NLTse Should Be Your Third Bible!

Hey TCG! I agree for the most part.But the HCSB is #2 with me, for now.I'm going to see how the ISV shakes out.

On one of the blogs I saw recently the blogger said that the NLT was a "loose paraphrase". Well, first of all, I'm not sure if they were referencing the NLTse or its predecessor, the NLT (1996 ).

The NLTse has moved more to the left ( in this case left means tending toward a more formal equivalence )on those well known graphs. It edges closer to the territory of the TNIV, and distances itself somewhat from the REB and NJB for instance.

I think more Christians should pick up a copy and read it. They can canvass a greater area than with a more formal version such as the ESV, NKJ or NASB. Obviously folks need to have a more formally-equivalent version as well. Comparisons between versions are always a good thing.A non-NLTse reader may be missing some things which would clarify the text on occasion.

 

Come on TC, I find it hard to believe that a former NASB'er isn't sneeking a peak at it really early in the game.

After 2 years of studying through the ESV I've gone back to the NASB as my primary computer text.

I'm comfortable carrying my large print NRSV to church and studies.
It's my second choice computer bible.

The NLT is my third choice for computer study.
At this time I don't feel comfortable enough with it unless I have a Greek or Hebrew text in front of me... so far so good.
I really like to know when they have adapted the text, more textual notes would be helpful IMO.

I've never been impressed enough with the NIV or TNIV to make them a primary bible (someday perhaps).

When Holman makes the CSB in a single column with 14+ font text, I'll give it a try.

Rob

 

The "large print" is my no. 1 criterion!

(Regardless of the version.)

Especially on days like today when I forgot my glasses. :thumbs:

I 'used' the 'screen' version - the version the pastor cited from in his sermon outline, printed on the screen. :type:

Couldn't read the version I had with me, without my 'specs'. :tear:

Ed

 

NLTse is my #1 right now. I pick a translation as my primary Bible each January, and NLTse is it for 2008.

 

With so many Bibles how do you go about successfully memorizing scripture?
Or is it like fuzzy math, if you get close to the right answer it's counted as correct?

 

So, I guess by that you mean that I was correct in my fuzzy math comparison?

 

Translations are approximations. There can't be exactitude in any translation.But the Lord still works things so that :"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." ( NRSV :2 Tim.3:16,17).

 

Why not, if as you told Cutter it's about getting the meaning of the text? I believe the NLTse does an excellent job of just that, moreso than the KJV or NASB.

 

One reason why a dynamic version will never be my primary bible.

A quick example of one of the weakness of a more dynamic version.
See Matthew 3:8.

Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God.
Matthew 3:8 NLT

IMO, it properly conveys the meaning of the verse.
Therefore it’s a good translation
However...

The more literal translations keep the figure of speech (fruit).

Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance;
Matthew 3:8 NASB95

The compromise; in keeping the figure of speech, the translation reads un-naturally, wooden perhaps,

but within the structure of the pericope, a metaphor is played out in verse 10

The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Matthew 3:10 NASB95

I enjoy seeing the word play; I like the fuller structure that a more literal translation provides.

Rob