Posted on 08/04/2004 3:11:04 PM PDT by walden
I was recently given a bible that is designated as the "New Living Translation". It's much more readable than my King James, but I don't know anything about the reliability of the translation. I would like to hear opinions from anyone who knows anything about this. Thanks!
Ninety evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations spent seven years in revising the New Living Translation. This version is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. Entire thoughts, rather than just words, were translated into natural, everyday English. Thus, this is a dynamic-equivalence translation. Three scholars were assigned to a portion of Scripture, usually one or two books. One general reviewer was assigned to each of the six groups of books.And here's some silly fluff by folks who are so ignorant that they don't know the so-called "textus receptus," referred to by them as the Reformation Received Text, was an advertising gimmick* and that it, as a text, was grossly inferior to other texts even at the time it was first promoted:
The text used for the Old Testament was Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), along with such aids as The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Septuagint, other Greek manuscripts, The Samaritan Pentateuch, The Syriac Peshitta, The Latin Vulgate, and others. The texts for the New Testament were the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (1977), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (1993).
There was an attempt to use a gender-neutral rendering where the text applies generally to human beings or to the human condition. El, elohim, and eloah have been translated as "God." YHWH has been translated as "the LORD." Adonai has been translated "Lord."
There are two standards whereby a Bible translation should be judged for its faithfulness: One, the purity of its text. Two, the accuracy of its translation. The New Living Translation (NLT) fails miserably on both counts. It is based upon the undependable Westcott-Hort type text. It is an inaccurate paraphrase even of this corrupt text.If you want a good overview of the text of the New Testament, see The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration and The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger.
According to the Introduction to the NLT, its underlying HEBREW AND GREEK TEXT is the Masoretic Text in the Old Testament (with many changes based on Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Latin Vulgate, etc.) and the United Bible Societies (UBS) fourth edition Greek New Testament. (The NLT does not always follow the UBS Greek text. It is actually a little more conservative than the UBS text and includes in the text some passages which are omitted in the UBS.)
The UBS Greek Testament is basically a modification of the Westcott-Hort version of 1881 which was published in conjunction with the English Revised New Testament. Though there are many differences between the Westcott-Hort Greek Text and today's UBS text (one of the features of modern textual criticism is its unsettled, constantly shifting nature), both represent a rejection of the Reformation Received Text, and both lean upon the same type of corrupt manuscripts which were preferred by Westcott and Hort--chiefly the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus manuscripts and their friends.
This is no light matter. If the Bible societies are correct in their assumption that the text of the Protestant Reformation was gravely defected, the great work of God during the hundreds of years prior to this century--the mighty revivals, the extraordinary pioneer missionary endeavors, the mass evangelism which changed not only multitudes of individual lives but the very character of nations and communities-- was based upon a corrupted Bible. If, on the other hand, the Bible societies are wrong about this matter, it is their Greek text which is the corrupted one, and they are responsible for distributing to men a corruption of God's Word. What could be more serious?
I disagree that in general there are no modern translations that are better than the KJV in accuracy, faithfulness to the intent, message, etc. of the original artifacts.
Perhaps put another way--I believe that the number of verses with flaws are greater in the KJV than in some of the modern translations . . .
whether one is talking about sin or any other major issue of Scripture.
It's been too long since I reviewed the scholars on such issues to cite specifics but I'm comfortable with my last such review for my own use in choosing a variety of modern translations.
A modern translation like the NIV, NLT and THE MESSAGE [I refuse to split silly hairs over paraphrase vs word for word translation--all translations are paraphrases] will be exceedingly better at communicating the accurate meaning of the verses into the modern mind structured by modern English than will the KJV.
I haven't spent much time with the NKJV. It reportedly ALSO has some good work done on it. Quality is neither it's nor the original KJV's exclusive property or monopoly.
One can quibble over various PC sorts of issues and I have little patience with folks trying to remove male gender distinctions from God etc. But I also have little patience for folks trying to split hairs over gnat's farts worth of issues.
I can agree to a point that some of the bite may have been blunted on some issues with some of the modern translations. But the import and essence of all the major verses of all the major issues is quite sufficiently in tact, for me. The KJV also has some such flaws for sensibilities of their time. I think THE MESSAGE is one of the first modern versions to make an effective return to the punch and idiom of the original Hebrew and Greek.
If one really wants to search out a verse, then there's no modern excuse for failing to use at least 3-4, if not a half dozen translations.
And, for someone reared on the KJV and with tons of verses in my memory in KJV English--any modern translation I read is with that substrate traveling along constantly for comparison, anyway.
But, I would not have the slightest hesitation (as I have not had) passing out all the modern translations I could to Chinese ESL students. Holy Spirit has more than adequately protected the essence of the essential Scriptures AS WELL as He protected them in the KJV version. He did not get tired and quit such diligent watchfulness over the Sacred Text and it's translation when the KJV was finished long ago.
I have confidence that the unchanging Almighty God has continued to have a hand in whatever translation HE DESTINED to have wide distribution.
I personally believe that He alternately laughs and groans over all the noise and haughtiness over the relatively silly hair splitting that goes on about the KJV vs other translations. The issues much more remind me of the hair splitting gotcha questions the religious leaders loved to ask Jesus than they do anything particularly crucial or edifying.
There is more than sufficient accuracy in any of the popular modern translations to be drawn by the Word to Jesus; to establish a relationship with Jesus and His Body and to be discipled in all the essentials of the faith.
Besides, you'd be surprised what God has done in China with scraps of one chapter of one book of a modern translation of the New Testament--sometimes with dozens and dozens of people.
People who dare to scoff and joke at Scripture will reap from their sowing. I don't think KJV vs modern translation has any real direct relationship with that issue, at all.
I don't believe the better modern translations were deliberately flawed. Sometimes people with more devotion to PC than should have been allowed sometimes had more influence than warranted on some translation committees. I don't think the better modern translations were designed in any way to be a subtle attack on God's word.
SOME translations, I could buy that about. But not the better ones. I'd really have to see the vivid proof to buy into otherwise.
That's another reason I like Peterson's THE MESSAGE. No committee! LOL.
I just do not buy hyper KJV worship. I think it's sinful idolatry and counterproductive to The Gospel and the health of The Body as well as the Growth of The Body.
I honestly can't see why they should have trouble with it at all. Well meaning followers of our Christ believe in earnest that He is the word incarnate - God the Son of the Trinity, yet on the other hand believe He's incapable of giving sacrificing His body and blood when we take communion.
They are as those who were present at the time when they said this just can't be. Their contention was yes we believe you as the Messiah to be capable healing the sick and raising the dead yet what is this talk of us eating your flesh?
Jesus was very adament about this, He verily repeated Himself many times, even on His last night upon this earth. He didn't fudge His words or speak in any kind of parable. The Eucharist with it's immense power then went on to change the face of the earth, and gave us all Christianity we see today.
It's very sad that we've gotten away from it, we're like those who abandoned Him that day.
If the Eucharist is actually His flesh, then do you not believe Jesus Christ is indeed resurrected in the body and now ascended in heaven? If so, what part of His body does He send down or reproduce? (I suspect the premise is false.)
Wise exhortations about multiple translations to study.
And, I still have an Amplified which I frequently consult--though I probably do it more online, now.
It's not uncommon to look at a verse in 5-7 different translations.
I think I lost my Greek Interlinear NT long ago along the way somewhere.
I do, however, think that several paraphrases are probably, on summary, more accurate than a lot of word for word translations. And, you seem to imply that word for word translations have no paraphrases in them--which is inaccurate, to my understanding.
I suppose it's likely that if one disagrees with the theological perspective of the translators using significant paraphrasing in their translations, one is likely to find great fault with the result. And, vice versa.
I have a lot of sympathy with Peterson's perspective and a fair amount with the NLT.
My NIV's are all older versions as I recall.
LOL.
The idioms and phrasing of the KJV just does not communicate Scriptural meanings accurately to minds rather locked into modern English idioms, constructs, reality.
This is a linguistic, psychological, cultural, brain structure reality.
Personally, I was reared on the KJV. In high school and even college, I actually literally slept with my Dakes KJV as a teddy bear. I wore two Dake's out. My memory work is virtually all KJV. I love it. But I was reared on it for at least 18 years. I learned it from age 1 or 2 in Sunday School. I can translate the KJV into more or less accurate meaning, for me.
That is just not true for youth and especially ESL people of today. They will not go through the hard work of trying to make sense out of an archiac language. One can rationalize and dance around it and worship it. But KJV is written in an archaic language.
Jesus was thoughtful enough, loving enough and wise enough that he did not speak an archiac language to His earthly listeners. He spoke the very common language of the day.
I consider it idolatry, arrogance, fossilized rigidity and insensitivity to the needs of the lost to elevate KJV to an object of idol worship to the loss of more effective Evangelism with the lost of the world.
I don't think Christ will treat that kindly at the judgement seat of Christ.
Wow, thanks everyone! Lots of good food for thought here-- I will be re-reading this thread again.
I am mainly interested in a more readable version of the bible because I haven't been able to plough through the old testament in my KJV. I just want to read it through once, not for study but rather for general narrative and flavor. Although I did study a LOT of literature in both high school and college, with particular attention to early English literature, the KJV is still more work than I want for this kind of a read-through. (I've read through the new testament in the KJV several times, but it just seems more accessible than the OT, so that's ok.) And, from some comments I read here I can see that I might need to look to further NT translations to facilitate deeper study.
On the other hand, in my view, the KJV simply cannot be beat for it's sheer poetic value in English. Every language has a flavor, but not every era of every language is equally poetic. The KJV simply resonates-- particularly for any devotee of Donne or Herbert. The difficulty lies, I think, in understanding the meaning in the same way as it would have been understood by a literate person of those earlier times. I do ok at that, but not great, not by a long shot. ;)
But I do agree, Cvengr, that all of the study we do with God's guidance will be true. He truly does hold us all in the palm of his hand. Since my faith was of purely experiental origin, and continues each day through His grace, I do not think that even a bad translation could harm it.
May God bless everyone who has helped me here. Thank you!
Satan has absolutely no part in my criticisms of the use of the KJV.
I still personally love the KJV. And often when I use the search engines at Biblegateway--I have to start out with the KJV because that's how I remember the verses.
But I have learned the hard way that with younger people and with ESL Chinese students, using the KJV is NONSENSE. And it is insensitive, unloving, unChristian, arrogant, counter productive, prissy, sanctimonious and a lot of other silly things for me to use it when relating to such people.
The KJV IS *NOT* THE HOLY OF HOLIES of Bible Translations. It has at least as many flaws as the better modern translations.
Personally, I have found that psychology and personality variables have a lot more to do with KJV idolatry than does Biblical scholarship.
The modern Bibles are lacking in substance and should not be considered by a serious student of God's Word.
I consider that an extremely parochial falsehood.
I also consider it an insult to God's care and capacity and practical effectiveness to guard HIS WORD through all the centuries and all the translations.
Every quality modern translation has many qualities of substance to offer to individuals and the Body of Christ--as do healthy Biblical congregations which are different. The nuances enrich the different translations and different groups. And sometimes the nuance can point most powerfully to things of great substance.
In any case, the KJV translators had their own biases and cultural sets which contaminated the KJV just as you accuse modern translators of doing with the modern translations. Myopic blindness to that is not admirable, to me.
AND NEITHER GOD NOR HIS HOLY SPIRIT
ARE THE LEAST BIT LIMITED TO BEING ABLE TO WORK SUCH WITH HIS LIVING WORD
only
through
the
KJV.
What a nonsensical idea that He would be so limited!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.