Replies

Here you go, from the Tyndale House:

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.

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."

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:

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.

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?

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.

* In 1624 the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, two enterprising printers at Leiden, published a small and convenient edition of the Greek Testament, the text of which was taken mainly from Beza's smaller 1565 edition. The preface to the second edition, which appeared in 1633, makes the boast that '[the reader has] the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.' Thus from what was a more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb'), there arose the designation "Textus Receptus', or commonly received, standard text. Partly because of this catchword the form of the Greek text incorporated in the editions that Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs had published succeeded in establishing itself as 'the only true text' of the New Testament, and was slavishly reprinted in hundreds of subsequent editions. It lies at the basis of the King James version and of all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe prior to 1881. So superstitious has been the reverence accorded the Textus Receptus that in some cases attempts to criticize or emend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet its textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardy collected minuscule** manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness (The Text of the New Testament, Bruce M. Metzger, pp. 105-106).

**minuscule manuscripts are later copies versus the earliest ones that are written in uncials

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!