Is The Living Bible a Reliable Translation

[CGL1023]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

I got my first copy of the Living Bible in the 80s and I am sure I remember that it was clearly labeled a "paraphrase" at that time.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

I got my first copy of the Living Bible in the 80s and I am sure I remember that it was clearly labeled a "paraphrase" at that time.

Mine was clearly labeled also,and it never bothered me whether it was or not.....I was going to read it and enjoy it. Thirty years later I still read and enjoy it.

 

[tampasteve]

For clarification, the Living Bible is a paraphrase. The New Living Translation is a translation. People confuse the two "Living Bibles", reasonably. I do not mind paraphrases, one of my favorite Bible's is the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) which is a paraphrase (and partial direct translation) of the 1917 JPS Tanakh and Masoretic Text.

 

[Halbhh]

The NLT is like a paraphrase in that it undoes many wordings and replaces them with a interpretation (sometimes by even adding meanings!).

The problem with all paraphrased versions is that the original "hard to understand" words are actually living -- able to penetrate into us -- and a paraphrase removes that alive power and replaces it with merely a commentary like version -- not bad exactly just in itself, but less powerful to change you than the living Word can.

 

[Halbhh]

In other words non-paraphrased and non-interpreted translation is better even when you feel you don't instantly understand all.

Because that is the way the real Word is.

-- Just like the apostles, we don't at first understand all.

But it changes us more, over time, as we remember those wordings of His, that He chose.

His wordings (unparaphrased) work on us in ways we don't fully understand.

Living. The real living versions are those like the ESV, NIV, NASB, and other non-interpreted translation.

 

[Radagast]

The NLT is like a paraphrase in that it undoes many wordings and replaces them with a interpretation

The original is in Hebrew and Greek. Every translation loses something in the translation, but the "alive power" comes from getting 99% of the meaning in language that can be understood.

Now I agree that the NIV and ESV are better than the NLT, but I would happily recommend the NLT to children and to people with limited reading skills.

 

[Halbhh]

I would not recommended the NLT to anyone due to its damaging of some powerful verses we need in the gospels.

See post #45 above (short).

 

[Radagast]

I would not recommended the NLT to anyone due to its damaging of some powerful verses we need in the gospels.

Such as?

 

[Halbhh]

Such as?

As above in post 18-19 stood out to me.

I hope those together with post #45 are clear, when read through completely.

The 3 posts in full, together, as a whole.

 

[Radagast]

As above in post 18-19 stood out to me.

I hope those together with post #45 are clear, when read through completely.

The 3 posts in full, together, as a whole.

I've already addressed John 1:1. The NLT seems to me to have a perfectly good translation of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. It has the advantage of making perfectly clear that God the Son is eternal, not created. It's readable, it's grammatical, it flows well, and it's an accurate representation of the Greek.

In the three posts you mention (18, 19, 45), that was your only example. Got anything else?

 

[Halbhh]

I've already addressed John 1:1. The NLT seems to me to have a perfectly good translation of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. It has the advantage of making perfectly clear that God the Son is eternal, not created. It's readable, it's grammatical, it flows well, and it's an accurate representation of the Greek.

In the three posts you mention (18, 19, 45), that was your only example. Got anything else?

You are saying the translation is accurate.

I'm talking about a different issue.

Please see the total of all sentences of post 19 and of 45.

Or read the expert review of the 2nd edition (the current) linked earlier, more completely if you like.

That points to the same problem, not just especially some inaccuracies, though he finds some, but instead to a more serious problem.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Please see the total of all sentences of post 19 and of 45.

Posts 57 and 103 might be interesting also.

 

[pat34lee]

The British Crown holds copyright on the KJV.

"The KJV was originally published in England with "Cum Privilegio" printed on it, this literally means "with privilege" or "right" it is believed to indicate it was published under a royal licence also called a "Crown Copyright". This gave the appointed royal printers the right to publish the KJV, but it has been historically documented that they did not exercise this right even in the first 100 years, therefore it can be assumed if not otherwise stated that the crown copyright though asserted the rights are waived to ensure wide access and dissemination of the material. As is much of the material under a crown copyright."
http://www.jesusfolk.com/Bible/Verses/copyright.htm

 

[pat34lee]

Let me give you just one: Matthew 23:24, which should read "strain out a gnat." This is not a textual difference, but a clear mistranslation by the KJV. There are others.

That is a matter of interpretation. The word is used once
in the NT, so there are no other examples to compare.

Since there are no prepositions here in Greek, literally it should be:
"Ye blind guides, which strain a gnat, and swallow a camel."
Which seems straightforward to me. This is true in many cases.

"The Greek "διυλιζοντες τον κωνωπα" is literally, "straining the gnat." There is no preposition "out" in the Greek; neither is there the preposition "at." So either preposition could be added to convey the sense of the sentence. “Strain at” conveys the attempt to strain at the sight of a gnat, whereas “strain out” conveys the actual act of straining out a gnat. Either rendering conveys the Pharisees’ tendency of paying attention to trivial details."
“Strain at” or “Strain out” in Matthew 23:24? - King James Version Today

That is something about translations. All three can be correct. And more.

 

[pat34lee]

Now I agree that the NIV and ESV are better than the NLT, but I would happily recommend the NLT to children and to people with limited reading skills.

The NIV is one of the worst bibles you can read.
Time for Truth | The NIV PERversion

Later versions of the NIV are even worse.
The New NIV Controversy: Gender Neutral Language

 

[Radagast]

"The KJV was originally published in England with "Cum Privilegio" printed on it

Within the UK, the KJV is under perpetual Crown Copyright. A number of printers have letters patent authorising them to print the KJV. This is an established legal fact.

In the US, the authority of the Crown is not recognised, and the KJV is effectively public domain.

 

[Radagast]

That is a matter of interpretation. The word is used once
in the NT, so there are no other examples to compare.

There are plenty of examples in other Greek literature. The verb means "to strain out" or "to filter."

There is no preposition "out" in the Greek; neither is there the preposition "at." So either preposition could be added to convey the sense of the sentence. “Strain at” conveys the attempt to strain at the sight of a gnat, whereas “strain out” conveys the actual act of straining out a gnat.

Translation doesn't work like that. You can't just add random prepositions. You have to go by what the Greek text means, which in this case is "strain out."

 

[Radagast]

The NIV is one of the worst bibles you can read.
Time for Truth | The NIV PERversion

Lies and deceit against the NIV there.

 

[pat34lee]

Translation doesn't work like that. You can't just add random prepositions. You have to go by what the Greek text means, which in this case is "strain out."

Yes, translation works just like that. Prepositions
can change according to the context in which the
word is used.

You failed to mention the more important quote.

"The Greek "διυλιζοντες τον κωνωπα" is literally, "straining the gnat." There is no preposition "out" in the Greek; neither is there the preposition "at." So either preposition could be added to convey the sense of the sentence. “Strain at” conveys the attempt to strain at the sight of a gnat, whereas “strain out” conveys the actual act of straining out a gnat. Either rendering conveys the Pharisees’ tendency of paying attention to trivial details."
“Strain at” or “Strain out” in Matthew 23:24? - King James Version Today

 

[pat34lee]

Lies and deceit against the NIV there.

Name 3 and prove them.