Against the NLT?

[SoldierOfTheRock]

Howdy all,

I know there is a big difference between the translation philosophies of a "word for word" translation and a "thought for thought" translation. - I am not asking for another discussion about this.

Nor am I looking for an argument from which texts the translation comes from, such as "received text", "majority text", or "critical text".

The kind of arguments I am looking for are examples of verses that are in the NLT which really do corrupt what scripture is saying.

Not just that is uses wording that we find awkward because of tradition, such as "I began memorizing scripture using the KJV and the verses now sound nothing alike..."

I myself do not own an NLT, but have been reading it online recently. I am looking for something that even a child can understand. So I realize they will be moving up to something like the ESV in the future, but I want them to get the ideas from their reading now, and not put an unneeded stumbling block in their path by giving them something more confusing than it needs to be.

Simplified question: Where does the NLT really get the translation wrong?

My thanks to you all in advance.

 

[DMcFadden]

If you ask the question pragmatically, sure it is fine. The Lord has probably used "mere" paraphrases like "The Message" to get his Word across to the listener. Is the NLT compatible with every doctrinal persuasion? Probably. The TR in a micropresbyterian group, the Arminian, the Pentecostal, and the broad evangelical can still adduce and teach their particular doctrinal understandings from the NLT. The translators were biblical specialists and committed evangelicals (not all were inerrantists, however).

But, in a country blessed with such a wealth of translations in English, why settle? If "simple to understand" is your main criterion, why not go with the Holman Christian Standard Bible which is VERY easy to read AND a "literal" translation? The older I get, the more a "straight forward" translation appeals to me. The KJV, NKJV, NAS, ESV, and HCSB are all solid, "literal" translations into English from the Byzantine (KJV, NKJV) and critical text/eclectic (NAS, ESV, HCSB) perspectives.

 

[TimV]

Take Matt. 7:1-2
ESV

Mat 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Now take the NLT

Stop judging others, and you will not be judged. For others will treat you as you treat them.

Who are you in danger of being judged by? Whom should you fear most? Others or God?

It's like sending your kids to public school. If you send your kid to Caesar, he'll send you back Romans. If you let your kids be indoctrinated by wimpy Arminians, you'll raise up wimpy Arminians.

 

[SoldierOfTheRock]

Dennis, I have been comparing the HCSB and the NLT for a bit now, and I find the NLT much easier to understand. Believe me, given the reccomendations of it over the NLT, I was hoping the HCSB would be better, but I just do not find that to be the case.

TimV, I guess I am not seeing that comparison as being so horrible. I do not think the NLT is interpreting that selection in such a horrible way. I actually found it to make much more sense.

Are there other verses that do remove God's sovereignty or the doctrines of grace from scripture, or even take away from or add to the gospel in the NLT?

 

[TimV]

Soldier, every commentary that I checked says that God is spoken of as the one who will judge those who judge others. Some say that in addition one risks the judgment of men as well. However, in the NLT paraphrase, the ambiguity is removed and the author's opinion is given instead. This opinion isn't found in Scripture or in orthodox Christian thought.

If it makes sense to you, well, it's a free country. Some people like to have their thinking done for them ;-) To be fair, though, we do the same with commentaries. It's just that historically the Church has frowned upon turning the Bible into a commentary.

 

[Bookmeister]

Never heard the ESV described as a "stumbling block" before. Anyway, the NLT in the quoted verse says we are to be wary of being judged by "others" when the verse actually is talking about God's judgment, I find that completely unacceptable and that is enough reason for me to rule it out.

What is wrong with raising your children reading a very good translation such as the ESV? What is so "not understandable" in this good translation? By the way, things that they may not fully understand should make for very fruitful conversations as you labor to train up your children. Just my but it is your job to teach them the ways of the Lord, please do it with a good translation and you both will grow in the knowledge of the Lord.

God Bless your efforts.

 

[DMcFadden]

Joshua,

I didn't say that the HCSB was easier to read than the NLT, merely that it was easy to understand AND literal. If all you want is a translation/paraphrase that is easy to understand, go for the CEV or one of the "easy reader" versions.

My preference is for a literal translation. With the HCSB you can have literal and understandable at the same time. For example, compare passages where most of the translations render the words stifly in direct discourse and the HCSB uses contractions as normal people do when speaking to one another. Now, that is EASY to understand. Because of the translation philosphy of the HCSB, it will never seem as much of an easy read as the Good News, The Message, or the CEV.

Personally, I call any English Bible translation done by Christian scholars "THE WORD OF GOD" and would use it accordingly. But, given a choice, please pass me a literal translation (NKJV, ESV, or HCSB) done by evangelical scholars.

The NLT is a fine translation. However, here is a anecdotal vignette. When I was a pastor, one of my interns was taking a NTIntro class with a prof who contributed to the NLT. He was told in class that Jesus did not know he was God until after the resurrection. My intern (in typical California speak) asked: "Didn't Peter like 'tip him off' at Caesarea Philippi?"

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Take Matt. 7:1-2
ESV

Mat 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged.
Mat 7:2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Now take the NLT

Stop judging others, and you will not be judged. For others will treat you as you treat them.

Who are you in danger of being judged by? Whom should you fear most? Others or God?

It's like sending your kids to public school. If you send your kid to Caesar, he'll send you back Romans. If you let your kids be indoctrinated by wimpy Arminians, you'll raise up wimpy Arminians.

Huh? The NLT 2007 translation reads:

1“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.


AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The NLT is a fine translation. However, here is a anecdotal vignette. When I was a pastor, one of my interns was taking a NTIntro class with a prof who contributed to the NLT. He was told in class that Jesus did not know he was God until after the resurrection. My intern (in typical California speak) asked: "Didn't Peter like 'tip him off' at Caesarea Philippi?"

This is a serious accusation. What was the name of the professor who contributed to the NLT that made this statement? It would necessarily be one of the contributing scholars listed here:
NLT Study Bible :: Welcome

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The NLT 2007 translation is very different from the 1996 and 2004 versions. See
NLT 2004 – 2007 changes:
New Living Translation™: Discover The NLT - FAQs
Persons should check out this translation in more detail.

Here is a sample from Genesis of the NLT Study Bible, which uses the NLT 2007 translation:
http://www.nltstudybible.com/05_downloads/NLTSB_Genesis.pdf

See also:
New Living Translation™: Welcome

AMR

 

[KSon]

Here www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2.html is Marlowe's review of some issues in translation to be aware of with the NLT. While the accuracy is vastly improved from the original 1996 edition, Marlowe points out that there are still some substantial shortcomings in translation.

 

[TimV]

Even going to the website you link to, the authors cannot help but impose their wimpy Arminian world view on the Scriptures. They give three examples of how the 2007 version differs from other Bibles. The third is here:

KJV
7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remeliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.


NKJV
7 Thus says the Lord GOD, “It shall not stand, Nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, So that it will not be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, And the head of Samaria is Remeliah’s son. If you will not believe, Surely you shall not be established.”


NASB
7 Thus says the Lord GOD: “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),
9 and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remeliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last.”


NIV
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “It will not take place, It will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people,
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remeliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.”


NLT
7 But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “This invasion will never happen; it will never take place;
8 for Syria is no stronger than its capital, Damascus, and Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria, and Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remeliah. Unless your faith is firm, I cannot make you stand firm.”

Notice the part I bolded. Why don't we turn it around, and have someone here defend that translation from either a grammatical or theological standpoint.

 

[matthew11v25]

I really enjoy reading the NLT. As with every translation there are going to be questionable areas, but it helps to know who translated certain sections. Same goes with any bible commentary, book, etc.

With the NLT for instance http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/meetthescholars.asp:
Richard Pratt contributed to the Psalms
DA Carson contributed to Acts
Romans and Galatians were translated by Doug Moo and Thomas Schreiner
and so on...including many more gifted translators.

 

[SoldierOfTheRock]

Thank you all for the time you have taken to respond in this post, I have been taking all of this in consideration. I am not trying to slack off in the area of teaching, but am rather trying to remove the frustration of a child when they read and do not understand. I want very much to instill confidence in them that they can take up the book, read, and understand. If not the doctrine, then atleast what * is going on. I am always there for questions and will be there to teach as well. I shall continue to look at the available options, and I do not want to give them garbage or "another" opinion on what scripture means.

As a side not, and this is not said in a way to answer Dennis' post above, but I find "The Message" and the NLT are by no means similar, lol. I took a look. The Message is laughable - it truly looks to be flippant with scripture.

 

[py3ak]

Joshua, I don't want to be unconsiderate, but part of a child being able to open a book and read with understanding is the child having learned how to read well, and that only comes with patience and discipline. If the children you are teaching, for instance, can't understand George and Martha then no version of Scripture will be open to them; if they can read Harry Potter they can also read the ESV.

 

[SoldierOfTheRock]

Ha! Excellent point. While I do not know anything of "George and Martha" I have read Harry Potter myself and I do not believe such is beyond her comprehension.

I need to sit down with her and have her read to me, perhaps that will give me an idea of the proper route to take.

Again, my thanks to you all.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Even going to the website you link to, the authors cannot help but impose their wimpy Arminian world view on the Scriptures. They give three examples of how the 2007 version differs from other Bibles. The third is here:

Tim,

Why did you omit the explanatory notes on this passage that were also provided at the web site?

Isaiah 7:7-9
The Hebrew text is almost cryptic in its poetic structure. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV all translate the passage quite literally, including the repetition of “head” in verses 8 and 9. In this instance, the NLT chooses to translate the meaning of the metaphor “head.” Commentators agree that twice it refers to the capitals of two countries (Syria and Israel), and twice it refers to the kings of these countries. Furthermore, the NLT clarifies that Isaiah is speaking of the weakness of these kings. For the benefit of the reader, the NLT also uses the more familiar term “Israel” rather than the literal term “Ephraim” (verses 8 and 9). And the NLT clarifies in verse 9 that the “son of Remeliah” is in fact “Pekah son of Remeliah.”

AMR

 

[py3ak]

Ha! Excellent point. While I do not know anything of "George and Martha" I have read Harry Potter myself and I do not believe such is beyond her comprehension.

I need to sit down with her and have her read to me, perhaps that will give me an idea of the proper route to take.

Again, my thanks to you all.

Oh, you must find out about George and Martha. James Marshall is one of the most elegant of children's authors.

 

[kvanlaan]

Thank you all for the time you have taken to respond in this post, I have been taking all of this in consideration. I am not trying to slack off in the area of teaching, but am rather trying to remove the frustration of a child when they read and do not understand. I want very much to instill confidence in them that they can take up the book, read, and understand. If not the doctrine, then atleast what * is going on. I am always there for questions and will be there to teach as well. I shall continue to look at the available options, and I do not want to give them garbage or "another" opinion on what scripture means.

This is why, to me, catechism and scripture study with my children is so incredibly important. You don't just give them the Word and let them go, you disciple them and lead them. We move painstakingly slow through the Bible, because we study a few verses at a time and make sure the children are clear on the deeper meaning. Catechism gives them a framework outside of study with Dad to understand scripture, and another large segment of making sure that they do not become mislead is being there as a parent to explain, and, hand in hand with that, being the sort of parent that the child feels comfortale with approaching.

 

[TimV]

Tim,

Why did you omit the explanatory notes on this passage that were also provided at the web site?

Because the explanation offered had nothing to do with the biggest mistake, which I bolded.

All the translations say

If you will not believe, Surely you shall not be established.”

or something meaning the same. It could mean that God will not bless those who have no faith. Or it could mean that God's hands are tied, and He is unable to act without men's faith. And the the paraphrasers picked the second meaning

Unless your faith is firm, I cannot make you stand firm.”

Truly, I am baffled as to why this isn't immediately seen as as attack on God's power and majesty on a Reformed forum. I will be so bold as to call this a corruption, with 99% assurance that neither the TR, MT or CT fans or even those who haven't decided but have a high view of Scripture here will disagree with me.

 

[Igor]

I was given a copy of the NLT years ago. Though English is not my native language, I simply could not use it - to me it is a paraphrase, not a translation. I see no reason to simplify the Word of God SO much; the NIV is simple enough as it is.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Tim,

Why did you omit the explanatory notes on this passage that were also provided at the web site?

Because the explanation offered had nothing to do with the biggest mistake, which I bolded.

All the translations say

If you will not believe, Surely you shall not be established.”

or something meaning the same. It could mean that God will not bless those who have no faith. Or it could mean that God's hands are tied, and He is unable to act without men's faith. And the the paraphrasers picked the second meaning

Unless your faith is firm, I cannot make you stand firm.”

Truly, I am baffled as to why this isn't immediately seen as as attack on God's power and majesty on a Reformed forum. I will be so bold as to call this a corruption, with 99% assurance that neither the TR, MT or CT fans or even those who haven't decided but have a high view of Scripture here will disagree with me.

You are ignoring the overall context of the passage.

Here is an accompanying note from the NLT2007 for verse 9:
"The last sentence is a play on two Hebrew words: If you do not have faith (ta’aminu), you will not stand firm (te’amenu). Firm trust in the Lord is utterly essential, especially for a leader of God’s people (see also 2 Chr 20:20), and it must be firmly acted upon in order to demonstrate that it exists. Ahaz and his contemporaries trusted their enemy (Assyria) rather than God. By contrast, Hezekiah later demonstrated his faith in the Lord in a similar context (see chs 36–38)."

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I was given a copy of the NLT years ago. Though English is not my native language, I simply could not use it - to me it is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Years ago this might have been true, but the 2004 and the more recent 2007 versions are not paraphrases, they are dynamic equivalence translations--intending to communicate the meaning of the Bible, as it would have been understood in its original setting, as accurately as possible in today's language.

For more on the NLT Translation philosophy see:
http://www.bethelcollege.edu/academics/library/Archives/reflections/v5n2p8_12.pdf

Two other items on the NLT Translation philosophy by the General Editor of the NLT Study Bible, which is based on the NLT 2007 translation:
NLT Study Bible :: The NLT Study Bible Blog: The Nature of Translation
NLT Study Bible :: The NLT Study Bible Blog: The Nature of Translation, Part Two

For the record, I am not some sort of NLTOnly zealot. My main bible is a NKJV. The NLT is just a translation I happen to have been looking at recently, in the form of the 2008 NLT Study Bible, and I think there is a lot of misinformation floating around about the more recent versions (2004, 2007) of this translation.

See Romans 9 here to see how the latest NLT translation handles this important chapter.

AMR