New Living Translation

Most Bible versions either omit important verses or minimize them by their wording ---except the NKJV and KJV. I highly recommend the Old Scofield Edition of the KJV for study use. The ref. notes and commentaries are sound. Pray always!

Yes, I used it to teach the bible to my son. It was a very 'readable' version. However it is not a version I would use to study in depth things. It's a good read, not for theological matters but for reading as if you are reading a contemporary book. So I can relate to your falling in love with the ease of reading the NLT. I did too. But I use other sources to do actual studies with.

I too dropped the NLT years ago for the ESV. They read good, and are easily understandable to our current culture.

1watchman said:

Most Bible versions either omit important verses or minimize them by their wording ---except the NKJV and KJV. I highly recommend the Old Scofield Edition of the KJV for study use. The ref. notes and commentaries are sound. Pray always!

Click to expand...

The nkjv has Also been changed..... I recommend you don't use ANY study bibles as first that's your job and second study notes are SOMEONE elses study right or wrong..... They also put changes in note too....

Gracie: look and see what yours says at John 3:16

have they removed that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN son



Here's a few more


Deuteronomy - "sodomite" changed to "temple prostitute"
1 Kings 14:24 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
1 Kings 15:12 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
1 Kings 22:46 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
2 Kings 23:7 - "sodomites" replaced with "shrine prostitutes"
Matthew 17:21 - entire verse omitted
Matthew 18:11 - entire verse omitted
Matthew 19:9 - half of the verse is omitted
Matthew 23:14 - entire verse omitted
Mark 6:11 - half of the verse is omitted
Mark 7:16 - entire verse omitted
Mark 9:44, 46 - entire verses omitted
Mark 11:26 - entire verse omitted
Mark 15:28 - entire verse omitted
Mark 16:9-20 - entire passage is questioned by a footnote that says, "The most reliable early manuscripts conclude the Gospel of Mark at verse 8"
Luke 4:8 - "get thee behind me Satan" is omitted
Luke 17:36 - entire verse omitted
Luke 23:17 - entire verse omitted
John 1:10 - says God created everything "through" Jesus instead of "by" Jesus as the KJB teaches
John 1:41 - The NLT leaves out the phrase, "Which is by interpretation, a stone."[bless and do not curse] Hence, the critical distinction between Peter as "the stone" (Petros), and Jesus as "The Rock" (Petra) is obscured.[bless and do not curse] This was no doubt deliberate to pleases Catholics who falsely teach that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built.[bless and do not curse] The Bible states in no uncertain terms, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1st Corinthians 3:11).
John 3:16 - the all important word "begotten" is omitted, thus denying the deity of Christ
John 3:13 - "which is in heaven" is omitted John 5:4 - entire verse omitted
John 7:53 - 8:11 -- entire passage is questioned in a note which says, "The most ancient Greek manuscripts do not include John 7:53 - 8:11"
Acts 8:37 - entire verse omitted
Acts 12:4 - changes "Easter" to the incorrect "Passover" (See Numbers 28:16,17 and Acts 12:2 in the KJB)
Acts 17:29 - completely removes the "Godhead"
Acts 28:29 - entire verse omitted
Romans 1:20 - completely removes the "Godhead"
Romans 16:24 - entire verse omitted
Philippians 2:6 -removes the word "equal," thus denying Christ's deity
Colossians 1:16 - says God created everything "through" Jesus instead of "by" Jesus as the KJB teaches
Colossians 2:9 - completely removes the "Godhead"
1 Timothy 3:16 - "God" is omitted, says "Christ appeared in the flesh, thus denying the deity of Christ
1 Timothy 6:5 - "from such withdraw thyself" is omitted
Hebrews 1:3 - the all-important words "by himself" are omitted
1 Peter 4:1 - "for us" is omitted
1 Peter 4:14 - half of the verse is omitted
1 John 3:16 -completely removes "the love of God"
1 John 4:3 - the all-important words "Christ is come in the flesh" are omitted 1 John 5:7-8 -- Trinitarian clause omitted
1 John 5:7 - half of the verse is omitted, thus denying the Godhead
1 John 5:13 - half of the verse is omitted
Revelation 1:11 - first half of the verse is omitted

GraceC said:

Knowledge Bomb: Thanks for taking the time to respond and share that info with me but honestly I'm not interested in the KJV. I've never believed in the KJVO doctrine/belief. And this thread wasn't meant to be yet another discussion/debate about the KJV.

Click to expand...

Grace you do not have a whole Bible if verses are missing. His concerns about your English Version are legitimate if it is missing verses.

Thankfully it's not an NIV though. That version is missing so many verses it's not even funny. Actually it is kind of funny when you get to one of the verses that are missing. Where's Waldo?

When I have kids I am making sure they grow up learning Hebrew and Greek and eventually to read Hebrew and Koine. That will solve the whole which version thing MUHAHAHAHA!!! <----(Manacle Laugh)

Hi Grace,

Here's my encouragement to you. You use the translation that clearly explains to you that Jesus is the Son of God who gave his life that you might have eternal life.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

The NLT is an excellent modern translation and the NLT study bible is one of the best. If you love reading it and God speaks to you through it what more could you ask for?

Don't let the legalists and crazys influence you with their nonsense. I'm quite certain that none of them are skilled translators; they worship their 17th. century translation as if it was the original text. It isn't.

Wearecommandedtojudge said:

Grace you do not have a whole Bible if verses are missing. His concerns about your English Version are legitimate if it is missing verses.

Thankfully it's not an NIV though. That version is missing so many verses it's not even funny. Actually it is kind of funny when you get to one of the verses that are missing. Where's Waldo?

When I have kids I am making sure they grow up learning Hebrew and Greek and eventually to read Hebrew and Koine. That will solve the whole which version thing MUHAHAHAHA!!! <----(Manacle Laugh)

Click to expand...

Are you really qualified to say what the original texts say? (Actually we don't even have the originals!) The NIV was translated by a team of exceptionally qualified biblical scholars who I am certain know more about Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and English than you ever will. (In your "wisdom" you forgot about Aramaic!)

I have two suggestions for you: 1) Learn English; 2) Grow up!

GraceC said:

Knowledge Bomb: Thanks for taking the time to respond and share that info with me but honestly I'm not interested in the KJV. I've never believed in the KJVO doctrine/belief. And this thread wasn't meant to be yet another discussion/debate about the KJV.

Click to expand...

Enjoy the translation that you are reading, if it is helping you draw closer to Christ and to understand things better... KEEP READING! You are wise not to fall for the KJVO mantra.

I normally use the NASB, but have taken to enjoying simply reading the ESV for enjoyment.

abysmul said:

Enjoy the translation that you are reading, if it is helping you draw closer to Christ and to understand things better... KEEP READING! You are wise not to fall for the KJVO mantra.

I normally use the NASB, but have taken to enjoying simply reading the ESV for enjoyment.

Click to expand...

The man who told her that the NLT is missing verses maybe KJO...but if the NLT is missing verses him being KJO dose not magically put those verses back into the Bible.

Look I am not KJO. I use the King James but I am not KJO. I don't know what the guy who brought up the fact that the NLT is missing verses believes but even if he is of the most extreme KJV camp if he is right about the NLT missing verses then it is missing verses and I think a version that is missing verses is a bad version to choose from when you can have a complete bible instead of one missing verses. Please learn to eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Also something you need to know is that Bible publishers are in business to make money. The newer versions can have copyrights attached whereas versions that are 400 years old do not. Of course these Bible salesmen are going to bash the versions they cant copyright. Bible publishers make more money when you believe these Bible salesmen and have to go out and buy every new version under the sun.

Now when you buy or are handed a NT/Psalms for free it says what it is. It is obvious it dose not contain the OT. When you pick up a NIV it is claiming to be the entire Bible and dose not tell you about all the verses that are missing. I hear the 2011 version of the NIV is a lot different then the 1984. Considering the results of allowing a homosexual activist on the translation comity on the 84 version I think that its a good thing they changed the NIV. Now I like NLTs translation of Romans 1:26-32, Leviticus 20:13, and 1st Corinthians 1 9:6-11 and well as the new 2011 NIVs translation of those verses. But I believe having one version makes it easier to remember verses. I would never use a version missing verses for this reason for my personal study.

pescador said:

Are you really qualified to say what the original texts say? (Actually we don't even have the originals!) The NIV was translated by a team of exceptionally qualified biblical scholars who I am certain know more about Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and English than you ever will. (In your "wisdom" you forgot about Aramaic!)

I have two suggestions for you: 1) Learn English; 2) Grow up!

Click to expand...

"Translated by a team of exceptionally qualified biblical scholars" So was the King James Version but that version isn't missing tons of verses. I am sure you can find a modernized version that isn't missing tons of verses if you are uncomfortable with middle English. I personally like having a version in middle English for a variety of reasons but I understand most people are uncomfortable with this. If you want to use an incomplete Bible, fine, nothing I can do about that anyways, at least there is still a lot of Bible left in those versions, but it will still be an incomplete Bible missing verses.

Btw if someone on a Bible translation comity knows more Koine Greek then I do but is a harcore homosexual activist what then? Well then you get verses translated "homosexual offender" and when you quote them to people you have those people falsely claiming the verse says temple prostitutes in the original Greek.

I am typing in the dark and I type fast so if I made a few grammatical errors or spelling errors or whatnot it is not because I am stupid. (BTW to bluelion where are you? shouldn't you be judging this person for judging me? at least be consistent lol) But seriously How do you even know I am American (I am) or that English is my native language (it is btw) You shouldn't criticize people who disagree with you when they are right for grammatical errors or spelling errors on a forum.

I have done a little bit of research on this and have many books on this subject by authors who have a variety of different viewpoints. The majority of whom are scholars, professors, specialists, and the like. As far as the NT I do not think that using two or three documents found near a ancient PAGAN school of philosophy near Alexandria Egypt is a bright idea when we have over 5000 copies of the New Testament documents in the original language many of which where found in Antioch where the New Testament Church was based out of. As far as the Tanakh I think the Masoretic texts are reliable due to the nature of those that kept them and copied them. From what I have read their are almost no differences and no major differences in the copies available in the original languages.

Aramaic is only involved in like a few chapters. Quotes from decrees issued by the king of Persia and stuff. Even though Aramaic is similar to Hebrew I am not going to try and learn an entire language just to translate a few decrees. At least I don't plan on trying to do that at this point. I knew parts where written in Aramaic but didn't think the language worth mentioning.

You should not just take the word of Bible salesmen that their new and improved translation is actually better. Most Bible Publishers are in business to make money. If you have to buy new Bibles they make more money. Cranking out new versions and going on and on about how they are better then last years model is good business. BTW I'm sure if you talk to your friendly neighborhood member of the watchtower and tract society(They call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses) they can get you a copy of the NWT. It's missing verses but the translators probably know more Hebrew and Greek then I do. (There is enough Bible in the NWT to get saved especially since you don't need the Bible to get saved. There is even enough Bible left in the NWT to confront WTS members about what their origination teaches but I'm not going to use it for personal study)

GraceC said:

Hi everyone,
I've recently discovered the NLT and have been reading it. I have to say I'm quickly falling in love. I use the NKJV since that is what my church uses to preach from, I also use the ESV on occasion. I love the simplicity of the NLT though and I'm considering making it my main reading/study Bible. I'm curious if anyone else uses the NLT as their main Bible.

Click to expand...

Hi Grace,

A few years back a lady friend of ours gave me a New Living Bible. (Up till then I had always used the King James almost exclusively.) Like you, I've really grown to love it. And for what it's worth: My New Living is the 1996 translation; and from what I've seen and compared, I like it a whole lot better than the updated New Living (which I believe is the 2004 edition).

Since I'm here: In the last couple years I've really become a BIG believer in using numerous translations.

God Bless, and love God's word

"Thy word have I hid in my heart." {David in Psalms 119}
"David is a man after my own heart." {God in Acts 13}

GraceC said:

Since the KJV topic is persisting I'm going to take the opportunity to ask how you feel about the NKJV since it is the translation I'm currently using and my church preaches from. It doesn't have any "missing" versus. Should I just stick with that?

Click to expand...

I have one. The Evidence Study Bible. The reason I don't generally use it is that when I study the Bible I like to pick up passages by memory and I believe it is easier to do that when using one version. So obviously my advice is going to be to keep using that version.

The last Church I went to uses the NIV (I will not) and the pastor was doing a sermon on a few verses from the sermon on the mount (Matt 5) I had my KJV and implied facepalmed. (For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. KJV) (For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. NIV) I wouldn't have implied facepalmed so hard exept the Pastor kept going on about the smallest stroke of the pen in a way that makes no sence in light of the nature of what was actually said, and the Hebrew language the Law was origionally written in. You will not get what I am saying unless you study Hebrew a little bit. The jots and tittles...you know what instead of me explaining it google (Hebrew Tittle) The small jots and tittles can change the sounds of the letters. Including my least favorite sound, the phlem sound. We are not talking about English commas here. (Here the KJV got it right and the NIV wrong.)

I also facepalmed when he talked about slavery in the Bible. Both in Hebrew and Greek the word translated as slave can mean servant. (Here the KJV got it wrong) Under Biblical law the Ancient Hebrew Government was to execute slave traders after a fair trial. If you stole something or conned someone you were given a fair trial. If you were convicted you were required to give back three times what you stole. If you could not afford to pay this debt you were required to work it off as a servant. Every jubilee the servants where freed so you could not be forced to work more then 7 years to pay off a debt. That being said you could choose to remain a bondservant if you wanted to. Man stealers, those who kidnapped people to sell as slaves where to be put to death. This "slavery" thing is something homosexuals will bring up when you try to talk to them which is why he mentioned it in his sermon.

I used to have more NKJVs and other versions to but I gave most of them away to other people. When someone needs a Bible I generally try to get them one. A few times I was to lazy to go to wal mart. Now I have one NKJV and many KJVs. The only reason I have multipul KJVs is 1. I like collecting study bibles, and 2. Having multiple Bibles prevents the thing that happens when you have one Bible, study it fervently for years, it falls apart, and then you have pages going everywhere. Most of my Bibles are leather and the binding is sown so that's going to help to.

Oh and one time when I made the phlegm sound I got mucus all over the window of my guard shack. When I practice Hebrew I no longer do them phlegm sound thingy. I might change my mind if talking to someone I'm angry at.

GraceC said:

Since the KJV topic is persisting I'm going to take the opportunity to ask how you feel about the NKJV since it is the translation I'm currently using and my church preaches from. It doesn't have any "missing" versus. Should I just stick with that?

Click to expand...

Hi again Grace,

When I made my first post I had only read the original post you started the thread with. Since making my post I went back and read a good portion of all the other posts:

At the risk of making many enemies, I've come to strongly believe that the King James only teaching is a device of Satan to keep people from getting a better understanding of what God was trying to communicate to His people through His prophets and apostles.

As for your question about the NKJV (and I certainly don't consider myself an authority), but for what it's worth: for me personally, the New King James is one translation I've never liked.

As I said in my other post, I now use quite a few translations. (I think there are many good and God blessed translations.) But right now my favorites are definitely the New Living (1996 edition), the King James (I still feel it's the most accurate), and the NIV.

God Bless, and keep on studying
But just remember: "Do not merely listen to the word... Do what it says." {James 1:22 NIV}

Why would anyone want to read a 400-year-old translation in archaic English authorized by a king whose sole purpose in authorizing it was to justify his rule over his subjects? It has no relevance to those of us who live in the 21st century other than historical curiosity. Two things I have noticed: most people who use the KJV are Old Testament legalists and they invariably translate the archaic language "on the fly" to explain what they want it to mean in modern English.

The NLT, along with the NASB, ESV, NIV and the NET and others, is an excellent translation that is actually closer in language, style, and meaning to the earliest manuscripts than the KJV. The sheer number of early manuscripts available today, plus advances in translation techniques, archaeological discoveries, and other fields, make a 400-year-old effort pale in comparison to the great translations available today.

Here is a classic example: In Romans 8:1 The KJV reads "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The NET reads "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" were added to the text by an unknown scribe who apparently wanted to put a condition on freedom from condemnation; they are not in the earliest manuscripts.

The KJV was not dictated by God, nor were the translators so skilled that their work should stand unchallenged after four centuries. Use the NLT and/or other modern translations recognized by the majority of modern biblical scholars as superior and you won't go wrong.

pescador said:

Why would anyone want to read a 400-year-old translation in archaic English authorized by a king whose sole purpose in authorizing it was to justify his rule over his subjects? It has no relevance to those of us who live in the 21st century other than historical curiosity. Two things I have noticed: most people who use the KJV are Old Testament legalists and they invariably translate the archaic language "on the fly" to explain what they want it to mean in modern English.

The NLT, along with the NASB, ESV, NIV and the NET and others, is an excellent translation that is actually closer in language, style, and meaning to the earliest manuscripts than the KJV. The sheer number of early manuscripts available today, plus advances in translation techniques, archaeological discoveries, and other fields, make a 400-year-old effort pale in comparison to the great translations available today.

Here is a classic example: In Romans 8:1 The KJV reads "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The NET reads "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." The words "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" were added to the text by an unknown scribe who apparently wanted to put a condition on freedom from condemnation; they are not in the earliest manuscripts.

The KJV was not dictated by God, nor were the translators so skilled that their work should stand unchallenged after four centuries. Use the NLT and/or other modern translations recognized by the majority of modern biblical scholars as superior and you won't go wrong.

Click to expand...

pescador, Every time I read your responses I applaud. One issue I battle while dealing with Christians and their conversations is the inner desire of many who like to find ways of removing the Righteousness through Christ and finding ways of self effort to gain righteousness, or self effort to maintain righteousness.

The scripture you post about walking in the flesh is the perfect example.

Get rid of scripture that puts a Born again Christian back under the law and places your salvation back in the hands of man.

Thanks for posting pescador.

pescador said:

Why would anyone want to read a 400-year-old translation.

Click to expand...

The documents they are translated from are far older. Shall we torch the Hebrew and Greek documents and read some garbage produced by Dan Brown a few years ago? The translation being old dose not make it less valuable. It is the best English translation I know of

pescador said:

in archaic English

Click to expand...

Middle English is actually better then modern English in that it is closer to the structure of Hebrew and Greek in certain aspects. Ironically one of these being the thees and the thous. In modern English we do not have singular and plural forms of words like you. Thee, Thou, and Thy are useful. You asked why so don't complain when there is a valid reason for why someone would prefer the King James Version.

pescador said:

authorized by a king whose sole purpose in authorizing it was to justify his rule over his subjects?

Click to expand...

This is not accurate and he wasn't involved in the translation anyways. At the time, producing a translation of the bible in England without an approval from the Anglican Church was a capital offense. As the head of the Anglican Church, had to give his approval for any translation to be performed, or it would have been viewed as an act of treason. In other words, if King James wanted new bible, he had to give approval to initiate the translation work.

pescador said:

most people who use the KJV are Old Testament legalists

Click to expand...

Do you mean like Jesus was? He wrote the laws of the Old Testament and in Matthew 5:17-18 said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Trust me I have no problem making people who are trying to justify certain things by saying the OT is abolished uncomfortable with half my bible tied behind my back. The New Testament is enough ammunition to do that with. I can even use a NWT against the heresies of the Watchtower because even though they removed and twisted a lot they left enough rope to hang themselves with. (Jesus=Michael the Archangel? Not according to Isaiah 9:6 that said the Messiah is the everlasting Father!)

pescador said:

and they invariably translate the archaic language "on the fly" to explain what they want it to mean in modern English.

Click to expand...

People do this with the modern versions as well. Case in point some homosexuals use the NIV to say that Romans 1:26 and 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 is talking about gay prostitutes not homosexuals. Although with a 2011 NIV or a NLT they wouldn't be able to do that.

Anyways I'm hungry and am going to order pizza and watch a movie. I'll comment on the rest latter.