What is the NLT 2004 update

[Kevin Ahronson]

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]

...I could make a few really nasty comments about the NLT itself, if that'd help.



Dan

[Kevin Ahronson]

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]

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

[Dan Phillips]

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]

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]

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

[vr8ce]

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]

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 [both versions]Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

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

[Gontroppo]

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