NLT 2?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by TC, Feb 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I did not want to go off topic in the Ken Taylor thread, so I decided to start another. What is the NLT 2? I have not heard of such a thing. I recently bought a new NLT and so far as I can tell, is identical to the NLT I bought when it first came out. I even went to Tyndale Publishers NLT page and it made no mention of an NLT 2 or any update of the NLT.

    NLT home page

    [ February 21, 2006, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: TC ]
     
  2. Rachel

    Rachel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,939
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't heard of it either. I love my NLT. [​IMG]
     
  3. BruceB

    BruceB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read the same post last night and also went to the Tyndale and NLT pages - no reference to the "NLT2" was mentioned anywhere that I could find. I don't know what the poster was refering too either unless it is the fact that Life Application Study Bibles are now being marketed as being recently updated and that seems to be the most popular package for the NLT. Bruce
     
  4. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's just a revised NLT. Don't quote me on that but that's what I've heard.
     
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
  6. larryjf

    larryjf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is the second edition.

    You can tell on the inside couple of pages.
    On the logo page it will say "Second Edition".

    The only way to tell from the cover is that the second edition has a slightly different logo...

    Old Logo:
    [​IMG]

    New Logo:
    [​IMG]

    There are differences. The idea was to make it more accurate in places. There is a short review of it here...

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2.html
     
  7. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Had a chance to compare some of the NLT '96 with the second edition NLT '04. Much easier to read and understand in certain places, and I thought the first edition was easy to read and understand. I would say the translators have done a good job revising this and would recommend it.
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    In order of preference : The TNIV , HCS and the NLT . Since my copy of the NLT entire Bible is small I carry it around with me all the time . At home I study and compare many more . Even J.I.Packer who is the chief man on the ESV recommends it highly . That is strange because Grudem and Co. have been protesting so hard against the so-called genderless passages in the TNIV . Yet the NLT has the same approach in their translation . Further inconsistency is from Grudem who endorses the NET Bible which is similiar to the TNIV and NLT in the same regard .

    The NLT is doing very well here in sales . It seems to outrank all the other versions . But the NIV/Explanation Bible is hanging tough .
     
  9. BruceB

    BruceB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    I stopped into the local Lifeway store and examined a few copies of the NLT yesterday. Larryjf has it right - his method (updated logo and second edition printed on title page) are the easy way to identify the newer edition. Funny to me that they are not advertising the update - I would think the publisher would want everyone to know of improvements, unless their vendors are worried that folks will not buy the current stock of old editions. Bruce
     
  10. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that's what it is. It is actually a somewhat significant revision.

    Also, the NLT isn't really a revision of the Living Bible (LB), though that was Taylor's original intent when he set up the committee. But the translators came to him and said that they really needed to have the freedom to completely re-do most passages. And comparing the LB and the NLT it appears that they were aware of how the LB translated things, and when they could use what the LB said previously they did.

    Also, the LB was a paraphrase - since Kenneth Taylor doesn't know Greek or Hebrew - from the ASV-1901, not the KJV. But the NLT is a translation, since they are going not from English to English, as Taylor did, but from Greek/Hebrew to English.

    Translators classify a "paraphrase" as going from the same language as source to target, while if we go from the original languages of the sources, then it's translation... even when the result is fairly free.

    When a "translation" is quite free, then it is referred to as "paraphrastic." For example, The Message would fit that bill, though since Peterson himself has referred to it as a paraphrase, so would I. (Peterson is conversant with the Greek and Hebrew, but not a translator.)

    IMO, the NLT is one of the better free translations, and really not all that free these days. I like it.

    FA
     
  11. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bruce,

    For what it's worth, a Bible store manager told me that was the reason they did that... though he was probably just guessing.

    FA
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I shared with Tyndale House (the publishers of the Living Bible, Paraphrased and the New Living Translation) why I object to their calling the NLT a translation. They wrote that the NLT is a “complete and thorough revision [of the Living Bible, Paraphrased] . . . The BTC (Bible Translation Committee) made final revisions and approved the final text for each book of the New Living Translation and is ultimately responsible for its accuracy and readability.” I told them that was not at all what I would call a “translation” of the Bible, and to that they responded that it is “truly a translation in its own right.” I’m really not sure what “a translation in its own right” is supposed to mean, but at least they qualified the word, “translation,” and did admit that the NLT is a revision of a paraphrase rather than a translation in the usual, unqualified sense of the word.

    The “translators” who were asked by Tyndale House to contribute recommendations to a preliminary revision of the Living Bible were:

    • Gerald Borchert, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
    • Douglas J. Moo, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
    • Thomas R. Schreiner, Bethel Theological Seminary

    In personal correspondence with Dr. Schreiner, he told me that he considered the NLT to be a good “paraphrase,” but not a good study Bible.


    [​IMG]
     
  13. gtbuzzarp

    gtbuzzarp
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO the NLT shouldn't be one's primary Bible, but another tool to be used to help assist in your personal Bible study. I would rank it somewhere between my NASB and the Message.

    My mom got me one of those "Bible in a year" Bibles for Christmas, so I am assuming w/o having it with me, that it is NLT 2.

    I can't remember specific passages, but some things are lost in translation and some things are totally hilarious the way they word them. I find that many places the passages are more of an interpretation of what the translators' think the passage means. I'm not going to give it a ringing endorsement, but it has given me some clarity on some passages of scripture.

    Also,not read enough of it yet (only read 2 months worth so far ;) ) but so far I think new Christians with a non-Christian background would benefit the most from it.
     
  14. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    I shared with Tyndale House (the publishers of the Living Bible, Paraphrased and the New Living Translation) why I object to their calling the NLT a translation. They wrote that the NLT is a “complete and thorough revision [of the Living Bible, Paraphrased] . . . The BTC (Bible Translation Committee) made final revisions and approved the final text for each book of the New Living Translation and is ultimately responsible for its accuracy and readability.” I told them that was not at all what I would call a “translation” of the Bible, and to that they responded that it is “truly a translation in its own right.” I’m really not sure what “a translation in its own right” is supposed to mean, but at least they qualified the word, “translation,” and did admit that the NLT is a revision of a paraphrase rather than a translation in the usual, unqualified sense of the word.

    The “translators” who were asked by Tyndale House to contribute recommendations to a preliminary revision of the Living Bible were:

    • Gerald Borchert, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
    • Douglas J. Moo, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
    • Thomas R. Schreiner, Bethel Theological Seminary

    In personal correspondence with Dr. Schreiner, he told me that he considered the NLT to be a good “paraphrase,” but not a good study Bible.


    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Craig,

    I realize that the NLT started out to be a revision of the LB, though from the original languages. But just read them side-by-side. It sure doesn't appear to be a revision of the LB. I think that Tyndale House referred to it as such IOT ride on the coat tails of the LB popularity. Wayne Leman, a moderator of the BTrans translation egroup, said from his conversations with the translators that it was in actuality a new translation - that they used the original languages with each verse when "translating/revising." There have been extensive discussions in that egroup over the years about the NLT. I think I'll start a new one concerning just precisely what the BTC did when developing the NLT.

    If it was purely a revision of the LB, then though they considered the original languages, I agree that it would have to be considered a paraphrase since the LB was a paraphrase. And it certainly cannot be classified as a study Bible regardless.

    Anyway, for the layman a paraphrase is something that was done in a very free manner, typically focusing on the thoughts being communicated and not being concerned with the words of the original language themselves.

    Now linguistics do use a word to describe such a translation... they call it "paraphrastic."

    So I've taken to using their word, "paraphrastic" in such cases now. But the linguistic definition used by translators for a paraphrase is that the target and source language are both English. They refer to translations that are very free as "paraphrastic." By definition, that is the correct label. Now if the translators in each sentence in the NLT went from the original source langfuages, then it by definition is a translation.

    I too am irritated when very free works are referred to as "translations." Just because Dr. Peterson has some knowledge of Hebrews and Greek does not mean that The Message is a translation. He himself referred to it as a paraphrase in a conversation with other translators.

    But FWIW if you compare the NLT with say the NCV, the CEV or the TEV (Good News) it is more literal, more formal equivalent in nature, than any of them. Personally, I just find that I trust its handling of texts more than those others. Also, version 2 is more FE in nature than the 1st edition.

    But since the NLT is not strictly a fresh translation from the original languages., but a revision of a paraphrase by their own admission, it is difficult to call it a translation when it is technically a revision at the same time. The NLT BTC (Bible Translation Comittee) state that the LB was "elevated" to the status of a translation since they considered the original languages carefully in the revision.

    Interestingly, in an analysis of the NLT as compared to other paraphrastic "translations" the NLT inevitably comes out as less free on the spectrum than you would think. In readability studies of the F-K type using MS Word, it comes across with a higher reading level and longer on the average word length than many others which could linguistically claim to be translations.

    One reason that the NLT is one of my favorite free translations is because I haven't been able to pick up a bias in it yet and it' is consistent in how it handles theological terms.

    My personal favorite of free translations is JB Phillips.

    Now if you compare the NLT with the NIV, then sure, it's definitely more free. But after using the NLT with children I find it quite useful. I personally prefer the NASB or the HCSB as a general purpose Bible, but my main concern for the translations that people use is that they actually do use them. I do not understand what some people see in such an archaic translation as the KJV, for example, but if someone uses it regularly, you won't find me giving them a hard time. [​IMG] Any Bible that gets someone excited about getting into the Word is a good Bible for that person. Hopefully they'll realize the limitations of the Bible they use as they mature in Christ.

    FA
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    FA,

    Thank you for sharing with us, and thank you for sharing with us in such a fine Christian manner!


    Are we really saved by grace through faith, or are we saved through obedience to our Father in heaven? That depends on which “Bible” you read:

    21. "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as 'Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven.
    22. On judgment day many will tell me, 'Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.'
    23. But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized. '
    Matthew 7:21-23 (NLT, 1996))

    21. ``Not all who sound religious are really godly people. They may refer to me as `Lord,' but still won't get to heaven. For the decisive question is whether they obey my Father in heaven.
    22. At the Judgment many will tell me, `Lord, Lord, we told others about you and used your name to cast out demons and to do many other great miracles.'
    23. But I will reply, `You have never been mine. Go away, for your deeds are evil.'
    (LB)

    21. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
    22. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
    23. "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' (NASB, 1995)


    This is just one example from the NLT where it is obviously a revision of the Living Bible rather than an original translation. It is also just one example from the NLT of how misleading it is doctrinally, even on the most important issues.

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I have used the NASB to teach children as young a seven. I would much rather explain any difficult passages in the NASB to a seven-year-old than I would explain to a seven-year-old what is wrong with the Bible that he is using. I would never encourage anyone to read the NLT of 1996. I have not yet read the revised edition.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig,

    It's too bad that you don't even consider MB translations. All translations must use MB/DE translation philosophy to a certain degree - when dealing with idiomatic material - which is actually fairly common.

    I too prefer FE translations, such as the NASB and the HCSB. But the NLT and the NiRV has been very useful to me when working with children... Did you ever ask any of the children you were working with which translation you used they preferred? ...Because I would be more concerned with cultivating a love for the Word of God than anything else, and at 7 years of age let's face it - the child just wants to understand. As they get older there will be plenty of time to introduce a more literal translation.

    I have never met or read anyone who has worked with children for any substantial length of time - overseeing a children's ministry - who does not prefer a very readable version. Do you know of any who publish online and work solely with children who feel the same as you do?


    Well, be that as it may, I have just investigated whether or not the NLT should be considered a translation. You have raised a legitimate question concerning the NLT in questioning whether it should be considered a translation if it is indeed a revision of the LB - a paraphrase from the English (ASV-1901).

    As I said I would do, I started a thread in the Btrans egroup about the nature of the NLT translation, and I got several responses in the Btrans egroup! Extremely active. Cannot begin to list them all. Another discussion of The Message and whether it should be considered a translation spun off of it. (Don't take me down that rabbit trail! No - it is not a translation IMO.) The following commentary from a friend in Btrans I think is worth considering:

    I also read the following description of the NLT by a marketing house on net:
    I read online a few years ago, when the NLT was first published, commentary by one of the translators describing how the translators were frustrated in their attempt to revise the LB and spoke with Taylor about the need to turn it into a genuine translation. He agreed, and they went back to work.

    So it had always been my assumption that the NLT committee translated from the original languages, only using the LB for stylistic decisions - until I read Craig's argument that since Tyndale House describes it as a revision of the LB, it should not be strictly considered a translation. And as I thought about it, it did make sense that if they truly were simply revising the LB as revisions in general are done, then he was correct.

    I should also add that personally, the NLT has been my favorite free translation, after the JB Phillips NT. So I decided that I needed to research this, with the help of the BTrans egroup. A comment regarding prefaces or Bibles and "notes to readers," in general: in the prefaces of Bibles it would be best to find notes from the translators, not the publishing house IMO. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to separate out what the translation committee said from promotional comments of the publishing house. Because the publishing house may spin things along a line which will help sales, I am really interested mainly in what the translation committee has to say. Now "philosphies of translation" can confidently be assumed to be from the translation committee itself. So with that in mind, let's look at the Note to Readers to see what the Publishers (July 96) say about the first edition:
    But Tyndale House immediately began a revision of the NLT - taking 8 years. When I compare the 2nd edition with the 1st it appears to be a somewhat significant revision, and in general nearly all revisions made were not IOT bring about greater readability-understanding, but to improve accuracy, ISTM. I do wonder why they immediately began this revision, unless they recognized that their 1st edition was not fully a translation, but followed the LB too much - perhaps not relying on the original languages enough. This is just speculation on my part. Perhaps they simply rushed the 1st edition too much in an effort to get it into publication.

    And a "Note to Readers" in the second edition would support my assessent that nearly all changes were to improve the accuracy. It explains that the main purpose of the revision was "increasing the level of the NLT's precision." It claims that the revised NLT is now a "general-purpose text especially good for study:"
    The following note came from Mark R. Norton, who was the editor of the 2nd edition of the NLT in 2004:
    While I would not agree that the NLT is suitable for in-depth Bible study, it is clear that the 2nd edition was mainly intended to increase the precision of the text. So when critiquing the NLT we need to refer to the 2nd edition, IMO.

    The following review was by Michael Marlowe. It should be noted that Marlowe prefers FE style translations. Michael Marlowe in July 2005 said,
    He also added:
    In a review of the 1st edition of the NLT by Joe Allen Weatherly in March of 97 he said,
    So it would seem that the NLT, at least the 2nd edition - if not also the 1st, is a genuine translation. The LB was referenced for stylistic decisions, it appears, but not in general for translation choices. When trying to decipher what happened, I think it best to just take it from the horse's mouth rather than speculate on what the committee may have done or how they developed the NLT. BTW, the translators in the Btrans egroup almost universally said that if the translation committee of the NLT used the original sources when doing their revision, with the intent that the meaning of the original is translated accurately, then by definition it was a translation. Otherwise, Peter Kirk commented, all revisions of any nature could not be considered a translation.

    FA
     
  18. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig,

    Thx Craig. This is very interesting. I gotta admit - that certainly appears to be more revision than translation. However, that isn't what the NLT 2 says... that's the NLT 1st edition (1996). This thread is on the NLT2. (I think that only the 1st edition is available online at this time.) But it is a good example of the degree of the changes made by the 2nd edition, and supports my speculation that the 2nd edition was begun immediately because the 1st edition was a conglomerate - some translation and some revision of the LB paraphrase. They took much more time with the 2nd edition than they did the original edition - which is very unusual. I think I'll go on record that the NLT-1 should not be considered a translation, but a careful revision of a paraphrase which significantly improves its accuracy, while the NLT-2 is a translation - albeit of the DE type. Here's the NLT-2 for Matthrew 7:21-23:

    Matthew 7:21-23 (NLT2)
    21 - "Not everyone who calls out to me, 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter.
    22 - On judgent day many will say to me, 'Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.'
    23 - But I will reply, 'I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God's laws.'"

    I think you will have to agree that this is not a revision of the LB at all. You may not like its freeness. [​IMG] But it is a fresh translation, is it not?

    FA
     
  19. Faith alone

    Faith alone
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's another interesting comment by a well-known Bible exegete. I think I should perhaps not post them with their names - to be fair to them... but let me just say that he is very well known, has pulished several textbooks, and that I once took a NT survey course from him in which he used his own textbook. He was originally part of the Bible translation committee for the NLT:

    Interesting. I have no doubt that since he is such a big name in evangelical Christianity that Tyndale House would really have liked to use his name for endorsing their "translation." That further convinces me that the 1st edition of the NLT was not a translation, but should have been considered a paraphrase.

    FA
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    FA,

    Who revised the NLT? Was it not revised by editors who know neither Hebrew nor Greek, making it a revision of a revision of the Living Bible?

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...