New Living translation

[thiefonthecross]

I was wondering what you folks think about the "New living Translation" I read the King James mainly but I have found I like the NLT also.

 

[Christina]

Its fine for learning I prefer KJV with a Strongs concordance but as long as you use both you will be fine

 

[Dunamite]

I like the NLT. In my small group study we use different translations when we read passages and the NLT often offers some different insights into a passage. It has led to many interesting discussions. When possible use comparative translations. The KJV was written in the early 17th century. Although the Bible has not changed, English has. The KJV was written in old English which is not the same as what we speak today. Words have shifted meaning and new words have been emerged making today's English a richer language with tens of thousands of more words and meanings. There is no way of knowing for sure what meaning for a given passage the KJV translators were trying to impart unless you read it with an dictionary in use at the time. America wasn't even a country then and American English is very different from today's British English. How much more different is it from 17th century British English? It is anybody's guess.Modern translations must not only account for the original Greek or Hebrew intended meaning, but also take into account what those words mean in today's English. There is no sense translating something into a language that is not in use anymore. Translating is an art. It takes intimate knowledge of both languages. Subtleties of a language can be lost unless the translator is careful. We may be assuming old translations to be more accurate based on faulty logic. i.e. The Bible is old so an old translation must be more accurate.Most of the reasons for choosing the KJV rest on tradition and the fact that many of the verses we memorized were from the KJV. There are problems with all translations. The only perfect translation is the original tongue.