PDA

View Full Version : What is the NLT 2004 update



Kevin Ahronson
01-23-2005, 07:28 AM
I've had a quick look at NLT website and couldn't find any references to the 2004 update.

Can any wise and faithful servant help me out with this one?

Dan Phillips
01-23-2005, 11:15 AM
...I could make a few really nasty comments about the NLT itself, if that'd help.

;)

Dan

Kevin Ahronson
01-23-2005, 03:31 PM
Dan

Not really - we all have our favourites and our own likes or dislikes of dynamic equivalence. That isn't the point.

I was simply trying to find out what changes Tyndale have made.

For a translation that is so loose and apparently contemporary in its use of the English language, it's hard to imagine how they could make it any worse/better...
(depending on your point of view)

Me, I'm an ESV man - but I would give an NLT to a new or non-christian, or to someone who struggles with reading.

Gontroppo
01-23-2005, 04:08 PM
When I became a teenager, I was given a copy of Living Letters, which was the first instalment of The Living Bible. We are talking 1965 and my bible up till then had been the venerable King James Version.

Ken Taylor's loose paraphrase made Paul come alive for me. At the same time, I read Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking.I found Paul appealing and Peale appalling. [Well, after a period of time.]

As I became more mature, I realised how loose and inaccurate the Living Bible is, and thought I'd outgrown it.

Later though, I purchased a copy of The New Living Translation. This is a tremendous improvement of Taylor's original and is no longer just a paraphrase. There are several distinguished scholars who assisted in this revision who also worked on the ESV.

The NLT has shown me the meaning of some passages I had never understood before. This is after checking with reputable commentaries, of course. Sometimes the "literal" versions obscure the meaning.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Dan Phillips
01-23-2005, 08:01 PM
That certainly is one opinion, David. My response would be that, when I looked at passages in the NLT that I know quite well in Greek or Hebrew, what I read was just as much a paraphrase as the Living Bible. I'd say the only difference is that, perhaps, the translators looked at the Hebrew or Greek text launching off into wild paraphrasing.

If you do see this as a translation, let alone a good translation, it would be interesting to read how you distinguish a translation from a paraphrase.

BTW, I also started with the LB back in the early 70's, but it wasn't too long before it felt "Mickey Mouse" to me. And then within a year of conversion, I started learning Greek, which pretty well ruined me for the LB.

As far as reaching unbelievers, not sure why the HCSB, the ESV, the MLB, or even the pre-NOWed NIV wouldn't do just fine.

Philip Brown
01-23-2005, 10:15 PM
Probably the best way to find the changes would be to export the current NLT and recompile it under a new name. Then download the updated NLT. Once it is installed, you can use the version comparison tool to highlight the places where the two versions are different.

If someone takes the time to do this, it would be nice if you'd post the results to the forum.

Gontroppo
01-24-2005, 01:06 AM
Dan, many folk think a translation must sound exactly the same as the original, with the same number of words and in the same order.

But this is impossible. And no bible does this. If you look carefully at alleged literal translations, such as the NASB, ESV, and even Young's Literal Translation, you will see that over and over they depart from their supposed method.

Sometimes it is possible to follow the original form and preserve the meaning, but more often you can't.

Concerning the best bible to give a new or non believer, as a school teacher I found even intelligent kids, with a church background, struggled with reading the NIV out loud in a Christian fellowship group at school.

So I bought a box of Good News Bibles [also called Today's English Version] and it made a huge difference. It was also very helpful to kids who weren't familiar with the bible.

I think we all need a variety of types of bibles, and we are very blessed that we have them.

Defining a paraphrase? I think a paraphrase says the same thing in different words. THE Living Bible was mostly a paraphrase, I think. But the NLT is much closer to the original and can properly be called a translation, I think.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

vr8ce
01-25-2005, 09:12 PM
I've had a quick look at NLT website and couldn't find any references to the 2004 update.

Can any wise and faithful servant help me out with this one?
Yeah, that's very interesting. I Googled for it and didn't find anything anywhere. But, it's a major update -- 25K of the 31K verses changed. I liked all of the ones I saw, but YMMV.

Vince

Gontroppo
01-26-2005, 01:22 AM
What is YMMV,please?
You may ...?

Speaking of the NLT upgrade, as has been said, it is a major change.

It is hard to find a verse that is the same.

Here are a few sample verses:
Gen1:2 NLT The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface.

NLT Rev:
Genesis 1:2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

It seems that the translators have tried to make each verse make sense on its own. For example:
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

[b]Genesis 1:4
NLT And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.
NLT REv 4 And God saw that the light was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness.

My preliminary view is that the translators have gone further towards a more literal version, than the NLT went when it became the Living Bible revised.

But also, they seem to have also been more willing to make the text explanatory, which means it may be more interpretive.

I wish I had known how major the change was, as it would be handy to have both copies electronically to compare.

I guess yo ucould compile the copy on the original CD with a different name, could you?

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Gontroppo
01-26-2005, 01:29 AM
I forgot to say I have emailed Tyndale to ask about this major revision, and hope to report back shortly on what they tell me.

I also realise that in my post I said that the NLT REv is becoming more literal and more interpretive. I know that sounds contradictory, but I think that in a sense it is true.

e.g. Gen 4:1
ASV And the man knew Eve, his wife
KJV And Adam knew Eve his wife
NLT Now Adam slept with his wife, Eve
NLT Rev Now Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

vr8ce
01-26-2005, 04:22 PM
What is YMMV,please?
You may ...?
http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym/acro.html



Speaking of the NLT upgrade, as has been said, it is a major change.

It is hard to find a verse that is the same.
...
My preliminary view is that the translators have gone further towards a more literal version, than the NLT went when it became the Living Bible revised.

But also, they seem to have also been more willing to make the text explanatory, which means it may be more interpretive.
Oddly enough, those both appear to be true to some extent. This is definitely a *major* update. I'm surprised there's no mention of this anywhere on the web (that I could find).

And yes, you can extract the old version and re-compile it as a different one (per the suggestion on the update forum page).

Vince

Kevin Ahronson
01-27-2005, 02:18 PM
The bizarre thing about all of this is - the lack of information from Tyndale

Usually publishers like to make a big splash and tell everyone when they update a Bible translation.

Why should they be so quiet in this instance?

The plot thickens :rolleyes:

Gontroppo
01-27-2005, 07:42 PM
Hi Kevin
Tyndale do have information about their new version available. If you send an email to chrissmith@tyndale.com (chrissmith@tyndale.com)
he will send you a pamphlet. More information is available at bookstores and in the NLT 2 itself, I believe.

This is what you get in the blurb from Australia's Koorong bookstore:

Introducing the new NLT2

The most readable translation is now more precise than ever!

If you haven't yet had a look at the acclaimed New Living Translation of the Bible, the release of the new second edition is the perfect opportunity. The translation has been sharpened even further for serious study, without sacrificing any of its ease of understanding and readability.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

vr8ce
01-28-2005, 11:18 AM
Hi Kevin
Tyndale do have information about their new version available. If you send an email to chrissmith@tyndale.com (chrissmith@tyndale.com) he will send you a pamphlet. More information is available at bookstores and in the NLT 2 itself, I believe.
Well, IMO having to send an email to someone who's address I wouldn't possibly have any reason to have doesn't qualify as information. :) Information is *any* mention of it on the Tyndale website (there is none). Information is *any* mention of it in bookstores (I've seen none here in Texas).

In short, there is no information from Tyndale about this. And that's... bizarre. :)

Vince

Kevin Ahronson
01-28-2005, 02:13 PM
More information is available at bookstores and in the NLT 2 itself, I believe.


Although I am pastor of a local church, it is only a part-time position.

Full time I run a Christian bookshop in England - so far I have received no information from Tyndal about their revision

Gontroppo
01-28-2005, 03:38 PM
The Koorong books website www.koorong.com (http://www.koorong.com) says that the NLT 2 in various editions will be available in March.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Dale A. Brueggemann
02-01-2005, 04:11 PM
NLT, 2d often becomes a fuller translation. The first rule when "revising" LB to produce what ended up NLT (i.e., "translation") rather than NLB was this: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That sometimes became a ball and chain tying you to the LB phrasing if at all possible, when a fresh start could often make possible a clear, idiomatic, and accurate dynamic equivalent translation.

When it became time to do NLT 2, it was time to work without the LB in mind anymore. The result was probably a fuller translation at places, and certainly an overall improvement.

As for the difference between translation and paraphrase: I think most of us would agree that there is no sharp demarcation between them; they fall somewhere along a continuum, and all translation involves some "paraphrase", unless you're content with an interlinear with a uniform lexical entry for every word, which changes not a whit depending on context. After that, you might hold on to your NASB, which is not so much Enlish, as "translationese". It therefore makes a great "pony" for first-year language students attempting to find a shortcut on preparing their translation homework ;-)

Philip Brown
02-01-2005, 07:40 PM
make sure you copy the verse mapping files from the 2005 NLT to your recomplied 1996 NLT.

I was using the text comparison tool and wondered why it was marking places where both texts were identical. Then I realized that the verse mappings were off.

When you recompile and install a BW version, it does not bring its old verse mappings with it. You have to copy and paste another verse map into its verse mapping.

Gontroppo
02-01-2005, 09:49 PM
Dale, I loved your comments on the NASB. But so many swear by it.

It amazes me how many people prefer biblish to English.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Philip Brown
02-02-2005, 08:54 PM
The 2005 NLT has opted for the view that the psalm headings (e.g., A Psalm of David) actually belong at the bottom of the previous psalm.

For example

NLO (1996) Psalm 32:1 A psalm of David. Oh, what joy for those whose rebellion is forgiven, whose sin is put out of sight!

NLT (2005) Psalm 31:24 So be strong and courageous, all you who put your hope in the LORD! A psalm of David.
NLT Psalm 32:1 Oh, what joy for those whose disobedience is forgiven, whose sin is put out of sight!

countach
02-16-2005, 05:37 AM
A question for the bibleworks developers:

Why don't you give us back the old NLT, perhaps named NLO or something? This sounds like a major major update that is in fact a different version. Nobody wants to lose the NIV because of the TNIV, so why assume we want to lose the old NLT because there is a new NLT?

jdarlack
02-16-2005, 08:02 AM
Why don't you give us back the old NLT, perhaps named NLO or something? This sounds like a major major update that is in fact a different version. Nobody wants to lose the NIV because of the TNIV, so why assume we want to lose the old NLT because there is a new NLT?I'm not a developer, but from what I understand, the publishers of the NLT did not want the old edition to remain in BW, and gave the new edition on the condition that the old would be removed.

You could keep the old NLT by exporting prior to grabbing the update. If you haven't had a chance to do so, then you could always reinstall, and export prior to updating again...
:(

countach
02-16-2005, 08:09 AM
[QUOTE=jdarlack]I'm not a developer, but from what I understand, the publishers of the NLT did not want the old edition to remain in BW, and gave the new edition on the condition that the old would be removed.


Well if that's true, I say we give the heave-ho to the NLT. Who wants to use a bible version, grow to like it, memorise it, enjoy it, become fond of it. Then at the whim of the publisher they try to abolish it like Winston Smith down a memory hole in 1984? If they won't play nice with their readers, I'm not interested in their product.

jdarlack
02-16-2005, 08:24 AM
I am not sure what's going on with the NLT. I have not read the reviews or anything, but I imagine that if the publisher saw this as a revision, they would not want to continue to publish the pre-revision version.

If an author has produced a new, revised, corrected or updated version of a work, it would be somewhat absurd to think that the author would want to continue to publish the earlier unrevised, uncorrected and unupdated version. Of course, as you mention, a Bible is something that folks grow to "enjoy" or "grow fond of." So, it's a bit more sticky here. That's why even reputable versions of the Bible, edited by top-notch scholars, continue to have translations that use either archaic or inaccurate language--because folks have grown fond of the older versions, and these folks would not take too kindly to someone "changing their Bible." In a related issue--when I was a kid some folks in my denomination "had a cow--Bart Simpson style" over the denomination's decision to switch from the KJV to the NIV in their "Bible Quiz" program for the youth... Though interestingly folks did not want to wrestle with the fact that the KJV uses archaisms that just don't communicate well with a 8 year old without an education in Elizabethan English.

In any case, I am sure that the NLT publishers had their reasons, and I imagine in some ways that the new translation is an improvement--only time and the reviewers will tell! Ultimately I don't think they wanted to jerk their readers around, as much as they wanted to maintain their product's integrity.

countach
02-16-2005, 09:06 AM
>If an author has produced a new, revised, corrected or updated version of
> a work, it would be somewhat absurd to think that the author would
>want to continue to publish the earlier unrevised, uncorrected and
>unupdated version.

It depends on how much respect you have for your customer. If you are Microsoft and you sell someone Windows NT, you agree to keep selling it to them for at least 5 years or so because they may have a big investment in windows NT and don't want to upgrade all their machines just because you have something new you like better.

Similarly, you could have a church with pew bibles and all sorts of stuff using the NLT. Suddenly the publisher doesn't want to sell you NLT any more. Ok fine, you learn not to deal with that publisher any more.

>In any case, I am sure that the NLT publishers had their reasons, and I
>imagine in some ways that the new translation is an improvement--only
>time and the reviewers will tell!

Why is this a binary thing? old = bad, new = good? According to whose opinion? Which is better - I testify that he is the Chosen One of God. (N-NLT) or I testify that he is the Son of God. (O-NLT) ? Which is better "Jesus first rescued the nation of Israel from Egypt" (N-NLT) or "the Lord rescued the whole nation of Israel from Egypt" (O-NLT)? Or is "we were like children among you" (N-NLT) or "we were as gentle among you" (O-NLT)? It's a matter of opinion isn't it? You can't prove that N-NLT is better and O-NLT is worse.

>Ultimately I don't think they wanted to jerk their readers around, as much
>as they wanted to maintain their product's integrity.

Didn't it have integrity before? Does the new version have integrity? Or does it only have integrity until they update again and decide it hasn't any more? Was it ever good enough for the church? If so, isn't it good enough now? If it was never good enough, are they going to give our money back?

Gontroppo
02-16-2005, 03:43 PM
I bought my NIV in 1979 and still use it. But in church, when peopel read from the NIV, it is a little different in a few palces. But yo ucan't buy the 1979 version anymore. I'm sure it is not available in BibleWorks, either.

If you examine the changes in the NLT [which will take a long time, as almost every verse is different] you'll see they have gone even further from their Living Bible roots.

In my short time using NLT2, I think it is significantly better, and I don't think I need to use the old version any more. But, as you say, Countach, it is interesting to compare. I'm looking forward to having a paper copy to take to church and bible study. I think it may prove to be the best of the dynamic versions.

When you compare it with the TNIV, though, the TNIV is still very close to the NIV and much closer to the KJV/NKJV/RSV/NRSV/ESV tradition, I think.

If anyone sees a published review, pelase advise. I am msot interested to see one.
David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Kevin Ahronson
02-16-2005, 04:28 PM
Whatever the motives of the various Bible translators - there will come a point, I'm sure, when the customers in my bookshop will simply say "enough is enough" -and refuse to keep paying for yet another Bible upgrade.

We live in world that bombards us with messages to upgrade our Computers, our televisions and our automobiles. It's a great way to encourage the consumer to keep parting with his money.

Am I cynical in thinking that Christian publishers may be going in the same direction?

How much of this constant upgrading is about battling for market share?

Gontroppo
02-17-2005, 06:01 AM
G'day Kevin.
I would expect that the NLT mob are trying to keep their product marketable, but in doing so, they have produced a much better version. I think it is significantly improved and well worth upgrading to. I certainly will.

And the NIV is 20 years old and sounds archaic in places, especially the unnecessary masculine language. Even the ESV geezers would agree, to a point.

The TNIV is a most welcome upgrade of a great version. It has not changed nearly as much as the NLT2, though.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Kevin Ahronson
02-18-2005, 02:32 PM
I've read a significant amount about the pros and cons of the TNIV, and I' don't think I'll be buying it.

"And the NIV is 20 years old and sounds archaic in places, especially the unnecessary masculine language."

Who decides what is archaic?. Sounds like we are at risk of making bibles a bit 'disposable'.

I guess we come with different viewpoints. I believe gender inclusive translations generally create more problems than they solve.

Ah...bring back the ASV !!!

Gontroppo
02-18-2005, 03:54 PM
I'm preaching on John tomorrow, and have examined the NIV and TNIV on the first 2 and a half chapters. The TNIV is substantially the same, but has a few helpful changes, I think.

I was pleased to see some endorsement by scholars at the TNIV.info website, including this from Don Carson:

The TNIV is more accurate than its remarkable predecessor, the much-loved NIV, while retaining all the readability of the latter. It is a version I can use with confidence, whether I am speaking at a university mission, or in a Bible conference anywhere in the English-speaking world. I am deeply impressed by the godliness, linguistic competence, cultural awareness, and sheer fidelity to Scripture displayed by the translators.

Thirty or forty years from now, I suspect, most evangelicals will have accepted the TNIV as a 'standard' translation, and will wonder what all the fuss was about in their parents' generation in the same way that those of us with long memories marvel at all the fuss over the abandonment of 'thees' and 'thous' several decades ago.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Gontroppo
02-18-2005, 03:58 PM
"And the NIV is 20 years old and sounds archaic in places, especially the unnecessary masculine language."

Who decides what is archaic?. Sounds like we are at risk of making bibles a bit 'disposable'.

Kevin, language changes. The King James we use is a modernised version of the 1611 original, which is a modernised version of Wyclif. Try reading Wyclif!

The NIV uses masculine language where there is no masculine language in the original in some places.Even the ESV "translators" [really, RSV revisers] recognise this.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info (http://www.davidmckay.info)

Kevin Ahronson
02-20-2005, 07:24 AM
I was pleased to see some endorsement by scholars at the TNIV.info website, including this from Don Carson:

LOL...it's good to see that even Mr Carson can make mistakes. :D

Let's not get into a spiral of seeing who can pull out the most quotes from 'famous' scholars, that would be fruitless.

You seem keen to draw ESV translators into this debate, and there is no denying that they have occasionally used gender-neutral language - but the good news is - it only occurs where the original language does not include any male or female meaning.

This is not the case with the TNIV - resulting in some interesting theological stumbling blocks in the process.


Kevin, language changes. The King James we use is a modernised version of the 1611 original, which is a modernised version of Wyclif.

And I'm sorry David, I don't think your comparison with the 400-year old KJV and a 20-year old NIV is worthy argument.
Languages change a lot in 400 years, but in just 20 years ?????

I am suspicious that this is nothing more than the NIV reacting to the rapid growth of dynamic translations like the NLT (which, in turn has also now been updated) and the competition they pose the the NIV's market domination.

countach
02-21-2005, 12:55 AM
>Thirty or forty years from now, I suspect, most evangelicals will have
>accepted the TNIV as a 'standard' translation, and will wonder what all the
>fuss was about in their parents' generation in the same way that those of
>us with long memories marvel at all the fuss over the abandonment of 'thees'
>and 'thous' several decades ago.


The real problem is not the language, it is the political correctness, changing things like "the jews" to "the jewish leaders". I guess all us dumb redneck Christians will stop persecuting the Jews now and step up our persecution of Jewish leaders??

Dan Phillips
02-22-2005, 08:30 AM
>The real problem is not the language, it is the political correctness, changing things like "the jews" to "the jewish leaders". I guess all us dumb redneck Christians will stop persecuting the Jews now and step up our persecution of Jewish leaders??

LOL!

It disheartens me to see so many who should know better be sanguine about the TNIV -- a translation born of a loathsome social fad, and born in deceit and oath-breaking. Turning singulars into plurals, shattering grammar (and obscuring the original text) to pair singulars and plurals, and for no reason related to faithfulness to the text... it should be something evangelicals reject univocally.

But I'm reluctantly seeing that the term "evangelical" has lost all its edges, and thus most of its usefulness. More's the pity. (I have some more remarks and links on the TNIV at my blog, www.bibchr.blogspot.com (http://www.bibchr.blogspot.com/).)

Dan