KJV Only People?

faceofbear

Veteran
Aug 3, 2009
1,380
99
Texas
✟9,739.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hello,

Well, I am going to start out by saying I am struggling with my salvation and if I am saved, I've been saved for approximately 5 months. I am very skeptical when it comes to things so bare with me on this post.

I have another post directed at which Bible to get. I realize there's so many bibles, but when I read about them there are a lot people saying 1611 KJV! As if they're holding it superior to any Bible translated before then or after the publishing of this bible. They present many good arguments such as newer bibles translate words completely different or they simply remove words out of the Bible all together. That makes me wonder about the newer versions and simply put, if the devil is a wolf in sheeps clothing how can we know whether translations are good translations or not. I know there are arguments both ways such as, does that mean you can only have 1 translation per language etc.

However, my thoughts are just simply put, how do I know I can trust any translation? I know the 1611 KJV isn't the original, but that it was published after the geneva bible because some of the notes threatened King James authority etc. But then if later versions remove things from the Bible how can we trust those?

I guess what I am asking altogether is, what are your opinions on the matter? I don't really want to start a debate I just want to make sure I'm reading the right thing. Thanks.

Here are some sites I fell upon promoting KJV
The New King James Bible: Counterfeit
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com.

They have some wacky views but none the less I don't think that invalidates some of their arguments. Anyways, helppp!! ha.
 

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
For an accurate, readable translation, the ESV is a good one. As for all the hot air about things supposedly "removed" from the bible, the KJV-only-ists are on the fringe, and I wouldn't trust anything they say. Is the KJV a good translation? Yes, it is. But the language is archaic, and somewhat hard to understand, although it is lyrical, and seems sometimes to be easier to memorize. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference, but as I said, I like the ESV for readability and comprehension.
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am a bible collector of sorts. I own over twenty different versions and translations. Each have their good and not so good features. I sometimes wish in this digital age a person could select among many features that one would like and have a custom bible printed and bound. For me the resulting item would weigh around six pounds!

Most of the bibles that I own are listed below:

1. Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible(NIV)
Pratt is editor. Includes all the major Reformed confessions in appendices. Has 100 in-depth articles on various Reformed doctrines, numerous Reformed Confessions in the back, and thousands of study notes for verses, including links to Confessions.

2. Nelson Study Bible (NKJV)
Excellent layout and scholarly commentaries that do not shy away from contentious topics. Good concordance and index (!) to in-depth topics posted throughout. Get the 2007 edition for the latest version of this popular study bible.

3. Apologetics Study Bible (HCSB)
Numerous in-depth articles related to apologetic exposition. Verse commentaries are apologetic in nature. A new bible just published and even treats open theism as a belief system that is non-biblical. Has one of the best translations of John 3:16 I have ever read. Note: an update to the HCSB translation is in the works.

4. MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV,NASB)
A study bible edited by a self-proclaimed “leaky” dispensational “Calvinist”—more accurately a Christian Zionist. Thousands of deep theological study notes with a Reformed flavor.

5. Archaeological Study Bible (NIV)
Outstanding commentary on historical, social, and archeological aspects for verses. Hundreds of in-depth treatments for each book. A gem for this genre.

6. Thompson Chain-Reference (NKJV, NIV, KJV)
One of my favorites. The NKJV has all chains updated. Over a hundred thousand references and special topics. My only beef is that there are no center-column cross-references, so one must rely upon the chain-reference system. At times that becomes annoying. When I first purchased this bible, I spent a few months colorizing all the plain, black and white drawings in it. Much more pleasing to the eyes. Remains one of my favorites.

7. Ryrie Study Bible (NIV)
Dispensational theologian. Commentary is scholarly. Includes nice theology summary of major doctrines.

8. Reformation Study Bible (ESV, NKJV)
Edited by Sproul. Includes 100 special topic treatments on various doctrinal subjects. ESV one of the most literal translations and two of my preferred bible translations. My most marked up bible (the NKJV) and the one I carry around everywhere is the NKJV translation of this bible.

9. Zondervan Study Bible (NIV/KJV)
Many study notes (20,000), that tend towards middle of the road doctrinal treatments. The KJV includes updated study notes and uses the Scrivener paragraph translation. The KJV is another favorite of mine.

10. New Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha (NRSV)
Study notes are scholarly and generally unbiased. More like the bible as literature in their treatments.

11. Harper Collins Study Bible (NRSV)
Scholarly commentary. Again, like the Oxford Annotated, treatment is more like the bible as literature.

12. The Companion Bible (KJV)
The "Bullinger Bible". One of the most confusing in layout and most complex to navigate. Strong focus on Hebrew and Greek translation aspects in commentary. Dispensational focus. Bullinger's emphasis on form patterns of chapters, verses, is sometimes strained. Nearly 200 appendices on wide array of topics, some very esoteric. Worth the price just for the content of the appendices. Bullinger's depth of idiomatic passages is another strong point (his book on the same topic is a popular item among academic theologians).

13. The Open Bible: Completely Revised (NKJV/NASB)
This is one of my favorites. I have worn out two previous versions. Unfortunately, this version is no longer in print and hard to find unless you want to pay big bucks. Unlike past versions, the NKJV version includes 4,500 study notes. And unlike many study bibles with three times the number of notes, the notes in the Open Bible do not get in the way of God's word with unsupported editorial bias.

The bible's 300 page cyclopedic index (8,000 subjects and 300 word studies) is worth the price alone. The introductions and outlines to each book of the bible have not been equaled by any of the versions listed in this post. Also includes numerous visual bible study aids and in-depth topics.

14. Scofield Study Bible 2002 edition (NKJV, NIV, NKJV,HCSB (coming soon))
The bible for most classical dispensationalists. Numerous topical articles, charts, lists, etc. Published by Oxford University Press. Probably the best constructed bible (binding, paper, print, etc.) in this list.

15. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible (KJV)
The Dake contains a collection of over 35,000 commentary, lists, dispensational allegories, 500,000 cross-references, etc., whose length and number exceeds the actual bible verses. Some of these items are quite bizarre.

Many charismatics are fanatical in their devotion to The Dake. Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland have drawn upon The Dake for many of their strange doctrines. I never thought I would find a bible version that exceeded The Companion Bible in complexity, but The Dake is over the top. Quite a few items in its content are heretical (Dake is tritheistic, holds to aberrant kenoticism). I do not recommend the book for anyone who is not well-trained and has a solid grasp of proper biblical doctrines. The immature or new believer can be led astray in The Dake.

16. The Master Study Bible (KJV)
Published by Cornerstone Bible Publishers and used to be my main bible. Was originally issued in NASB version, which I recently obtained from eBay and had rebound with a new hardcover. The uncommented bible text of both translations is two full columns per page with center-column cross-references. No sectional divisions with the usual man-made headings. Just the chapters and verses. The KJV Master Study Bible contains a 407-page topical concordance in the front, and 571-page Encyclopedia of Biblical Knowledge in the back. Also contains numerous other helps, and a 63-page regular Concordance. Like carrying a library in one volume.

17. ESV Study Bible (to be released in October’08)
Four pounds! 2700 pages! On line version available to owners of this bible. One of my favorites. Very scholarly and a bible that will keep you deep in study for years.
Read more here

I have other bibles, including Lockman NASB and NLT versions (get the 2008 NLT translation Study Bible), and some that are more specialized, such as interlinears, reverse interlinear, Greek, and Hebrew versions. I also use e-sword, WordSearch, and the Logos software for electronic versions of bibles, commentaries, lexicons, hundreds of other electronic books, etc. But I am slowly trying to migrate away from electronic media to paper. Nothing beats the tactile feel of a book and I enjoy flipping through pages of many books as I research topics.

AMR
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenrapoza
Upvote 0

bradfordl

Veteran
Mar 20, 2006
1,510
181
✟17,608.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
If you feel safer reading a KJV, then by all means do so. You could also pick up a comparitive with as many as 4 versions printed side-by-side so you can compare. But the main thing is to read God's Word. He is able to ensure you will get the proper meaning from whichever version you read, and lead you to one that you will best understand. You have less to worry about in defending yourself against bad Bible versions than you do against your own flesh's tendency to want to find an excuse not to pick up the Bible at all. And this here's one excuse that is common to new believers. Blow it off. Read the Word.
 
Upvote 0

JSGuitarist

Παρα σοι ιλασμος εστιν
Mar 7, 2008
1,039
135
✟9,364.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hey brother :)

As far as the KJV goes, it's a very good translation. Really, one of the best in history, so those better in these matters than myself tell me. There's definitely no harm in using it, but as far as it being the only valid translation goes, this isn't true. What you'll find is that the basis for it being the only true translation is that it is the KJV (ie., it is because it is). Many good bibles existed before it, and there are good ones coming after. It was never meant to be the final translation, not even by the original translators.
 
Upvote 0

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟11,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I am a bible collector of sorts. I own over twenty different versions and translations. Each have their good and not so good features. I sometimes wish in this digital age a person could select among many features that one would like and have a custom bible printed and bound. For me the resulting item would weigh around six pounds!

Most of the bibles that I own are listed below:

1. Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible(NIV)
Pratt is editor. Includes all the major Reformed confessions in appendices. Has 100 in-depth articles on various Reformed doctrines, numerous Reformed Confessions in the back, and thousands of study notes for verses, including links to Confessions.

2. Nelson Study Bible (NKJV)
Excellent layout and scholarly commentaries that do not shy away from contentious topics. Good concordance and index (!) to in-depth topics posted throughout. Get the 2007 edition for the latest version of this popular study bible.

3. Apologetics Study Bible (HCSB)
Numerous in-depth articles related to apologetic exposition. Verse commentaries are apologetic in nature. A new bible just published and even treats open theism as a belief system that is non-biblical. Has one of the best translations of John 3:16 I have ever read. Note: an update to the HCSB translation is in the works.

4. MacArthur Study Bible (NKJV,NASB)
A study bible edited by a self-proclaimed “leaky” dispensational “Calvinist”—more accurately a Christian Zionist. Thousands of deep theological study notes with a Reformed flavor.

5. Archaeological Study Bible (NIV)
Outstanding commentary on historical, social, and archeological aspects for verses. Hundreds of in-depth treatments for each book. A gem for this genre.

6. Thompson Chain-Reference (NKJV, NIV, KJV)
One of my favorites. The NKJV has all chains updated. Over a hundred thousand references and special topics. My only beef is that there are no center-column cross-references, so one must rely upon the chain-reference system. At times that becomes annoying. When I first purchased this bible, I spent a few months colorizing all the plain, black and white drawings in it. Much more pleasing to the eyes. Remains one of my favorites.

7. Ryrie Study Bible (NIV)
Dispensational theologian. Commentary is scholarly. Includes nice theology summary of major doctrines.

8. Reformation Study Bible (ESV, NKJV)
Edited by Sproul. Includes 100 special topic treatments on various doctrinal subjects. ESV one of the most literal translations and two of my preferred bible translations. My most marked up bible (the NKJV) and the one I carry around everywhere is the NKJV translation of this bible.

9. Zondervan Study Bible (NIV/KJV)
Many study notes (20,000), that tend towards middle of the road doctrinal treatments. The KJV includes updated study notes and uses the Scrivener paragraph translation. The KJV is another favorite of mine.

10. New Oxford Annotated Bible w/Apocrypha (NRSV)
Study notes are scholarly and generally unbiased. More like the bible as literature in their treatments.

11. Harper Collins Study Bible (NRSV)
Scholarly commentary. Again, like the Oxford Annotated, treatment is more like the bible as literature.

12. The Companion Bible (KJV)
The "Bullinger Bible". One of the most confusing in layout and most complex to navigate. Strong focus on Hebrew and Greek translation aspects in commentary. Dispensational focus. Bullinger's emphasis on form patterns of chapters, verses, is sometimes strained. Nearly 200 appendices on wide array of topics, some very esoteric. Worth the price just for the content of the appendices. Bullinger's depth of idiomatic passages is another strong point (his book on the same topic is a popular item among academic theologians).

13. The Open Bible: Completely Revised (NKJV/NASB)
This is one of my favorites. I have worn out two previous versions. Unfortunately, this version is no longer in print and hard to find unless you want to pay big bucks. Unlike past versions, the NKJV version includes 4,500 study notes. And unlike many study bibles with three times the number of notes, the notes in the Open Bible do not get in the way of God's word with unsupported editorial bias.

The bible's 300 page cyclopedic index (8,000 subjects and 300 word studies) is worth the price alone. The introductions and outlines to each book of the bible have not been equaled by any of the versions listed in this post. Also includes numerous visual bible study aids and in-depth topics.

14. Scofield Study Bible 2002 edition (NKJV, NIV, NKJV,HCSB (coming soon))
The bible for most classical dispensationalists. Numerous topical articles, charts, lists, etc. Published by Oxford University Press. Probably the best constructed bible (binding, paper, print, etc.) in this list.

15. The Dake Annotated Reference Bible (KJV)
The Dake contains a collection of over 35,000 commentary, lists, dispensational allegories, 500,000 cross-references, etc., whose length and number exceeds the actual bible verses. Some of these items are quite bizarre.

Many charismatics are fanatical in their devotion to The Dake. Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland have drawn upon The Dake for many of their strange doctrines. I never thought I would find a bible version that exceeded The Companion Bible in complexity, but The Dake is over the top. Quite a few items in its content are heretical (Dake is tritheistic, holds to aberrant kenoticism). I do not recommend the book for anyone who is not well-trained and has a solid grasp of proper biblical doctrines. The immature or new believer can be led astray in The Dake.

16. The Master Study Bible (KJV)
Published by Cornerstone Bible Publishers and used to be my main bible. Was originally issued in NASB version, which I recently obtained from eBay and had rebound with a new hardcover. The uncommented bible text of both translations is two full columns per page with center-column cross-references. No sectional divisions with the usual man-made headings. Just the chapters and verses. The KJV Master Study Bible contains a 407-page topical concordance in the front, and 571-page Encyclopedia of Biblical Knowledge in the back. Also contains numerous other helps, and a 63-page regular Concordance. Like carrying a library in one volume.

17. ESV Study Bible (to be released in October’08)
Four pounds! 2700 pages! On line version available to owners of this bible. One of my favorites. Very scholarly and a bible that will keep you deep in study for years.
Read more here

I have other bibles, including Lockman NASB and NLT versions (get the 2008 NLT translation Study Bible), and some that are more specialized, such as interlinears, reverse interlinear, Greek, and Hebrew versions. I also use e-sword, WordSearch, and the Logos software for electronic versions of bibles, commentaries, lexicons, hundreds of other electronic books, etc. But I am slowly trying to migrate away from electronic media to paper. Nothing beats the tactile feel of a book and I enjoy flipping through pages of many books as I research topics.

AMR


Wow, that's an awesome and helpful list Patrick! A couple questions:

1.) I'm kind of suprised that you described MacArthur as a Zionist. Do you really think this is the case? I know that he subscribes to a dispensational view of the end-times, but I didn't know he supported Zionism.

2.) I was intered to see that you also have Harper Collins. From what I understand, isn't this a version influenced by higher criticism and therefore used by more liberal folks?

Thanks!

Ken
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMR
Upvote 0

kenrapoza

I Like Ice Cream
Aug 20, 2006
2,529
134
Massachusetts
✟11,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Hello,

Well, I am going to start out by saying I am struggling with my salvation and if I am saved, I've been saved for approximately 5 months. I am very skeptical when it comes to things so bare with me on this post.

I have another post directed at which Bible to get. I realize there's so many bibles, but when I read about them there are a lot people saying 1611 KJV! As if they're holding it superior to any Bible translated before then or after the publishing of this bible. They present many good arguments such as newer bibles translate words completely different or they simply remove words out of the Bible all together. That makes me wonder about the newer versions and simply put, if the devil is a wolf in sheeps clothing how can we know whether translations are good translations or not. I know there are arguments both ways such as, does that mean you can only have 1 translation per language etc.

However, my thoughts are just simply put, how do I know I can trust any translation? I know the 1611 KJV isn't the original, but that it was published after the geneva bible because some of the notes threatened King James authority etc. But then if later versions remove things from the Bible how can we trust those?

I guess what I am asking altogether is, what are your opinions on the matter? I don't really want to start a debate I just want to make sure I'm reading the right thing. Thanks.

Here are some sites I fell upon promoting KJV
The New King James Bible: Counterfeit
Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!.

They have some wacky views but none the less I don't think that invalidates some of their arguments. Anyways, helppp!! ha.

KJV-onlyists tend to claim that it is an inspired an inerrant autographa. However, orthodox Christianity has never claimed that the translations are infallible, only the original manuscripts. The KJV is great, but it was written prior to the discovery of the oldest and best manuscripts. The manuscripts that we have available today are much more complete (think about the Qumran Scrolls for example) than what was available in 1611, and we have much more confidence in them. The KJV was actually based on the Textus Receptus. Also recall that the KJV was commissioned by King James I of England in 1604 and the 47 scholars on the translation committee were tasked with ensuring their translation was in conformity to the Anglican doctrines. They were all members of the Church of England.

Another thing to mention is that we also have a better understanding of the Biblical languages today than we did 400 years ago. As a result, modern translations of certain passages are more accurate than the KJV. Plus, the English language has changed quite a bit in the past 400 years, so that the meanings of certain words has evolved. This means that some phrases in the KJV will actually mean something different to us than they did to their original audience and cause confusion.

All of this is not to say that you shouldn't use the KJV. On the contrary, it is probably the greatest literary masterpiece in the English language! Oh, and one verse must always be read in the KJV - John 11:39, just for the word "stinketh"!
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
Most of the modern translations are produced by competent and sincere Christian scholars. Nonetheless, there are differences in translating styles and philosophies that cause there to be differences between them. I have found that the best way to sort through these differences is to use multiple translations. Some translations emphasize literalism (such as the NASB). Others use a method called dynamic equivalence (such as the NIV). Some try to split the difference (like the NRSV and ESV). Some emphasize gender-inclusiveness (like the NRSV and TNIV). Some are more conservative and reject gender inclusivity (like the ESV). Some are more well-regarded within the Catholic tradition (like the NAB).

If you only use a literal translation, you will likely misunderstand some of the euphemisms that have connotations that are not self-evident in our own context. If you use only a dynamic equivalent, you will have to rely on someone else's exigesis, sometimes without knowing where the line between translation and interpretation lies. Similar issues exist with some of the liberal/conservative questions like gender inclusiveness. For example, when Paul addresses his "brothers", is he addressing everyone or just men? Gender inclusive translations try to answer this question by translating it as "brothers and sisters" wherever it seems to address men and women. Non-inclusive translations translate more literally and let the reader decide.

I think it is best to include at least one literal or "middle of the road" translation (such as the NASB, NRSV, or ESV), one dynamic equivelent (really the NIV and TNIV are the only ones I would trust in this category; most others go too far into interpretation), one gender inclusive (like the NRSV or TNIV), and one more conservative translation (e.g., NASB, NIV, ESV). This can be accomplished with as few as two translations (for example, NRSV and NIV; NASB and TNIV; ESV and TNIV).

Read the same passage from your selected translations. What I think you will find is that most of the differences are rather insubstantial. But, where there are meaningful differences, you will be aware of them, so that you can pray about and study the issue for yourself to come to a deeper understanding. Also, if you are concerned about deviations from the KJV, use the KJV as one of your more literal translations, but apply the same basic principles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenrapoza
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wow, that's an awesome and helpful list Patrick! A couple questions:

1.) I'm kind of suprised that you described MacArthur as a Zionist. Do you really think this is the case? I know that he subscribes to a dispensational view of the end-times, but I didn't know he supported Zionism.

2.) I was intered to see that you also have Harper Collins. From what I understand, isn't this a version influenced by higher criticism and therefore used by more liberal folks?

Thanks!

Ken
Ken,

MacArthur believes there is a real distinction between Israel and the Israel of God.

Yes, the Harper Collins version is heavily influenced by higher criticism. I own it, as I own other bibles, that contain materials contra to my own views. If I cannot walk a mile in another man's shoes, it is impossible for me to fully understand their perspectives, and offer proper correction. This is why I also own the Book of Mormon, the Watchtower version of the Bible, etc. ;)

AMR
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Another translation I recommend is the 2007 New Living Translation. Unlike its earlier paraphrase versions, this new translation is clearly a dynamic-equivalence version.

You can use the 2007 NLT as a plain English commentary alongside of more literal translations, such as the KJV or NASB. I am not saying I agree with all of the NLT renderings, but I have enjoyed reading this new translation and the NLT Study Bible.

Just comparing the list of the ESV's Translation Oversight Committee with the full list of the NLT Translation team reveals 25% overlap (three of the 12 ESV committee members participated in the NLT: Paul House, Robert Mounce, and Gordon Wenham). Expanding to the list of ESV translation reviewers would reveal significantly more overlap between the two teams. Similar overlaps can be observed between the NLT team and the NIV/TNIV Committee for Bible Translation (Blomberg, Douglas Moo, Larry Walker).

Some resources to review:

NLT Translation Philosophy:
http://www.bethelcollege.edu/academics/library/Archives/reflections/v5n2p8_12.pdf

NLT Study Bible (a very good product!) Genesis sample:
http://www.nltstudybible.com/05_downloads/NLTSB_Genesis.pdf

The NLT has gotten a bad rap in the past, well-deserved in my opinion, but this new translation goes a long way towards silencing past criticisms.

AMR
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
Another translation I recommend is the 2007 New Living Translation. Unlike its earlier paraphrase versions, this new translation is clearly a dynamic-equivalence version.

You can use the 2007 NLT as a plain English commentary alongside of more literal translations, such as the KJV or NASB. I am not saying I agree with all of the NLT renderings, but I have enjoyed reading this new translation and the NLT Study Bible.

Just comparing the list of the ESV's Translation Oversight Committee with the full list of the NLT Translation team reveals 25% overlap (three of the 12 ESV committee members participated in the NLT: Paul House, Robert Mounce, and Gordon Wenham). Expanding to the list of ESV translation reviewers would reveal significantly more overlap between the two teams. Similar overlaps can be observed between the NLT team and the NIV/TNIV Committee for Bible Translation (Blomberg, Douglas Moo, Larry Walker).

Some resources to review:

NLT Translation Philosophy:
http://www.bethelcollege.edu/academics/library/Archives/reflections/v5n2p8_12.pdf

NLT Study Bible (a very good product!) Genesis sample:
http://www.nltstudybible.com/05_downloads/NLTSB_Genesis.pdf

The NLT has gotten a bad rap in the past, well-deserved in my opinion, but this new translation goes a long way towards silencing past criticisms.

AMR

I wasn't aware of a newer version of the NLT. Generally, when I am in a Bible Study group, I can tell when a person reads a few words from their Bible if they are an NLT user, because it reads nothing like any other translation (more like a bad paraphrase than a translation). So, naturally, I have gotten in the habit of steering people away from the NLT. I am assuming from your post that I must be thinking of the older version. How does the new version compare to more well-respected DE versions like the NIV?
 
Upvote 0

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I wasn't aware of a newer version of the NLT. Generally, when I am in a Bible Study group, I can tell when a person reads a few words from their Bible if they are an NLT user, because it reads nothing like any other translation (more like a bad paraphrase than a translation). So, naturally, I have gotten in the habit of steering people away from the NLT. I am assuming from your post that I must be thinking of the older version. How does the new version compare to more well-respected DE versions like the NIV?
They were probably reading from the earlier versions, 1996, 2004 types.

The 2007 NLT is very comparable, and often much better, to the NIV. Three examples follow:

Proverbs 5:15-17
These verses give us a Hebrew wisdom saying that is rich in imagery. Commentators agree that these verses are about faithfulness to one’s wife, but that meaning is lost if the words are translated literally. Most translations, however, simply translate the words, yielding a rendering that most readers will not understand. The NLT retains some of the imagery of each verse, but then drives home the meaning of the passage in very clear language. The NLT renders a literal translation in footnotes to assist readers who are comparing the NLT with other translations.

KJV
15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.

NKJV
15 Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well.
16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets?

NASB
15 Drink water from your own cistern, And fresh water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets?

NIV
15 Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?

NLT
15 Drink water from your own well—share your love only with your wife.*
16 Why spill the water of your springs in the streets, having sex with just anyone?*

NLT notes:
5:15 Hebrew Drink water from your own cistern, / flowing water from your own well.
5:16 Hebrew Why spill your springs in the streets, / your streams in the city squares?


2 Cor 8:6-7
The Greek word charisis usually translated “grace,” but it has a wide range of meanings. In this passage (verses 6 and 7) it relates to the offering the Corinthian church was collecting to send to the struggling believers in Judea. KJV and NKJV use the word “grace,” which is potentially misleading. NASB and NIV hint at the broader meaning here by using the phrases “gracious work” (NASB) and “act of grace” and “grace of giving” (NIV). NLT clarifies the act of grace by using the phrases “ministry of giving” and “gracious act of giving.”

Paul gives a list of attributes in which the Corinthian church excels (verse 7). The second item in the list is the Greek word logos, which usually means “word.” KJV and NASB render it “utterance,” and NKJVand NIV render it “speech.” Both are correct, but Paul seems to have a very specific thought in mind, so the NLT translators chose to use the term “gifted speakers.”

There’s a significant textual variance in verse 7. Did Paul write about“ your love for us” or “our love for you”? KJV, NKJV, and NIV all follow the Greek text that reads “your love for us.” NASB and NLT both follow the Greek text that reads “our love for you.” Note the textual footnotes.

KJV
6 In so much that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.
7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

NKJV
6 So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well.
7 But as you abound in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us—see that you abound in this grace also.

NASB
6 So we urged Titus that as he had previously made a beginning, so he would also complete in you this gracious work as well.
7 But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you,* see that you abound in this gracious work also.

8:7 Lit love from us in you; one early ms reads your love for us.

NIV
6 So we urged Titus, since he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part.
7 But just as you excel in everything —in faith, in speech,in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us* —see that you also excel in this grace of giving.

NLT
6 So we have encouraged Titus, who encouraged your giving in the first place, to return to you and encourage you to finish this ministry of giving.
7 Since you excel in so many ways —in your faith, your gifted speakers,your knowledge, your enthusiasm, and your love from us* —I want you to excel also in this gracious act of giving.

NLT note:
8:7 Some manuscripts in our love for you.


Isaiah 7:7-9
The Hebrew text is almost cryptic in its poetic structure. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV all translate the passage quite literally, including the repetition of “head” in verses 8 and 9. In this instance, the NLT chooses to translate the meaning of the metaphor “head.” Commentators agree that twice it refers to the capitals of two countries (Syria and Israel), and twice it refers to the kings of these countries. Furthermore, the NLT clarifies that Isaiah is speaking of the weakness of these kings. For the benefit of the reader, the NLT also uses the more familiar term “Israel” rather than the literal term “Ephraim” (verses 8 and 9). And the NLT clarifies in verse 9 that the “son of Remeliah” is in fact “Pekah son of Remeliah.”

KJV
7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remeliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

NKJV
7 Thus says the Lord GOD, “It shall not stand, Nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, So that it will not be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, And the head of Samaria is Remeliah’s son. If you will not believe, Surely you shall not be established.”

NASB
7 Thus says the Lord GOD: “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),
9 and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remeliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last.”

NIV
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “It will not take place, It will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people,
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remeliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.”

NLT
7 But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “This invasion will never happen; it will never take place;
8 for Syria is no stronger than its capital, Damascus, and Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria, and Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remeliah. Unless your faith is firm, I cannot make you stand firm.”

NLT
6 So we have encouraged Titus, who encouraged your giving in the first place, to return to you and encourage you to finish this ministry of giving.
7 Since you excel in so many ways —in your faith, your gifted speakers,your knowledge, your enthusiasm, and your love from us* —I want you to excel also in this gracious act of giving.

8:7 Some manuscripts read your love for us.

For more info, see New Living Translation™: Welcome and click the pull-down menu in the box at the lower right, entitled, "Discover the NLT".

AMR
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
They were probably reading from the earlier versions, 1996, 2004 types.

The 2007 NLT is very comparable, and often much better, to the NIV. Three examples follow:

Proverbs 5:15-17
These verses give us a Hebrew wisdom saying that is rich in imagery. Commentators agree that these verses are about faithfulness to one’s wife, but that meaning is lost if the words are translated literally. Most translations, however, simply translate the words, yielding a rendering that most readers will not understand. The NLT retains some of the imagery of each verse, but then drives home the meaning of the passage in very clear language. The NLT renders a literal translation in footnotes to assist readers who are comparing the NLT with other translations.

KJV
15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.

NKJV
15 Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well.
16 Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets?

NASB
15 Drink water from your own cistern, And fresh water from your own well.
16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets?

NIV
15 Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares?

NLT
15 Drink water from your own well—share your love only with your wife.*
16 Why spill the water of your springs in the streets, having sex with just anyone?*

NLT notes:
5:15 Hebrew Drink water from your own cistern, / flowing water from your own well.
5:16 Hebrew Why spill your springs in the streets, / your streams in the city squares?


2 Cor 8:6-7
The Greek word charisis usually translated “grace,” but it has a wide range of meanings. In this passage (verses 6 and 7) it relates to the offering the Corinthian church was collecting to send to the struggling believers in Judea. KJV and NKJV use the word “grace,” which is potentially misleading. NASB and NIV hint at the broader meaning here by using the phrases “gracious work” (NASB) and “act of grace” and “grace of giving” (NIV). NLT clarifies the act of grace by using the phrases “ministry of giving” and “gracious act of giving.”

Paul gives a list of attributes in which the Corinthian church excels (verse 7). The second item in the list is the Greek word logos, which usually means “word.” KJV and NASB render it “utterance,” and NKJVand NIV render it “speech.” Both are correct, but Paul seems to have a very specific thought in mind, so the NLT translators chose to use the term “gifted speakers.”

There’s a significant textual variance in verse 7. Did Paul write about“ your love for us” or “our love for you”? KJV, NKJV, and NIV all follow the Greek text that reads “your love for us.” NASB and NLT both follow the Greek text that reads “our love for you.” Note the textual footnotes.

KJV
6 In so much that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also.
7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

NKJV
6 So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well.
7 But as you abound in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us—see that you abound in this grace also.

NASB
6 So we urged Titus that as he had previously made a beginning, so he would also complete in you this gracious work as well.
7 But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you,* see that you abound in this gracious work also.

8:7 Lit love from us in you; one early ms reads your love for us.

NIV
6 So we urged Titus, since he had earlier made a beginning, to bring also to completion this act of grace on your part.
7 But just as you excel in everything —in faith, in speech,in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us* —see that you also excel in this grace of giving.

NLT
6 So we have encouraged Titus, who encouraged your giving in the first place, to return to you and encourage you to finish this ministry of giving.
7 Since you excel in so many ways —in your faith, your gifted speakers,your knowledge, your enthusiasm, and your love from us* —I want you to excel also in this gracious act of giving.

NLT note:
8:7 Some manuscripts in our love for you.


Isaiah 7:7-9
The Hebrew text is almost cryptic in its poetic structure. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV all translate the passage quite literally, including the repetition of “head” in verses 8 and 9. In this instance, the NLT chooses to translate the meaning of the metaphor “head.” Commentators agree that twice it refers to the capitals of two countries (Syria and Israel), and twice it refers to the kings of these countries. Furthermore, the NLT clarifies that Isaiah is speaking of the weakness of these kings. For the benefit of the reader, the NLT also uses the more familiar term “Israel” rather than the literal term “Ephraim” (verses 8 and 9). And the NLT clarifies in verse 9 that the “son of Remeliah” is in fact “Pekah son of Remeliah.”

KJV
7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people
9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remeliah’s son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

NKJV
7 Thus says the Lord GOD, “It shall not stand, Nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken, So that it will not be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, And the head of Samaria is Remeliah’s son. If you will not believe, Surely you shall not be established.”

NASB
7 Thus says the Lord GOD: “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),
9 and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remeliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last.”

NIV
7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “It will not take place, It will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people,
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remeliah’s son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.”

NLT
7 But this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “This invasion will never happen; it will never take place;
8 for Syria is no stronger than its capital, Damascus, and Damascus is no stronger than its king, Rezin. As for Israel, within sixty-five years it will be crushed and completely destroyed.
9 Israel is no stronger than its capital, Samaria, and Samaria is no stronger than its king, Pekah son of Remeliah. Unless your faith is firm, I cannot make you stand firm.”

NLT
6 So we have encouraged Titus, who encouraged your giving in the first place, to return to you and encourage you to finish this ministry of giving.
7 Since you excel in so many ways —in your faith, your gifted speakers,your knowledge, your enthusiasm, and your love from us* —I want you to excel also in this gracious act of giving.

8:7 Some manuscripts read your love for us.

For more info, see New Living Translation™: Welcome and click the pull-down menu in the box at the lower right, entitled, "Discover the NLT".

AMR

Are the passages labelled "NLT" from the 2007 version? The examples read more like a paraphrase than translation, in my opinion. I am not against paraphrases as a helpful tool in Bible Study, but I am concerned when they are used as equivalent to a translation or version. I do notice that they have a more precise translation in the notes, but I would doubt that many people who read the NLT exclusively spend much time reading the footnotes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are the passages labelled "NLT" from the 2007 version? The examples read more like a paraphrase than translation, in my opinion. I am not against paraphrases as a helpful tool in Bible Study, but I am concerned when they are used as equivalent to a translation or version. I do notice that they have a more precise translation in the notes, but I would doubt that many people who read the NLT exclusively spend much time reading the footnotes.
They are from the 2007 version.

The 2007 NLT is a dynamic equivalence translation, and has been since the second edition of 2004.

See here:
New Living Translation™: Discover The NLT

AMR
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
They are from the 2007 version.

The 2007 NLT is a dynamic equivalence translation, and has been since the second edition of 2004.

See here:
New Living Translation™: Discover The NLT

AMR

I ask this because you seem more knowledgable about the subject than I: Where is the distinction generally drawn between a paraphrase (like "the Message" or "The Living Bible") and a dynamic equivalent? In my mind, I had always thought of something like the NIV as being a dynamic equivalent in that it generally seems to renders into English, phrase by phrase (rather than word for word), as well as possible, what a given text actually says, rather than trying to make its meaning more accessible or understandable to the modern reader (which necessarily involves some amount of speculation and interpretation). The difference I see between the NIV, which tends to read similarly to many more literal translations, but with simpler vocabulary, different word order, and shorter sentences. The NLT seems to go a step further in interpreting what certain phrases mean.

To use non biblical example, it would seem like a passage might be rendered the ESV or NRSV as: "Last evening, it was raining so hard that it seemed as though canines as felines were falling from the sky."

The NIV might translate as: "Last night it was raining cats and dogs"

The NLT might translate as: "Last night there was a heavy rain."

The first two examples try to keep the language of the original euphemism. In the last example, the translator eliminates the euphemism and tells us what the translator understands it to mean. This, I have always thought of more like a paraphrase than a DE Translation, but I am wondering if I am thinking of these concepts incorrectly.

Thanks for the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I ask this because you seem more knowledgable about the subject than I: Where is the distinction generally drawn between a paraphrase (like "the Message" or "The Living Bible") and a dynamic equivalent? In my mind, I had always thought of something like the NIV as being a dynamic equivalent in that it generally seems to renders into English, phrase by phrase (rather than word for word), as well as possible, what a given text actually says, rather than trying to make its meaning more accessible or understandable to the modern reader (which necessarily involves some amount of speculation and interpretation). The difference I see between the NIV, which tends to read similarly to many more literal translations, but with simpler vocabulary, different word order, and shorter sentences. The NLT seems to go a step further in interpreting what certain phrases mean.

To use non biblical example, it would seem like a passage might be rendered the ESV or NRSV as: "Last evening, it was raining so hard that it seemed as though canines as felines were falling from the sky."

The NIV might translate as: "Last night it was raining cats and dogs"

The NLT might translate as: "Last night there was a heavy rain."

The first two examples try to keep the language of the original euphemism. In the last example, the translator eliminates the euphemism and tells us what the translator understands it to mean. This, I have always thought of more like a paraphrase than a DE Translation, but I am wondering if I am thinking of these concepts incorrectly.

Thanks for the discussion.
The difference is in degree. Fact of the matter is that ALL translations have used dynamic equivalence in some sections, even the supposed 'literal' translations such as the NASB, and KJV.

The reason for this is that many grammatical structures such as idioms do not translate coherently from donor language to receptor language.

The NIV has made dynamic equivalence their primary mode of translation. There exist examples where the NIV has sacrificed the understanding of a passage by using dynamic equivalence where a more literal translation would have been much more clear.

As far as paraphrases go, the only one that i have any familiarity with is the Living Bible. It was a paraphrase of the King James Version. Dr. Kenneth Taylor did not attempt to look at Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts to translate. He merely changed the English style to something more contemporary.

Dynamic equivalence translators DO look at the underlying donor language texts.
 
Upvote 0
D

dies-l

Guest
The difference is in degree. Fact of the matter is that ALL translations have used dynamic equivalence in some sections, even the supposed 'literal' translations such as the NASB, and KJV.

The reason for this is that many grammatical structures such as idioms do not translate coherently from donor language to receptor language.

The NIV has made dynamic equivalence their primary mode of translation. There exist examples where the NIV has sacrificed the understanding of a passage by using dynamic equivalence where a more literal translation would have been much more clear.

As far as paraphrases go, the only one that i have any familiarity with is the Living Bible. It was a paraphrase of the King James Version. Dr. Kenneth Taylor did not attempt to look at Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts to translate. He merely changed the English style to something more contemporary.

Dynamic equivalence translators DO look at the underlying donor language texts.

Thanks for the clarification. So, it sounds like at least some of the difference is in the source materials (English to English v. Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic to English).

Since my wife started seminary last year,I think we have both become aware of some of the deficiencies of relying exclusively on a dynamic equivalent like the NIV. But, I can also see how a person could miss the meaning of a text in a more literal translation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AMR

Presbyterian (PCA) - Bona Fide Reformed
Jun 19, 2009
6,715
912
Chandler, Arizona
Visit site
✟211,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0