Thread: New Living Translation

Hey All,

Honest question here so help me out if you can. I'd like to trying to tell an unbeliever about Jesus or a small child and I want to use language that is more conversational. What are the pros (if there are any) and cons of the New Living Translation?

The NLT is much better in quality than the old Living Bible was, since the NLT was actually done by specialist scholars in the field of translation. It is, however, very much a paraphrase. Since the NLT is more of a paraphrase, the reader is more at the mercy of the translators. There will be times when the NLT is right on, and easily understandable. There will be other times when they will be horribly off target. Now, of course, some level of interpretation is necessary no matter how literal the translation method, since words come in a context, and there is meaning on more than just the word level (especially when it comes to idioms). Personally, I think the ESV or HCSB would be quite understandable, and much more reliable in translation practices: less of the translator, and more of the text.

Instead of using the NLT and letting the translators interpret for the kids, use the ESV and you do the interpreting for the kids.

New Century Version is one of the better translations I've seen for kids. I used to use it myself (formerly International Children's Bible) and it keeps good accuracy with a reduced vocabulary and switching the order around some.

For Bible memorization and some study I still use KJV and often use it as a comparison with other texts. For family reading and group reading, the NIV, but the ESV more-and-more. So, that's what I would recommend for someone who is beginning their life as a Christian- one of those translations that will last them a lifetime.

If I were sharing this with someone, I would generally stick with one of these. Pray that you can use "conversational" language in explaining or illustrating what the Scripture says but remember, the Word has a power, THE power, not our conversation (though God certainly uses that). So carefully and accurately read Scripture as part of this (whether reading it from the text or by memory).

One thing that is particularly powerful is for you to memorize a few verses related to God's plan for salvation, e.g.

Romans 3:23
Hebrews 9:27
Ephesians 2:5,9
John 3:16

Then after you have memorized them in your own study Bible (e.g. KJV or ESV), open the Bible and ask them to read the verse. Very powerful.

So the Word, the Word, the Word and trust God to bring forth the understanding in the person (not what we logically think will make them understand).

Would I do this with a younger child (say 10 years old)? You bet!

We teach catechism in communicant class to members at this age. Though there is a big difference in individual maturity levels, never underestimate the ability of a child to understand something- particularly when the Holy Spirit is illuminating their understanding.
While we often think of children as living in a make believe reality- they are really future adults... and they often can understand a lot more than we think they can.

Might also give them a gift of a Thompson Chain Reference Bible (Scripture interpret Scripture) which is available in KJV, NIV and likely will soon be available in ESV.

Instead of using the NLT and letting the translators interpret for the kids, use the ESV and you do the interpreting for the kids.

Hmmm...Not quite sure where you were going with this...every English bible involves interpretation...

As far as the NLT goes...it reads very easily, but then the ESV does too IMHO

My though would be this; Unbelievers really don't have a huge desire to read the word for the most part and when they do get their heart changed so that they do desire it...well, then any decent translation is fine...

As for kids...? My thought is that a parent is always necessary to make sure they are tracking the ideas correctly...

Honestly, the only literal translation I would give a child is the HCSB. Unless you actually plan on sitting down with the child day after day training them in the languages of the other literal translations you will be doing more of a disservice to the child and probably make them end up despising reading the Bible.

If you are just handing the Bible to the child and then meeting with them once a week or something like that I think the NLT is a very good dynamic translation. Depending on how young the child is the CEV also gets my recommendation. Maybe get them The Learner's Bible CEV which is the study version of the CEV.

I'm not trying to open a with regards to the literal translations. What I am trying to point out that unless you are training the child day after day in the archaic langue and structure of these other literal translations they will walk away from the Bible confused and disappointed. You wouldn't give the child a Hebrew/Greek Bible so why give them something almost as incomprehensible (especially in the prophets) UNLESS you plan on training them up in the language.

What's wrong with the good 'ole KJV Gloria

I dont see how much more people need it dumbed down than the NIV or HSCSB does. I really don't. Perhaps its arrogance speaking but if you can't understand the NKJV, ESV, NIV, your probably not ready to understand the facts of the Gospel.

Take a look and compare for yourself...

ESV
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”

14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt

15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”




The Holman Christian Standard Bible
13 After they were gone, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Get up! Take the child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For Herod is about to search for the child to destroy Him.”

14 So he got up, took the child and His mother during the night, and escaped to Egypt.

15 He stayed there until Herod’s death, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: Out of Egypt I called My Son.




New Living Translation
13 After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up! Flee to Egypt with the child and his mother,” the angel said. “Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.”

14 That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother,

15 and they stayed there until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: “I called my Son out of Egypt.”




The King James Version
13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Originally Posted by jogri17

I dont see how much more people need it dumbed down than the NIV or HSCSB does. I really don't. Perhaps its arrogance speaking but if you can't understand the NKJV, ESV, NIV, your probably not ready to understand the facts of the Gospel.

I'd probably say it's arrogance.

I am about to finish two theological Master's degrees (I have a theological undergrad) , I have ability in the Greek and Hebrew languages, I read profusely, but I still have a hard time understanding the older style translations (I am young - 26). I have helped lead or led youth ministry for over eight years and college ministry for 4 years. These older translations make it almost impossible for many people to really appreciate their Bibles. They want to read it, but they read these old translations and become discouraged. I've also taught ESL and ESL Bible studies for many years (4) and the CEV and NLT have been incredibly helpful. There would be no reason to even bother with a Bible study if you were using one of the older translations for ESL students.

Robert, sure, if you quote one of the simplest most famous narrative passages of scripture they may seem really easy to understand. But when you get to the poetic sections and prophetic sections which make up a major part of scripture the older translations make it extremely difficult for the younger generations. Not to mention all the incomprehensible idioms, awkward syntax, misleading passages due to change of meaning of the English word, obsolete words, etc.

Mark Straus in his article "Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version" says this:

"Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through.

Asking the simple question, “Would anyone speaking English actually say this?” is a good test for standard English. This simple question could transform our Bible versions and bring them in line with the finest translation practices used around the world. We must remember that the ultimate goal of Bible translation is not to give our students a “crib” on their weekly Greek and Hebrew assignments, but to clearly and accurately communicate the meaning of God’s inspired and authoritative Word."

I guarantee you that all those Wycliffe missionaries sacrificing their lives to translate the scriptures for a people group which don't have a Bible aren't wasting their time to translate some sort of archaic obsolete KJV type translation for said people group. They are translating the scriptures into a language the people will understand and use while being as faithful to the Biblical witness as possible.

So I come back to my point. Unless you plan on actually training the child up in the English of these older versions then it is really better to use one of the more contemporary translations. If you believe these older translations are better that's fine. But it is going to take a lot of work on your part and the child's to make it a beneficial experience. There's nothing wrong with that but it is the reality that one must face if they believe using these older translations is for the best.

P.S.
I just want to emphasize, I am not against using the older translations. I am just pointing out that there is some major responsibilities of the parent/adult who wants their/a child to use these older translations. Not only do they need to train the child how to study the Bible but they also have to basically give a course in archaic English. Those adults who just think "it's so easy to understand - what's wrong with you?" need to reevaluate their position.

Mark, I don't think you heard Jogri17 very well. At any rate, saying that he was being arrogant is not helpful in this context. He wasn't even advocating the older translations. The NKJV, ESV and NIV are what he referenced, not the RSV, ASV, or KJV. So your objections to his position are beside the point.

Mark Straus creates quite the straw man in his article there. The ESV is not slavish to the literal translation. It is sensitive to idioms. They call it an "essentially literal" translation. They are not ignorant of the meaning that is present on the phrase and sentence level. Mark does not seem to be aware of the danger of a translation reflecting the translator's theology more than the original text.

Tellville,

Robert, sure, if you quote one of the simplest most famous narrative passages of scripture they may seem really easy to understand.

I wasn't trying to make any point one way or the other...I thought I was helping...

Thank you baggins for making those points for me. My internet connection is terrible so I cant reply asap. But if you guys didn't know i live in Québec and I understand quite well the argument for easier to read translations. My french is far from masterful and I am able to use the Louis Segond (the french equivalent of about the KJV) or something like the Segond 21 which is about the equivalent of the NIV. But Come on in reality there comes a point where I just think people are lazy and dont wanna read and they are not used to reading actual real books. I don't see how the nkjv, esv, niv are too formal by any means and they are decent translations! I think this is just another western way for secular and christian publishers to make money in the name of bible translation. How else do you explain the Bible magizines with rock stars in them being marketed globally by both christian and non-christian groups. I am hardly a fundamentalist in this area but if your english is not good enough to understand the NIV you really don't read eneligh and you need english classes not a new bible. No shame in that. I had special french reading classes at the mormon church to help me read better in french!

I would personally suggest an ESV. It has grown to be perhaps my favorite version. I preach from it regularly.

I just want to emphasize, I am not against using the older translations. I am just pointing out that there is some major responsibilities of the parent/adult who wants their/a child to use these older translations. Not only do they need to train the child how to study the Bible but they also have to basically give a course in archaic English. Those adults who just think "it's so easy to understand - what's wrong with you?" need to reevaluate their position.

It is indeed true that close teaching is needed. But that is true with any translation! You don't send an immature Christian off into the wild blue yonder with a bible (at least that's not how we are raising our children, the immature Christians I have in mind).

So do it. Take them up, train them, verse by verse. Children pick it up with incredible speed. Last week, my daughter pointed to a nocked piece of dowling and said, "look dad, it is notched, as for an arrow." I almost had to laugh, because she sounded like our 1599 Geneva bible.

The NIV is a good compromise between the literal/essentially literal translation and the paraphrase, and a good choice for a child. It is easy to read, and it is certainly more doctrinally sound than either the New Living Translation or the New Century Version.

As for the literate adult (and I know, many adults who are technically literate -- are able to read -- are not literate in the older, broader sense of the word; and I mean the latter), whether a believer or an unbeliever, I see no reason why a good essentially literal translation (like the ESV or NKJV) would not be the proper choice.

Totally but it is a real shame and frankly harmful that we have all these translations in English.

With young children, I would say use the NKJV, KJV, or ESV, especially for memorization. Part of my dislike for the NLT stems from the fact that I memorized verses in the NKJV as a child and the wording in the NLT was so simplistic as to nearly lose the meaning (using "favor" over "grace" in places for instance).

If you want an "easy to understand" translation that is essentially literal, go for the HCSB. It is quite literal and amazingly easy to read and understand.

I know of childrens' curriculum designed around the NKJV and they find it easy enough to understand and suitable for memory.

I love the ESV, but cannot honestly see that it is superior for the purpose for which you want it.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

Mark, I don't think you heard Jogri17 very well. At any rate, saying that he was being arrogant is not helpful in this context. He wasn't even advocating the older translations. The NKJV, ESV and NIV are what he referenced, not the RSV, ASV, or KJV. So your objections to his position are beside the point.

Mark Straus creates quite the straw man in his article there. The ESV is not slavish to the literal translation. It is sensitive to idioms. They call it an "essentially literal" translation. They are not ignorant of the meaning that is present on the phrase and sentence level. Mark does not seem to be aware of the danger of a translation reflecting the translator's theology more than the original text.

Originally Posted by rpavich

Tellville,

Robert, sure, if you quote one of the simplest most famous narrative passages of scripture they may seem really easy to understand.

I wasn't trying to make any point one way or the other...I thought I was helping...

I just want to say sorry if I was overtly offensive. I have been working in ethnic ministry (2nd gen and ESL) for eight years and I get sensitive on the Bible translation issue. I apologize for any offense I may have caused. I will better choose my words next time. Also, thank you everyone for your comments.