So I know it is far from the most literal translation but is that a bad thing? After all, "literal" word fornword translations do not exist. For you translating word for word from even modern languages is near impossible.
When the scriptures were written, their audiences would have understood them pretty clearly. I know Paul had a high literacy and could be confusing to even the Apostles, but most of the intended audience would have plainly understood what was being written.
So the NLT was transcribed by a host of multi-denominational folks. I know it has a rap since it is considered thouht for thought, but it definitely stands above other such translations like "The MESSAGE" which was transcribed by only one man and HEAVILY slanted in theology. I fond the NLT very unbiased in terms of denominational slants, again due to he robust translation team.
What do you think? Is the NLT the most accurate translation available today?
There is no such thing as a most accurate English translation. Each translation is created with different goals in mind. What you find to be the "most accurate" would simply be the one whose goals were what you think makes the most sense. That's why many people use multiple translations—so they can get from the text the different things that each translation offers.
I, somewhat arbitrarily, consider the NLT a good
translation that borders on
paraphrasing. IMO The Message is good for some people, although not very useful as a Bible study tool. I wouldn't even call it a paraphrase it is so loose in adherence to Scripture. It seems to be for conveying broader Biblical concepts, but one can't look at it if one wants to have a more exact understanding of how the original readers/listeners would have understood a word/phrase (the goal of exegesis). The NIV is popular for a good reason: people like the blend the authors chose between literality and dynamic equivalence. The NASB is good for studying the Bible, but sometimes its grammar is awkward enough to make a sentence unclear. Word-for-word translations are the interlinear Bibles. The more literal the translation, the more a person needs to understand the ancient culture to understand what the
words meant to the original hearers. Dynamic equivalence is the attempt to express the
meaning of the phrase/sentence/passage in ways that are more accessible to a contemporary reader.
Personally I use the NIV for reading, the NASB and interlinears (+ lexicons) for clarification on the definition and declension of individual words (I don't know original language grammar), and the NLT for clarification on the overall gist of a verse or passage.
For those that can learn the original languages, I think that's best. Many nuances remain that are lost in all English translations. This requires an intimate knowledge of the cultures the original languages were used in. It's all really a matter of how much you trust the translators to do some of the work between the original language and your understanding. There is disagreement at every level of the process of examining ancient manuscripts of the Bible and what you end up reading (and understanding) or learning from a teacher, in the translation you use.
Studying a more literal translation does not free you from contrary opinions, although it may eliminate many of them from your perspective. You might resolve, in your own mind, what the Apostle Paul really meant when he used a certain phrase by studying a more literal translation and examining the culture. But if you are reading copies of the ancient manuscripts yourself to cut through that fog, you enter the fog of things like questioning whether a certain manuscript is more accurate than others because of the date/time/author/transcription accuracy/location at which it was found, etc.
It is priceless to keep in mind that Scripture is for leading one to God himself, and he is not defined by anyone's understanding of any copy of Scripture or any degree of literality. In actual fact, no matter how we approach Bible study, we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide us into correct understanding. It has happened in the past that monks with nothing but a Bible have learned it remarkably well compared to so-called scholars with a lot of learning and resources.
