The New Living Translation (Top Ten Bible Versions #4)
A reminder that this series is not just a collection of reviews, but more importantly a very subjective take on these Bible versions, including my personal history with them.
Edition designations: I have seen the second edition of the New Living Translation referred to as the NLTse and NLT2. In this blog entry, when referring to the 1996 edition, I will use NLT1; and for the 2004 edition, NLT2. When simply referring to the New Living Translation in general, I will use NLT.
The other day, I noticed the elderly lady sitting in front of me at church was carrying a rather unusual looking black Bible. The Bibles people carry always interest me. When we stood to sing, I leaned over and noticed that the black Bible she was carrying was actually one of the original green padded Living BIbles from a generation ago. The Bible had received so much use over the years that it had turned from green to black! Such devotion is characteristic of what the Living Bible meant to a number of people. I've seen similarly worn Living Bibles used by my grandmother, my father, and Kathy's grandmother.
Kenneth Taylor's "Living" Legacy. Supposedly, the Living Bible came from Kenneth Taylor's desire to produce a version of the Bible that his children would understand. The Bible he produced was not a translation from the original languages, but rather a paraphrase, specifically of the 1901 American Standard Version. The complete Bible was published in 1971. For many people, Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible simply spoke their language. It made the Bible real to them and come alive. Complain all you want about the deficiencies of a paraphrase, this is the Bible that many people were willing to read. The Living Bible held the distinction of being the first Bible version to knock the King James Version out of the top spot in monthly Bible sales. Although it was not able to maintain this dominance, it's brief time in the top spot testifies to is acceptance and significance. The Living Bible would remain in the top ten list of Bibles sold, usually in the top five, until it was replaced by Tyndale with the New Living Translation in 1996.
Billy Graham called the Living Bible "the world's greatest evangelist." I've seen firsthand evidence to that declaration. When I was in college in the late eighties, I worked in a small Christian bookstore. Tyndale House Publishers, the publisher of the Living Bible, sent us a display with free samples from their forthcoming Life Application Bible. These were simply gospels of Mark in the Living Bible with the Life Application notes at the bottom of the page. Over the weeks I had worked at the store, I became acquainted with our mail carrier. From our brief conversations, I gathered that he was probably not a believer, had a bit of a rocky past including a number of failed marriages, and there were hints that alcohol had been a recurring problem in his life. While he was in the store one afternoon, he asked if he could take a copy of the Life Application Gospel of Mark with him. The next day, he came into our store absolutely beaming. He said that after he had made his last mail run on the previous day, he went to a diner and began reading the Gospel of Mark in the Living Bible over dinner. He told me that the words seemed to seize him and he couldn't put it down. Sitting in that diner, he read the entire gospel AND the Life Application notes. Feeling overpowering conviction of the Holy Spirit, and convinced that Jesus had died for his sins, he prayed to receive Christ all by himself in the diner that night. Rarely have I ever heard of people coming to Christ in settings where they were all alone. But in a sense, he was not alone. He said that he had never been able to understand the Bible before he read it in the Living Bible paraphrase. I kept up with him over the next three or so years until we moved. From my observances, his conversion was very real and life-changing.
I never used the Living Bible much, although very early on I had a Children's Living Bible (the text was the same, but color pictures were added) that my grandmother gave me. As I've said elsewhere I rarely carried it to church because I was embarrassed of the word "children" on the cover. However, two uses of the original Living Bible stick out in my memory. First, on the number of occasions when I actually did carry it to church, it was often used as a distraction during a boring sermon by looking up 1 Samuel 20:30 (which was definitely rendered into contemporary English) and snickering with my buddies sitting beside me. Later printings of the Living Bible put the offending phrase down into the footnotes.
My most significant use of the Living Bible came, when as a child in Sunday School, I left church absolutely baffled after our study of Romans 7. Verses 14-20, a mental tongue-twister in most translations, really confused my childlike mind. When I got home, I opened the King James Version (which I had in class) alongside the Living Bible and the light bulbs went off.
| ROMANS 7:14-20 | |
|---|---|
King James Version |
Living Bible |
| 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. |
14 The law is good, then, and the trouble is not there with me, but because I am sold into slavery with Sin as my owner. |
Not only did I understand the passage and was able to apply the Living Bible text back to the King James version, but I also discoverd the value of studying the Bible with translations in parallel--a practice that I continue to this day.
One final note about the Living Bible... As I was preparing to write this blog entry, I pulled my copy of the Living Bible off the shelf to re-familiarize myself with its tone and feel. The copy I have with my collection of English Bible translations is not the green padded hardback with which most people are familiar, but rather a black imitation leather text edition. I purchased this Bible around two decades ago as one of the early items added to my collection. Upon looking at the title page, I was surprised to see something I had never noticed before:
THE
LIVING
BIBLE
PARAPHRASED
A Thought-for-Thought Translation
I had never paid attention to the line that reads "A Thought-for-Thought Translation." I find this interesting for two reasons. One has to do with recent discussions (see here and here) trying to distinguish how a paraphrase differs from a translation. I find it interesting that at some point the publishers began defining a paraphrase as a thought-for-thought translation. I don't think (but someone else will have to verify) that this line was used in the green hardbacks. Is calling a paraphrase a thought-for-thought translation a contradiction in terms? I also found it interesting that the very phrase "A Thought-for-Thought Translation" is now used as a marketing description for the New Living Translation, which is never referred to as a paraphrase, although it undoubtedly includes elements of paraphrase here and there.
I've only heard this secondhand from one of the NLT translators, but supposedly in the eighties, Kenneth Taylor had a strong desire to update the Living Bible. Unable to complete the task himself, his son Mark Taylor convinced him to turn the reigns over to a translation committee. The end product of that effort would, of course, be the New Living Translation.
However, before discussing the NLT, it might be worth noting that in 1990, Tyndale published a text simply known as The New Translation that included Romans through Jude (this corresponds to Taylor's Living Letters, the first portion of the Living Bible published in 1962). The copyright is held by "The Society for the New Translation." As of yet, I have not been able to determine exactly how the New Translation relates to the NLT or if the translation committees are the same. But a number of this text's features stand out.
In the preface, written by Ken Taylor, he notes first of all that the New Translation is translated from the Greek; and thus, it's not merely a paraphrase of an earlier version like the Living Bible was in regard to the ASV. Second, Taylor notes that the New Translation will go back to the method of using italics to identify words added to the text for meaning in English (always a bad practice in my opinion since modern readers see italics as indicators of emphasis). He adds that no modern translation uses this practice (and for good reason I might add), but I think he means that no translation outside of the Tyndale/KJV tradition uses italics.
A third, and very significant feature in light of recent controversies, is the use of gender inclusive language (although that phrase is not used). Talylor writes:
Another outstanding feature of The New Translation is its correct translation of such statements as "He who has the Son has life" to become "Whoever has the Son has life." Since God's grace is for men and women alike, a valid translation must reflect this. It may be an unimportant point for many readers, but to others, both in and outside the church, it is important and helpful.
At the time of the New Translation's publication (1990), only the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible (both released in 1989) featured inclusive language. This indicates that Taylor and the translation committee had a mindset early on in favor of inclusive language. This would later be reflected in the final release of the New Living Translation six years later. The connections between the two seem to end there, though.
On both the back cover and immediately following the preface, Rom 1:5, 7, 14 and 1 Cor 2:7 are paralleled beside other English translations. To give you a flavor of the New Translation in context with Tyndale's other Bibles, let me recreate the chart with the Living Bible and NLT1 included as well.
| Living Bible | Other | THE NEW TRANSLATION | NLT1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rom 1:5 | And now, through Christ, all the kindness of God has been poured out upon us undeserving sinners; and now he is sending us out around the world to tell all people everywhere the great things God has done for them, so that they, too, will believe and obey him. | NIV: Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the oebedience that comes through faith. | Through Christc I have received the gracious gift of being an apostle, to lead people of every nation to obedient faith in Him for the glory of His name. |
Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name. |
| Rom 1:7 | And you, dear friends in Rome, are among those he dearly loves; you, too, are invited by Jesus Christ to be God's very own--yes, his holy people. May all God's mercies and peace be yours from God our Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. |
KJV: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. | This letter is written to all of God's loved ones in Rome, called to be His holy people. may God's wonderful, undeserved favor and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. | dear friends in Rome. God loves you dearly, and he has called you to be his very own people. May grace and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. |
| Rom 1:14 | For I owe a great debt to you and to everyone else, both to civilized people and uncivilized alike; yes, to the educated and uneducated alike. | NKJV: I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. | For I am under obligation both to the Greeks and all other Gentiles,c to the wise and simple alike. |
For I have a great sense of obligation to people in our culture and to people in other cultures, to the educated and uneducated alike. |
| 1 Cor 2:7 | Our words are wise because they are from God, telling of God's wise plan to bring us into the glories of heaven. This plan was hidden in former times, though it was made for our benefit before the world began. | NASB: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; | but we teach the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery in the past, but planned for our glory from before the beginning of the world. | No, the wisdom we speak of is the secret wisdom of God, which was hidden in former times, though he made it for our benefit before the world began. |
Comparing the New Translation to the NLT seems to demonstrate no real influence upon the latter at all. The two are very dissimilar. One might suppose that the New Translation project was completely abandoned in favor of the New Living Translation; however, this may not completely be the case based on information I will present below about the NLT. I wish I had more details about this stage of history at Tyndale House Publishers.
The Old Is New Again: The NEW Living Translation. A couple of Sundays ago Kathy and I were asked to provide a Scripture reading in the worship service. A few days before, our minister of music handed us a copy of Eph 1:2-14 from the NIV Dramatized New Testament., a copy of the Scriptures broken down into "parts" for public reading or performance. Our church has recently gone through the difficult process of combining a declining traditional service with a growing contemporary service. The new format has been called "blended," but probably leans a bit more to the contemporary. As Kathy and I read through the NIV text of Eph 1:2-14, we weren't sure that it was the best translation for the service. Kathy put it bluntly, "It sounds too liturgical."
Now, I should say that upon reflection, I find great irony in thinking of the NIV as "too liturgical." Such an idea three or four decades ago would have been quite laughable. But she was right. This passage in Ephesians has a number of weighty concepts and the vocabulary it contained seemed to be too formal for a passage that was going to merely be proclaimed with no commentary. Immediately, of course, she wanted to use the New Living Translation--her version of choice. But I was more cautious. I wanted to compare a number of Bible versions, especially in regard to how they sounded out loud. We read the CEV and the REB since they are known for their quality when spoken. We read the passage in about half a dozen translations before we settled on the NLT which was, of course, what my wife had suggested in the first place. She was right. The NLT rendered this passage in a manner that was much more like normal people speak in regular conversation than any of the other translations we considered.
This is one of the reasons I like the New Living Translation. Its use of English seems very natural, and in my ear, moreso than most translations. When I was searching for a primary translation of the Bible to use at church in replacement of the NASB, the NLT was a top contender, perhaps behind the HCSB and TNIV. In the end, I eliminated it not because I thought it was necessarily less accurate than these other translations, but because its renderings sounded so natural that I was afraid it would be too different from the Bible carried by the average person I teach. Plus, since Kathy uses it, I am always able to turn to her and have her read a passage.
Tyndale House Publishers released the New Living Translation midyear in 1996. I was just starting the doctoral program at SBTS (first time around), and at that time our school boasted four of the ninety or so translators: Daniel Block, Gerald Borchert, Thomas Schreiner, and Robert Stein. Tyndale gave every student on campus a copy of the new Bible. I was interested in it simply because it was a new translation, but the more I read, the more it impressed me.
I've always been a fan of clever translation, and verses like Mark 2:16 really stood out: "But when some of the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with people like that, they said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with such scum?'" (NLT1). I'd never seen a word like "scum" in the Bible before, but I felt like that verse accurately captured in English the essence of the original text's meaning. I completely read through the NLT over the next few months and introduced Kathy to it as well. It instantly became her primary Bible version.
The New Living Translation differs greatly from the Living Bible in that not only is it a translation (albeit a fairly loose one) instead of a paraphrase, but it also relied on the work of a translation committee instead of the primary work of one person. The "Note to Readers" in the 1996 edition states that "ninety evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations were commissioned in 1989 to begin revising The Living Bible. The end result of this seven-year process is the Holy Bible, New Living Translation--a general purpose translation that is accurate, easy to read, and excellent for study."
The quotation above makes one wonder if the committee referenced is not the same committee that produced The New Translation in 1990 since the above group began work a year earlier. If so, direction seemed to have significantly changed after publication of the letters in the New Testament. Further, whereas the Living Bible (regardless of actual use) was intended as a complementary version for other translations, the NLT was designed to stand on its own as a primary Bible for everyday use.
The introduction to the 1996 edition spends practically the entire first page and then some extolling the virtues of a dynamic equivalence translation, something that the 2004 edition seems to back away from some in its introduction. In fact in the earlier intro, one reads "A thought-for-thought translation prepared by a group of capable scholars has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation." Strong words in light of the battle over translation philosophies to follow in the years following the NLT's initial publication.
From my perspective, of all the major translations in print today, the English in the NLT seems the most natural-sounding in its use of language. It's one thing to translate the Bible into English; it's another thing to translate the Bible with a contemporary English-speaking audience in mind. With the 1996 NLT, a concerted effort was made to translate ancient designations into terms that would be more meaningful to the English-speaking reader: measures (1 Kings 7:26, "11,000 gallons of water") weights (Ezra 8:26, "24 tons of silver"), calendar days (Ezek 33:21, "On January 8..."), time (Matt 4:25, "About three o’clock in the morning Jesus came to them") and currency (Acts 19:19, "The value of the books was several million dollars"). It's not that this had never been done before, but it cuts against the grain of most major translations, including ones produced in the last five or six years. One has to ask whether the text has been fully translated if the reader is left wondering how much or what time a passage is actually referring to.
The first edition of the NLT is much freer in its translation than the second edition, and it's much freer than most popular translations. I've blogged about this before, such as the entry I wrote about Rom 14:4 in the NLT1. I've also written a post about the NLT's influence from the LXX in Isa 18:1. The dynamic nature of the NLT's translation philosophy gave its translators a great deal of freedom in rendering the biblical text. As I concluded in my post on Romans 14:4, although it's a bit more free than what I prefer in a primary translation for my own use, I cannot say that such renderings are inaccurate. Most of the time when I've had questions as to why a passage has been translated a particular way in the NLT, when I've dug a little deeper, I've received my answer. But that doesn't mean that there's not some paraphrase at play, too, now and then. Consider a verse like Ecclesiastes 9:8, shown here in the HCSB for reference to a literal text with the NLT 1 and NLT2 beside it:
| Ecclesiastes 9:8 | ||
|---|---|---|
HCSB |
NLT1 |
NLT2 |
| Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head | Wear fine clothes, with a dash of cologne! | Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne! |
I have no doubt that cologne communicates meaning well to a modern audience, but it's very difficult to say that this is anything but paraphrase. You find verses like this in the NLT now and then. However, most of the renderings--however free--fall on the border of meaning-driven translation as opposed to actual paraphrase.
You Only Live Twice. The NLT Bible Translation Committee continued to hone their work even after the NLT was published in 1996. A minor revision followed the initial publication. I'm not sure of all the changes, but in a number of places (such as Phil 3:13) in the initial 1996 printing, ἀδελφοί was sometimes rendered "friends." A later printing changed this rendering to "brothers and sisters" which is certainly more accurate.
In 2004 the Bible Translation Committee delivered a second edition of the NLT. I'll admit that I was using the NLT less at this point than I had when it was initially released, and I didn't rush out to get a copy of the update. In fact, I only picked one up earlier this year for my collection. Even then, I didn't take the time to compare the 1996 and 2004 editions other than noting that the Prophets were finally in poetic form, so I had no idea how extensive the changes were.
To be honest, it was when Kathy and I decided to use the NLT in our Scripture reading at church a couple of weeks ago that I first noticed how extensive the changes were. Compare for instance, the passage we read--Eph 1:2-14--in the two editions:
| Ephesians 1:2-14 | |
|---|---|
NLT1 |
NLT2 |
| 2 ¶ May grace and peace be yours, sent to you from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 ¶ How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ. 4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure. 6 ¶ So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. 9 ¶ God’s secret plan has now been revealed to us; it is a plan centered on Christ, designed long ago according to his good pleasure. 10 And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because of Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us from the beginning, and all things happen just as he decided long ago. 12 God’s purpose was that we who were the first to trust in Christ should praise our glorious God. 13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us everything he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God. |
2 ¶ May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace. 3 ¶ All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. 4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. 6 So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. 9 ¶ God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. 10 And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan. 12 ¶ God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God. 13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him. |
I noticed when comparing these passages in the two NLT versions for the first time, that the NLT2 was tighter, less given to unnecessary words. Note in v. 5 that there is a preference for active voice over passive. And yet the second edition was still able to do what the NLT1 had done best--communicate God's Word in a natural, even conversational manner. Some might find it interesting to note that when we put our Scripture reading together, Kathy and I chose to use vv. 2-11 from the NLT2 and vv. 12-14 from the NLT1. The words Jews in v. 12 and Gentiles in v. 13 in the NLT2, while certainly implied in the context of Paul's message, seemed less appropriate for our Southern Baptist congregation. We also liked the freer rendering of the NLT1 for the last sentence in v. 14: "This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God." In fact that freer rendering is one of the very reasons I've liked the NLT over the years. I admit that I have not spent as much time as I would like with the NLT2 yet, but I hope that in the desire to streamline the translation, wording such as this has not been lost in too many places.
But such tightening (my term) has certainly been one of the goals for the NLT2. In the FAQ section of the NLT website, one reads, "The translation of difficult terms is made more concise. In the NLT, difficult terms are often made easier to understand by expanding them into longer phrases. The second edition often shortens these expansions--without sacrificing clarity." In most cases, this is probably for the best, but I believe some changes could be debated. Consider, for instance, Romans 3:25.
| Romans 3:25 | |
|---|---|
NLT1 |
NLT2 |
| For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times. | For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past, |
What exactly did Jesus do for us on the cross? Well in more traditional translations, specific theological words have been used: propitiation in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and HCSB and expiation in the RSV, NEB, and REB. However, some translations such as the NIV, NRSV and TNIV have opted simply for "sacrifice of atonement" which can be said to mean either of the two previously stated theological words. When the NLT1 stated that "God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us," the translators are clearly communicating propitiation without using the word. By opting for "God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin," the result is something much more like the NIV or NRSV. Was this the translators' intention or merely the result of making the NLT2's wording more concise?
It's interesting to note the differences found in the first page of the Introduction to the second edition. Whereas the first edition served as a defense for dynamic equivalence translations, most of that wording is now gone, or at least lessened. The new introduction speaks more to the differences, strengths, and weaknesses of the formal and dynamic philosophies of translation. And surprisingly, one reads:
The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices ... On the other hand, the translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English ... The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.
Such give and take between translation philosophies sounds very close to the "Optimal Equivalent" method of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Regardless, this is a far cry from the principles of the 1996 NLT, and from what I've seen so far, the new text definitely reflects this change in method.
The changes between the two editions are so great, they are for all practical purposes almost two completely separate translations. I corresponded with one of the translators this week and he called the shift between editions "massive." He stated that once the decision was made to restore the prophetic sections to poetical form, entire sections had to be redone. He estimates that the Prophets are 80% changed and the rest of the text somewhere between 30-50%. From what I've read, it seems to be at least 50% if not more. If you lay the two editions side by side, hardly any verse has been left unchanged. I read a good bit of Genesis the other night with both editions side by side, reading one verse in one and then in the other. I'm amazed at the extent of the revision.
Consider, for example, Genesis 1--
| Genesis 1 | |
|---|---|
NLT1 |
NLT2 |
| 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” Together these made up one day. 6 ¶ And God said, “Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water.” 7 And so it was. God made this space to separate the waters above from the waters below. 8 And God called the space “sky.” This happened on the second day. 9 ¶ And God said, “Let the waters beneath the sky be gathered into one place so dry ground may appear.” And so it was. 10 God named the dry ground “land” and the water “seas.” And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the land burst forth with every sort of grass and seed-bearing plant. And let there be trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. The seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And so it was. 12 The land was filled with seed-bearing plants and trees, and their seeds produced plants and trees of like kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 This all happened on the third day. 14 ¶ And God said, “Let bright lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. They will be signs to mark off the seasons, the days, and the years. 15 Let their light shine down upon the earth.” And so it was. 16 For God made two great lights, the sun and the moon, to shine down upon the earth. The greater one, the sun, presides during the day; the lesser one, the moon, presides through the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the heavens to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 This all happened on the fourth day. 20 ¶ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every sort of fish and every kind of bird. And God saw that it was good. 22 Then God blessed them, saying, “Let the fish multiply and fill the oceans. Let the birds increase and fill the earth.” 23 This all happened on the fifth day. 24 ¶ And God said, “Let the earth bring forth every kind of animal—livestock, small animals, and wildlife.” And so it was. 25 God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 ¶ Then God said, “Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life—the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals.” 27 ¶ So God created people in his own image; God patterned them after himself; male and female he created them. 28 ¶ God blessed them and told them, “Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters over the fish and birds and all the animals.” 29 And God said, “Look! I have given you the seed-bearing plants throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food. 30 And I have given all the grasses and other green plants to the animals and birds for their food.” And so it was. 31 Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened on the sixth day. |
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. |
One thing you'll notice if you read the passage in parallel, is that practically every verse has been changed. Further, in spite of the aforementioned desire for conciseness, the NLT2 passage is actually longer! It's longer because there has been a return to more traditional language. And repetitiveness of the Hebrew style that had been condensed in the NLT1 has been retained in the NLT2. Look at the second sentence in v. 5 in each of the versions. The NLT1 simply has "Together these made up one day." The NLT2 has the more traditional "And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day." Is this an improvement upon the original? I'm not so sure. In v. 27 the more traditional, literal and certainly theological phrase "image of God" has been retained in both versions. Although there has been endless debate regarding the exact meaning of this phrase, the NLT1 attempted to make plain the sense of this concept (to some degree) with the phrase "God patterned them after himself." This has been removed from the NLT2 in favor of more traditional wording.
I had Kathy, who reads the NLT1 as her primary translation and is much more familiar with it than me, compare the two editions. She spent an hour the other night comparing multiple passages. She has a mixed reaction. She acknowledged that some of the changes--poetic forms, more active voice, certain tighter passages (although she prefers Rom 3:25 in the NLT1)--to be an improvement. But she doesn't care for the passages where the translators have attempted to opt for more traditional wording.
I'm not exactly sure why the translation committee made certain passages more traditional. Perhaps they wanted to make the NLT more mainstream. The Tyndale website boasts that the NLT is the fastest growing translation, so maybe the changes have worked. But at this point, I'm a bit on the fence. As I've said--for how I've used the NLT, the freer style of the original better suited my purposes. To me, the changes in the second edition move it closer to the NIV and further away from Kenneth Taylor's "Living" tradition.
Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that the NLT is an extremely valuable translation that most often speaks the Bible's message in a manner like "real" people actually communicate without resorting to paraphrase (most of the time). And the second edition is extremely noteworthy in the history of English Bible translations. Never before have I seen a revision (not just a minor update) come so fast after the initial release (eight years total) and never have I seen changes this extensive between editions.
How I use the NLT. I don't use the NLT that much in personal study, so when I do use it, I use the NLT primarily as a tool in communicating the Bible's message to others. In Sunday School at church, I have Kathy with me, and I often call upon her to read from the NLT, especially when I note that members of the class aren't quite catching what the more traditional translations are saying. I have, on occasion, taught from the NLT, especially when dealing with very familiar passages such as the Sermon on the Mount. I found that a translation like the NLT will help even experienced Christians hear the Bible in a fresh way. I know that when I read the NLT1 for the first time a decade ago, it was so refreshing. I look forward to familiarizing myself with the NLT2 and eventually reading through it as well.
The NLT makes a great Bible to give to an unbeliever or a new believer. A few years ago when I coordinated a specifically seeker-targeted outreach, we ordered NLT's by the case to give away to visitors. I would have no problem giving or recommending the NLT to a believer at any level of growth.
The last few days spent with both editions of the NLT has renewed my interest in the translation. I may have to find excuses to use it more often in a variety of ways.
What edition of the NLT I primarily use. I should have noted already that I have electronic copies in Accordance of every Bible version I've written about so far. When I am writing a blog entry such as this, Accordance is often my tool of choice over a bound copy because with an electronic text, I can cut and paste. I only recently added the NLT to Accordance in preparation for writing this blog entry. I noticed in the Accordance discussion forums that the first edition was no longer going to be distributed on future CD's, so I went ahead and unlocked a copy of it. The upgrade to the NLT2 was only a $10 upgrade on top of that. Now I will be able to use both on my PowerBook.
As for print Bibles, in the NLT1, I have the original yellow marbled hardback that I received free when the NLT1 was first released. I also bought a burgundy bonded leather Touchpoint edition a few years back for public use. Currently, I only have a basic pew/text edition of the NLT2. Kathy uses a burgundy bonded leather Life Application Bible in the NLT1 for her main Bible. She has no immediate plans to "upgrade" to the NLT2.
For Further Reading:
- A User's Guide to Bible Translations by David Dewey, pp. 178-181.
- New Living Translation Website
- New Living Translation Frequently Asked Questions
- Translators of the NLT
- NLT Wikipedia Page
- Bible Researcher NLT1 Page
- Bible Researcher NLT2 Page
- Better Bibles Blog NLT Page
- Addendum to This Review (Added 6/23/06)
Next in series: Eugene Peterson's The Message