NLT vs NIV: What's the Difference Between Bible Translations?

[Delighting In Grace]

Hi All, I'm a new christian looking to invest in a new bible. I have done what research I can on translations and compared versions on biblegateway.com I feel most comfortable with the NIV and NLT. I'm only going to buy one bible and use biblegateway when studying since it has all the other versions available. I'm having a tough time deciding between the NIV and NLT, mostly cause I've read several bad reviews about the NIV 2011. If the reviews are true about the new NIV being so bad than I will obviously pick the NLT. If the reviews aren't true than I will most likely pick the NIV.

Does anyone know much about either translation? Is one better than the other? Like I said, I can only buy one bible so I want to make sure I make the right choice. Thanks for the help!

 

[SplendidTree]

Hello there and welcome to CF!

I think it will always depend on who you ask as there are different denominations. Personally, I think either one is fine. Some denominations are against the NIV but I say, if you understand it better, than choose the NIV.

I personally use ESV but the church I attend, an LCMS church, hands out NIV Bibles at the food pantry.

I will pray right now about this decision!


Cally

 

[ElainaMor]

I love the NLT and just recently made it my primary bible. I know the NIV 84 version was/is very popular and considered very readable and accurate. I'm not familiar with the updated 2011 NIV but from what I've read/heard many people feel it crossed the line when it came to gender neutral language. I don't know how accurate that is, hopefully someone here more up-to-date with the NIV can shed some light.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

The NIV is horrible. Avoid it.

The NLT is a good paraphrase. You will read the Word of God like a storybook and easily comprehend what you're reading. It's nowhere near as literal and as accurate as most of the other translations available, however. It's the translation I recommend to children and people that have difficulty reading, or to people that are looking for a Bible to use as a storybook, and not exactly for study and accuracy.

I always recommend the KJV to anyone. However, I understand that it's not for everyone.

Next I would recommend the RSV, NRSV, and ESV. The RSV is a revision of the KJV and the ASV. It is modern English, other than keeping the thee's and the thou' and such when refering to the Lord. It's easy to read and literal. The benefit of the RSV, other than being an easy to read literal translation, is that it comes in a ecumenical version that is, as far as I know, the most complete Bible in the English language, that is still in print. It's called the New Oxford Annotated Bible: Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha - Expanded Edition. This Bible contains the 39 books of the Protestant OT and the standard 27 books of the NT, that pretty much everyone agrees upon. After the OT and the NT is the Apocrypha of the OT. It contains all of the extra books of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the additions to the book of Esther and Daniel. Next we have the NRSV, which was a revision of the RSV. It tooks out all of the thee's and thou's and such in reference to the Lord and is gender neutral when appropriate; meaning, when Jesus is speaking to a crowd of both men and women, the NRSV with use "friends" or "brothers and sisters" instead of just "brothers" or "brethren" like more conservative and traditional Bibles use. The best NRSV you can get is the New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha - 4th Edition. The 4th edition is the most recent, from 2010 I believe. The NRSV, like the RSV, benefits from having a great Apocryphal volume. Unlike the RSV, it isn't as complete with its Apocrypha, not having 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151. The NRSV is the translation the Church of England recommends. Lastly is the ESV, which is again a revision of the RSV. The ESV is very literal and easy to read. Conservative Protestants put the translation together. The benefit of the ESV isn't Apocrypha, as it only has one hardback volume that has Apocrypha, from Oxford, but that it is literal with no archaic language, and has a fantastic study bible by Crossway, called the ESV Study Bible. Make sure you get the 2011 text, as it's the newest. The ESV came out in 2001, was revised in 2007, and touched up in 2011.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Ecumenical:
Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Expanded Edition)
New Revised Standard version with Apocrypha

Old English:
King James Version (Pure Cambridge Edition) - Protestants, Anglicans, and Orthodox would appreciate it the most, with Anglicans and Orthodox preferring the Apocryphal versions. Some Catholics use the KJV with Apocrypha.
Douay-Rheims Bible (1899 American Edition) - This is a Catholic translation that came out around the time of the KJV, but actually predates the KJV. Orthodox would also appreciate it.

Protestant:
English Standard Version (2011 Text)
New American Standard Bible (1995 Update)

Anglican:
Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Expanded Edition)
New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha

Catholic:
Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition
Jerusalem Bible

Orthodox:
Orthodox Study Bible
Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Expanded Edition)

 

[Delighting In Grace]

Hello there and welcome to CF!

I think it will always depend on who you ask as there are different denominations. Personally, I think either one is fine. Some denominations are against the NIV but I say, if you understand it better, than choose the NIV.

I personally use ESV but the church I attend, an LCMS church, hands out NIV Bibles at the food pantry.

I will pray right now about this decision!


Cally

Thank you, I appreciate the prayers.

 

[Delighting In Grace]

It's nowhere near as literal and as accurate as most of the other translations available, however.

Not as accurate? Did they change the meaning of scriptures?

 

[Radagast]

The NIV is horrible. Avoid it.

Not so!

If it's just between the NIV and the NLT, get the NIV (1984 version if possible).

The NIV is very readable and more accurate than the NLT.

I would agree with L0NEW0LF in recommending the ESV, although that may be slightly harder to read.

 

[Delighting In Grace]

Ecumenical:
Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Expanded Edition)
New Revised Standard version with Apocrypha

Old English:
King James Version (Pure Cambridge Edition) - Protestants, Anglicans, and Orthodox would appreciate it the most, with Anglicans and Orthodox preferring the Apocryphal versions. Some Catholics use the KJV with Apocrypha.
Douay-Rheims Bible (1899 American Edition) - This is a Catholic translation that came out around the time of the KJV, but actually predates the KJV. Orthodox would also appreciate it.

Protestant:
English Standard Version (2011 Text)
New American Standard Bible (1995 Update)

Anglican:
Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Expanded Edition)
New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha

Catholic:
Revised Standard Version - 2nd Catholic Edition
Jerusalem Bible

Orthodox:
Orthodox Study Bible
Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha (Expanded Edition)

Thanks for all the bible suggestions but I've reviewed different translations on biblegateway and will still only be keeping my choices between the NLT and NIV for my first bible purchase. I may in the future purchase additional bibles but for now I can only afford one.

 

[dbcsf]

Hi All, I'm a new christian looking to invest in a new bible. I have done what research I can on translations and compared versions on biblegateway.com I feel most comfortable with the NIV and NLT. I'm only going to buy one bible and use biblegateway when studying since it has all the other versions available. I'm having a tough time deciding between the NIV and NLT, mostly cause I've read several bad reviews about the NIV 2011. If the reviews are true about the new NIV being so bad than I will obviously pick the NLT. If the reviews aren't true than I will most likely pick the NIV.

Does anyone know much about either translation? Is one better than the other? Like I said, I can only buy one bible so I want to make sure I make the right choice. Thanks for the help!

Ultimately all versions are inspired, so you should choose the version which you enjoy the most, and teaches you the most.

I have mostly used the NIV and I love it. I do not have a problem with it.

The NIV was written by a lot of protestant scholars from many denominations and countries. It is very popular for bible study. They used original sources and modern scholarship. According to Wiki, their general approach was a balance between "word for word" and "thought for thought", or a balance between a literal approach and a meaning oriented approach.

I have not read the NLV. But, I am looking forward to it. It is based on a "thought for thought" approach, or a meaning oriented approach only.

If you want bible study, in the serious sense, with commentaries, original language dictionaries, A Strong's concordance on the table, considerations for context, close reading, exegesis, etc., I would suggest you consider the NIV. "Word for word" or the literal approach gives you more possible interpretations, meanings. The NIV is a more scholarly oriented translation. Lots of useful, relevant footnotes, even if you don't agree with them, lol. I have used the NIV for serious study, and it is a fine translation.

If you are planning on a less rigorous bible study, definitely use the NLB. For example, I meet with friends Tuesday nights for a bible study. We pray a little, read a little, discuss a little, eat some dessert.

 

[Delighting In Grace]

Not so!

If it's just between the NIV and the NLT, get the NIV (1984 version if possible).

The NIV is very readable and more accurate than the NLT.

I would agree with L0NEW0LF in recommending the ESV, although that may be slightly harder to read.

I called my local christian bookstore today and they don't sell the NIV 84 since they aren't in print. What are your thoughts on the NIV 2011? Is it just as good as the 84 edition?

 

[Radagast]

Not as accurate? Did they change the meaning of scriptures?

The NLT sometimes alters the meaning slightly, because it's trying so hard to be readable. Basically, for difficult passages, they change what it says to fit what they think it means. Sometimes they make minor changes that seem to me pointless, e.g. 1 Cor 13:1-3:

ESV: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

NIV: If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

NLT: If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.

 

[Delighting In Grace]

The NLT sometimes alters the meaning slightly, because it's trying so hard to be readable. Basically, for difficult passages, they change what it says to fit what they think it means.

Can you give me some examples where this is done?

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Personal Testimony: When I was first researching Bibles, and trying to figure out which translation to use, the Lord spoke to my heart and told me that the NIV was horrible and to avoid it. This is before I knew anything about Bible translations.

That aside, the 1984 NIV is better than the 2011, but it is going to be harder to find with the 2011 edition being the one in print. This new NIV has taken gender neutrality to an entirely new level to be politically correct. This is not how to translate God's word. Not only that, the NIV is extremely similar to the JW's Bible. I believe there is a thread about this over in Anabaptist and Eastern Orthodox. You want a gender neutral Bible that is accurate, scholarly, and easy to read? Look not futher than the NRSV, and avoid the trash that is the NIV.

Anyways, regarding Bible translations, I like ecumenical translations. They aren't biased any which way and can be used regardless of the direction you take. It doesn't get any better than Oxford. I had been using the NOAB NRSV, but just very recently, with exploring Eastern Orthodoxy, have gotten the NOAB RSV. What a delight! This is such a complete Bible. I love it. Even better that it is the accurate RSV. If you're Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox, it matters not; it's approved for use.

 

[Radagast]

I called my local christian bookstore today and they don't sell the NIV 84 since they aren't in print. What are your thoughts on the NIV 2011? Is it just as good as the 84 edition?

The "gender-neutral" language changes in the NIV 2011 have been controversial (see e.g. here). However, the NLT has them too (and the NIV is certainly more accurate than the NLT).

I don't think the "gender-neutral" language changes (though often wrong) are the end of the world, exactly.

 

[Radagast]

Personal Testimony: When I was first researching Bibles, and trying to figure out which translation to use, the Lord spoke to my heart and told me that the NIV was horrible and to avoid it. This is before I knew anything about Bible translations.

I don't believe that message is from God.

 

[ElainaMor]

The NLT is a good paraphrase.

The NLT is not a paraphrase. It is translated from the Hebrew, Greek, and Araimic and translated into everyday English to make it more readable. The Living Bible and Message Bible are paraphrases, they took their bible and choice and restated the scriptures into their own words to make it more readable.

 

[ElainaMor]

Personal Testimony: When I was first researching Bibles, and trying to figure out which translation to use, the Lord spoke to my heart and told me that the NIV was horrible and to avoid it. This is before I knew anything about Bible translations.

Your personal testimony is just that...personal. The Holy Spirit convicts us but doesn't convict all the same. What is a personal conviction for you may not necessarily be a conviction for me. I believe you when you say the Lord told you to avoid the NIV but that doesn't mean He told everyone to avoid the NIV.

 

[Radagast]

Can you give me some examples where this is done?

All paraphrases/loose translations inevitably do this (although the latest versions of the NLT have fixed many of the older problems). See 1 Cor 13 in my previous post, or consider 1 Peter 3:21-22:

ESV: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

NIV: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God {footnote: Or but an appeal to God for a clear conscience). It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand —with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

NLT: And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from {footnote: Or as an appeal to God for} a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now Christ has gone to heaven. He is seated in the place of honor next to God, and all the angels and authorities and powers accept his authority.

 

[ElainaMor]

The NLT sometimes alters the meaning slightly, because it's trying so hard to be readable. Basically, for difficult passages, they change what it says to fit what they think it means. Sometimes they make minor changes that seem to me pointless, e.g. 1 Cor 13:1-3:

ESV: If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

NIV: If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

NLT: If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.

Not trying to being argumentative but can you explain to me how these versus are different? I've read them several times and I can't see the differences. To me all three versions are saying the same thing even though the wording may be slightly different.