Wild Boar made these comments, and Glenn Weaver asked for the discussion to go to the non-BibleWorks area of the forum:
All translations interpret. It is unavoidable. I don't think it is fair to put the NLT2 in the same category as The Message. While The Living Bible was clearly a paraphrase, I think the NLT2 is an accurate translation, though it is often more interpretive than the NASB. But this is not at all to say that the NASB is not interpretive.My problem in general with dynamic equivalence is that it is basically a denial of historic reformation doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Scripture. The NLT2 often drifts off into paraphrase and the Message is of course a paraphrase. A paraphrase can be helpful if the person reading the paraphrase realizes that they are not reading the Scriptures but a person's interpretation of the Scriptures. The problem is that people are starting to use the NLT and the Message as translations. The NLT bills itself as an actual translation and although it does not have some of the horrendous reading of the old living Bible (Acts 13:48) it stills desires to present the tame god of modern evangelicalism in which God doesn't hate people (Rom. 9:13). If I want some help understanding the meaning of a passage I will consult a commentary or a few that will give me the various interpretations of the passage and the reasons for them.
I'm grateful for versions that explain the meaning, though I acknowledge we need to be wary and sensible. It is not practicable to study a commentary every time you read the bible. I've learnt a lot about the meaning of the scriptures through using a variety of bible versions ... even The Message, though I don't consult it very often.
I don't see the NLT2 as presenting a tame God. The translation of Romans 9:13 simply explains what Paul is getting at.