What do you think of the NLT?

Forget it!

 

Why?

 

He's an AV1611 sort o' guy......the NLT doesn't contain the apocrypha.

 

Seriously, I would like to see the thoughts of some "REAL" scholars about the accuracy of the NLT. I have not heard much about it.

I know the Living Bible got a pretty bad name because it was a paraphrase and had some problems, but how about the translation?

 

The LB was written for the author's children at a time when children's Bibles were poor.

One of the first Bibles I read was the LB. It got me reading the Bible at least one hour each day. That was a lot more than what I was reading. Eventually I realized that the helps available were not tied to it. For a long time I used it as a commentary.

Even today I am more interested in developing good habits of reading the Bible in others. If a person does not understand what he reads he will not read much if any. Eventually they leave the paraphrase any way and get another Bible more suited to study.

Personally I don't know much about the NLT. But the people I know who read it, like it.

 

I personal don't use it so I can not comment.

In Christ,
David J. Horn

 

gb, you are right. When I was young I would read the "Good News for Modern Man" New Testament. When the Living Bible came out, it was a rage, for a while. Our pastor warned us to realize that it was a paraphrase, but he told us kids (teenagers) that it should be good enough to get us interested in the Bible. Just be sure and check out things in a real translation.

Today I still have a 4 version parallel. KJV, NASB, NIV and Living Bible. I catch myself gravitating toward the Living Bible just to get a flavor for what I am reading. Then I will read a translation and see what it says. The interesting part, there are a few issues with the Living Bible, but surprisingly, it does not get too far out of line, not considering it is one person's "opinion" and not a true translation.

I wouldn't use it as my study Bible, but like you, it got me to reading scripture. When I got older I graduated to more difficult translations. I don't think the Living Bible or the Good News for Modern Man did me any harm. We were warned where most of the problems were by our pastor.

He had studied both and knew where most of the doctrinal issues were. Thank you for pastors who will take the time to do this.

 

You might as well give your opinion. Askjo hasn't read it and he gave us his.

 

LOL!!!!!

 

The NLT is not a good translation for study. It is far too interpretive in places and uses gender-neutral language. At the most, cautiously use it for devotional purposes. The NASB, ESV, or NIV would be far better to use.

 

About the NLT, I would say...what TomVols said.

I would add, I find the NLT is a little laborious to read. That is, compared to the versions he mentioned, it is so interprative that that the expansion causes me to 'lose' the flow of the text. - maybe it's just me!

Also, I used to do a lot of comparative readings between the NLT and the NIV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc (not extensively, but enough - especially when I was trying to really learn the bible after years of neglect). It seemed, these others would agree about 98% of the time, while the NLT would only agree about 90% of the time. Like another poster said, the NLT may be good for a teenager or someone new to the bible. Hopefully, they will eventually 'graduate' to a more literal and accurate version.

 

I feel it is a good paraphrase, I have the four barreled version, KJV, NIV, NLT, NASB. And whenever i am trying to explain what the KJV or NASB is saying, IOW, when I paraphrase the KJV myself, I find that I match the NLT most of the time.
As youth pastor, our church bought the NLT life application bible for my youth group. they are reading it a lot more than they did the KJV.
I use it for personal devotions, and the KJV, and NASB for more technical study.
Funny, I hardly use the NIV.

 

Sometimes the NLT matches up EXACTLY in meaning w/ the KJV.

 

The NLT is a fine dynamic translation. I don't use it serious study, turn to a formal translation for that (ESV) but always read the NLT gain some additional prespective.

 

If reading a paraphrase i prefer the Contemporary English Version over the New Living Translation i dont care for paraphrases as much as the more literal translations. i like the ESV or the ISV.

 

I don't like the how the paraphrases mostly use gender nutural terms. but if I'm traveling on an airplane or on a long trip the paraphrase is gladly welcomed.

 

I don't think the NLT is a paraphrase. The Living Bible is a paraphrase but the NLT is definitely a translation. The Message is a paraphrase that I particularly do not like as I have found it changes the meaning of some verses or adds stuff that is not there.

The NLT does not change things like "Wives, submit to your husbands." What they do is, for example, is Luke 9:62,"No man who puts his hand to the plow" they have "Anyone who puts his hand to the plow." (The NASB has "No one, after putting his hand to the plow").

They say that Greek anthropos , usually translated as "man," means "human being" or "person." (Though Lk. 9:62 is not an example of this).

I like the NLT for its readability. I keep it in my car to use at church, but study with an NASB at home.