These days I’m reading the New Living Translation, trying to get a feel for it.
So how do you evaluate a translation? What are your priorities? Readability? Literalness? Use of older manuscripts?
There are certain passages that I look at to see how they’ve been translated. Do you have any “test passages” that you look at? Words that you want to see how they’ve been interpreted?
How do you evaluate a version of the Bible?
I have been wanting to get an NLT for quite some time. It’s interesting how we have those “test” texts that we look at when it comes to looking at other versions. I tend to check out ones like Romans 5 or 8 or John 17 and see if they impact me in the same way as I m used to in the “trusted” versions. I tend to shy from our ususal “doctrinal” texts (2:38..etc.). Not sure why, I just do.Great post Sir!
Thanks, Trent, for the comment. I agreed to review a study Bible, then discovered it was NLT. So I am also, to some degree, reviewing the NLT. That’s why I’m seeking guidance from others on how they would go about it.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I’m not an expert on the original languages, so I depend on others to tell me how accurate and literal a version may be. I like to use the NIV because it was the first version I could understand. It seems to be a good combination of accurate and readable. However, I also like the NKJV because it was the first version I read completely through from cover to cover. I also like the NASB as a literal word-for-word translation, and the Message is a great paraphrase. Lately, I have been reading the ESV because I bought the new ESV Study Bible. I have found it to be outstanding as a study Bible so far.
Terry, I’m in somewhat the same boat. I’m thankful for the wide variety of translations that exist. Translating between English and Spanish has helped me to see what an inexact science translation is. Using multiple versions helps us have a better idea of what the original text said and meant.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I will send you some information when I get in the office tomorrow that might be helpful with it.
I thought the NLT was a great translation to read through the OT for daily Bible reading/read through in a year type reading and less helpful for more in depth study (for instance this post, which you may remember – http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/romans-837-39-in-the-new-living-translation-vs-new-international-version/ )
Tim, It is actually because of Roland’s thoughts over the years that I find it interesting to see how the version translates the passage that says, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.” It literally says (as I understand it) “whatever bind on earth shall have been bound in Heaven.”
I have been reading the Today’s NIV. It cracks me up how it will never say “he” when the text isn’t gender specific.
Thanks Matt. I’ll be looking forward to that information. And I do remember that post, actually.
Carol, here’s the NLT on that:
“I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.”
There are footnotes explaining that “forbid” and “permit” are actually bind and loose.
Kenneth Taylor, admitting that he had little or no knowledge of the Hebrew or Greek, made his paraphrase from the American Standard Version of 1901. It should not be forgotten that this work is a paraphrase of the Bible, and NOT a translation of it! As such it is little more than a short commentary on the Scriptures — i.e.: what Kenneth Taylor thinks the Bible says; his interpretation.
“There are dangers in paraphrases, as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the original languages, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say!” (Preface to the Living Bible). Also in the Preface to the LB, Taylor makes the statement that in any place where it is difficult to make a decision as to what the passage really means, he goes by his own beliefs!! “When the Greek or Hebrew is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic.” The LB, in far too many places, is an expression of the logic and theology of Kenneth Taylor.
Al Maxey
“There are a number of areas where Kenneth Taylor and the Bible disagree; so if you have a LB, you have Kenneth Taylor’s beliefs! You don’t study a paraphrased version to build a doctrine any more than a contractor studies an artist’s sketch to build a house. Paraphrases give a meaning. To build a doctrine you must use the blueprint!” (Warren Wilcox). “It is a commentary, not a Bible, and should be called a commentary” (Warren Wilcox).
I have the “New Living Translation” published in 1996, it is a little different from the “Living Bible ” but not much . In my opinion, if you only read one bible, this is not the one.
Laymond Meredith
Thanks Laymond. What criteria do you use to evaluate a translation?
Laymond.
There is no comparing the NLT and the Living Bible Paraphrased. Kenneth Taylor by his own admission is no Greek or Hebrew scholar. As was mentioned in your comment, he paraphrased the ASV. Jack Lewis says he did so on weekends and in order to use it to teach his children. That is nothing close to the NLT, which boasts a fairly robust translational committee of 90 evangelical scholars. The NLT is a translation that uses dynamic equivalence from the Greek and Hebrew texts, which makes it far superior to the Living Bible.
Tim,
I was hoping Jack Lewis’ “The English Bible from the KJV to the NIV” might have some helpful information but the NLT is too recent to have made it in this helpful book. Clinton Arnold has a great piece in Discipleship Journal Nov-Dec (Issue 132), 2002 called “Its All Greek to Me.” He has a useful chart to show the details and differences of many of the modern translations including the NLT. He also gives a comparison of Romans 3:24-25 in most of the versions to give a feel for some differences. Here it is in NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, and LB (for Laymond to have a look at).
NASB – “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;”
NIV – “and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”
NKJV – “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,”
NLT – “Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. 25 For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past”
LB – “yet now God declares us ‘not guilty’ of offending him if we trust in Jesus Christ, who in his kindness greely takes away our sins. For God sent Christ Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to end all God’s anger against us. He used Christ’s blood and our faith as the means of saving us from his wrath.”
You see the LB is far more lose and adds a bunch more words that aren’t meant specifically by this text. You can see a lot more doctrinal bias in the LB than the others because Taylor is putting the text (ASV) into his own words.
Sorry for chasing rabbits but check out the article mentioned above in the ACU library if you get a chance.