Liking the New Living Translation (NLT)

Reply to Deacon

I reviewed the above referenced verses and found only a few where I might quibble with the NLT translation team of expert. On the whole, I think they did a good job of presenting John's actual meaning. But since a few are ambiguous, i.e. Jesus speaking to Jewish temple guards who would carry the message back to the Jewish leaders, I would think a footnote is warranted reading "lit. the Jews".

One other point, Jesus was not only rejected by Jewish leaders, but also by many of the Jews, and so to create the impression His rejection was only by Jewish leaders, also misses the message. However, that truth can also be found in the NLT so they seem to have been motivated toward presenting the actual message with clarity, as opposed to some politically correct agenda.

 

This is just completely not true. There is nothing wrong with any inclusive language in this Bible. I wouldn't for a minute trust myself over the "All-Star" scholar panel that did the work on this one.

Next time, break out your ballpoint pen for the KJV. It's the one that needs it most.