Talk:New Living Translation

message: 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)
thread_title: Best Greek and Hebrew Texts

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Revelations: The UNRATED version?  

message: 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)
replies: text: Because it's supported with a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLT is in nowise Formal equivalence 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)