Col. 1 in the NLT

Would you say that the Niv 2011 is better then the NLT then as a translation?

 

"Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God and Timothy the brother, to the set apart and believing siblings in Christ in Colosse, grace to you and peace from our Father. We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love for all those set apart.

 

Refer to my post #14.

 

Correct. No form of "elect" or "chosen" is in the Greek.

 

Yes, the fact that "always" comes just before "praying" indicates it modifies that participle and not "We thank." it is possible that it modifies "We thank..." but not likely. The distance the adverb is from that verb is significant.

 

Here is v. 6.

6 This same Good News that came to you is going out all over the world. It is bearing fruit everywhere by changing lives, just as it changed your lives from the day you first heard and understood the truth about God’s wonderful grace.
6 τοῦ παρόντος εἰς ὑμᾶς, καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ·

There is some significant semantic change. Assuming the reader cannot understand the metaphor "bearing fruit," the translators added "by changing lives...." I am convinced that paraphrases and DE translations dumb down the Word of God and over explain it because there is a belief that the average Christian is not capable of understanding the Bible unless they do this. I'm sure the scholars don't intend to look down on the reader, but that is what they are doing when they put simplifications and explanations into their translation.

God has some tough sentences and concepts in the Word of God to force us to meditate. Remember, "But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night" (Ps. 1:2). When you try to take ambiguity out of the Bible, there are two possibilities: (1) you'll get it wrong, and (2) you'll steal the blessing of meditation from the reader.

After having emergency surgery on Christmas Eve, then coming home finally after 13 days in the hospital (where I couldn't sleep), I've been repeating Ps. 23 in my heart before sleep every night, and it's been such a blessing. Yes, let's make a translation clear and readable, but we do a huge disservice to the reader when we dumb down and over-explain the ambiguities.

 

95% of native English speakers would not be able to figure that out. If you went out among the common English-speaking people, you'd know that.

The structure of letters from the 1st century to the 21st century have changed. Should we remove all punctuation and spacing in the New Testament as well? They weren't in the original and were added later on. Of course, because in a true translation you translate the form and words.

This is a translation opinion which is also not aired by the NASB - although the NASB likes to use "called" in the footnotes.

At no point does Paul say he reserves the word "chosen" for salvation. Now you're adding to the Bible. And then there is the counter-example of 1Corinthians 1:27

Have you met a below average native English reader who hasn't read the Bible yet? In addition, brother used in this way could mean a brother as in a monk in a Catholic order. "Our" is also added by the NASB.

The head translator of NLT Colosians is not hidden. Why not send an e-mail expressing your reservations and see if you get a reply?

 

So you believe he didn't want the women to read the letter? . . . interesting . . .

Anyone who speaks like that in today's English would be considered haughty. And I don't believe Paul was conveying a haughty manner when he originally wrote the letter. So, the polite "may" is used as well as a less haughty tone.

Also the NLT syntax is different. The second part of the verse is actually double-spaced to separate it from the rest of the text.

We are writing to God’s holy people in the city of Colosse, who are faithful brothers and sisters in Christ.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

In the original order, people might think that the Father is always praying for them.

 

Of course! It wasn't meant for you. In addition, you're reading it wrong.

 

That's not the way someone would read it in today's vernacular. Since at no point did the text say that they became unholy. So, in today's English they would still be considered holy.

In addition, "saint" would be a very poor translation. It does not mean the same thing to you as it does to most people.

 

Here is Psalm 23 in the NLT. I hope you will find that it is perfectly fine. It is indeed a blessing. It is clear and readable and with no so-called dumbing down.

The Lord is my shepherd;
I have all that I need.
He lets me rest in green meadows;
he leads me beside peaceful streams.
He renews my strength.
He guides me along right paths,
bringing honor to his name.
Even when I walk
through the darkest valley,
I will not be afraid,
for you are close beside me.
Your rod and staff
protect and comfort me.
You prepare a feast for me
in the presence of my enemies.
You honor me by anointing my head with oil.
My cup overflows with blessings.
Surely your goodness and unfailing love
will pursue me
all the days of my life,
and I will live in the house of the Lord
forever.

 

The NLT has decided not to recombine verses as other dynamic translations have. However, the phrase "which come from" more accurately translates the text. "Because of" is more likely to imply a direct cause and effect in today's vernacular.

Hope implies a great amount of doubt in today's vernacular as in the phrase "a hope and a prayer". Hope would be an incorrect translation

The first is clear and the second is vague and can have many meanings.

Once again, the form is translated as well as the words. You know that Paul spoke the lowest of sentences. However, where possible, the NLT tries to translate this into the modern form of communication. As a result, sentences get broken up. In order to keep the same meaning, the words to keep the same meaning of the original statement need to be used.

These are people who received their money based on taking on religious donations. None of them had to translate for a living. If they had ever had to translate for a business or scientific paper, the would understand translation better.

 

Are you kidding me? Don't you read email? The average millennial these days could easily figure out Paul's epistles. His opening greetings--to someone from Paul--are actually more elaborate than the average email.

We've been back in the States for almost 6 years now. I teach Bible, Greek, etc., to millennials. Don't underestimate them. I know how they learn and how they understand things.

Sorry, this is not how optimal equivalence translates.

These statements have no relation to what I said or think. Please don't talk down to me--I know very well how Paul used the words "chosen," "called," etc. And in no imaginable way did I add to the Word of God. That is an insulting false witness.

You missed my point. Christianity is a family, so the word "brother" is important. And bikers and gang members use the word "brother" too. So what? Irrelevant. As for "friend," Quakers call each other that, as do many others. So what?

Now, are you familiar with the linguistic theory of universal grammar? Secular linguist Noam Chomsky gives more credit to the average person's understanding of language than the translators of the NLT.

I've written and talked to scholars numerous times, especially in the areas of Biblical languages and translation: Price (Hebrew, NKJV), Black (Greek), Robinson (textual criticism), Nord (skopos theory), Wendland (translation) and others. They are normally a lot more gracious than you are being.

 

Didn't say that, don't believe it. Please represent me honestly, or I see no reason to further interact with you here.

"May" is passe. No one says "May I please..." anymore. And I disagree that my suggestion is "haughty." Can you give an illustration from contemporary English showing me how that works?

Point taken.

 

Now this is where you differ with some of the translators. This translation is not just for the Christians. It is for those who do not believe. In addition, it promotes an entirely different method of reading the Bible.

When people read the Bible verse by verse, they usually can't see the forest for all the trees. If someone is reading the Bible verse by verse, the NLT is not the translation to use. It's not meant for a verse by verse reading.

 

Point taken.

Your illustration is an idiom, not a standard use of the term "hope." Using an idiom to explain the meaning of a lexical item is inexact.

So as I've been saying, sometimes God makes a statement that is purposefully ambiguous. To clarify such ambiguous statements is to take away the reader's option of personal interpretation.

What in the world is "the lowest of sentences"? You must mean "longest." And I have no problem with breaking up Paul's sentences. Did not say I did. Again, you are putting words in my mouth, and that is wrong.

Are you referring to the secular scholars I quoted from? They are actually well known translation studies scholars (not religious at all) in the secular world. They actually do make their living from translation. Lawrence Venuti is a prof at Temple U., and Jin Di is a leading Chinese translation scholar, based in Hong Kong, I believe.

 

No, I'm not kidding you. And you haven't met an average American Millennial - so how would you know?

 

Most people I know read chapters at a time. Our church recently had a program where we passed out Gospels of John and encouraged people to read them. Then we got back to them and discussed the book (the whole book and nothing but the book) with them Huge blessing! And we did not have to use the NLT.

 

These aren't average. In fact, they are abnormal.