The Rise in Popularity of the New Living Translation: An Interview with Tremper Longman, III
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Over the last few years, the New Living Translation has seen significant growth in popularity, even moving into the #2 spot for several months in a row. Still, some pastors are hesitant to use it as their main translation. Why is this translation gaining in popularity and what about the translation process and model can help pastors feel more confident in using it as their main translation? What is important for pastors to think about when choosing a translation?
⭐️ Helpful Resources ⭐️
➡️ New Living Translation - Newlivingtranslation.com
➡️ Considering the New Living Translation" by Jim Jewell - churchanswers.com/blog/consid...
➡️ A Rebel’s Manifesto by Sean McDowell - www.tyndale.com/p/a-rebels-ma...
➡️ Tyndale House Publishers - www.tyndale.com/
➡️ Church Answers University - churchanswers.university/
This is a Bible I have come to love. I am used to formal equivalent translations but this the first Bible I have purchased just for giving away ... especially to new Christians. It is easily readable but profound in its depth. My two favorites are the Helpfinder's Bible and the Life Application Study Bible (3rd edition). I have several paperback copies on hand to pass along. Bless the committee for creating this beautiful version. MikeInMinnesota
I have the NLT Illustrated Study Bible and the NKJV Full Color Study Bible. Both are excellent translations that I use to compare verses.
I have around 30 bibles and at this point I've made the NLT my primary translation. I love it!
I loved NLT and used it since 2000 in my Bible studies and preaching. English as a second language, NLT provides easy reading and comprehension.
I keep an ESV and an NLT for study. I'm not the brightest light bulb in the pack so it does help. The repetition also helps the scripture stick in my head.
I preached from the NLT for over 8 years. It is my favorite translation.
You didn’t teach :)
Good conversation. I tended to look down on the NIV and NLT in favor of my preferred NKJV. I ran into some hardcore KJV only folks and realized I was doing the same type of thing. I'm trying out some of the more modern translations again and trying to stay away from that translational elitist mindset.
That is great to hear this. Thank you for sharing!
I was the same way. I have used dozens of translations especially ones I heard/thought were more accurate such as the NKJV, NASB, etc. But over the years I found all translations are accurate in different ways and areas. For example, in Malachi 3.16 the NLT has, "In his presence a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him". Well in the NKJV, NASB, ESV they have the word "book" and not scroll. There were no such thing as books back then. Only scrolls. Books were invented after the New Testament times I think maybe in the 3rd century? Anyways, so which translation is more literally accurate? This doesn't make any doctrinal difference but is a small example of many, that the formal translations are not always more accurate. Also there is literally accurate as opposed to functionally accurate. Anyway I use the NLT as a main Bible along side of a few others and find my Bible reading is greatly enriched by the NLT.
I enjoyed listening to this discussion. When I was a kid in the 80s, by far the most popular translations by the congregation were KJV and NIV84, because those were the only ones generally available at the chain bookstores of the day. My current congregation uses NKJV which, having grown up around the KJV, is no big deal for me. But I began to notice just how much time the pastor spends explaining what certain words or passages mean in “today’s English” even with the NKJV. It made me wonder how much of that could be better spent.
So I started picking up other translations and really loved both the CSB and NLT but it was the NLT I found the most clear and didn’t require extended discussion about what a word or phrase means.
Thank you, @captiosus9753, for sharing your insight and story with these translations! We are excited to hear how the NLT has been a good translation for you. Thank you, too, for listening!
Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹⭐🌹
Thanks for posting this interview. I have used dozens of translations especially ones I heard/thought were more accurate such as the NKJV, NASB, etc. But over the years I found all translations are accurate in different ways and areas. For example, in Malachi 3.16 the NLT has, "In his presence a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him". Well in the NKJV, NASB, ESV they have the word "book" and not scroll. There was no such thing as books back then. Only scrolls. Books were invented after the New Testament times I think maybe in the 3rd century? Anyways, so which translation is more literally accurate? This doesn't make any doctrinal difference but is a small example of many, that the formal translations are not always more literally accurate. Also there is literally accurate as opposed to functionally accurate. Some translations are stronger in one area and some are in between. Anyway I use the NLT as a main Bible along few others for comparison and find my Bible reading is greatly enriched by the NLT. Thanks again.
I use the KJV for group Bible study, but I always go back to the NLT when I need clarification. It’s definitely be a blessing.
The NLT is a great translation. We are glad it is a blessing to you, @briandavenport8971!
Terrific! thank you all!
One problem I always have .."all" those notes I scribbled in my previous bible...great interview..
Just got a NLT Study Application Bible of course I purchased a used leather one for the five dollar discount and wanted others to know I'm just the Steward of God's things and hopefully I'm the second of many to use God's book . . . taking flack from within as Nehemiah and Jesus witnessed, witness. . . Thank you
Thank you, @FTT143, for sharing and for listening in. Always appreciate the comments!
Translation Tribalism (snobbery) is discouraging, to say the least. I appreciate your encouragement in reading the NLT. I'm one who enjoys multiple translations as a form of comparison. That said, I will most definitely reach for the NLT on a regular basis. Thank you again gentlemen. ✝️
Thank you, @deserthighlander1969, for listening in! We are glad the NLT is a regular translation you use. Blessings to you!
I just got the NLT after reading my wife's NLT . . . getting opposition from within just as Nehemiah and Jesus did . . . ty
Great video… I just hope it doesn’t over update
Agreed
1. Reasons I like the NLT:
a. Clarity and naturalness. Clarity refers to whether a text is comprehensible or understandable. For example, the sentence "I am one who is called John" is clear. However, this isn't how most people speak. Most people would simply say "My name is John". That's more natural. In fact, that's both clear and natural. And the NLT is both clear and natural. The NLT speaks to us in contemporary English. It's just like talking with a friend, not like talking with Yoda (e.g. ESV). I think this is the NLT's greatest strength.
b. Audience appropriateness. The NLT is appropriate for multiple different audiences. It's appropriate for many children. It's appropriate for people whose first language isn't English but who are learning English. It's appropriate for the biblically illiterate inasmuch as it's becoming increasingly common in our culture that many people have little if any familiarity with the Bible and its contents (e.g. they wouldn't necessarily understand "churchy" words like "hallowed" or "propitiation" let alone "Biblish"). And the NLT is even appropriate for Christians in general who wish to have a smooth read-through of the entire Bible.
2. Some (mostly minor) gripes I have with the NLT, which again I generally like:
a. Accuracy. On the one hand, the NLT is often (surprisingly) accurate in capturing nuances in the biblical Hebrew and Greek that some formal equivalence translations don't capture and perhaps can't capture due to their formal equivalence translation philosophy. For example, compare some of the historical narrative passages in the OT in a formal equivalent translation with the NLT. The NLT can often bring out a fuller true meaning that is in the text better than a formal equivalence translation.
On the other hand, there are times when the NLT can be overly interpretive. It takes debatable exegetical interpretations which might go different ways and makes a concrete interpretation for the reader. Hence the reader doesn't have to decide what a verse or passage means since the NLT has decided for them. Moreover, the NLT sometimes even adds in more than what the text says. For instance, the Greek scholar Bill Mounce points out the NLT's translation of Acts 27:17: "the sandbars of Syrtis off the African coast". The phrase "off the African coast" is not in the Greek. It's been added by the NLT translators for clarification. However, it'd arguably be better to put "off the African coast" in the footnotes if it needs to be clarified or simply leave it out entirely and either research for oneself where Syrtis is, or let pastors, study Bibles, and/or commentaries explain. Given such issues, if we read the NLT alone (without reference to the biblical languages), it can be hard to know if one is reading the original Hebrew or Greek text or if one is reading text that's been added in by the translators.
b. Historical distance. Ideally there should be historical distance in terms of the time and culture of the biblical text (i.e. so modern audiences can enter into the ancient world of the biblical text), but there should not be historical distance in terms of the language (i.e. the language should sound to us as it did to the original audience). At times the NLT does not have as much historical distance in terms of the time and culture of the biblical text as it should. It makes the ancient world seem a bit too much like our day and age.
c. Register. Register refers to literary style. A higher register refers to a more formal literary style, whereas a lower register refers to a more informal literary style. Consider the NT. Most of the NT is in koine ("common") Greek, even though literary Greek existed at the time and was used by the best writers across the Roman empire. However, for various reason(s), the NT authors wrote in common every day Greek. C.S. Lewis may have put it best: "The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is a sort of 'basic' Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language."
The main exceptions to this are Hebrews and the prologue in Luke 1:1-4 which are written in a higher register than the rest of the NT. Likewise, there are other parts of the Bible that are set in a more poetic and arguably higher register (e.g. Psalms, Job, Ecclesiastes).
I think an English translation should reflect the literary style of the original text. If the original text is in a higher register, then the translation should be in a similarly higher register as well. But the NLT tends to flatten out the literary style of the entire Bible such that the Bible as a whole sounds more or less the same across the board; that is, the NLT sounds like ordinary, conversational, colloquial English. Of course, the NLT's translation philosophy aims to sound ordinary or colloquial, so one can't fault them for this since they're faithful to their translation philosophy, but one does wish they had allowed for exceptions to the rule with regard to literary style.
Thank you for your comment and for listening @pattube!
Superb translation overall but got off track in a few spots. One example is Genesis 22:17 which doesn’t include the optional reading “his enemies” in the footnote, which the Hebrew does provide for and thus makes it a powerful allusion to the promised Messiah (cf. Galatians 3:16). Translators should have duly footnoted the optional reading as per the NASB (note that the ESV actually places “his” in the text and “their” in the footnote).
Another example and perhaps one of the more glaring departures from the text is found in Galatians 6:16b, which in the NLT reads, “they are the new people of God.” At least the literal translation is provided in the footnote but it does reveal a theological bias on the part of the translators in assuming that Paul speaks here in v.16 of one group of people and not two i.e., Gentile believers (v.16a) and Jewish believers in Jesus (v.16b), the latter being “the Israel of God.” In making such a judgment call on the text the NLT appears to promote a form of “replacement theology” that replaces Israel with the Church, a theology that is hotly contested in various segments of the church and even among top-notch biblical scholars. It is this kind of interpretive overreach that (imo) diminishes the impact of an otherwise very well-done Bible translation that I enjoy using personally, but apprehensive about using in the pulpit as a teaching Bible.
One can only hope that these and other issues will be remedied in future updates, as the popularity of the NLT grows and is used by more and more people, especially new believers and those who require an English Bible with a lower grade reading level.
His being the seed of Abraham not Jesus. The LSB seems to agree as it’s his not His. So it’s one of those areas of gender neutral.
My NASB95 is not as you suggest in Genesis 22:17. Also, I think Galatians 6:16 "new people of God" is calling back to the previous verse wrt "transformed into a new creation".
It appears though that he is Isaac as they didn’t cap it.
10:03 the NLT is a dynamic in my opinion, more than it is a thought for thought.
It is a very good translation! Thank you for listening!
I’d love a NLT translation
Is there a book that is meant for general readers which explains how the languages change, both English and how our knowledge of the original languages improves or changes?
Thank you, @johnenglish4652 for your question. Are you referring to a book that shows how English has changed? And, when you say "original languages," do you mean the biblical languages, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic?
@@ChurchAnswers How English has changed. And how our knowledge of Hebrew Aramaic and Greek have improved, if that is the case over time.
James White at around the 13:34 mark and the NASB95 😂that or MacArthur and the LSB but I’m going with White because you said he’s familiar with ancient language.
21:32 reminds me of how the original Voyager mission people at NASA had to teach what they knew to the new generation that would take over.
I do love the NLT, the only downside that I have found is the gender neutral issue. I may be wrong in my thought process about that. Don’t get me wrong again I love the NLT it is my primary bible. I love the KJV, I also love the MEV but I keep going back to the NLT.
11:33 I’m in between. I see the importance for update and that’s why I keep KJV and/or KJV for memorization as it stays the same.
There is a majestic sound to the KJV, for sure. Each translation is certainly unique. The NLT is gaining a lot of traction, though, today. We appreciate you interest and feedback. Thanks for listening!
10:37 - If this is true, then why doesn't Tyndale revise the NLT every 25 years, instead of every few years?
I understand the point that this gentleman is making, and it is a very _good_ point, however, it seems to me that the NLT goes through a change every few years, which for me is the one downside to reading from (and loving) the NLT, which I do. The reason it's a problem for me is because I memorize from the NLT and _only_ the NLT because of the fact that I do love this translation so much and the wording of the scriptures are so beautiful. But when they change the wording, not only do I have to re-copy the changed verses onto fresh 3x5 index cards, but I also have to re-memorize a familiar verse (or verses) with the new wording. I suppose I don't _have_ to do that really, but I am such a stickler for memorizing from the same translation I read from.
Why can't the NLT go through a revision just once every 20 to 25 years, instead of every few years. Or so it seems to me. Can someone explain this to me please? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Maranatha!
"Unpopular the Movie"
Red Grace Media Films Final Cut
Free On UA-cam (28:55)
"Heaven" - Randy Alcorn
11:31 - Never mind. He just addressed what I was saying regarding scripture memory. I guess maybe revising the NLT once every 25 years would be a bit too long, since, as he was saying, language changes quickly. Or something like that. Anyway, makes sense.
Updates can have their proper place but updates coming out every 7-10 years reeks of greed $$$ to sell more via new copyright ! NLT is a great translation but didn't need updated a few times since 1996..
Hopefully the NKJV won''t succumb to that scheme .
English doesn’t change that much. I can watch a movie from the 1940s and understand everything without any effort whatsoever. The frequent updates of Bibles is about $$$. I like the NKJV because I know I won’t have to buy a new Bible next year because scholar decided that God was sexist.
The NLT, CSB, ESV are all fine, but the updating is needless.
A 90min movie has very little dialog and doesn't cover deep spiritual topics.
It also isn't as important as the bible.
Once a generation is reasonable, but probably too often. But every 50 years is absolutely necessary.
And I do agree that updates (and translations in general) shouldn't change the message to fit the world. But they should fit the phrasing of message to the culture, or the word can't reach as many as it should.