Soul sleep

[Phoneman777]

You really need to keep up with divergent opinions about the Anti-Christ. I have heard of it being speculated about him in many nations including the U.S. and Germany.

Emperor Hadrian did a lot of stuff associated with the Anti-Christ though he probably was not the one spoken of as the Worthless one.

As for me, I am not even sure the Son of Belial is a male.

It occurred to me some time ago that the most fearful curse in all the Bible is found in Revelation 14 - God's warning of what will happen to those who accept the Mark of the Beast.

How sadistic of God would it be if He pronounced such a warning and then so concealed the identity of this Beast in such an impenetrable shroud of uncertainty that it would leave us incapable of discovering for a surety its identity - thus enabling us to successfully avoid recieving its Mark and the accompanying curse! Why continue searching for the truth regarding Antichrist and its Mark when God in His mercy has already revealed it to us?

 

[Phoneman777]

It is not the symbolism that I am but rather the environment is an environment taught as the environment of Sheol by the religion by the God-fearing and there imitators at that time. It is a historic pre-first-century teaching. This is a from a Historyextra article called "A Brief History of the Afterlife" and appears to go by the historical theory that the description Jesus used evolved from and earlier doctrine where both the wicked shared an equivalent fate.

Whether in Greece of the seventh century BC or in the ancient Israel of the same period, the fate of the dead was the same whether they were good or evil – a shadowy half-life in Hades beneath the Earth or its Hebrew equivalent Sheol. But by the time of the Christian era, there were two foundational narratives about the afterlife in western thought already weaving in and out of each other. In both cases, the vice or virtue of the deceased determined their fate. On the one hand, there was a narrative built around the anticipation that life will continue immediately after the death of each of us. At the point of death, it was thought, the soul will be weighed in the balance, be judged according to its virtue or vice and be sent to the bliss of Abraham’s Bosom (paradise) or be cast into the pit of Hades.

This is what New World Encyclopedia says about it in their entry in Sheol. Like my previous source they follow that the teaching evolved over time.

However, following the period of the Babylonian Exile (sixth century B.C.E.), the Jews began to embrace a more punitive view of hell, which was known as Gehenna. This word derived from Gei Hinnom (the valley of Hinnom described in Josh. 15:8, 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; Neh. 11:30), a place where children were sacrificed to the Canaanite god Moloch, and where fires were kept burning to consume the corpses and rotting garbage.

Thus, the notion of the afterlife and the concept of hell evolved and changed throughout the Hebrew Bible.

My point is that it was a teaching based on Scripture that existed at and before Jesus' mortality and if it were he would not have legitimized it using it. The fact it may or may not contain symbolism is irrelevant.

Just a reminder that the same ancient wisdom of Israel you are relying on to interpret Luke 16 is the same wisdom that led them to stand before Jesus and cry, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" We are not to place the wisdom of others above the Bible - the Bible is the test.

Of the four words translated "hell" in the Bible, the facts are that only Gehenna refers to the "fiery, burning, blazing" hellfire of which we are all familiar. Interesting that in describing the "enviroment" of Luke 16, Jesus does not refer to the place of the Rich Man as "Gehenna", but "Hades". "Hades" is not only never associated with anything "fiery, burning, blazing", but "Hades" is actually depicted in Revelation as being cast into something that is very much "fiery, burning, blazing" - the Lake of Fire!

It's a shame we can't agree that that the symbols of Luke 16 all must be interpreted before attempting to form a conclusion as to what was Jesus' point. The Rich Man is a symbol, Lazarus is a symbol, the sumptuous table is a symbol, the gate and dogs are a symbol, the flames of torment are a symbol, Abraham is a symbol, his bosom is a symbol, the eyes, tongue, and finger are symbols, all of which must be interpreted, and when properly done, reveals a picture that has nothing to do with what happens when we die.

 

[OzSpen]

I sure do, and sorry if I failed to acknowledge that. I'm just giving reasons I believe Dispensationalism should be wholly rejected, whatever flavor of the week it may be because they all incorporate a Jesuit Futurist version of eschatology.

But also, take the "age of law" versus the "age of grace" - I can't buy into that either. It asserts the "age of law" Old Covenant people were saved by works apart from faith, and that "age of grace" New Covenant people are saved by grace and are freed from any obligation to obey God. Works has never been the mechanism by which we are saved - which is Grace through Faith - but the evidence proving we have been saved by Grace through Faith.

Phoneman,

You have not provided any references or attributions to any of your statements here. Therefore, I am left to understand them as your own assertions and carrying no more weight than individual opinion.

I urge you to provide evidence with attribution when you make these kinds of generalised statements.

Oz

 

[kerwin]

Just a reminder that the same ancient wisdom of Israel you are relying on to interpret Luke 16 is the same wisdom that led them to stand before Jesus and cry, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" We are not to place the wisdom of others above the Bible - the Bible is the test.

...

Personally I think the objection was political disguised as religion, even then it was based on unbelief and fear of the Romans. In addition Jesus did not show them the respect they believed they were owed. The technical reason was he called himself the Son of God but their non-Christian Jews today that teach that the one to come is the Son of God; so at most that was a difference in doctrine and not a reason to crucify anyone.

To answer your point, Jesus also taught there was a resurrection of the dead in common with the Pharisees. Common doctrines between him and those that crucified him does not mean that the teaching is false. The bottom line is that he would not legitimize a false teaching by using it in a parable or anywhere else.

...

Of the four words translated "hell" in the Bible, the facts are that only Gehenna refers to the "fiery, burning, blazing" hellfire of which we are all familiar. Interesting that in describing the "enviroment" of Luke 16, Jesus does not refer to the place of the Rich Man as "Gehenna", but "Hades". "Hades" is not only never associated with anything "fiery, burning, blazing", but "Hades" is actually depicted in Revelation as being cast into something that is very much "fiery, burning, blazing" - the Lake of Fire!

It's a shame we can't agree that that the symbols of Luke 16 all must be interpreted before attempting to form a conclusion as to what was Jesus' point. The Rich Man is a symbol, Lazarus is a symbol, the sumptuous table is a symbol, the gate and dogs are a symbol, the flames of torment are a symbol, Abraham is a symbol, his bosom is a symbol, the eyes, tongue, and finger are symbols, all of which must be interpreted, and when properly done, reveals a picture that has nothing to do with what happens when we die.

That particular probably was taken as insult by those that it was intended for though it was intended as a rebuke. Jesus concluded by indirectly stating that his hearers would believed even if "someone" was raised from the dead.

You are correct that it is a description of the Land of the Dead as opposed to the Lake of Fire.

The dead are ghosts, or more correctly shades, and do not have body so any torment would not be physical, Those thrown into the second do have bodies as well as souls.

 

[kerwin]

Phoneman777,

The AV of the KJV does a poor job of covering the land of the dead. This reveals there is a lower Sheol/Hades, which I hypothesis is also known as Tartarus as well as Abaddon.

Deuteronomy 32:22American Standard Version (ASV)

22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger,
And burneth unto the lowest Sheol,
And devoureth the earth with its increase,
And setteth on fire the foundations of the mountains.


Psalm 86:13American Standard Version (ASV)

13 For great is thy lovingkindness toward me;
And thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol.


Proverbs 15:11American Standard Version (ASV)

11 Sheol and [a]Abaddon are before Jehovah;
How much more then the hearts of the children of men!
Footnotes:

Proverbs 15:11 Or, Destruction


Proverbs 27:20American Standard Version (ASV)

20 Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied;
And the eyes of man are never satisfied.

 

[StanJ]

Phoneman777,

The AV of the KJV does a poor job of covering the land of the dead. This reveals there is a lower Sheol/Hades, which I hypothesis is also known as Tartarus as well as Abaddon.

Deuteronomy 32:22American Standard Version (ASV)

22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger,
And burneth unto the lowest Sheol,
And devoureth the earth with its increase,
And setteth on fire the foundations of the mountains.


Psalm 86:13American Standard Version (ASV)

13 For great is thy lovingkindness toward me;
And thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol.


Proverbs 15:11American Standard Version (ASV)

11 Sheol and [a]Abaddon are before Jehovah;
How much more then the hearts of the children of men!
Footnotes:

Proverbs 15:11 Or, Destruction


Proverbs 27:20American Standard Version (ASV)

20 Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied;
And the eyes of man are never satisfied.

Then maybe you should be learning to read more Modern English translations like the NIV or the NET.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman,

You have not provided any references or attributions to any of your statements here. Therefore, I am left to understand them as your own assertions and carrying no more weight than individual opinion.

I urge you to provide evidence with attribution when you make these kinds of generalised statements.

Oz

OK, fair enough. I stated that no one under the Old Covenant was saved by works, but by grace through faith, and that their obligatory sacrifices were not the means by which they obtained salvation, but were merely the demonstrated outward evidence of their inward faith.

OLD TESTAMENT PROOF:

Habakkuk 2:4 KJV - "Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him, but the just shall live by faith." (Their in nothing in this passage to suggest that the prophet is excluding from his statement those under the Old Covenant - his entire prophecy is directed at the prideful, idolatrous, Old Covenant nation of Israel, to which God is sending destruction from Babylon in order to humble them.)

Genesis 15:6 KJV - "And (Abraham) believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

Deuteronomy 32:20 KJV - "For they are a very froward generation, children in whom their is no faith."


NEW TESTAMENT PROOF:

Hebrews 10:4 KJV - "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins."
Ephesians 2:8 KJV - "For ye are saved by grace through faith...not of works, lest any man should boast."

The Cross is the central event of all the ages, to which everyone was and is required by God to look to in faith for salvation. Those under the Old Covenant obtained salvation by looking forward to the Cross in faith and evidenced their faith by their obedience (Hebrews 11 KJV), and we who live under the New Covenant obtain salvation by looking back to the Cross in faith and evidence that faith by our obedience (1 John 2:3-4 KJV).

 

[Phoneman777]

The dead are ghosts, or more correctly shades, and do not have body so any torment would not be physical, Those thrown into the second do have bodies as well as souls.

The Bible declares by the mouth of Stephen and Solomon that "ghosts" return to the God who gave them, not to "non-physical torment", and the same Bible makes not even the slightest intimation of your idea, but thanks anyway for your thoughts. I hope you would one day consider that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable in which it is not enough to interpret only some, but ALL the symbols, and not to leave some without interpretation in order to establish your "consciousness while dead" doctrine, which the Bible no where teaches.

 

[kerwin]

The Bible declares by the mouth of Stephen and Solomon that "ghosts" return to the God who gave them, not to "non-physical torment", and the same Bible makes not even the slightest intimation of your idea, but thanks anyway for your thoughts. I hope you would one day consider that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable in which it is not enough to interpret only some, but ALL the symbols, and not to leave some without interpretation in order to establish your "consciousness while dead" doctrine, which the Bible no where teaches.

You misunderstand Ecclesiastes 12:7 which is speaking of the breath of God and not the soul; though both are spirits.

Here are two that speak of the destination of the soul after the destruction of the body.

Psalm 16:10 American Standard Version (ASV)

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol;
Neither wilt thou suffer thy [a]holy one to see corruption.
Footnotes:

Psalm 16:10 Or, godly. Or, beloved. Another reading is, holy ones
Psalm 16:10 Or, the pit


Genesis 37:35American Standard Version (ASV)

35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning. And his father wept for him.

 

[kerwin]

Then maybe you should be learning to read more Modern English translations like the NIV or the NET.

I vary my translations as almost every, if not every, has flaws. The modern ones do have the advantage of more and better sources.

 

[StanJ]

I vary my translations as almost every, if not every, has flaws. The modern ones do have the advantage of more and better sources.

That's your opinion based on a very biased point of view but it is not credible as you don't know Greek and you are not a credentialed scholar.

 

[Phoneman777]

You misunderstand Ecclesiastes 12:7 which is speaking of the breath of God and not the soul; though both are spirits.

Here are two that speak of the destination of the soul after the destruction of the body.

Psalm 16:10 American Standard Version (ASV)

10 For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol;
Neither wilt thou suffer thy [a]holy one to see corruption.
Footnotes:

Psalm 16:10 Or, godly. Or, beloved. Another reading is, holy ones
Psalm 16:10 Or, the pit


Genesis 37:35American Standard Version (ASV)

35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning. And his father wept for him.

Kerwin, let's start from the ground and work our way up:

Light Bulb + Electric Current = Light comes into existence
...consequently, Light Bulb - Electric Current = Light goes out of existence

OK, what would happen if you argued that the Light continues to exist after the electric current is switched off? Yes, they would put you in a straitjacket.

Good, now, please read Genesis 2:7 KJV:

Body + Breath of Life = Soul comes into existence
...consequently, Body - Breath of Life = Soul goes out of existence

Now, can you see that the Soul is NOT a spirit, as you have claimed it to be, but what Genesis 2:7 KJV says it is - a consequence of the union between the Body and the Breath of Life?

 

[Phoneman777]

The modern ones do have the advantage of more and better sources.

Seriously? You might be interested to know that all the modern versions of the Bible are based upon only minuscule fraction of all the ancient MSS that exist today, something like 5 out of every 1,000, according to the Dean Burgon Society. These ancient MSS have been the subject of massive debate for hundreds of years regarding their voracity and authenticity, and many believe, as I do, that they were manufactured frauds intended to undermine the truth of Christ and the Gospel. To say that the newer versions are from "better sources" to me at the very least a bold statement.

An excellent Youtube documentary is "Lamp In The Darkness: The Untold Story Of The Bible", untold because scandal and controversy are not welcomed ingredients for the Ecumenical Soup that is being cooked up today by those who place Unity of religions above Christ and His truth.

 

[kerwin]

That's your opinion based on a very biased point of view but it is not credible as you don't know Greek and you are not a credentialed scholar.

Some of the flaws are very obvious and even they can often be worked with,

1 Corinthians 15:44International Standard Version (ISV)

44 It is planted a physical body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.[a]

Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 15:44 The Gk. lacks body

The word physical is translated from the adjective form of soul and should not be translated to physical which is why most translate it to natural. A few also translate it animal which is acceptable though a literal translation would probably be best.

Genesis 1:20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

This one is more of a case of concealment since they used the word animals instead of the more literal souls.

Darby's and Jubilee Bible 2000 are exceptions and so do not use concealment.

The flaws are often obvious though I am sure the translates make excuses for why they are justified.

 

[kerwin]

Kerwin, let's start from the ground and work our way up:

Light Bulb + Electric Current = Light comes into existence
...consequently, Light Bulb - Electric Current = Light goes out of existence

OK, what would happen if you argued that the Light continues to exist after the electric current is switched off? Yes, they would put you in a straitjacket.

Good, now, please read Genesis 2:7 KJV:

Body + Breath of Life = Soul comes into existence
...consequently, Body - Breath of Life = Soul goes out of existence

Now, can you see that the Soul is NOT a spirit, as you have claimed it to be, but what Genesis 2:7 KJV says it is - a consequence of the union between the Body and the Breath of Life?

The comparison does not work since the two do not correspond.

I agree that the living soul did not exist until the body and breath came together but Scripture treats the soul is an offspring of the mating of the two and therefore not depending on the existence of either one.

Scripture speaks of the soul going to hell , aka Sheol, or Hades, after death and it also states it is down (Genesis 37:35) as opposed to the spirit ascending. Genesis 35:18 speaks of the soul departing as opposed to ceasing to exist.

 

[kerwin]

Seriously? You might be interested to know that all the modern versions of the Bible are based upon only minuscule fraction of all the ancient MSS that exist today, something like 5 out of every 1,000, according to the Dean Burgon Society. These ancient MSS have been the subject of massive debate for hundreds of years regarding their voracity and authenticity, and many believe, as I do, that they were manufactured frauds intended to undermine the truth of Christ and the Gospel. To say that the newer versions are from "better sources" to me at the very least a bold statement.

An excellent Youtube documentary is "Lamp In The Darkness: The Untold Story Of The Bible", untold because scandal and controversy are not welcomed ingredients for the Ecumenical Soup that is being cooked up today by those who place Unity of religions above Christ and His truth.

I am suspicious of experts that make such claims as it requires more evidence than they probably have to prove such ancient manuscripts are forged.

Instead, as a principle the more ancient a manuscript the more likely it is more accurate than later ones just because later ones have more ancestors and therefore more chance of error to creep in.

There is not much difference between earlier and later manuscripts but it exist but then it is true about English translations as well.

That unity of religion is the new universal, translated catholic, church. I wonder if they will also start persecuting dissenters.

 

[OzSpen]

Some of the flaws are very obvious and even they can often be worked with,

1 Corinthians 15:44International Standard Version (ISV)

44 It is planted a physical body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.[a]

Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 15:44 The Gk. lacks body

The word physical is translated from the adjective form of soul and should not be translated to physical which is why most translate it to natural. A few also translate it animal which is acceptable though a literal translation would probably be best.

Genesis 1:20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

This one is more of a case of concealment since they used the word animals instead of the more literal souls.

Darby's and Jubilee Bible 2000 are exceptions and so do not use concealment.

The flaws are often obvious though I am sure the translates make excuses for why they are justified.

kerwin,

You miss a fundamental with translation. The ISV is a dynamic equivalent translation that gives meaning-for-meaning translation in contrast with a formal equivalent translation like the ESV, KJV, NASB which tries to give a literal translation. Anyone who knows Greek (as I do) knows that it is impossible to do a word for word translation. Some extra words have to be added to obtain the meaning of a sentence on many occasions.

The ISV has provided an accurate understanding of the meaning of 1 Cor 15:44 (ISV) from Greek into English - dynamic equivalence.

The NLT is much more open as dynamic equivalence and provides this translation of 1 Cor 15:44 (NLT): 'They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies'.

Oz

 

[kerwin]

kerwin,

You miss a fundamental with translation. The ISV is a dynamic equivalent translation that gives meaning-for-meaning translation in contrast with a formal equivalent translation like the ESV, KJV, NASB which tries to give a literal translation. Anyone who knows Greek (as I do) knows that it is impossible to do a word for word translation. Some extra words have to be added to obtain the meaning of a sentence on many occasions.

The ISV has provided an accurate understanding of the meaning of 1 Cor 15:44 (ISV) from Greek into English - dynamic equivalence.

The NLT is much more open as dynamic equivalence and provides this translation of 1 Cor 15:44 (NLT): 'They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies'.

Oz

I have to disagree about the choice of the ISV since a soul spiritual in nature and the closest it comes to a synonym is when it means the same as bestial or carnal.

The NLT claims to be literal but they failed to translate it into the literal equivalent which is either soulish or soulical. Soulish is in Merriam-Webster online and might work best because of that availability.

Recovery Version Online does an excellent job of translating the passage and the notes are excellent though doctrinal.

1 Corinthians 15:44

44 It is sown a 1asoulish body, it is raised a 1bspiritual cbody. If there is a soulish body, there is also a spiritual one.

441 A soulish body is a natural body animated by the soul, a body in which the soul predominates. A spiritual body is a resurrected body saturated by the spirit, a body in which the spirit predominates. When we die, our natural body, being soulish, will be sown, i.e., buried, in corruption, in dishonor, and in weakness. When it is resurrected, it will become spiritual in incorruption, in glory, and in power (vv. 42-43).

 

[StanJ]

Some of the flaws are very obvious and even they can often be worked with,


1 Corinthians 15:44International Standard Version (ISV)

44 It is planted a physical body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.[a]

Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 15:44 The Gk. lacks body

The word physical is translated from the adjective form of soul and should not be translated to physical which is why most translate it to natural. A few also translate it animal which is acceptable though a literal translation would probably be best.

Genesis 1:20Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

This one is more of a case of concealment since they used the word animals instead of the more literal souls.

Darby's and Jubilee Bible 2000 are exceptions and so do not use concealment.

The flaws are often obvious though I am sure the translates make excuses for why they are justified.

It doesn't matter how many English versions you read, if you refuse to recognize the truth you will never recognize the truth. You are not of the spiritual world, you are of and only of the physical world. This is why you fail to understand the spiritual things of God even when you eat them.

 

[OzSpen]

The NLT claims to be literal but they failed to translate it into the literal equivalent which is either soulish or soulical. Soulish is in Merriam-Webster online and might work best because of that availability.

kerwin,


Your are understanding of the translation philosophy of the New Living Translation seems to be influenced by some of the misleading explanations in the current edition of the NLT.

The NLT does not claim to be a literal translation in the first 1996 edition. Perhaps you gained this notion from what is stated by Tyndale House regarding the current edition of the NLT. All one has to do is compare the ESV with the NLT to see that the NLT is not formal equivalence or literal in its translation philosophy but is dynamic-equivalence predominantly.

This is what the NLT of 1996 stated of itself:

Introduction to the
New Living Translation Translation Philosophy and Methodology
There are two general theories or methods of Bible translation. The first has been called “formal equivalence.” According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into the receptor language and seeks to preserve the original word order and sentence structure as much as possible. The second has been called “dynamic equivalence” or “functional equivalence.” The goal of this translation theory is to produce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text—both in meaning and in style. Such a translation attempts to have the same impact on modern readers as the original had on its own audience.

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 be 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.

In making a thought-for-thought translation, the translators must do their best to enter into the thought patterns of the ancient authors and to present the same ideas, connotations, and effects in the receptor language. In order to guard against personal biases and to ensure the accuracy of the message, a thought-for-thought translation should be created by a group of scholars who employ the best exegetical tools and who also understand the receptor language very well. With these concerns in mind, the Bible Translation Committee assigned each book of the Bible to three different scholars. Each scholar made a thorough review of the assigned book and submitted suggested revisions to the appropriate general reviewer. The general reviewer reviewed and summarized these suggestions and then proposed a first-draft revision of the text. This draft served as the basis for several additional phases of exegetical and stylistic committee review. Then the Bible Translation Committee jointly reviewed and approved every verse in the final translation (source,.emphasis added).

Thus, the NLT of 1996 acknowledges that it is a dynamic-equivalence translation and NOT a literal (formal equivalence) translation. The current edition is an update of the 1996 model.

The latest edition of the NLT from Tyndale House Publishers gives an impression that it is literal except where literal doesn't convey the meaning. Here is what Tyndale states:

What method did the translators use in making the NLT?
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 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 that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next.

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 difficult 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. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful. More than 90 Bible scholars, along with a group of accomplished English stylists, worked closely together toward that goal. In the end, the NLT is the result of precise scholarship conveyed in living, contemporary language.

A reading of the NLT demonstrates that it is a dynamic equivalence translation much of the time.

Oz