a comparison for ESV with my KJV. NLT is on my phone Bible app. (Blue Letter Bible.) and it’s good for a layman trying to understand the scripture
Robert Franzen
Something I have noticed is if you want to read the Apostle Paul’s writings, I highly recommend using the NIV.
The NIV does the best job with Paul’s writings.
Paul wrote different than the others & can get complicated & the NIV does a masterful job communicating Paul.
When I’m studying something from Paul’s writings (I’m studying from Greek & literal), I’ll always read several translations & NIV usually does the best job.
Varnel Watson
which version of the NIV – printed is OK but the new digital ones make changes to the text that are in NO printed version http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/digital-vs-printed-niv-versions/
Robert Franzen
Troy Day 2011 version NIV
Varnel Watson
somewhat new but still good – have you noticed HOW they are changing the digital NIV on the internet away from the printed versions? 2 different entities control it
Robert Franzen
Troy Day I’m not familiar with the digital version of the NIV (probably because they’re not academically approved). I have hard copies & both NIV versions in my software.
The only online version I use(used) is the NET – which is another one I didn’t mention that I like very much. The NET has excellent translators notes.
Robert Franzen
Troy Day have you had any formal biblical language training in lower & higher biblical criticism?
Varnel Watson
as early as my BA in religion – what’s your point? NIV has never been “academically approved” I know the people who did the NET Bible They are not “academically approved” either The only by your definition would be NASB – at least to some And it;s called text criticism BTW
Robert Franzen
Troy Day sorry, my point was just a question so I know (kinda already knew but thought I’d ask to be sure) if you had any formal training in biblical criticism. Please don’t get defensive.
& no, text criticism is one part of “lower criticism.”
There are 2 types of biblical criticism:
Higher criticism: consisting of historical, literary, source, form, and redaction criticisms.
Lower criticism: textual criticism (it is called lower criticism because it is
basic to determining the actual texts that higher criticism then analyzes).
The reason I ask is because I don’t think it wise to tackle this kind of stuff unless one has understanding in biblical criticism. I went round & round with KJV only people to little avail because they have no idea what they were talking about & how the work of translation works.
In a forum like this it’s best to keep it simple. My suggestion anyway.
& BTW the NIV is absolutely academically approved. ATS accredited seminaries use it (other versions all well) because it was created by a committee of highly skilled academically approved scholars. So this discussion has taught me a lot about you
Varnel Watson
of course – everyone knows that ATS has nothing to do with NIV I’ve went to at least one major ATS that used NASB only but it depends on your professor as well Now that I’ve answered your strawman have you been following how digital NIV on the internet evolves and differs from the printed versions? My guess is that you just heard about it for the first Hence my OP about NLT but I will leave it there http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/what-are-higher-and-lower-criticism/
Robert Franzen
Troy Day “everyone knows that ATS has nothing to do with NIV”
Troy, I graduated from a ATS seminary. & they use it. Are we talking about the same ATS? as in the Association Theological Schools (of USA & Canada). I mean each school & professor has their own favorite but to say the NIV isn’t academically approved is just ignorant sorry to say.
Btw, do ya know how many Spirit-filled ATS Seminaries there are in the US?
Varnel Watson
I actually do 🙂 http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/complete-list-of-theological-seminaries/
Robert Franzen
Troy Day , no no Troy. That’s a “complete” list of seminaries. That wasn’t the question. How many ATS Spirit-filled/Holt Ghost filled seminaries are there in America. There are only 4
Louise Cummings
Not me. I don’t know much anything much about anything But KJ V and N k J V
Robert Franzen
Louise Cummings if you are fairly new Christian use the translation/version you are most comfortable with & give diligence to study God’s Word with help of a pastor – or better yet, a Bible college professor if ya know one.
NKJV is great to use
Blessings
Varnel Watson
Robert Franzen here’s you are strawman since you are looking for one -which WHOLE books of the NT have you translated ?
Rico Hero
Troy Day Re: NLT is plain wrong. Do you have any examples ?
Varnel Watson
we;ve listed the most important ones in the comments; ask google for the rest if interested
Rico Hero
Troy Day I asked google. This is the first link that came up. A good critical review http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html
Varnel Watson
I’ve seen it before – what do you think about it?
Rico Hero
This paragraph in the review says it all :
snip
This leaves us with the impression that the “reviewers” did not meet to discuss the revision and vote on changes, as the press release quoted above says, but merely sent suggestions to the editors. The press release also says that the NLT is an “entirely new translation,” but an examination of the version shows that it inherits many renderings of the Living Bible which would probably not have been used by the NLT reviewers if they started from scratch.
end snip
They need to try again.
Varnel Watson
merely sent suggestions to the editor – singular – is right
Varnel Watson
Rico Hero they tried that several times and still the same result 🙂
Anonymous
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. Mike Albright said: Not at all. It is a terrible version.
Anonymous
No. The latest translation returns to focusing on the integrity of the original text, not taking liberties to make Scripture more readable, which tends to enable mistranslation, is the Legacy Standard Bible.
https://read.lsbible.org/
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess mistranslation is RIGHT – I like DARBY’s BIBLE 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day do you like the Darby’s OT and NT both for accuracy?
I believe Darby wrote the NT translation but his students did the OT translating.
Anonymous
Len Sterling thats a GREAT question – not sure where you get such info. I have followed and can confirm to the best of my experience on the NT – again my french, she is no so good anymore and even my english is getting rusty BUT I did show Link Hudson Dale M. Coulter last year I still got my HDS latin working – to some extend
MANY discard DARBY as creator of the rapture theory which he is of course NOT Duane L Burgess John Mushenhouse BUT I stand by the fact that his BIBLE translation in both English and French are spot on – the guy was a supreme scholar
Anonymous
Len Sterling I just saw you read this in WikiPedia and I have not even mentioned his German work – the guy was a genius. So you should have read pass the first paragraph
His students took his French and German OT translations he already had done and from them translated the OT in English – tremendous effort to preserve his superb scholarship
alike Duane L Burgess already pointed out in the discussion on YHWH In the Old Testament Darby translates the covenant name of God as “Jehovah” instead of rendering it “LORD” or “GOD” (in all capital letters) as most English translations do. Among other widely used English translations aside from The Darby Bible, other versions have followed this practice, such as Robert Young’s Literal Translation (1862, 1898),The Julia E. Smith Parker Translation (1876), The American Standard Version (1901), The Bible in Living English (1972), Green’s Literal Translation (1985), Recovery Version (1999) etc
Anonymous
Troy Day thank you brother.
Anonymous
I used it in the past. It’s not all bad. Just keep in mind it’s more of a paraphrase than a translation in some verses.
Anonymous
and?
Anonymous
Troy Day so I don’t have a problem with it. The Passion “Translation” really is a paraphrase and not a translation and I really don’t care for it.
Anonymous
I used it this Sunday. I quoted 1 Corinthians 15:57 from the NLT along with the KJV. I wanted to bring out the point that the victory god gives us is victory over sin and death rather than physical enemies.
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey sorry to hear that
Anonymous
Troy Day No worries, I also quoted the text from the Holy Bible (KJV)
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey I bet you do not even own a REAL KJV 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day I have a 1611 in which v and w are reversed and s looks like f.
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey no you dont 🙂 you have a re-print of a much later 1900s revision 🙂 I know exactly 2 ppl who own an actual 1611 and you aint neither one of them as far as I can remember 🙂
Anonymous
Troy Day You got me I bought mine at Walmart in 2011.
Anonymous
Michael Chauncey 2011-1611 = perhaps a cheap Wallie reprint 🙂
But you are right about the v/w and s/f while Jeremiah Würz is dead wrong on the Cyrillic F looking like O – they look alike as much as our F and E look alike – basically they differ by the extra BAR and look nothing alike 🙂
Anonymous
It’s actually quite good for a “dynamically equivalent” version (its translators demur from calling it a paraphrase), and I’m seeing more pentecostal pastors using it in their sermons lately. Even the late renowned author/editor/speaker Jack Hayford published the 2nd edition of his Spirit-Filled Life Bible in that translation (along with the NKJV).
Anonymous
thatS sad right there Duane L Burgess Brett Dobbs
Anonymous
Troy Day shall I get in my KJV onlyness mode and start telling everyone how wrong the the NLT is?
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs You could, but yours would only be one more opinion among many. It’s readers are the ones who ultimately decide how well it conveys the truths of God’s Word to them in comprehensible language.
Anonymous
Dean C. Trivandian I agree with your opinion lol
Anonymous
NLT is not the translation I prefer for any kind of deep theological study. I have no issue with the NLT being a secondary devotional reading. But not to be used to shape one’s theology.
Anonymous
Brett Dobbs I concur with that assessment.
Anonymous
one can only suspect Philip Williams uses the popeS old latina version but this one here is not really worth the time MIND YOU it claims to have emerged from translating the critical NT John Mushenhouse
Anonymous
Once in a while and for comparing with the NKJV.
Anonymous
NKJV is NOT bad – easy to use IMHO but not perfect in any given way