In Spirit and In Truth

In light of my most recent response to a comment, I decided to write posts in regards to myths that are frequently mistaken for truth in today's climate of Christianity. Starting with the topic of modern translations. Some Christians from various denominations promote their preferred translation against the KJV. Their most popular argument against it is this: "The KJV is out-dated in language, therefore (insert point/argument here) and should not be studied out of".   While, I unabashedly prefer the KJV and use it in all my posts, I have never encouraged others to abandon their translations, only that they research it. The truth of the matter is, not all translations are created equal. The author/publisher of the translation should be researched. And if you have full trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to give you wisdom in choosing a translation, where can it be "wrong" to question the motives of a modern author/publisher, considering the capitalis...

The NLT IS a paraphrased bible. Upon more research, I read the “Introduction to the New Living Translation”, straight from the horse’s mouth, it states this: “A dynamic-equivalence translation can also be called a thought-for-thought translation, as contrasted with a formal-equivalence or word-for-word translation. Of course, to translate the thought of the original language requires that the text be interpreted accurately and then rendered in understandable idiom. So the goal of any thought-for-thought translation is to be both reliable and eminently readable. Thus, as a thought-for-thought translation, the New Living Translation seeks to be both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful .” You can find this exact wording in the Introduction chapter of your NLT. Why it is categorized a bona fide translation could be explained by the goals and desires of Kenneth Taylor, the author of the Living Letters, the Living Bible (paraphrased) and the NLT. This excerpt was taken from a ...

This comment was left on my post “ Translation vs. Paraphrase ” Hannah, you may want to check your information. The Living Bible was indeed a paraphrase. NLT is not a paraphrase. It is a translation in the thought-for-thought discipline. If you are looking for a word-for-word approach, NASB and KJV are the most staunch in their approach to a word-for-word translation. NRSV is word-for-word but less staunch in a literal word-for-word where it hinders understanding. NIV is a thought-for-thought translation as is NLT , and The Living Bible and The Message are paraphrases. I appreciate your concern about making sure you're using an accurate translation (and I have some issues with NIV and NLT in this arena because a thought-for-thought inherently involves interpretation), but NLT is NOT in the same category as The Message or The Living Bible . G-Man, you are right. The NLT is NOT categorized as a paraphrased Bible, but the question is… should it be ??? A translation is tran...

Up until about four years ago, I studied primarily out of the New Living Translation. It was simple to read and I was comfortable with it. However, I did notice through out my studying in that specific translation, that passages just weren't making any sense. My husband preferred the King James Version and studied out of that, our studying together almost always ended out of the KJV version for the simple fact that the NLT was not adequate in conveying some of the principles of the Word. My husband, at that time worked for Tyndale House Publishing (which publishes the NLT version) gave me a Bible published by them called "The People's Parallel Edition". This edition had the KJV and NLT side by side. It was only then I began to see a true difference between translations. Romans 8:1 in both of these versions comes out different. Romans 8:1 KJV says "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the...