New Living Translation

[caroljm36]

I thought I posted this query once before, but my threads time out so often, and then I get double posts, that I don’t know what was accepted and what was not. So I apologize if this is a duplicate.

Lately I’ve been browsing local bookstores and I keep running into this translation more than any other, for Catholic bibles and Protestant. No RSV and certainly no Douay-Rheims! The bibles are inevitably sealed so I can’t get a look at the translation or the type size, which is becoming an issue with me.

What is the general opinion of NLT? Why are booksellers stocking this to the exclusion of all the others?

 

[Fidelis]

My opinion of the NLT is that it is more of a paraphrase than a translation. Like most paraphrases it is fine if you are not doing a serious Bible study or not looking for an inspiring rendering. Of paraphrases in general, Catholic Answers’ Bible Translations Guide says:

Finally, there are a selection of paraphrases, which are not translations based on the original languages but are paraphrased versions of English translations. These tend toward the extreme dynamic end of the spectrum. The best known is the Living Bible (TLB), also known as “The Book” …

One down side to using certain modern translations is that they do not use the traditional renderings of certain passages and phrases, and the reader may find this annoying. The “Good News Bible” or TEV is especially known for non-traditional renderings. For example, “the abomination of desolation” referred to in the book of Daniel and the Gospels is called “the awful horror,” and the ark of the covenant is known as “the covenant box”…

We recommend staying away from translations with unconventional renderings, such as the TEV, and suggest using the Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition.

To read the whole tract, go here:

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

As to the* why* booksellers stock so many of these, I haven’t a clue unless it is for the ususal reason–supply and demand. If a lot of people are looking for a simple bible to read, this might be the most popular right now.

 

[caroljm36]

Fidelis:

My opinion of the NLT is that it is more of a paraphrase than a translation. Like most paraphrases it is fine if you are not doing a serious Bible study or not looking for an inspiring rendering. Of paraphrases in general, Catholic Answers’ Bible Translations Guide says:

To read the whole tract, go here:

catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

As to the* why* booksellers stock so many of these, I haven’t a clue unless it is for the ususal reason–supply and demand. If a lot of people are looking for a simple bible to read, this might be the most popular right now.

Hmm, doesn’t mention NLT, but it was interesting anyway.

 

[Trelow]

I’ve got one, it’s the bible I grew up on.

Excellent for easy reading, horrid for study.

Like the partridge that gathers a brood which she did not hatch, so is he who gets riches but not by right; in the midst of his days they will leave him, and at his end he will be a fool. A glorious throne set on high from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary. O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake thee shall be put to shame; those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water. Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved; for thou art my praise. Behold, they say to me, “Where is the word of the LORD? Let it come!” I have not pressed thee to send evil, nor have I desired the day of disaster, thou knowest; that which came out of my lips was before thy face. Be not a terror to me; thou art my refuge in the day of evil. Let those be put to shame who persecute me, but let me not be put to shame; let them be dismayed, but let me not be dismayed; bring upon them the day of evil; destroy them with double destruction!

NLT Jeremiah 17:11-18:

Like a bird that hatches eggs she has not laid, so are those who get their wealth by unjust means. Sooner or later they will lose their riches and, at the end of their lives, will become poor old fools. But we worship at your throne–eternal, high, and glorious! O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who turn away from you will be disgraced and shamed. They will be buried in a dry and dusty grave, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water. O LORD, you alone can heal me; you alone can save. My praises are for you alone! People scoff at me and say, “What is this `message from the LORD’ you keep talking about? Why don’t your predictions come true?” LORD, I have not abandoned my job as a shepherd for your people. I have not urged you to send disaster. It is your message I have given them, not my own. LORD, do not desert me now! You alone are my hope in the day of disaster. Bring shame and terror on all who persecute me, but give me peace. Yes, bring double destruction upon them!

 

[InigoMontoya]

I’d honestly recommend that you stay away from the NLT. If you take a close look at it, you’re find a startling amount of discrepancies for being the word of God.

Think of it this way, with it being almost entirely a paraphrase “AT BEST” you’re getting someone else’s interpretation of the Bible…

 

[jeffreedy789]

ok - i worked in christian retail for many years, and can tell you a good bit about the NLT.

first of all, as most here have said, it’s great for reading, not great for study. as has also been mentioned, it’s a paraphrase, not a word-for-word translation, so you’re getting a tiny bit of interpretative work thrown in with the translation work.

the ‘tiny bit’ is where no one has gone yet on this thread. here i go:

the original TLB (the Living Bible) was done by one man. he wanted a Bible that his kids could read, so he sat down with the gospels and wrote them in his own words. someone got a copy, loved it, and encouraged him to do the whole Bible. which he did. billy graham eventually read a copy of this, endorsed it, and it sold several million copies.

problem is, it was one man, working from a king james bible. when he didn’t quite understand something, or felt like explaining something, he would kind of throw his own theology in there. so the TLB was VERY easy to read, but terribly inaccurate.

ok, now we come to the NLT. a team of 90 scholars (including catholic scholars) went back to the greek and hebrew, in teams, and translated the text thought for thought into english. very little interpretive work was done, and what little WAS done, was agreed on by people working from many different religious traditions.

so. to sum up - NLT is great for devotional reading. i use it myself for my morning reading. the ‘one year Bible’ for catholics is, i think, the best thing in the world for keeping yourself reading the Bible every day. it’s divided up into one OT reading, one NT reading, and a psalm and proverb for each day. in one year, you read the whole Bible through, and psalms and proverbs twice (they start over in the middle). if you have a question about a particular verse, look it up in a better translation (like the nrsv or the nasb, both very, very accurate translations).

 

[Count_Chocula]

NLT is easy to read hence it’s popularity. What’s more important? Conveying the story and ideas of Christ or getting Hebrew Gerunds down pat?

Most people don’t agonize over relatively inane differences. Catholics getting overly worked up over differing Bible Trans (glaring mistakes not withstanding) crack me up. A faith not professing Sola Scrip. full of members who go bannanas over slight changes…chuckle

 

[Maccabees]

jeffreedy789:

ok - i worked in christian retail for many years, and can tell you a good bit about the NLT.

first of all, as most here have said, it’s great for reading, not great for study. as has also been mentioned, it’s a paraphrase, not a word-for-word translation, so you’re getting a tiny bit of interpretative work thrown in with the translation work.

the ‘tiny bit’ is where no one has gone yet on this thread. here i go:

the original TLB (the Living Bible) was done by one man. he wanted a Bible that his kids could read, so he sat down with the gospels and wrote them in his own words. someone got a copy, loved it, and encouraged him to do the whole Bible. which he did. billy graham eventually read a copy of this, endorsed it, and it sold several million copies.

problem is, it was one man, working from a king james bible. when he didn’t quite understand something, or felt like explaining something, he would kind of throw his own theology in there. so the TLB was VERY easy to read, but terribly inaccurate.

ok, now we come to the NLT. a team of 90 scholars (including catholic scholars) went back to the greek and hebrew, in teams, and translated the text thought for thought into english. very little interpretive work was done, and what little WAS done, was agreed on by people working from many different religious traditions.

so. to sum up - NLT is great for devotional reading. i use it myself for my morning reading. the ‘one year Bible’ for catholics is, i think, the best thing in the world for keeping yourself reading the Bible every day. it’s divided up into one OT reading, one NT reading, and a psalm and proverb for each day. in one year, you read the whole Bible through, and psalms and proverbs twice (they start over in the middle). if you have a question about a particular verse, look it up in a better translation (like the nrsv or the nasb, both very, very accurate translations).

Could you provide me with documentation that catholic scholars werre involved in this translation. To my knowldege this in an evangelical translation most contributors were evangelical with a few Lutherans, Presbyterians thrown in. This translation has not received the catholic Imprimatur so I doubt any catholics were involved in the translation.
Catholic scholars that have been involved in Protestant Bible translations usually help put out a parallel catholic translation with the catholic Imprimatur. The RSV and GNT translations have both catholic and protestant translations with the Imprimatur for the catholic translation.

 

[Maccabees]

Count Chocula:

NLT is easy to read hence it’s popularity. What’s more important? Conveying the story and ideas of Christ or getting Hebrew Gerunds down pat?

Most people don’t agonize over relatively inane differences. Catholics getting overly worked up over differing Bible Trans (glaring mistakes not withstanding) crack me up. A faith not professing Sola Scrip. full of members who go bannanas over slight changes…chuckle

The fact that the NLT doesn’t have the catholic Imprimatur is extremely problematic as the translation could have protestant prejudice in the translation itself not to mention the translation notes and book introductions.

 

[Trelow]

Heres a good example the difference between a dynamic and an literal translation.

14The law is good, then. The trouble is not with the law but with me, because I am sold into slavery, with sin as my master. 15I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. 16I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience shows that I agree that the law is good. 17But I can’t help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things. 18I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old sinful nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn, I can’t make myself do right. I want to, but I can’t. 19When I want to do good, I don’t. And when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. 20But if I am doing what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing it; the sin within me is doing it. 21It seems to be a fact of life that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22I love God’s law with all my heart. 23But there is another law at work within me that is at war with my mind. This law wins the fight and makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin?* 25Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin

14: We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15: I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
16: Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
17: So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
18: For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
19: For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
20: Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
21: So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
22: For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
23: but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
24: Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25: Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

[Trelow]

Maccabees:

The fact that the NLT doesn’t have the catholic Imprimatur is extremely problematic as the translation could have protestant prejudice in the translation itself not to mention the translation notes and book introductions.

If you know what you believe then I see know problem with the NLT. We use it for our daily reading. When doing studies we use the RSV.

I haven’t noticed any book introductions on mine, and the notes are limited to references to different renderings and what it says in the Greek.

 

[Count_Chocula]

Maccabees:

The fact that the NLT doesn’t have the catholic Imprimatur is extremely problematic as the translation could have protestant prejudice in the translation itself not to mention the translation notes and book introductions.

It might but odds are it’s translation is acceptable, but you do realize that any book with out the deuterurueusaocannaonoicals isn’t going to get Imprimatur but I have seen a NLT Catholic Edition so maybe that will have said Imprimatur, don’t know cuz I didn’t check.

 

[Shibboleth]

Run away and don’t look back.

 

[Shibboleth]

Shibboleth:

Run away and don’t look back.

Actually look back as you are leaving and yell “KAHN!!!” at the top of your lungs.

It is that bad.

 

[OhioBob]

Matthew 6 (New Living Translation)
7"When you pray, don’t babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered only by repeating their words again and again.

This is one of many examples of NLT paraphrases that are problematic for Catholics. It is often used as a criticism of the Rosary and other Catholic devotionals. Most any literal translation is better (even the note-challenged NAB).

I echo Shibboleth - run away and don’t look back.
(screaming KAHN!!! is optional)

 

[Maccabees]

Count Chocula:

It might but odds are it’s translation is acceptable, but you do realize that any book with out the deuterurueusaocannaonoicals isn’t going to get Imprimatur but I have seen a NLT Catholic Edition so maybe that will have said Imprimatur, don’t know cuz I didn’t check.

If your a catholic you should check if the bible is approved becuase the so called called catholic edition of the the NLT has no catholic Imprimatur either even though it has the complete duterocanicals. Considering they didn’t ask one catholic scholar to help translate the Bible and add to the fact the translation problems that the posters here have pointed out perhaps those are the reasons the catholics did not give it the Imprimatur. THis is misleading marketing to say a Bible is a catholic edition but has no catholic scholarship or approval.
Like I said if your looking for a ecunemical catholic bible the RSV remains the best choice.
If your looking for an easy to understand translation the NAB if far better than the NLT. (just beware of the NAB notes)
THE NLT is a bible for people who for the sake of easy reading don’t mind misleading interpretations. The NAB is an easy to understand translation but it is not dumbed down like the NLT you might actually have to think while reading. Oh shuder that thought but give it cance the NLT will make you a misinformed catholic in no time.
And a Bible calling itself catholic without catholic approval is not acceptable. Stop thinking like a protestant and choosing for yourslef what is an acceptable Bible. The church is our guide and its guiding us to rejecting this translation as acceptable.
Buy something else there are some good catholic translations that are easy to understand the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible are versions I would recommend.

 

[caroljm36]

I couldn’t check for an imprimitur because all the Bibles are sealed up, at the Christian book store and at Barnes & Noble’s! So I can’t see type size, commentary, page bleed-through or anything. What a rip…

But I took everyone’s advice to heart and instead ordered a 365 Day Catholic Bible in RSV-CE. It’s a trade paperback so if anyone knows where to get those plastic covers the library uses to protect these please let me know.

Thanks!

 

[jeffreedy789]

'Could you provide me with documentation that catholic scholars werre involved in this translation. ’

sorry, i didn’t see this until now. i’ll check on the translation team for you and get back. i remember being surprised when i looked at the list of translators that catholics were involved. it is not out of the question that i’m mistaken, and remember something that didn’t happen. but i’ll find out for you.

 

[jeffreedy789]

ok, according to the notes in my NLT One Year Bible (which i still recommend, Kahn notwithstanding), someone named Douglas Gropp from the Catholic University of America was part of the team that translated Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

so there you go.

 

[Maccabees]

jeffreedy789:

ok, according to the notes in my NLT One Year Bible (which i still recommend, Kahn notwithstanding), someone named Douglas Gropp from the Catholic University of America was part of the team that translated Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

so there you go.

One of out of dozens of contributors works for a catholic university big deal. Notice they have no catholics interpreting the New Testaments where a catholic interpretation of scripture might not square with their agenda. The poor guy is given some of the most obscure books of the OT he gets one well known OT book in Daniel and not much else. And heck we don’t even know if Gropp is catholic. Catholic University doesn’t require teachers to be catholics even in their theology department. Like I said what is most telling is that they market a Bible Catholic and can’t back it up with an Imprimatur. A catholic Bible would be approved by the catholic church. It is not a catholic bible because an evangelical publisher (Tyndale) tells us so. This is the same publisher that gives us the Left Behind series. So if you trust them for your theology you are on shaky ground.