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

[Radagast]

The NLT is not a paraphrase. It is translated from the Hebrew, Greek, and Araimic and translated into everyday English to make it more readable.

The NLT translation philosophy is essentially paraphrasing; in fact their philosophy is very similar to The Message.

In terms of the readable/literal balance, the NIV is probably best:

 

[Radagast]

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

They mean the same, more or less, but in the more literal translations love is a noun ("I have love"); in the NLT love is a verb. By making that change, the NLT translators have decided these verses are only about loving others; not about loving God too. They may be right -- but they've made the decision, rather than letting the reader make it.

On the other hand, if the reader has to make too many decisions, reading becomes very hard work. The NIV probably gets the balance better than the NLT.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

I know NLT people lash out when their Bible is called a paraphrase, but really, it is a paraphrase, more or less. It's not a bad translation. As far as the "simple" or "storybook" translations go, I regard it as the best, which is why I recommend it to children and people that have trouble reading or concentrating, or want a storybook of the Bible. It's not a translation I personally have a use for, or anyone that is studying the Bible or holding literacy or accuracy highly. The best Bible that fits into the gender neutral, easy to read, yet accurate and scholarly category is the NRSV.

 

[Delighting In Grace]

They mean the same, more or less, but in the more literal translations love is a noun ("I have love"); in the NLT love is a verb. By making that change, the NLT translators have decided these verses are only about loving others; not about loving God too. They may be right -- but they've made the decision, rather than letting the reader make it.

On the other hand, if the reader has to make too many decisions, reading becomes very hard work. The NIV probably gets the balance better than the NLT.

How is the NLT changing love into a verb in this verse? Or any other verse?

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Which ever translation you end up choosing, Delighting In Grace, please do not read your Bible front to back, or Genesis to Revelation. The Bible was not meant to be read this way.

The Old Testament is divided into 3 parts, but you will find that your Bible does not keep the order. First, the Law, which includes the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Second, the Prophets, beginning with "major" and ending with "minor," or the "former" and "latter." The books of the Prophets are as follows: Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The last 12 are considered the "minor" Prophets. Lastly, the Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (or Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles. This is the exact order that the Jews use. Our English Bibles do not follow this order.

The New Testament has no real order past the Gospels and the Acts, and Revelation being last. The order of the New Testament is fine as is, but I PERSONALLY would switch up the order of the Gospels a little bit. I would keep Matthew first. The Gospel of Matthew is the longest and most in depth. I would then go with John. John is different than all of the other Gospels, and gets more personal with Jesus. I would then go Mark. Mark is the shortest Gospel and confirms what Matthew says, and will confirm what Luke says next. I would read Luke last. The author of Luke is also the author of Acts, which is directly after the Gospels. This will be evident immediately, as he writes to Theophilus again. Mark will also still be freshly in your mind by the time you get to Acts, as you read it just before Luke, and what Jesus said in "the longer ending" of Mark, regarding speaking in other tongues, will appear right away in Acts.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

I completely forgot to say, if you only wish to read one Testament at a time, start with the New Testament.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Another piece of advice: it's good to have a friend and constant companion. My friend and constant companion is my KJV Cameo Bible. It has become part of me, and has my name engraved on it in gold. Your little buddy is your reading Bible; not big, not small. It's the Bible that travels with you, goes to work or school with you, is the book you close and lay on your bedside table at night, and that you just thoroughly enjoy. It's like your cell phone in the sense that it's always with you. For THIS the NLT is good. Your little buddy should be your favorite translation and the Bible you connect most with. For me this is the KJV. The KJV is as easy to read as the NLT is for me. It's a beautiful language and speaks to me soul. Now, it is also good to have a study Bible. This is the Bible you look to for indepth understanding of scripture, notes, etc etc. For me this was the New Oxford Annotated NRSV, but it now the New Oxford Annotated RSV. You go to this Bible with a pen and notebook, and about an hour or two or more of time for studying; it's your textbook Bible. I know you said you wanted one Bible, but consider 2 for both of these criteria. Your little companion is always the most important though.

 

[americanvet]

I have been using my NLT as my primary Bible for 8 years. I love it. I have a KJV, NKJV, NIV, HSCB, NCV, CEV, The Voice, and NLT. My studies do not improve when I read a more word for word. However, people should choose the translation of the Bible which they are most comfortable with. As long as you are reading the Bible I don't care which translation you read.

Yes we thought for thought readers "lash out". Why because some word for word readers demand theirs is the better option. I find this odd. If my Bible tells me about the same Jesus as yours why is one better than the other?

I have always thought God is big enough to speak through both types of Bibles.

 

[Radagast]

How is the NLT changing love into a verb in this verse? Or any other verse?

"I have not love (noun)" becomes "I didn’t love (verb) others." Just a minor change, but unnecessary in my view, and with a tiny shift in meaning.

 

[ebedmelech]

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

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

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

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

I think the meanings are the same for the ESV and the NIV.

If you look at the NLT translation it does make the verse diferent in saying "didn't love others"...love becomes a verb in the context...it's an action.

I do think you come to the same conclusion though. In the ESV and The NIV "love" is a noun in those cases.

This is what some paraphrase translations will do. While you can gather the same meaning you have to agree there's a change in "how" it's read.

This is why I say comparing translations is a good thing...because you get to see and compare to ensure in what you're reading, that you get what's being said.

Let's look at a few more translations of the verse:

NASB:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

Amplified Bible:
If I [can] speak in the tongues of men and [even] of angels, but have not love (that reasoning, intentional, spiritual devotion such as is inspired by God’s love for and in us), I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers (the gift of interpreting the divine will and purpose), and understand all the secret truths and mysteries and possess all knowledge, and if I have [sufficient] faith so that I can remove mountains, but have not love (God’s love in me) I am nothing (a useless nobody)


The Message:
If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. 2If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing. 3-7If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love.


These kinds of comparisons are always helpful to ensure correct meaning.

 

[ebia]

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

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

Of those two I'd choose NLT over NIV.

 

[Unix]

Correction: place the Jerusalem Bible in the Ecumenical Bibles.
Don't confuse it with the New Jerusalem Bible which is a Catholic version and NOT a revision of the Jerusalem Bible but a stand-alone version.

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

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

 

[Striver]

Well, shoot. I had a nice post typed up, and when I went to check a grammatical question I had, an advert crashed my browser. Yuck.

Let me (re)start by saying that the NIV and NLT are both good Bible versions. I actually just completed a search for my personal Bible version. I personally settled on the ESV, but I use the NLT for the youth group I lead. We chose the NLT because of the accesibility of the translation (it's a small, growing church, so I have a wide age range right now) and also because the Student's Life Application Study Bible has some supplemental content that stays true to Scripture and supplements Scripture in a postive manner.

I do not like when people call the NLT a paraphrase. The NLT is not a paraphrase. Peterson's The Message Bible is a paraphrase because it seeks not just to translate the material of the Bible, but to summarize it for a modern reader.

The reason for the paraphrase confusion is that the NLT is much closer to the end spectrum of dynamic equivalence translation. This is just a fancy term for the translation being a thought-for-thought translation. As any dynamic equivalence Bible will, the NLT inherits the positives and the negatives of that aspect of translation. The positive is that the NLT presents very conversational English, the negative is that this comes at the expense of figurative language.

Contrast this somewhat with the NIV. The NIV probably lies closest to the theoretical center of the dichotomy of formal (think literal, essentially word-for-word translation seeking to preserve the structure/form of the text) equivalence and dynamic (again, thought-for-thought) equivalence. The NIV will preserve more of the figurative language yet still remains quite easy to read, as I am sure you've seen.

To close out, the criticism you've seen for the NIV can just as easily be applied to the NLT. The NIV catches more criticism because of its popularity (it retains the #1 position in terms of Bibles sold (dollar-wise and volume-wise). The NLT flies under the radar somewhat although it too stays in the top 4 in both categories. I also think many people dismiss the NLT as a paraphrase whereas the NIV is viewed as all the more devious because it's an imitation of the real thing closer to their coveted literal Bible translation. Most of the criticism swirls around the gender neutral language that the NIV uses - which again is present in the NLT.

If you plan to use the Bible as a study tool, then I would recommend the NIV. If you go with the NLT, I would recommend a more literal translation (NASB, ESV, HCSB or NKJV) to be used in tandem with the NLT. (You don't necessarily need to purchase a second one, as you can take advantage of free online resources.)

 

[dbcsf]

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

One new concept in modern scholarship is Romans 3:22. In the 1984 edition it reads, "faith in Christ". The footnotes are not helpful, because prior to 1984, no one had further researched this translation.

In the 2011, it reads, 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe.

the footnote reads, "Romans 3:22 Or through the faithfulness of".

It is an example of an reference to a modern change of thought which is taking place currently. The majority of modern scholars prefer "of". There is a significant difference in the concept of being saved by faith in Jesus vs. the faith of Jesus. I think the 2011 is therefore superior, as it includes current scholarly advances.

The inclusive language business is overrated. Also, there is inclusive, and then there is INCLUSIVE. In the NRSV they only changed language where it could have been interpreted both ways. For example, "Brother" in Greek can be taken to mean, "Brother and Sister". It is therefore not a big deal to add "Brother and Sister" to an English translation.

More inclusive is to eliminate all gender specific language regardless of original meaning. That is essentially adding a theological position to the bible which was never there to begin with.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Correction: place the Jerusalem Bible in the Ecumenical Bibles.
Don't confuse it with the New Jerusalem Bible which is a Catholic version and NOT a revision of the Jerusalem Bible but a stand-alone version.

I tried to keep it 2 to each group, of which I thought were the best, according to said group. For Ecumenical, I think the RSV and NRSV Bibles are better, and pair nicely. Catholics have a limited selection of English Bibles that are worth a darn. The Jerusalem is common overseas among the Catholics, and is overall a good translation, with a canon acceptable to Catholics, and is better, by a long shot, than the NAB. I would go Douay and RSV-2CE, but people have difficulties with the Old English, sadly.

 

[Jonathan95]

NIV has 64,000 words missing! Even has verses removed! NLT also has words missing. They use Corrupt Original Texts.

Get a King James Version 2000. Not New King James Version, since it has words removed aswell.

 

[Striver]

The inclusive language business is overrated. Also, there is inclusive, and then there is INCLUSIVE. In the NRSV they only changed language where it could have been interpreted both ways. For example, "Brother" in Greek can be taken to mean, "Brother and Sister". It is therefore not a big deal to add "Brother and Sister" to an English translation.

More inclusive is to eliminate all gender specific language regardless of original meaning. That is essentially adding a theological position to the bible which was never there to begin with.

I share the sentiment, because even in the "controversial" I Timothy 2:12 rendering, it's really not that big of a deal.

The greatest fuss seems to revolve around that rendering (which has less to do with inclusiveness as it does over whether or not women can be elders) and then around the plural form you sometimes see. In everday language, we use "they" to mean singular man or woman.

IE:
Everyone has brought his/her own lunch.
Everyone has brought their own lunch.

It's a normal speech pattern, but I notice a number of people I know criticize the impersonal language found in passages such as Psalm 8:3-4.

NIV84

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?

NIV11

When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?

Some would argue that the above removes the obviousness of the reference to Christ that's later cited in the NT (Hebrews 2:6-8). Other's wouldn't.

Basically if that bothers you, then that's the criticism of the NIV. If it doesn't, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Unix]

I'm not saying the NJB or NAB are good, they are not.
The Confraternity Version is much better, the NT is from 1941, the OT is from the '50s-'60s. For Mt 1-15 I use Catholic Public Domain Version.

 

[teevee]

I personally use the ESV because I find it to be an accurate version for the most part. However, with you just starting out the NIV would be a good choice. From my understanding, it brings you close to the reading experience of the original audience.

 

[ebedmelech]

NIV has 64,000 words missing! Even has verses removed! NLT also has words missing. They use Corrupt Original Texts.

Get a King James Version 2000. Not New King James Version, since it has words removed aswell.

Please don't be offended but I must say you speak from ignorance.

The NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation and therefore to say it's "missing words is erroneous because dynamic equivalence translations seek to translate "though for thought" not word for word.

If you don't like the NIV that's fine, but you misrepresent those who translated the NIV.

I would say at least read the preface of what the purpose of the translators is before making such statements.

This is just a portion of the NIV Preface which states the purpose of the translation:

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thoughtof the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.


The rest of the preface may be seen here: PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE


I myself prefer the NASB but the NIV is a good thought for thought tranlation for help in study.