tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post7650440917121466147..comments2023-09-01T04:42:16.881-05:00Comments on In Spirit and In Truth: For the Record, Translation vs ParaphraseHannahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11788930568128035386noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-25898897358244743162009-10-25T20:10:31.914-05:002009-10-25T20:10:31.914-05:00Mr. Watts,
You seem to be under the impression th...Mr. Watts,<br /><br />You seem to be under the impression that I'm making an argument. As far as I'm concerned, we have taken our discussion as far as it can go considering we come from opposite places. I thought that was clear when I didn't publish your last comment.<br /><br />If you have read my original post "Translation vs. Paraphrase", which I wrote in 2007, you will understand that I am reiterating that post for those who may be following this thread. And the bottom line in that post was my exhortation for seeking Believers was to research, discover and know for themselves, by FAITH that they can and should be led by the Holy Spirit, when considering the glut of translations of this Christian culture. <br /><br />This seems to be objectionable to you.<br /><br />You say that the NLT has been revised to a more literal approach. If that fact is true, it supports my exhortation that those seeking should know of what they read, if a revision was necessary! <br /><br />It supports the fact that Kenneth Taylor was motivated to have the NLT classified as a translation as to obtain the interest and respect of church leaders, if it was recognized as insufficient, but to those earnestly seeking and studying the NLT prior to its “revision” have the misfortune to be in my previous position...what of them?<br /><br />Mr. Watts, make no mistake, by the evidence of the variety of denominations that exist in the Christian culture of this generation, we are alive and well during the age of apostasy. The NLT is only, but an example of the glut of translations that have emerged as a result. The confusion of who Christ is, is self-evident during this age and it is only by the power of the Spirit that we can protect ourselves from this confusion.<br /><br />The New Testament is rife with warnings of misinformation and distortion of "sound doctrine" by "false prophets". And it is by scripture itself I sound the warning to the Believers to believe not every spirit, but to try them (John 4). AND Mr. Watts, that not only includes the NLT, but other modern translations as well.<br /><br />While I can appreciate the pointed sarcasm in your philosophical musing, allow me to reply with this: <br /><br />it makes absolutely no sense to turn my back on the KJV which is undoubtedly more detailed, has more depth and has brought me further in my studying simply because the NLT, by your admission, has been "upgraded". Do I ignore the process that has brought me to my discovery? The prompting of the Spirit that led me to KJV? I have to tell you I don't have that prompting to return to the NLT. <br />You're absolutely right; I DO have comfort in what I know, my COMFORTER.<br /><br />My advice to you, Mr. Watts, you should be less of an advocate of the works of man and more of a solider for the works of God and the truth that comes with Christ's sacrifice... that ALL who believe on Him, not only have everlasting life, but an intimate relationship with Him, by which we, at His feet, are led. It is our responsibility to protect such a precious phenomenon, by protecting our faith.<br /><br />Your defense of the NLT is duly noted, but my exhortation of an undefiled faith is the mantra of this blog...this is where we part ways.<br /><br />HannahHannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11788930568128035386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-40628478460872777432009-10-23T18:15:22.558-05:002009-10-23T18:15:22.558-05:00I'll leave you with this - you base your argum...I'll leave you with this - you base your argument on the 1996 version of the NLT. Since then, in 2007, they have moved to a more literal approach. Often times, we find comfort in something that we know, and see the lack of depth in something we don't.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-79770379710077316652009-10-23T11:15:44.841-05:002009-10-23T11:15:44.841-05:00I wanted to tie up the discussion of this thread, ...I wanted to tie up the discussion of this thread, by reiterating my experience with the NLT.<br /><br />You can find my testimony on this topic at "Translation vs. Paraphrase", but for those visiting this thread let me repeat:<br /><br />For a little over 10 YEARS I have read and studied out of the NLT and LOVED it. It wasn't until I married and studied with my husband that the lack of depth the NLT has became obvious. My husband preferred the KJV because he felt the NLT was lacking. I, however, kept studying out of the NLT. When discussing deep spiritual concepts the two Bibles were vastly different. I was able to get more details and depth out of concepts than I did the NLT. Our studies ended up being completely out of the KJV, and I never looked back since. <br /><br />It was only TWO years ago (after studying out the KJV for a few years) I discovered that it was paraphrased. Now...it has been said that the NLT is classified as a bona fide translation, however, it reads very similar to it's predecessor "The Living Bible" which IS a paraphrased Bible. It is also known that Kenneth Taylor, the author of both Bibles, was motivated to have the NLT classified as translation, as to get the respect of pastors and churches worldwide. <br /><br />http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html<br /><br />Having studied and read the NLT for as long as I have, I hit a wall in my comprehension and could no further. What the NLT could not do, the KJV did superbly. It is by my very REAL experience I know the KJV is superior. All this information came to me after the fact and made complete sense that I was unable to search any further for "hid treasures" Proverbs 2 <br /><br />Modern, should never automatically translate into "better". There are many modern components that are inferior to time-proven, old-school concepts. <br /><br />My original advice stands, research the authors, publishing companies of modern translations. <br /><br />This is not to say that such authors and companies are motivated to deceive and mislead, but to ensure OUR personal responsibility to unpolluted FAITH...in other words, "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:5Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11788930568128035386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-73445274063063095312009-10-10T11:57:07.208-05:002009-10-10T11:57:07.208-05:00J.L,
All of your points are invalid, because of t...J.L,<br /><br />All of your points are invalid, because of the basic fact that the NLT is not a translation (from its original language, i.e. Hebrew/Greek) <br /><br />It is a PARAPHRASED Bible. <br /><br />Which is someone else’s thoughts on the profound and deep, life-altering issues. These “thoughts” of the translator can be easily influenced by their own personal motives and beliefs. <br /><br />In THIS essence, you better be darn well sure, the “translation” you are getting is correct.<br /><br />My basis for KJV is simple… it’s not paraphrased. With the Spirit of the Lord before me, my KJV, and Hebrew/Greek Lexicon, I’m good to go. <br /><br />As for 1 Corinthians 2:10 is in reference to ALL who have His spirit…does that not include those who would translate??… For the sake of all that is holy, I would certainly hope so!<br /><br />But according to you… it is not:<br /><br /> “The deep things of God does not pertain to translation”<br /><br />You ask me to “show you where God promised a perfect translation” that question is not only foolish, but moot. <br /><br />The gist of my post is this… the fallacy of men, and the cautioning of falling for such. For it is clear, by the Word of God, that we ultimately are to be taught by His Spirit.<br /><br />”But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” 1 John 2:27<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />“Taking a translation, and declaring that it has to be perfect, is alienating yourself from the very ideal of Scripture”.<br /><br />Again, moot point, NLT is paraphrased. Besides, quite honestly, I have NO idea what you mean by “ideal”. I don’t know if you speak from a cultural or spiritual perspective… the two are not the same. <br /><br />If you speak from a spiritual perspective we can agree:<br /><br />“All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16<br /><br />If all scripture is given by inspiration of God, why is it a tall order to expect a paraphrased Bible to be phrased correctly??<br /><br />We can go back and forth on this issue throughout the day, the bottom line does not change, NLT is paraphrased, and paraphrased Bibles are dangerous in the light that they can be influenced by motives, and beliefs by the author. <br /><br />The moral of the story: “That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:5Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11788930568128035386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-62869663065860328412009-10-10T10:58:14.873-05:002009-10-10T10:58:14.873-05:00Hannah,
Regarding Romans 8.1, that is a textual ...Hannah, <br /><br />Regarding Romans 8.1, that is a textual critical problem. The KJV uses a very old, and unsupported, Greek text. The NLT uses the UBS/NA Greek text. <br /><br />The deep things of God does not pertain to translation. Perhaps, if you think it does, you can show us where God promised us a perfect translation. <br /><br />You what call a travesty is ignorance of the issue, Hannah. You use the KJV - which itself is a faulty translation - as your base. Why?<br /><br />Further, for the first few centuries, not every Christian had a bible, Greek, or otherwise, but dependent upon the preacher. This is what Paul is talking about - the Spirit which reveals. <br /><br />Taking a translation, and declaring that it has to be perfect, is alienating yourself from the very ideal of Scripture.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-79036374385003693092009-10-10T10:21:49.976-05:002009-10-10T10:21:49.976-05:00J.L. Watts,
I'm sure it is(impossible)... fro...J.L. Watts,<br /><br />I'm sure it is(impossible)... from a human standpoint.<br /><br />Apparently this is your viewpoint. <br /><br />My statement is coming from a spiritual perspective, 1 Corinthians 2:10<br /><br />"But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."<br /><br />As stated in the post. <br /><br />Which brings me to my second point. The NLT is not a translation, but a thought-for-thought, (paraphrased) Bible as stated in its Introduction. Therefore, we are not getting a translation from a language, but second-hand knowledge of someone else's thoughts on an original "thought" (which is to say the principles and teachings of the Word). <br /><br />This is where I have a problem with "inevitable" errors in "translation". <br /><br />Romans 8:1 (KJV)<br />"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."<br /><br />Romans 8:1 (NLT)<br />"So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ." (That's all was "translated" from Romans 8:1)<br /><br /><br />This is where our standards differ. What you call "fine", I call a travesty done to the Word of God.Hannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11788930568128035386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8401890206819909506.post-20245070248115988172009-10-09T23:12:28.149-05:002009-10-09T23:12:28.149-05:00Actually it is nearly impossible to fully translat...Actually it is nearly impossible to fully translate from one language to another, especially given the fact that it is a language 2000 years old, from a culture 2000 years old to a language not nearly as rich. <br /><br />The NLT is a fine translation.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.com