In Spirit and In Truth

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...