Hi,
I haven't used this version myself, but I looked up their web site and found that the method of translation used is "dynamic equivalent", which means thought for thought, rather than word for word. From their site,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/ This philosophy is open to "clarify" the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches. |
Unfortunately, such means that the biases of the translators are embedded in the result because the translation is based on what they *think* the passage says, rather than what it actually says. I personally consider such to be detailed commentaries rather than actual translations, and while I do consult them on occasion, I tend to avoid them. I believe the NIV is another version that uses the same translation philosophy.
A few word for word (a.k.a. essentially literal) translations are: KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV (although the ESV site indicates it does something to "preserve the literary quality" or similar -- I'd have to look it up again.) These are what I would consider "the real deal". Do keep in mind, however, that no translation is inspired and all contain some amount of error. It's a good idea to cross-compare difficult passages in multiple translations.
There may be someone else here who has had first hand experience with this version and perhaps could shed more light.