I have a NLT bible. Its put out by Tyndale House Publishers. They also put out the Ilumina electronic bible software. I'm not one for hearsay, but I just want to know if anyone has an opinion about this bible. Is it the real article? I like it because it's easy to read.. It seems to break things down into layman's terms. It also has some commentary in it, so if you have trouble with the scripture, it gives a definitive explaination for the scripture. Any feedback would be helpful! Thank You!!!

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,
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.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Laura said: "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. "

I too consider this more of a commentary although some good points may be derived from the context. This commentary should be viewed as a commentary and as Laura pointed out, it is biased to the author's point of view. You are correct in that the NIV is another of these "thought for thought" 'commentaries'. I personally use the U-NASB but have the KJV, NKJV, ESV and others to cross reference scriptures. You have to be careful with these types of "Commentary Bibles" because they can lead in directions that are not scriptual. Max Lucado uses an issue of "The Message" and it is very liberal and self serving for that group. The Internet has copies of nearly all the Bibles in use and while it may not be convenient to try and study using this method, it can be used for cross reference if you do not want to purchase multiple Bibles.

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

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.

__________________
Forthright Magazine - Forthright Press - BrotherhoodNews.com - Cheer, Poetry, Essays

Randal,

While I respect you personally, I must disagree. Of course there cannot be an exact word-for-word translation because the Greek (and Hebrew) grammar do not correspond one-to-one to English. However, there is a big difference in philosophy of translation between a group whose goal is to give as literal a translation as possible while still being readable and one that up front states that is not their goal, but to rather give what they think it means in order to "clarify" the thoughts being conveyed. I for one want a translation (or translations) that is as close to the original as is possible. Even the NLT site acknowledges the difference through their explanation here: http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/...philosophy.asp.

When one takes the thought clarifying philosophy in translation, it is impossible for the translators' biases to be left out. As I stated, all translations do have errors in them and none are totally free of biases, but on a scale of less biases to more, my understanding from those who know and understand the Greek (I am not one) is that the "essentially literal" versions are generally less free of biases than are "thought based" translations. Does that mean they are perfect? No. None are. But when considering that the these translation committees (for BOTH methods) are made up of people from all sorts of denominations, one *should* wonder just how much Calvinism and other doctrines of men have crept into "thought based" translations, leading folks astray. These kinds of translations are dangerous at best, and not translations at all at worst. I could not in all good conscience recommend anyone to use them.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

Randal,

I do not completely agree with your analysis. I believe that there are translations that are close to being word for word (I do not profess to being a Greek scholar) and I would trust those much more that one that says up front that they are thought for thought translations. I'll agree that there is probably not one translation that is exactly word for word in that some Greek words do not have an English translation but I will trust the "group effort translation" over the ones that are strictly from one denomination. Too many denominational "ideas" can creep into the scriptures.

As I stated, I use several different translations and versions. I have referenced "The Living Bible" and "The New Revised Standard Version" and although I feel that they are very error prone, there are some thought provoking ideas that emerge from the wording. If I'm to have a Bible study, I like to know what the subjects are using for a Bible so I will not be caught short. I even have a "New World Translation" but it is used to combat the teachings rather than research on subjects.

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

Appears that Laura beat me to the starting line. Very good post Laura; appears that we think along the same lines. Sorry if I appear to be redundant, I did not look at all the posts before I replied.

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

Bill, it's nice to not be alone in my thinking.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

I've been told ever since I was baptized to be careful of Bible translations and to be sure of the context. Kevin Cauley is a good source for true Greek translations!

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

Thanks to all who responded to my question. I agree that all bibles have flaws, which is why I have multiple translations, so that I can use them in parallel. The unique thing about the English language is that its so diverse. We can use many words that mean the same thing, or almost. Many languages do not have this luxury. Back to my point, I think that even though many translations have errors, they do not all have the same errors and as long as we have the original manuscripts, we can always get back to the original text. I once read where many people use the KJV as the the most literal translation, but it too had some flaws. I'm not sure what they were. The KJV was commissioned back in the early 1600's (1611 ?). Soon after, came the NKJV, after it's revisions. Personally, I cannot make heads or tails out of much of it, so I went with NLT, and the NIV. They may not be the most accurate, but they certainly are the most comprehensive. BTW, the NLT is fairly new to the biblical world, or at least I think it is. Thanks for the feedback!

Fallenhawk

Fallenhawk,

Try the NASB or Updated NASB; it is fairly plain English.

__________________
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5 (U-NASB)

Fallenhawk,

First off, I commend you for asking your question . The devil is VERY adept at deception and what better way to deceive an honest heart than to create doubt in what is or is not the original word of God? We must have an accurate translation in order to know what God wants us to know. However, I did want to point out one thing you mentioned regarding the NKJV:

The NKJV translation did not come about until 1982. So, the NKJV came out after quite a few translations had already arrived. Here is an article for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version. Also, you can open to one of the first pages of a physical copy and confirm the original 1982 Copyright. It is a small thing, but I figured it is worth mentioning at least.

-- Kevin

P.S. - You are correct about the 1611 date for the KJV.

The KJV was revised in the 1750's (I think) and is the version commonly known today as the KJV. The 1611 is in "Old English" and is simply not readable for us.

NKJV, NASB (Updated), ESV are great when used in combination with each other. I do not mind using "The Message" etc., but would absolutely be supplemental to a translation and I would treat it just as I would a commentary. Simply by the nature of a dynmaic equivalent/though-for-thought it is impossible to avoid human bias.

Those who venture down the "thought-for-thought" school are implying that God is an ineffective communicator.

Very True. They come from the school of thought that we do not need to follow the bible or what it says, but instead, just have the spirit of the verse of love. For example, Acts 2:38 doesn't really mean one MUST do this but instead it is our hearts that must strongly feel that what we are doing is acceptable to God, no matter what we do.

I haven't had any any experience with the NLT. I primarily use the NASB. I have found that the Holman Christian Standard Bible to be a good version. It uses what is called "Optimal Equilvalence"

Formal Equivalence: Often called "word for word" translation, formal equivalence seeks to represent each word of the original text with a corresponding word in the translation so that the reader can see word for word what the original human author wrote. The merit of this approach is that the Holy Spirit did inspire the very words of Scripture in the original manuscripts. A formal equivalence translation is good to the extent that its words accurately convey the meaning of the original words. However, a literal rendering can result in awkward English or in a misunderstanding of the author's intent.

Dynamic Equivalence: Often called "thought for thought" translation, dynamic equivalence seeks to translate the meaning of biblical words so the text makes the same impact on modern readers that the ancient text made on its original readers. Strengths of this approach include readability and understandability, especially in places where the original is difficult to render word for word. However, some serious questions can be asked about dynamic equivalence: How can a modern translator be certain of the original author's intent? Since meaning is always conveyed by words, why not ensure accuracy by using words that are as close as possible in meaning to the original instead of words that just capture the idea? How can a modern person ever know the impact of the original text on its readers?

Optimal Equivalence: This approach seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word for word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. In places where a literal rendering might be unclear, then a more dynamic translation is given. The HCSB® has chosen to use the balance and beauty of optimal equivalence for a fresh translation of God's word that is both faithful to the words God inspired and "user friendly" to modern readers.

Let me share with you something from another forum where David and I were recently discussing the NLT with someone. Compare Romans 12:2

KJV: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

NKJV: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

NASB: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

RSV: Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

NIV: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

ESV: Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

ISV: Do not be conformed to this world, but continually be transformed by the renewing of your minds so that you may be able to determine what God’s will is—what is proper, pleasing, and perfect.

YLT: and be not conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, for your proving what is the will of God—the good, and acceptable, and perfect.

NLT: Don’t copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God’s will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

Note that in every translation here (certainly not exhaustive of all translations) EXCEPT the NLT, the "transformation" in this verse is rendered as a command -- something that we must do. The NLT changes the thought to something that God does to us, removing man's responsibility and need to act.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

I do not think your representation of "word-for-word" translations is quite correct. Point of fact is that none of them have a 100% replacement word-for-word because the grammar would be incorrect and unreadable. What you have stated implies something about these (the KJV, ASV, NKJV, and possibly others) that is not true: that they are awkward and do not convey the author's intent. Did you really mean to imply such? While I will agree there are one or two passages in the KJV that by TODAY's English are a bit awkward, by the English of the day in which it was translated, it was likely not.

Do we really need a "fresh" translation of God's word? There are plenty of good translations out there already. This seems like yet another excuse to stray from what God actually wrote and change it to suit the translator's whims through "dynamic equivalence".

You know... I have to wonder about all these new translations... could this not be another way that Satan can lead people astray, by muddying what God said? After all, look what he did in the garden. As if we don't have enough to keep us busy.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

The key phrase in the "Formal Equivalence" description is "seeks to". While not being a 100% replacement for the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text, it is considered to be the most literal and best approach that we English speaking Christians can trust.

As for the HCSB. I haven't seen any kind of agenda in it's version of God's Word at least from the limited experience I have had with it so far.

I am not calling for a blanket acceptance to every translation of the Bible that becomes available, but I am open minded enough to examine the other translations in case there is in fact an inaccurate representation of God's Word so we can be aware of it and let others know about it.

My rule of thumb is to go with Formal Equivilence for study.

Craig, Thanks for clarifying. I agree that we should be open minded enough to look at new translations, and even more so, as Bill suggested, we should know what they say because *someone* will use each of them and we may need to know what they've been reading...

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)