What version and Bible do you use, Why?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

The NLT is more of a 'dynamic equivalence' and is therefore more of a paraphrase than a translation. It's good to measure it by a more formal or literal translation as you are doing.

Actually the NLT statement about the translation is where possible it is literal, and where it is more difficult they use dynamic equivalent. It is an attempt at getting the best of both.

[Baron1710]

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/...henlt/faqs.asp

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 kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, 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 NLT 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.

[tamor]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/...henlt/faqs.asp

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 kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, 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 NLT 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.

I think alot of folks think of The Living Bible when the NLT is mentioned. Two totally different things....

[ReformedDave]

Here's a helpful chart-


http://www.zondervan.com/images/cms/...anschrt_js.jpg

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Isn't Sam older than most of those translations..........

Man, Sam is older than dirt.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If I remember correct Daniel Segraves was a fan of the NLT.

Well I know for a fact he used to really like the NKJV

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well I know for a fact he used to really like the NKJV

That's my recollection also.

[U376977]

Originally Posted by Sam

Reminds me of a quote:

"Some like to read the Bible in Hebrew,
some like to read the Bible in Greek.
I like to read it in the Holy Ghost."
Smith Wigglesworth

Sam, Great quote.

[U376977]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

For me my concern is the translation philosophy it uses.

RD, What philosophy? I used to carry the NIV but I never really was converted to the version.

Am I correct in that they used a different Greek texts to translate from than did the KJV? I know that many references to the "blood" are removed from the NIV as opposed to the KJV.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by U376977

I have KJV Interliner Greek/Hebrew. I love the lexicon and it is keyed to Strong's. His footnotes offer a lot of historical data and interpetation.

I read the King James version.

Since that is the version I read cover to cover 5 times as kid.

I read what is already stored in my heart and mind.