posted
Does anyone here have any facts, good or bad, about the New Living Translation? It appears to be a very good translation, though not a literal translation, but rather, a thought translation. Any comments?
posted
It is essentially a commentary, not really a translation, though so called probably for marketing. If it only claimed to be such, then there would be less confusion among Christians over its proper use.
The reason it is not a translation is unfortunately, these printed exercises in "modern language revision" contain thousands of substitutions, omissions and paraphrases which resemble the original Greek and Hebrew about as much as a stuffed teddy bear resembles a real bear.
Instead of trying to conform the original to fit someone's idea of what "modern language" is, why are they so afraid of presenting the real thing? Why must we have a teddy bear and not be allowed to see the real bear, thick fur and muscle, fluid stride, teeth and all?
I know of a DVD you'd probably enjoy as much as I did about the history and sacrifices made to produce the Bible in the English language during the Reformation. It mentions many problems with these modern bible commentaries marketed as translations and states facts. PM me if interested. Those who created the DVD make them available to those who want one free of charge.
Email this page to someone.
