Gentlemen, thank you for a very enjoyable and informative interview. Please do more of these, Tim. I must admit that I don't understand all the fussing and fighting over formal equivalence versus dynamic equivalence translations. Or even the arguments over which is better - the Critical Text or the Textus Receptus? Like you, Tim, I prefer the NKJV over many other translations, but I also enjoy the KJV and NASB. Two years ago I decided to read the NLT from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. I found it to be a wonderful read and I highly encourage others to do the same. It is an excellent companion to the KJV/NKJV/NASB and ESV translations. I think that fans of the NIV would also enjoy the NLT. I look forward to a new version, but not too soon, please! I recently started reading the CSB and I can see why it has become so popular. I also find that it is remarkably similar to the NASB2020. The wonderful thing about having so many excellent English translations of the Bible is that each one of them offers something uniquely special to the reader. We are blessed to have them.
This was excellent: mind-expanding and bias-confronting. I thank God for the education, patience, endurance and collegiality that He gives to Bible translators.
Thank you,dear Brothers.🌹⭐🌹⭐ Excellent interview,Tim. Great direction for your channel. I also enjoyed the program with Dave Brunn. Please keep helping us to expand our nerdy minds. I encourage you to do an interview per month. ( another way to continually grow your audience and to continually nurture the growth of your longtime nerds). I'm genuinely proud of you. Blessings to you and yours.🔥🔥🔥
on the functional-equivalence discussion I got to thinking about an example in English. for example, when we say , "What's up?" we know that isn't literally asking "what is 'up'?" instead it's a way of asking something about the condition of that person. It can even have certain connotations depending on the context. Nijay's comments helped me understand how the "literal vs dynamic" translation philosophy can be a little misleading.
Monogenēs ("only-begotten") is right there in the Greek. It's not merely a tradition. It's also an essential word for Trinitarian theology and formed the basis of patristic theology and creeds like the Nicene Creed. The divinity of the Son is derived from His relationship of begetting from the Father. That's how He is "God of God" and "Light of Light". Greek-speaking Christians have always understood "υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" ("sion ton monogeni") "the only-begotten son". Translators have apparently lost touch with theology and don't see a big difference between "only son" and "only-begotten son" but the difference is night or day for the divinity of the Son and a proper understanding of the Trinity.
Ask him about how come NLT is unique and unknowingly correct along with New Catholic Bible on Galatians 3:21b if the Law could give life, rather than if a law was given. Does that even raise a discussion or they are totally oblivious to this radical change?.
Generic masculine terminology is perfectly normal English, and any writing style that tries to avoid that usage always sounds awkward and unnatural. There's just no legitimate reason for it. _Nobody_ is going to be genuinely confused by "mankind."
Thanks again to Dr. Nijay Gupta for speaking and answering my question today. Maybe ill pick up a copy of the NLT some day thanks to this video. =)
I love the NLT. It is so helpful.
Gentlemen, thank you for a very enjoyable and informative interview. Please do more of these, Tim.
I must admit that I don't understand all the fussing and fighting over formal equivalence versus dynamic equivalence translations. Or even the arguments over which is better - the Critical Text or the Textus Receptus?
Like you, Tim, I prefer the NKJV over many other translations, but I also enjoy the KJV and NASB. Two years ago I decided to read the NLT from Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. I found it to be a wonderful read and I highly encourage others to do the same. It is an excellent companion to the KJV/NKJV/NASB and ESV translations. I think that fans of the NIV would also enjoy the NLT. I look forward to a new version, but not too soon, please!
I recently started reading the CSB and I can see why it has become so popular. I also find that it is remarkably similar to the NASB2020. The wonderful thing about having so many excellent English translations of the Bible is that each one of them offers something uniquely special to the reader. We are blessed to have them.
This was excellent: mind-expanding and bias-confronting. I thank God for the education, patience, endurance and collegiality that He gives to Bible translators.
I love the NLT and use the 1996 translation daily.
This was very good. I'm looking forward to here more what they will do in an NLT revision
Thanks. This was helpful.
Thank you,dear Brothers.🌹⭐🌹⭐ Excellent interview,Tim. Great direction for your channel. I also enjoyed the program with Dave Brunn. Please keep helping us to expand our nerdy minds. I encourage you to do an interview per month. ( another way to continually grow your audience and to continually nurture the growth of your longtime nerds). I'm genuinely proud of you. Blessings to you and yours.🔥🔥🔥
Hope they do an NLT Bible with Apocrypha (NRSV Cannon) one day.
Very very informative
10 years is very long, I wish it could be faster , at least 5 years.
This is interesting, and it's my hope the NLT gravitates even closer and closer to the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek.
on the functional-equivalence discussion I got to thinking about an example in English. for example, when we say , "What's up?" we know that isn't literally asking "what is 'up'?" instead it's a way of asking something about the condition of that person. It can even have certain connotations depending on the context. Nijay's comments helped me understand how the "literal vs dynamic" translation philosophy can be a little misleading.
❤
After watching this video, I have changed my view on translation philosophy. I guess I was drinking the “word-for-word translation” kool-aid! 😮
44:07 ... NLT omits spirit... and then you walk away from humble...
Make a T.R. version
Monogenēs ("only-begotten") is right there in the Greek. It's not merely a tradition. It's also an essential word for Trinitarian theology and formed the basis of patristic theology and creeds like the Nicene Creed. The divinity of the Son is derived from His relationship of begetting from the Father. That's how He is "God of God" and "Light of Light". Greek-speaking Christians have always understood "υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" ("sion ton monogeni") "the only-begotten son". Translators have apparently lost touch with theology and don't see a big difference between "only son" and "only-begotten son" but the difference is night or day for the divinity of the Son and a proper understanding of the Trinity.
Ask him about how come NLT is unique and unknowingly correct along with New Catholic Bible on Galatians 3:21b if the Law could give life, rather than if a law was given. Does that even raise a discussion or they are totally oblivious to this radical change?.
Generic masculine terminology is perfectly normal English, and any writing style that tries to avoid that usage always sounds awkward and unnatural. There's just no legitimate reason for it. _Nobody_ is going to be genuinely confused by "mankind."
Fake Bibles vs KJb. Westcott and Hort would be proud.