NLT Discover God Study Bible

If it were me, I would go with a more literal translation than the NLT. While it may convey the overall theme, you will miss out on some important terms utilized in Christianity. NIV, is the most liberal I would personally go. For instance, if you read the NLT and then switch to the ESV, NKJV, or NASB it will feel like you are reading a completely different document.

-chris

 

What in the world is liberal about the NIV? Absolutely nothing. Please research before posting such wild claims.

Are you trying to say that the Gospel as it is given in the NLTse is a different Gospel than that delineated in the ESV, NLJ and NASB?! That's absolute nonsense you are spouting.

 

In my opinion the NLT is simply a paraphrase. Yes, one can obtain the same "meaning" from the overall text, but when switching to a more literal translation you will require help in understanding certain passages. Why not start with a literal translation and then discover what is meant by the passage?

For instance, should we translate Shakespeare to modern english, so that it is easily understood? That is essentially what the more dynamic eqivalent texts do. They take a text and diminish it to simplistic terminology.

 

For instance, I will give you one reasoning on why the NIV is considered more "liberal" in some circles. In Mark's gospel it does not repeat the warning of hell 3's as where the fire is not quenced and their worm does not die. Yes, it still mentions it, but repetition can be considered in terms of, "I really, really, want you to get this". Yes, it is because of textual basis, but the HCSB will quote it 3's and does the NASB. (Note, they do include reasons as to why).

The same can be said for truly, vs truly, truly. Although they convey the same overall meaning, is one more significant, or should it be considered more significant than the other??

Look, |I am not truly debating you, you are probably much more educated in these matters than me. Simply, playing the other side of the equation for some discussion.

 

Here is my honest opinion:

Unless you have been involved with another religion that espouses great doctrinal differences, you will not regard literal translation as very significant. If they come at you with a translation that is rather "literal", how in the world can you defend it with the NLT? "Well, this is what the authors of the text meant etc|". You need a literal translation|!

The more i study, the more I realize the actual significance of every single word.

For instance, I studied as a JW. If I were to discuss doctrine with a JW and utilize a NLT, they would simply state that it is a paraphrase that is dictated by translators that hold fast to a false religion.

Rippon,

Note: I am doing this for my own education because I am sure you can prove me wrong, or debate what I say. I do this to further my education. Maybe I am playing the "devil's advocate".

 

No, go for it! Sorry, I got off topic|!

 

Your opinion is in error. You are confusing the NLTse with the oild Living Bible which was indeed a paraphrase. However, the NLTse is a true translation. It is mildly dynamic, but not a paraphrase.

Why not? Are the works of Shakespeare sacrosanct?

 

I too asked the same question and ...

The church i started attending has a pastor who uses the NLT, in fact it is the only version they sell in their store, but I was confused of what to make of the latest craze about it, so I googled it and found this:

***********************************************************
Romans 8:1 KJV says "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"

Romans 8:1 NLT says "So now there is no condemnation for those who belong in Christ Jesus."

The NLT does not have the rest of that passage! The chapter of Romans 8 speaks specifically about walking in the flesh vs walking in the spirit. It was upon realization that I may have been missing out on vital concepts and truths that I switched completely to the KJV. However, up until a few months ago, my decision to switch to KJV was validated by an eye-opening discovery.
******************************************************

ALSO ..... i do not have a copy in front of me, but I think the NLT text is copyrighted -- not so with KJV


source: http://confessionsofanunchurchedbeliever.blogspot.com/2007/08/translation-vs-paraphrase.html

 

First,

I apologize to the above for going off topic in this discussion. I do believe Rippon is right, in that the NLT is just as much the word of God as more formally translated bibles. I own a NLT as well. Like the above post, i found that when i switched to a more literal translation it felt like I was reading a completely different bible. |That is why I tend to prefer more literal readings.

Try the HCSB. Easy to understand and flows nicely, but literal enough to get the whole idea across.

Thanks,
Chris