Talk:New Living Translation

No heading

I removed this line:

Although it is not explicitly stated, the translation can be assumed to be a Protestant Bible, as it does not contain the deuterocanonical books.

There is a Catholic edition of the NLT with the Deuterocanon. See ISBN 0842354891. -iHoshie 03:02, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Best Greek and Hebrew Texts

On the page it says "new English translation from the best Hebrew and Greek texts". Isn't that an opinion? KJV people point to the Textus Receptus as the best, while many other translations point to the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Saniticus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.108.111 (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Translation Type

I thought this Bible used a combination of the two translation types (dynamic and formal). Emperor001 (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, the combination approach is how they describe it in the introduction. I've fixed this section. Chiok (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Revelations: The UNRATED version?

One may notice several details in this book that weren't in your granddaddy's Bible (or any other version). In Revelations 16 alone: "Great heat" becomes "a blast of great heat". The river that dried up to make way for kings is now for kings to march their armies. Cities that once "fell" now fall "in heaps of rubble". Mountains are now "levelled" instead of "not seen". Hailstones that weighed about 100 pounds (like a talent) are now up to 75. Demons leaving mouths like frogs are now demons that look like frogs. Jesus vows to show up at the described time "unexpectedly like a thief", not just "like a thief".

One may wonder if such deviations are notable enough to be listed in this article, with the texts of the conflicting bibles themselves as a reference. I would tell one "Certainly!", but suspect there may be others who wouldn't. Discuss? Allow? Deny? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Here is the reference one might give: http://bible.cc/revelation/16-1.htm InedibleHulk (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It's original research if we do this ourselves, see WP:NOR and it might fall foul of WP:NPOV unless there's been significant discussion about in in reliable sources (as described at WP:RS, which in this case should be, I think, something 'serious' and not 'sectarian'. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

When 'you' put words in 'quotes', it's difficult to 'grasp your meaning'. Are you implying we need to find a theologian's (or cardinal's) published opinion on the matter rather than a atheist's? Seems like an unnecessary (and, in my opinion, backwards) restriction. Care to clarify? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no, I just meant we shouldn't use minor religious groups as our sources, as you can probably find a group for almost any opinion about the Bible. Mainstream, doesn't matter if atheist or theologian. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so like as described at WP:RS. No "in this case..." necessary. And no apology necessary. Thanks for clearing that up. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I would volunteer to help build a comparison of Bible verses (I'd suggest 4 verses) between English Bible translations, using Comparison#Chart#of#the#Major#Gospels as a template, and link this to the pages of individual translations like NLT. This is NPOV since it is useful to any wiki readers, not just people of one relgiion or sect, and passes WP:NOR since their is no research, simply linking references from actual Bibles or their introductions. Interested? unitypeace01318sda 15:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 893jf8943hgkd893 (talk • contribs)

I think that would be a good idea. I would like to point out that this translation, like the NIV, wrongly translates Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer ("forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us"). It doesn't even have a footnote (as the NIV does) saying that the Greek says something else. But I know that if I were to add that fact, someone would revert it claiming that it's "original research"! Or saying that we shouldn't criticize. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Greek in Luke 11:4 is first "sins" (αμαρτιας) and then indebted (ὀφείλοντι) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11%3A4&version=NLT;NIV;KJV;SBLGNT;TR1550 or perhaps, if you can't actually read Greek, this is a better link: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/11-4.htm. The second problem with accusing any translation of mistranslation is that it assumes some other English translation is correct when the only standard is the original language, and then, there's a range of meaning that can't be fully captured in English. Finally, footnotes depend not only on the translation, but the edition. As you'll see from the BibleGateway links, there are footnotes for both the NLT and NIV. Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The main goal of a dynamic equivalence translation is to convey to the modern mind the same sense, as much as possible, as the original conveyed to the original audience. When we modern Westerners read in Rev. 16:12 that drying up a river made way for kings to pass, we might wonder why those kinds didn't previously simply take a boat across, perhaps with a small entourage. Our vastly different frame of reference, compared to the original audience, leads us to understand the image differently. The original audience would have immediately understood that this was about marching an army, and that they weren't able to march an army across that river in those days. So by adding the bit about marching the army across, NLT makes the text more dynamically equivalent, for us modern Westerners, to the original text as understood by the original audience. For those who don't like dynamic equivalence, there are formal equivalence, and even word-for-word translations available.

I'm not as clear about the "blast" of heat; it would be nice if the NLT translators explained their reasoning about all their choices somewhere. But I don't see anything about that in my NLT study bible edition, which I believe uses the 2007 text.

I haven't looked at the other examples you provided. I might do so and add to this later. Greg Lovern (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Protestant

The NLT is a Protestant translation. It needs to mention that in the first sentence. The Catholic translations say they are Catholic translations in the first sentence, so the Protestant ones need to say Protestant. Saxophilist (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that needs more justification. I am not saying "no" to your insertion, but you seemed to ignore that the this edition has been released in a catholic edition. Basileias (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic edition did not receive an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Also, they do not print a Catholic edition any longer. Saxophilist (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing the bible articles for awhile. I have no idea what "Imprimatur" etc. is all about. It looks like you could be falling into WP:OR. I suspect without some serious sourcing, other editors will probably challenge you on this. Basileias (talk) 07:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Read this: Imprimatur. Saxophilist (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you read it yet? It is quite important for someone interested in Bibles and other Christian books to know about Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Saxophilist (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

At this time, I do not believe it means anything regard this. Many non Catholic Christians would not describe themselves as protestant. This needs a wide consensuses to change an established norm in all these articles. Basileias (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if they aren't Catholic, Orthodox, etc, then they're Protestant. It doesn't really matter what they consider themselves to be. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts, not on personal opinions. Saxophilist (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Then follow what other editors have instructed you to do and follow policy. Supply reliable sources. Basileias (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what? Saxophilist (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A RS stating that the NLT is a "protestant" translation just as all of the "Catholic" translations have a RS to support that statement. Also, apparently, there are some pressings that contain deuterocanonical books: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/nlt-mosaic-bible-blog-tourinterview-mosaic-editor-keith-williams http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Bible-Catholic-Edition/dp/084236207X Why do you have to fight about things you're wrong about? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

So it's not a "Catholic" translation because there is no Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur. It's also not a "protestant" translation because there are editions that carry the deuterocanonical books. Seems we simply have a translation of the Bible into modern English. If there were only some way to add that to the lede sentence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the edition with the Deuterocanonicals has been out of print for years. Saxophilist (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And how can you possibly say it's not a Protestant translation? Saxophilist (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The edition is in print as is shown in the link above.

How can you possibly say it's simply a protestant translation faced with all of these facts? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Catholic edition was never updated in 2004 or 2007. It is the 1996 edition and, as you can tell from the prices on Amazon, it is out of print and no longer being produced. The NLT is a Protestant Bible, that's a fact. It was done by a team of Protestants, it does not have an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the translators of it call the Deuterocanon the "apocrypha", and the Catholic edition is no longer in production. What more proof do you want? I might look for some resources later. Saxophilist (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A resources would have been the place to start first. Basileias (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So Saxophilist admits that there was a "Catholic" edition. That's enough for me. It can't be a a truly "protestant" translation if there was ever a "Catholic" edition. Just like the King James Version. As for the price on Amazon, you don't buy many bibles. Paperback editions are very inexpensive. I can purchase them for as little as $10. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

NLT is in nowise Formal equivalence

why does the NLT get to have as its description Formal equivalence when it is definitely not. The translators have been lying about this version, saying that it carries best of both of formal and dynamic equivalence. Yet just read its text and see how it doesn't even come close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it's supported with a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Living Translation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504035139/http://www.nltblog.com/index.php/2010/10/adding-to-the-text-or-interpreting-the-text/ to http://www.nltblog.com/index.php/2010/10/adding-to-the-text-or-interpreting-the-text/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)