Changing my mind on the NLT
A couple days ago I posted an “Update on my NLT Experience” in which I made the following statement near the end of the post:
“I doubt that I will ever be using the NLT as my main Bible, especially for study. I prefer something more formal and possibly more true to the originals, which I just don’t find in the NLT.”
Well, I want you to know that my mind is being gradually changed.
The NLT is so clear and easy-to-read, yet it is also quite accurate. It’s not without its imperfections, but that’s the nature of Bible translation. I am finding more and more lately that when I read a passage in a different translation, I find myself wondering how the NLT puts it, and I go and get my NLT and check it out. I’m almost embarrassed to say how often I am pleased with the NLT’s rendering. It’s getting so the NLT is the first Bible I pick up.
Why do I find it almost embarrassing? Well, you may or may not remember the old Living Bible. It was a paraphrase, plain and simple. It was put down by many as “not the Word of God” and even “the Dead Bible”. Now I know a few Christian people who still use and love the Living Bible. I think you may even be able to still purchase a virtually new copy of that Bible through some outlets. But the people I hung out with for many years roundly condemned the Living Bible, as did I.
Be that as it may, I have felt pangs of embarrassment to be using a Bible recently that is related to the Living Bible. But now I am trying to push aside that old prejudice and learn to accept the New Living Translation. But more than accepting it, I’m finding it to be a very special translation, because it’s so clear! I find I can’t put it down! And I’m starting to recommend it to people, which is something I thought I could never seriously do! The people at Tyndale have really done a great job with the translation, and now it appears they are doing a great job marketing it, too!
The NLT isn’t a perfect Bible; nothing is! But if you want to gain a much greater understanding of what the Bible says, you can’t get a clearer translation than the NLT.
Me? I guess I’m now a fan!
You can know that your experience is shared by many of us.
Jeff
What Jeff said.
I had a basic no frills (other than being red-letter) edition of the Living Bible growing up – hadn’t realized that the NLT started out as an update or revision of that paraphrase, mainly because the NLT reads like an actual translation and less like a paraphrase. My recollection of the old Living Bible I had was that it was certainly readable, but also clearly a paraphrase. The NLT reads nothing at all like a paraphrase in my opinion, although it is obviously coming from a dynamic POV. I think that is what I like about it – the balance of it being a true translation and NOT a paraphrase, but at the same time a very good – some might say the best available – example of how to do dynamic equivalence translating for modern English.
Larry, I don’t think the NLT is an update of the old Living Bible. I believe it is an entirely new translation. It’s just a cousin; both are from Tyndale.
I think it depends on what is meant by “update.” I think cousin is a good analogy.
There is certainly a legacy relationship between the LB and the NLT, but the NLT (unlike the LB) was the product of an extensive process with a team of over 90 Bible scholars. They were given the mandate to create a clear, accurate translation from the Greek and Hebrew, using the LB as their base English text from which to suggest changes. The translation was even further removed from any connection to the LB with the thorough revision in 2004 and the more minor 2007 update.
I honestly hadn’t realized there was any connection between the LB and the NLT until reading the post here (“I have felt pangs of embarrassment to be using a Bible recently that is related to the Living Bible.”) I had wondered because the word “Living” appeared in the name of both versions, but I knew the NLT was absolutely NOT a paraphrase, so I had figured it was just a coincidence. When I read that earlier line, I decided to check the front of one of my NLTs and found that indeed there was a kind of historical connection, so I learned something new today.
“I’m almost embarrassed to say how often I am pleased with the NLT’s rendering.“
Is that based on how well it translates the Hebrew/Greek? Or is it based on readability compared to other English translations? I have found that the NLT is not always the best regarding the first issue, and for me that is critical. Yes, it reads better than some other English translations, but if the first issue isn’t accurate, then it doesn’t necessarily help that it reads “better“ than other translations.
Meanderings from an old codger…
Rich
Do you have some specific criticisms of the NLT’s translation decisions?
Of course you won’t agree with the NLT in every single case (I don’t either), but you make a big logical leap from “not always the best” to “isn’t accurate.” The NLT was created by a dedicated team of expert scholars, each committed to creating a clear and accurate translation of the Hebrew/Greek original and keeping each other in check with committee-approved translations.
I think a fair-minded evaluation of the translation as a whole (which is what Gary has been doing over the last several months) will ultimately yield a sense of trust in the translators, even from those who prefer a more traditional approach (e.g., ESV). In some places, you just might find that the NLT is the best English translation you can find by any evaluation (IMO, Gal. 3:26-29 is one such place).
Rich, for me it’s a matter, not only of readability, but accuracy as well. It’s a compromise. I know the renderings aren’t always as accurate as some other translations are, but when you compare the NLT with the original languages, and check out what the translators themselves have to say (when you can find that out), I think we find in most cases a carefully-considered and sometimes surprisingly accurate rendering.
I also find the more formal, word-for-word translations valuable, but I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t more accurate to translate something so it’s understandable instead of literally accurate, which is especially true in the case of idioms in the original tongues.
To put it really simply, what good is a Bible if people can’t understand it?
Just for the record, I am not a fan of ESV, NIV, or NLT. Equal opportunity, eh?
Anyway, I do compare all translations with the original language texts. Every translation has some problems. I think Romans 3:22 is inaccurate in the NLT (making something passive into the active). In ESV (and NIV and NLT), John 20:23 is inaccurate, but at least, I expected NLT to translate it that way. BTW the RSV translated it accurately (as does NKJV, NAS), so the question is why did ESV change it?
Gary wrote: “…what good is a Bible if people can’t understand it?”
I couldn’t agree more! As I began reviewing the ESV several years ago, I was disheartened by what had been done in some passages. In the last year or two as I visit congregations (30 congregations this past year) and preach/teach, I find the ESV less and less satisfactory for oral reading. I have written about a few of those instances on my own blog. And as I continue to read it I find more.
Were I to have only one translation for oral reading, it would be God’s Word; it reads well and most of the time does a decent job of translating accurately. But even then, there are problems. The translators use “God’s approval” instead of “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνης) in the NT, but leave “righteousness” (צדך) in the OT. Long before GW was published, I served as pastor of congregations which were testing GW; I protested against that change when it first was proposed, after it was tested, and I still protest it.
Keep in mind my intent is not bash any translation; I desire to provide our people with the best of both words: accuracy and readability, especially oral readability. And I recognize that we may differ on what constitutes accuracy.
Ah, nuts, let’s just teach everybody Hebrew and Greek and be done with it. LOL
Rich
Pushing aside old prejudices can be quite rewarding! Welcome to the NLT fan club
There you go!
I am fairly new to the ‘translation comparison’ game but have gained a lot from using two translations and one paraphrase in my daily/weekly devotions.
I thoroughly enjoy using NLT as my ‘in the pews’ and daily devotions Bible. When out and about, I use the Olive Tree NLT Bible (with commentary/notes) on my iPod Touch as my instant-access-anywhere Bible. I also carry a slim New Testament edition of ‘The Message’for lunchtime/waiting room reading.
I use an NLT Study Bible for my weekly personal and men’s group Bible study and also in our pastor-led studies at church. I also use a NIV Life Application Bible for comparison purposes but am considering a Schofield as an alternative)
One of the humourous but valuable aspects of our group studies is when we read passages aloud. As the sole NLT user, I often speak more softly so as not to ‘clash’ with the NIV users. At men’s group, brothers use a wide variety of Bibles and round-robin readings are great for providing insights through the differences in depth, tone and vocabulary.
The above notwithstading, the reason I chose NLT was that my lovely wife used NLT before I was saved so I was keen to get in step with her as soon as I was!