Originally Posted by JasRandal

Bill, the little I've used the NLT, I've enjoyed reading it. It doesn't seem to get that far from the main idea of the original text. Of course there are issues, but every version has issues.

The attempted distinction between a literal and thought-for-thought version is not a hard and fast category, but more of a sliding rule. All versions -- let me say that again -- all versions, including KJV, ASV, NASB, etc., are going to use thought-for-thought and they'll use it often. There is no literal translation, and if there were, it would be impossible to understand.

I was running the references last night to the Greek word "doxadzo." "to glorify." The NASB does not translate it as "glorify" in every place. Sometimes it translates it as "honor" or "praise" or "magnify" (and perhaps another term), depending on the context. Word order, idioms, prepositional phrases, contextual meaning, all combine to make a strictly literal translation impossible.

Let me use an illustration from Portuguese that will be clear. Even the use of a single word, considering context, can have a different meaning. When someone asks us a question in English and we answer, "Absolutely!", we mean "of course, yes, positively." If, however, you translate that literally into Portuguese, "Absolutamente!", it means "absolutely NOT!", exactly the opposite meaning. So as literal as a version claims to be, it is driving first of all by the meaning (=thought) and not by word order nor by a corresponding word-for-word equivalent. No version does that completely. None.

OK, off my hobby horse.