Your thoughts on the New Living Translation

And I agree also, as well as agreeing that the 2nd version is significantly more accurate than the 1st edition.

FA

 

OK, I guess I'll bite.

Why do you like that? And do you really understand it as well as a modern version which uses modern language? (I mean no disrespect for the KJV or Tyndale's translation, of which the KJV was a revision.)

• What's a "quick" sacrifice?
• What does it mean to "fashion not yourselves..."?
• What does it mean to "be ye changed in your shape"? Does that encourage working out?
• What does it mean to "renew your wits"? Sounds like something I need to do.
• What does it mean to "feel that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God"? Does this mean that I need to think about how a text makes me feel - in my emotions - IOT know God's will?

And have you looked at Tyndale's rendering of John 1:1-5, 14? Got a serious theological issue there regarding the deity of Christ. (It could be easily misunderstood. His handling of the grammar was flawed there.)

John 1:1-5 (Tyndale) In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. The same was in the beginnynge with God. All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.

vs.14 And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite.

JWs have used this translation as evidence that Jesus is not God in discussions with me. Now just FYI, I have compared and contrasted a few passages in Tyndale's work with modern KJV versions and have often preferred Tyndale over the KJV when there was a difference. But in some places... well, it has serious flaws. The KJV was a revision and corrected some of those flaws, as well as modernizing the language.

FA

 

OK, I guess I'll bite.

Why do you like that? And do you really understand it as well as a modern version which uses modern language? (I mean no disrespect for the KJV or Tyndale's translation, of which the KJV was a revision.) Tyndale's writing with modern spelling is fresh and accessible to me and I understand it very well.

• What's a "quick" sacrifice? It doesn't matter how slow you are, if you are alive/living then you are quicker than a dead person.
  
• What does it mean to "fashion not yourselves..."? Don't imitate, think like be confromed to. How does the world squeeze you into it's mould? Don't you have a choice in the matter?
  
• What does it mean to "be ye changed in your shape"? Does that encourage working out? Renewed, remade, transformed
• What does it mean to "renew your wits"? Sounds like something I need to do. It says by the renewing of your wits (mind). In my oipnion, its deceptive to act like you don't know what it means when most modern versions say the same thing. We know that it is the work of the Holy Spirit - see Ephesians 4:23 and Titus 3:5.
• What does it mean to "feel that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God"? Does this mean that I need to think about how a text makes me feel - in my emotions - IOT know God's will? To discern, to know. BTW, how do you prove in practice the plan of God?

 

I do like the NLT. I do not have the NLT2 yet. Maybe, I will have to get one so I can compare them for myself.

 

Just FYI the NLT 2.0 is more word-for-word than the first edition. I do prefer the ease of reading in some instances of the earlier edition, but the 2nd edition is more accurate, IMO.

FA

 

FIRST, Tyndale's translation states clearly that "the worde was God", and as long as "the worde" is understood as being a Christ reference there is no issue concerning the Deity of Christ here. The two versions are virtually identical; any decent college professor could recognize that the KJV text is plagiarized straight from Tyndale. Notice that the KJV oddly capitalizes the 'w' of "Word" but does not practice this convention for pronouns of Deity (see "him" v.3-4). Although "life" and "light" are not capitalized in verses 4-5 in my KJV source, "Light" is capitalized in verses 7-9 (but not other identifying terms like the "way", or the "truth" later in John).

John 1:1-5 & 14 (Tyndale above, KJV below)​

In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,

and the worde was God.
and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginnynge with God.
The same was in the beginning with God.

All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

And the worde was made flesshe and dwelt amonge vs
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

and we sawe the glory of it as the glory of the only begotten sonne
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten

of ye father which worde was full of grace and verite.
of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

SECOND, it seems that what you call a 'flaw' has to do with the neuter pronoun "it" (Greek autos meaning he, she, or it depending upon antecedent) being used with "the worde". God has chosen to refer to the Persons of the Godhead in the scriptures mostly with masculine terms, but that is not necessarily demanded here in John 1. I hope you will agree that the Trinity is neither male, nor female. It is true that the Greek word logos (Strong's #3056) is grammatically a masculine noun, but in Greek the grammatical gender does not always correspond to the physique of that noun; and the term logos (meaning: a word of speech) being inanimate has no natural sexual attributes. It seems that Tyndale made less of an interpretative translation here than the KJV revisors (although he inserts into the English "sonne" and "which worde was").

But the KJV also identified one Person of the Godhead with a neuter pronoun --

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16, KJV)

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Romans 8:26, KJV)​

The Greek word pneuma (Strong's #4151) is a neuter noun.

Undoubtedly there are flaws in Tyndale's work; but here the KJV has done almost no revision, no correction, and only a very little 'modernizing' of spellings and punctuation.

 

1. αυτο το πνευμα συμμαρτυρει τω πνευματι ημων οτι εσμεν τεκνα θεου
Romans 8:16 (Stephanus 1550)

2. The neuter form of autos agrees with its antecedent pneuma.

 

Yes, it does; this verse was an example of one Person of the Trinity being identified by a neuter pronoun.

1. So then, what is your opinion on the many versions (NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, Young, etc.) that have "himself" at Romans 8:16? Is there a scriptural basis for a masculine Holy Spirit? The NLT side-steps the issue here by rendering it thus --

For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God's children.​

2. Is the NLT justified to make (autos)"his" refer back to "Abba, Father" (v.15)?

Two more questions for you:

3. Is Tyndale's translation confusing or ambiguous on the Deity of Christ in John 1:1-5 & 14?

4. Is Tyndale's rendering of (autos)"it" as a pronoun for (logos)"the worde" a 'flawed' translation?

 

This has nothing to do with the current discussions . I just thought I would quote a passage from the NLTse . It's taken from 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 .

For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down ( that is , when we die and leave this earthly body ) , we will have a house in heaven , an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands . We grow weary in our present bodies , and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing . For we will put on heavenly bodies ; we will not be spirits without bodies . While we live in these eartly bodies , we groan and sigh , but it's not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us . Rather , we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life . God himself has prepared us for this , and as a guarantee he has given us his Holy Spirit .

 

I am against this translation... but you all know that.

 

Even the poorest Bible is better than ALL the porn which
has or can be produced

 

Those who are "against the NLTse" need to read it extensively before making such assertions .

 

I bought a hard back version some years back, I found it very easy to read.

When you have read the more stricter versions for 20 years or so it's good to read others.

I am all for the Bible in todays language. The Bible is a tool to use. There is a time for everything.

 

Amen brother Ed.

 

Im not for porn.

 

I don't have to read say, the satanic Bible, or anything else I disagree with in principle, to be wrong in my assertations. Furthermore, the OP asked our "thoughts" on the matter. I still have freedom in those...

 

There you go again with your reguar lack of logic and a dash of blasphemy tossed in .

When will you ever show a reasoned mind and use more appropriate "illustrations" ?

 

I knew you would read into that post without much thought, typical.

 

Sorry!

 

How to get saved in the NLT:

Romans 10:9-10 (NLT = the New Living Translation):
9 For if you confess with your mouth that
Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from
the dead, you will be saved.
10 For it is by believing in your heart that you are
made right with God, and it is by confessing with
your mouth that you are saved.