On a separate thread, Danielo asks whether the NLT is perhaps too dramatic in the way it translates the last phrase of this verse:

"I will praise the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praises to my God even with my dying breath."

He points out that some other translations translate the last phrase "as long as I live." The challenge for the translator, of course, is to convey in English (or any receptor language) the correct meaning and the full impact of the original text.

In this verse the psalmist presents a couplet that communicates essentially the same message in each of the two lines. The Hebrew text has two expressions to communicate the concept of "all my life," so the translator must also find two expressions to communicate the concept of "all my life." The NLT uses "as long as I live" in the first line--as do RSV, NRSV, NET Bible, and ESV. So a different phrase is needed for the second line. Look at the variety in translations:

KJV: while I have my being
ASV: while I have any being
NRSV: all my life long
NIV: as long as I live
NET: as long as I exist
NLT: even with my dying breath

The Hebrew idiom doesn't literally translate into English as "even with my dying breath," but neither is it literally "as long as I live" or "while I have my being." All of the translations are striving to communicate the sense of the idiom, which might be translated literally "with as long as." The psalmist is expressing the absolute limit of his praise for God. So various translations use various expressions to communicate that same sense of the ultimate.

Back to Danielo's question: Is the NLT being too dramatic? I don't think so, since it strives to communicate in English that same sense that "I will praise my God with everything I've got for as long as I've got anything in me."

Labels: English translations of the Bible, Mark Taylor, NLT, translation issues, translation philosophy

Tyndale House Publishers The Tyndale Foundation and our friends at LifeChurch.tv have been working together to make the NLT available to you offline on the YouVersion iPhone App. You have a 90-day window in which to download it, but the content won't expire after 90 days (or ever) after it's downloaded. See this post on on the YouVersion blog for instructions and a little more information.

Labels: Bible Usage, Laura Bartlett, NLT, YouVersion

Labels: Chrismas, Laura Bartlett, NLT

My pastor is working his way through Galatians, and this morning's sermon was on Gal 3:23-29. I found fertile ground for thinking about differences between translations. Here are some examples:

Sentence structure: The UBS Greek text has 4 sentences in this paragraph. The RSV, ESV, and NIV use 6 sentences; KJV, NKJV, ASV, and NASB use 7; NLT uses 11. Why so many sentences in the NLT? The answer is that Paul uses a complex argument with lots of ideas. In contemporary English, we tend to use a new sentence for each new idea. So the NLT, with its focus on clear communication of the meaning of the text, uses more sentences.

"Faith" or "the faith"? In 3:23, I'm mystified as to why the formal-equivalence translations have all omitted the definite article before "faith." KJV, ESV, and many others read, "Now before faith came." In English, this use of "faith" without a definite article implies the concept of faith. What? Did the concept of faith begin with faith in Jesus Christ? I don't think so. Furthermore, the Greek text has a definite article: tēn pistin "the faith." So Paul is not talking about faith as a concept. He's referring to some specific kind of faith.

Granted, in English it would sound odd to say "Now before the faith came." The NIV and HCSB attempt to capture the nuance by using "this" for the definite article: "Before this faith came." But the NLT sees "faith" in this context as being more than just faith in Christ. After all, Paul's argument in this pericope is the contrast between the "system" of law and the "system" of faith. So the NLT translates the meaning of the Greek as follows: "Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us."

Is it permissible to add words? In the phrase just quoted, the NLT translates pistin as "faith in Christ." But since the Greek text does not explicitly use the name Christ in v. 23, why does the NLT use it in English? It fits with the NLT's translation philosophy of dynamic equivalence. Everyone would agree that Paul is talking about faith in Christ (as he just said in v. 22). But he uses shorthand, referring simply to "the faith." And since the NLT renders tēn pistin as "the way of faith," it clarifies that this is not just any "way of faith," but "the way of faith in Christ."

The use of metaphors: Paul uses three metaphors in quick succession in vv. 23 and 24. First he uses two different metaphors in v. 23 to show that the law had "confined us" and "held us prisoner." But the meaning of these metaphors as metaphors is not instantly understandable in English (and perhaps it wasn't readily understandable in Greek, either). So the NLT helps the reader in v. 23 by making explicit that these are metaphors: "we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, . . ."

In vv. 24 and 25, Paul uses the metaphor of the paidagōgos (rendered by various translations as "schoolmaster," "tutor," "guardian," "custodian," "disciplinarian"). Paul uses the Greek word hōste (typically rendered as "so" or "so then") to show the relationship between what preceded (his first two metaphors) and what follows (this next metaphor). To show that Paul is now using a different metaphor to get his point across, the NLT renders it this way: "Let me put it another way."

Well, that's enough for now. But if you compare a pericope like this in multiple translations, you'll see even more differences between them. And as I said in an earlier post, "Vive la différence."

Labels: Mark Taylor, NLT, translation issues, translation philosophy

Sentence Structure (part 2)

Before moving on to other topics, I thought I'd take another look at the issue of sentence structure--and even paragraph structure.

One would think that all translations would use more or less the same paragraph structure as is found in the original texts. The problem is that the original texts do not have paragraphs as we use them in English, so paragraph breaks become a matter of interpretation by the translators.

For example, look at Eph. 5:18-24. Where should a new sentence or paragraph (or even a whole section) begin? In the Greek text, the grammatical structure suggests that this section is all one long sentence--ranging from "don't get drunk with wine" to "wives, submit to your husbands." Nonetheless, the editors of the UBS Greek text (which is the basis for most modern translations) created a new sentence and a new paragraph at 5:21. Take a look at any English translation; I don't think you'll find a translaton with only one sentence in this section.

Here are the divisions in various English translations (grouped by families):



Is your head spinning at all of the options? And who says Bible translators shouldn't have to make judgments in translation?!

Labels: Mark Taylor, NLT, translation issues, translation philosophy

I'm beginning here an occasional series of posts in which I'll explore some of the differences between the NLT and other translations. Specifically, I'll look at underlying differences between dynamic equivalence (DE) translations and formal equivalence (FE) translations, which are also called "word-for-word" or "essentially literal" translations.

In these posts I'll typically use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and ESV as examples of formal-equivalence translations. And the NLT is a dynamic-equivalence translation.

I should point out that there is no right and wrong here. Both of these translation theories are legitimate, and each translation is created with a primary adherence to one or the other of these philosophies.

Sentence Structure
FE translations try to replicate in English the sentence structure of the original Hebrew or Greek. Let's look at Romans 1:1-7 as an example. In the Greek, Paul begins this letter with a long introduction that follows the traditional format for an epistle (i.e., a letter):
From:
To:
Greetings.

The "from" element is long and complicated (1:1-6). The "to" element is short and sweet (1:7a). The "greetings" element is also short (1:7b) and has an interesting twist. Instead of using the traditional word chairein "Greetings," Paul uses the word charis "Grace," which sounds similar in the original Greek text.

The original readers of this letter from Paul would have instantly recognized the "epistle format" of the opening verses. And that format is replicated in the ESV:
1:1 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, . . ."
1:7a "To all those in Rome . . ."
1:7b "Grace to you and peace from God our Father . . ."

But modern letters in Western culture do not use that same format. So the NLT attempts to capture the sense that "this is a letter" by rendering the traditional epistolary elements as follows:
1:1 "This letter is from Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, . . ."
1:7a "I am writing to all of you in Rome . . ."
1:7b "May God our Father . . . give you grace and peace."

Now back to my point about sentence structure. The Greek text uses one long sentence for this entire introductory section (1:1-7). So FE translations like the NASB, NKJV, and ESV also use one long English sentence. The NLT is less concerned about maintaining the structure of the sentence, so it uses nine sentences to help ensure that the modern reader can follow and readily understand the complex elements of Paul's theological introduction.

Each translational approach has its own strengths. Viva la différence!

Labels: Mark Taylor, NLT, translation issues, translation philosophy

A pastor in Tennessee has recently written a couple of posts about why he has been using the NLT in his preaching.

Here is a quote from his first post:

I've found it consistently to be exactly what it claims: "The Truth Made CLEAR." When I read the New Living Translation, I "get" it (i.e., I understand what it's saying). Time and again I've studied hard into a literal translation of a verse, and found the NLT accurately rendering the verse in simple, understandable English. That's precisely what I want as a speaker and for those who listen.

And from the second:

It is of paramount importance that the English Bible we read and learn from in our worship gatherings be accurate, clear, and understandable. These qualities have increasingly impressed me with the NLT and why I am using it lately from the pulipit.

Have you tried consistently using the NLT as your main translation for preaching? If so, what did you think? If not, why not give it a try?

Labels: NLT, preaching

The NT writers frequently quote from the OT. When we begin to study NT quotations of the OT, we are instantly drawn into the complex issue of how the Hebrew text is translated--first into Greek and then into English.

Let's look at James 4:6b as an example. The NLT translates this passage as follows:

As the Scriptures say,
“God opposes the proud
but favors the humble.”

The first question for the translator and commentator is, What Scripture did James have in mind? (Very occasionally, as in Acts 13:33, the NT writer gives us an explicit OT reference; usually we have to dig for it ourselves.) In this instance, there is no OT passage that seems to be a direct source text for James's quotation. But the NLT text note points us toward Proverbs 3:34. So we go to Prov 3:34 and we find the following text:

The LORD mocks the mockers
but is gracious to the humble.

On the surface, it looks like someone has made a mistake. The quotation in James is not a very exact replication of the proverb. The Hebrew proverb (as we read it in the English translation) is talking about "mockers," which does not have the same connotation as James's term "the proud." Did James goof? Did the NLT translators--in either the OT or the NT--goof?

We find important clues in the NLT text notes. The text note at James 4:6 reads, "4:6 Prov 3:34 (Greek version)." This suggests that James, who was writing in Greek, was not creating his own translation of the Hebrew proverb. He was quoting from the Septuagint (often abbreviated as LXX)--the Greek translation of the OT that was in wide use in Palestine during the first century.

The text note at Proverbs 3:34 reads, "3:34 Greek version reads The LORD opposes the proud / but favors the humble. Compare Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5."

So the NLT text notes take us behind the scenes to show that James was quoting directly from the LXX. In fact, there is only one small difference between the LXX wording and James's quotation. LXX translates the Hebrew Yahweh as kurios (translated into English as "the LORD"), and James uses the divine name theos (translated into English as "God"). The text note at Proverbs 3:34 also points us toward the NT passages where this verse is quoted: Jas 4:6 and 1 Pet 5:5.

I believe the NLT is unique among English translations in giving readers this kind of behind-the-scenes view of how NT writers frequently use the LXX as their source text.

Labels: Greek New Testament, Mark Taylor, New Living Translation, NLT, Old Testament quotations in the New Testament

In the following pdfs you will find page samples of a few NLT text Bibles. Each pdf includes roughly the same portion of Scripture - Matthew 2. I should note that the margins are nowhere near as wide as they look at first glance. These are printer ready files, which means that they are what our printers use when they print. At the top right of each page is a "sticky note" from the typesetting department which gives the font size, the leading size (the space inbetween the lines)and the font name. So if you see "8/8.5 Lucerna" that means the font size is 8 point, the leading is 8.5 and the font is Lucerna.



The horizontal and vertical lines at the corners indicate where the pages are trimmed. I should also note that the fact that the individual page goes well beyond those marks in no way indicates that the roll of paper being used is actually that wide. Most of our trim sizes are derived by figuring out what is the optimal size for hte printers we work with. It doesn't always work out that way, but it is the goal. It's in our best interest to waste as little paper as possible (we're paying for it whether it gets bound or ends up on the floor as waste). By creating efficient trim sizes, we are hopefully being good stewards of our natural resources as well.



The typesettings that I picked include a relatively broad range of trim sizes and font sizes. Here they are in order from smallest to largest.


Personal Edition:

• Trim Size: 4 3/4" X 6 7/8" X 1 3/16"


• Page Count: 1558 (Bible text only)


• Font: 9.75/10 Lucerna

Slimline Reference:

• Trim Size: 5 5/16" X 7 5/8"


• Page Count: 1080 (Bible text only)


• Font: 8/8.5 Lucerna

Pew:

• Trim Size: 5 3/8" X 8 3/8"


• Page Count: 962 (Bible text only)


• Font: 8.25/8.75 Lucerna

Personal Size Large Print:

• Trim Size: 5 1/2" X 8 1/4"


• Page Count: 2128 (Bible Text only)


• Font: 12/13 Lucerna

Giant Print:

• Trim Size: 6 1/2" X 9 3/16"


• Page Count: 1928


• Font: 14/14.5 Lucerna

downloads/PersonalEd.pdf
downloads/SlimlineRef.pdf
downloads/Pew.pdf
downloads/PersonalLP.pdf
downloads/Giant.pdf

Labels: Kevin O'Brien, NLT, sample pages, typesettings

Scripture Zealot has posed an important question about the NLT that deserves a clear answer: Who is the NLT really translated for?

The short answer (from the Introduction to the New Living Translation):

The translators have made a conscious effort to provide a text that can be easily understood by the typical reader of modern English.

That really is the extent of it. As Scripture Zealot rightly points out, many other claims have been made about the purpose, intent, or usefulness of the NLT. It is for the unchurched. It is for young believers. It is at a 6th grade reading level. But none of these were specific aims of the translation team.

The reading level claims are merely descriptive, and are actually quite subjective. From a cursory Google search, the NLT has been variously assigned a grade 5+, grade 6, and grade 6.3. The translation team was not aiming for a particular reading level in their work; they were simply working hard to communicate the meaning of the original language texts clearly to the "typical reader of modern English."

Indeed, we believe the NLT is excellent for the unchurched, for young believers, and for children. It is also excellent for seasoned church leaders, serious Christians, and scholars. Any reader of modern English can benefit from reading the NLT, because it is indeed a serious translation of the Scriptures by an excellent team of Christian scholars.

HT: Wayne Leman

Labels: audience, Bible Usage, Keith Williams, NLT, reading level

Mark D. Taylor

Brent Kercheville has been writing a series of blogs about his interaction with the NLT text. One of those posts is called "Tongues vs. Languages (1 Corinthians 12-14)." Brent appreciates the NLT's use of "languages" in place of the more obscure term "tongues" in 1 Cor 12, but he expresses frustration that the NLT then uses "tongues" in chapter 14.

In fact, the NLT uses both "speaking in tongues" and "speaking in unknown languages" in 1 Cor 14. Why? We had vigorous debates on the translation committee as to how we should translate glossa in a way that would be understandable to modern readers--especially those without much background in biblical teaching. And the situation is further complicated because scholars and church historians are divided as to whether Paul was referring in this passage to human languages not otherwise known to the speaker or to ecstatic utterances that are unrelated to any human language. If the translation had simply and consistently used "unknown languages," it would imply that Paul was referring to human languages unknown to the speakers (as seems to have been the case on the Day of Pentecost; Acts 2:4-11). But if we had used the traditional term "tongues" throughout, it would imply that Paul was referring only to ecstatic utterances.

So in the end we decided to use both terms. This allows the reader to get the sense that Paul might have been referring to either or both of these meanings. We were apprehensive about using the word "tongues," because it is a technical term understood only by readers well versed in biblical teaching. On the other hand, it is the term used in Pentecostal churches to refer to the contemporary phenomenon of "speaking in tongues." So we used both "tongues" and "unknown languages" in order to provide the broadest sense of the meaning of the passage.

Incidentally, the NLT Study Bible provides a word study on the various uses of glossa in the New Testament.

Labels: 1 Cor 12-14, Bible Translation, Mark Taylor, NLT, NLT Study Bible, speaking in tongues, speaking in unknown languages, tongues

By Mark D. Taylor

The issue of sentence structure in English Bibles is interesting. On the surface, one might assume that an English Bible could/should simply follow the structure of the sentences in Hebrew and Greek. But the very concept of a "sentence" differs from language to language.

Let's look at the prologue to Romans (Rom 1:1-7) as an example. We begin by reminding ourselves that koine Greek does not actually use punctuation or paragraph breaks, nor does it differentiate between upper case and lower letters. This might surprise you, because the UBS Greek New Testament uses paragraphs, capital letters, and punctuation (commas, periods, question marks, and semicolons). But this is because the editors of that Greek text have made judgment calls as to how the Greek "sentences" should be presented in a format we're accustomed to seeing in English.

In the UBS Greek text, Rom 1:1-7 is presented as one long sentence (i.e., the first full stop comes at the end of verse 7). But does that mean that English translations should also use only one sentence for that passage? Formal-equivalence translations tend to do so. For example, KJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV all use only one sentence for this long prologue. Interestingly, the NKJV uses two sentences. NIV and TNIV use four sentences. NLT² uses nine sentences.

Which approach is correct? I would argue that they all are. Each translation uses a unique translation philosophy, and the structure of English sentences plays into that philosophy. Unfortunately, the proponents of formal equivalence sometimes imply that the only legitimate style of translation is to follow the sentence structure of the original texts as closely as possible. But life isn't quite that simple.

Labels: Bible Translation, Bible translations, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, Greek New Testament, Mark Taylor, NLT

The largest Bible publishers (Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, Tyndale and Broadman and Holman) are not entirely consistent in font sizes used, though there are a few “rules of thumb” that I have found. Typically a large print Bible is approximately a 10 to 12 point font and a Giant Print Bible is approximately a 14 point font. Trim size and other features such as whether the Bible is a slimline can greatly impact the font size on large print editions. This is much less of an issue in giant print editions. There are exceptions to these rules of course, and they does not apply for large print compact editions (no this is not an oxymoron even though it sounds like it) or specialty Bibles.


When Tyndale creates a large print or giant print Bible we look at several things including industry norms for various lines or types of Bibles, page layout, how long (and therefore heavy) the Bible will be, type of paper, bleed through (the last two are closely related and deserve their own post at a later date so I will not go into detail on them here), and above all else readability.

Labels: font size, Giant Print Bibles, Kevin O'Brien, Large Print Bibles, Lucerna, NLT

Wanted to give you a quick head’s up about a promotion that Logos Bible Software is doing. For a limited time they are giving away a free Cornerstone Commentary – no strings! They will be publishing the entire series eventually (it’s not complete yet, these things take time. You try getting a bunch of scholars to get their work turned in at the same time – it’s not like we can give them an assignment for their term papers. Well, maybe it is and this is completely breaking down but be that as it may – it takes time).

Logos will be bundling the commentaries together into a couple of groups. Currently they are in pre-pub for a set of 9.

Also, don’t miss their new blog here. Also, don’t forget that they are producing a version of the NLT Study Bible that you can order here or find at your local Christian bookstore.

By the way, I finally have the deluxe editions of the SB on my desk and I gotta say they look great. Now I have to figure out which one I want. I am dying to talk about it more, but I will leave that to Sean and his Seminar on the Study Bible TONIGHT. I have seen him explain it and work through a couple of passages on several occasions now and he will not disappoint. I can’t not say anything though. I am not a study Bible guy usually. Give me a text Bible, a good Concordance, like say this one, a couple of commentaries for the book or books I am reading (how do you do Mr. subliminal in a blog? – cough*Cornerstone*cough – his keyboard muttered in a different font) and maybe a backgrounds book. That being said, I want this Bible. I probably won’t carry it to church because 1) it’s big, no two ways about it, and 2) it would be too distracting during the sermon and while I am pretty good friends with the pastor of my church I don’t think he would be too appreciative. I can be pretty discrete though . . .

Labels: Cornerstone Commentary, Kevin O'Brien, Logos, NLT, NLT Study Bible

Mark D. Taylor

As a dynamic-equivalence translation, the NLT translates the Hebrew and Greek text in natural, understandable English. This means that we try to avoid technical terms that the average reader would not understand.

Two such technical terms not used in the NLT are "propitiation" and "expiation." The Bible Translation Committee chose not to use these terms because the average reader does not understand them. In fact, I'd guess that only 1% of the population could define the terms "propitiation" and "expiation" with any degree of accuracy.

The table below shows how four translations handle the Greek term hilasterion:

Romans 3:25
KJV	RSV	ESV	NLT
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation . . .	whom God put forward as an expiation . . .	whom God put forward as a propitiation . . .	For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.
Hebrews 9:5
KJV	RSV	ESV	NLT
And over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercyseat;	above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.	Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat.	Above the Ark were the cherubim of divine glory, whose wings stretched out over the Ark's cover, the place of atonement.

These are the only two NT passages that use the Greek word hilasterion. But the word is used frequently in the Greek translation of the OT, where it refers to the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. English translations of the OT render the Hebrew term as "mercy seat" (KJV, RSV, ESV), "atonement cover" (NIV), or "the Ark's cover--the place of atonment" (NLT).

In Heb 9:5, the term hilasterion is used in the literal sense--describing the Ark's cover.

In Rom 3:25, Paul uses hilasterion as a metaphor. "God presented Jesus as the hilasterion." But what does this metaphor mean? Jesus was the "atonement cover." He was the "place of atonement." He was himself "the sacrifice for sin," the means of atonement between God and humanity.

Does the English word "propitiation" communicate this nuance of meaning? Perhaps to 1% of the population. To the other 99%, it communicates very little meaning at all.

That's why the NLT uses words that communicate clearly to 100% of the readers: "God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin" (Rom 3:26).

By the way, Scripture Zealot has a post on this very subject called Romans 3:25, Propitiation and the NLT (in which he quotes the first-edition text of the NLT).

Labels: Bible Translation, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, Hebrews 9:5, Mark Taylor, NLT, Romans 3:25

Craig Blomberg has an insightful post for anyone who has ever wondered about how a committee Bible translation works. Dr. Blomberg was part of the team that worked on the New Living Translation in the 1990s. Here is what he says about his work on the Gospel of Matthew:

With the New Living Translation, the Bible was divided into sixths, with a scholar appointed general editor over each large chunk. Then individuals books of the Bible (or small collections of books) were parceled out to three experts (I worked on Matthew), who compiled long lists of suggestions for revising Ken Taylor’s original
Living Bible Paraphrased. We ranked these in terms of priority, sent them to the general editor over our part of the Bible, who synthesized a selection of them, interacted with a Tyndale House stylist, and sent a draft back to us for us to repeat the process. Eventually the full translation emerged.

Dr. Blomberg is describing the process for creating the 1996 edition of the NLT text. The 2004 second edition was another stage in the development of the NLT, and I suspect other members of our blog team who were actually involved in those events (I didn't come on until 2005, and I am not a participant in Bible Translation Committee discussions) might write a thing or two about that on this blog in the future. But I am getting off topic.

It may be surprising for some to read that Dr. Blomberg has been involved in translation work for the NLT, HCSB, ESV, and now serves on the committee responsible for the TNIV. In fact, he is one of several excellent scholars who have participated in multiple translation projects. Just comparing the list of the ESV's Translation Oversight Committee with the full list of the NLT Translation team reveals 25% overlap (three of the 12 ESV committee members participated in the NLT: Paul House, Robert Mounce, and Gordon Wenham). Expanding to the list of ESV translation reviewers would reveal significantly more overlap between the two teams. Similar overlaps can be observed between the NLT team and the NIV/TNIV Committee for Bible Translation (Blomberg, Douglas Moo, Larry Walker).

These scholars believe it is important to produce translations that are true to the original Greek and Hebrew, and meaningful for those who read it. They work very hard to ensure that God's Word is faithfully communicated in English. And they do this for each translation they contribute to, whether it be the "essentially literal" ESV, the "optimal equivalence" HCSB, the "balanced" TNIV, or the "dynamically equivalent" NLT.

In this vein, I would also like to point to another comment Blomberg makes later in the post:

More than ever, I have an intense appreciation of how much easier it is to
criticize a translation than it is to produce one that will be both as clear as
possible and as accurate as possible.

That is unequivocally true. There will always be facets of the original text that are captured better by one translation or another, and it is easy to point out where the NLT (or TNIV, or ESV, etc.) has "missed" something. Instead, why don't we celebrate the wonderful work that these scholars do and appreciate the fact that we have multiple excellent, peer-reviewed Bible translations in English?

Thanks for your work on Bible translation, Dr. Blomberg. Thanks to all of the scholars that have dedicated their life to helping everyone understand God's Word more clearly.

Labels: dynamic equivalence, essentially literal, ESV, HCSB, Keith Williams, NLT, TNIV, translation

Is the NLT (or any dynamic equivalent translation) good for serious Bible study?

I have often heard people say that the NLT is great for daily reading, but it shouldn't be used for serious Bible study. Why? There are probably several reasons, but I think one major factor behind this thinking relates to word study.

Word Studies
David Ker made this comment on Rick Mansfield's recent post on the NLT:

"I wonder how easy it would be to use as a preaching/teaching Bible. Because preachers and teachers tend to do a lot of word studies they might feel lost using NLT."

I think the primary factor in helping pastors and Bible teachers use a translation for word studies is related to the tools available for word study, not the translation itself. (This is something that Rick also points out in the comments on that post.) When I was first learning Greek and Hebrew, I did most of my word studies using the KJV and NASB. Why? Because the bible software program I was using was set up to make the connections between these translations and the original language explicit. And when I didn't have my computer handy, Strong's Concordance made the KJV an easy choice for word study.

The NLT is well on its way to having these kinds of tools available. James Swanson, a senior editor for Bibles and Bible reference at Tyndale, has been working tirelessly to support the creation of these tools. Jim is the one who created the Tyndale-Strong's numbering system that is in use for the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series and will be the basis for printed tools, as promised in the front matter of each CBC volume.

Aside on the Tyndale-Strong's numbering system
What exactly is the Tyndale-Strong's numbering system (hereafter TS)? It is an adaptation of the Strong's numbering system to include more up-to-date lexical research than was available when Dr. James Strong originally created his system.

The Strong's numbers have proved tobe an invaluable tool for helping English-speaking students of the Bible get access to the words used in the Hebrew and Greek originals. But, from a scholarly perspective, it does have some problems. Sometimes, he lumped words together because they share the same Hebrew root, even though they are used as different words. There are also cases where homonyms were lumped together rather than being treated as distinct words. Some other issues could be mentioned, but Tyndale decided that there was no need to completely throw out his system and reinvent the wheel. Instead, the TS system retains all of Strong's original numbers, and adds new entries where necessary without affecting the Strong's numbers at all. Most often, this is done by adding letters to the numbers, so 1350 would become two entries: 1350 and 1350A.

In this way, the TS numbers will still be useful for connecting with older tools that use the Strong's system exlusively, but Tyndale's forthcoming word study tools will be able to connect with more up-to-date lexical scholarship via the new system with its finer distinctions.

The tools will be out there, and I really think that word study can be very illuminating when focusing on a dynamic translation. The NLT brings out shades of meaning in ways that more concordant translations can sometimes obscure. Which is more helpful in illuminating the shades of meaning in a word like the Greek sarx, a translation that always offers the English "flesh," or a translation that renders it differently according to how it is being used in context?

This year, a taste will be available with the original language word study system in the NLT Study Bible. In the NLT Study Bible, readers will have the opportunity to do limited word studies without needing to go to any other tool. By following the word study chain throughout the Old or New Testament, they will be able to see a single Hebrew or Greek word in multiple contexts and examine how it is translated in each verse. In some cases, we went beyond just words and tracked some important phrases, like 'arek 'appayim in the Old Testament. This tool, and the accompanying index with an explanation of how to do word studies (and how not to do word studies) and brief lexicon, will whet the appetites of serious Bible students to go even farther with effective word study. And it highlights the fact that the NLT is indeed uf great use in original language word studies.

Is the NLT good for serious study?
For word study, absolutely. The tools that are already published, and more that are coming in the future, will make the process of doing serious study with the NLT easier for busy pastors and Bible teachers. And the translation philosophy behind the NLT will help to highlight some of the differences between the English we speak today and the languages of the Bible, helping pastors and Bible teachers to do good word study and accurately communicate the meaning of the Scriptures.

But there is more to serious Bible study than word studies, and I'm sure people have other objections to the use of the NLT for "serious study," and I'd love to think about them and discuss how we can address them.

What other objections do you have to using the NLT for serious study? Post them in the comments and I'll address them in a future post.

Labels: Keith Williams, NLT, serious study, word study

Mark D. Taylor

I thought it might be helpful if I commented on the NLT's frequent use of "Hebrew" and "Greek" footnotes. Both of my examples are from the second edition text (2004 or 2007).

Example 1: In Gen 6:2, the NLT text reads, "The sons of God saw the beautiful women* and took any they wanted as their wives." (The asterisk, which is found in most editions of the NLT, points to a text note. But the NLT Study Bible does not use asterisks, since all of the NLT text notes are incorporated into the study notes.) The NLT text note reads, "6:2 Hebrew daughters of men; also in 6:4."

The purpose of the text note is to give the reader a glimpse into the Hebrew text behind the English word "women." Most English translations simply translate it literally: "daughters of men." But there are varying interpretations as to what this Hebrew expression means. After long and vigorous discussion, the Bible Translation Committee decided to select one of several possible meanings for the text of the translation. But we wanted our readers to know that this is an interpretive rendering--and other translations may well go different directions. The phrase "also in 6:4" simply means that the same Hebrew phrase occurs in 6:4, where the NLT again renders it "women." (The expanded note in the NLT Study Bible fleshes out various possible meanings of "sons of God" and "daughters of men.")

Example 2: In Matt 1:1, the NLT reads, "This is the record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of David* and of Abraham." The footnote reads, "1:1 Greek Jesus the Messiah, son of David."

Again, most translations simply use a literal rendering for huiou Dauid as "son of David." But in contemporary English, the word "son" almost always means a male descendant in the immediate next generation. If my grandfather had ever referred to me as "my son Mark," it would have been confusing. My grandfather's son (in the immediate next generation) was named Kenneth, and Kenneth's son (in the immediate next generation) is Mark. The NLT translators were concerned that the reader might misunderstand the term "son of David" as referring to a literal father-son relationship between David and Jesus. So we rendered the Greek phrase as "a descendant of David."

On the other hand, however, "Son of David" has messianic overtones, as is clearly seen in Matt 21:9; 22:42; etc. So our footnote at Matt 1:1 alerts the reader to the fact that the Greek term behind "a descendant of David" is more literally rendered "son of David." (The study note in the NLT Study Bible explicitly mentions the connection between the phrase "son of David" and the "Messiah.")

One advantage to these notes, we think, is that pastors or Bible study leaders who are using the NLT can simply point to the footnote to show the more literal rendering. Then they can expand on the various nuances of meaning of a term such as "son of David." And hopefully they won't be tempted to say, "The NLT is a little too expansive here, because the Greek really means 'son of David.'" (But then they would go on to explain that "son of David" doesn't really mean "son of David" as we would normally use the expression in English!)

So the "Hebrew" and "Greek" footnotes are fairly simple, but they carry a lot of freight!

Labels: Bible Translation Committee, Mark Taylor, NLT, NLT Study Bible, translation issues

1. The authors are directly involved in work on the NLT. Phil Comfort is the NT Coordinating Editor for the NLT and has been involved with the translation from the beginning, and Jason Driesbach is intimately involved with the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series as an editor and author.
2. Over half of this book is actually the text of the four canonical Gospels in the NLT.

So why should you be interested in this book?

In addition to the four canonical Gospels, Comfort and Driesbach have offered new translations of 17 other ancient Jesus texts, all in a style similar to the accessible New Living Translation. Some of them are long, some short. Some are well known (such as the Gospel of Thomas and the infamous Gospel of Judas), some have not received any attention outside of small scholarly circles. Some are seemingly orthodox, some are quite fanciful. But all of them are there, ready to be read for what they are by anybody who is interested. In addition, 18 more gospels are described and summarized for readers. In all, thirty-five noncanonical Jesus texts are covered, giving readers a comprehensive, accessible look at many ancient Jesus traditions alongside the four Gospels.

Do you know anybody who is interested in the "secret" gospels they've heard about on the Discovery Channel or through reading Dan Brown or Bart Ehrman? Maybe they are convinced that the church covered up the "truth" about Jesus. With this book, they can read those other gospels for themselves--right alongside the four canonical Gospels--and see what they really say. In such juxtaposition, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John stand up pretty well.

Check out the book, and give it to a friend who might be interested in Jesus but would never pick up a Bible. They'll get the chance to meet him through the text of Scripture and some other early Christian documents. And they'll also see that some of the gospels that are extolled as shedding more light on "who Jesus really was" are not really all that illuminating.

Phil and Jason have also offered some great essays to introduce the collection, and Phil has included his own story of discovering Jesus in the Preface (don't skip it--trust me, you won't be bored).

Labels: Gospels, Jesus, Keith Williams, NLT

I returned last week from ICRS in Orlando (that's "International Christian Retail Show" for those not in "the biz"). I always have mixed feelings about ICRS. There is a lot that frankly makes me cringe, but there is also a lot that gives me hope. Lot's of great books are out there which will do some serious good I believe. In my former life I was a book buyer for a small franchise chain of Christian stores. As a rule I don't carry a lot of handouts around because, frankly, they get heavy and I wouldn't get a chance to read most of them anyway. I did pick up a total of 5 books this time however:

1. Original Sin by Alan Jacobs (Harper One)
2. Life With God by Richard Foster (Harper One)
3. Surprised By Hope by N.T. Wright (Harper One)
4. Culture Making by Andy Crouch (IVP)

I picked these up because, 1) the publishers were willing to give them to me, for which I am very thankful; and 2) they will make me think. I need books that challenge me. It's much easier to read books that don't stretch you of course, but i find myself always wanting more. I have already started reading Original Sin, I actually heard him a week or so ago on "Extension 720" an evening radio program on WGN radio in Chicago that deals with all kinds of interesting topics. Very intriguing book.

The fifth was a Tyndale book which I know is crazy for me to pick up at a trade show in Orlando, but the author was there signing it. We The Purple by Marcia Ford. Generally I don't do politics, they stress me out too much, but this one intrigued me enough to pick up. I look forward to reading it.

But of course this is the NLT blog so I must talk about Bibles. One of the editors and I walked the floor and looked at the various Bibles out there. It's always fun to get a sense of what is going on, and it's definitely one of the things that I miss from my buyer days. The fact is there are a lot of great Bibles out there from several publishers. We are all different as people and different things appeal and minister to us. As Bible publishers we have gotten a lot better at producing great looking products. This is not exactly new, take a look at Bibles from 100 or 200 years ago. They were beautifully crafted. We are getting that back a bit I think (granted we also have all done some silly things as well). I have to say that I am glad that the utilitarian days seem to be over. I believe that we should celebrate the Scripture as a precious thing.

I look forward to seeing a lot of the Bibles that are coming. I got a chance to see the ESV Study Bible sampler (Gospel of Luke) and I have to say it looks great. I haven't been able to review it thoroughly, but from what I have seen, I'm impressed and I hope that it does well.

For our part, we had two major foci.

First was the launch of the NLT Study Bible. I really encourage you, if you haven't done so already to check out the Study Bible web site and blog. There's going to be a lot more coming in the next weeks and months. I am really excited about this Bible. I know that's the party line, but when I was a buyer I interacted with most every study Bible on the market. I know first hand that there are a lot of good ones. Really good ones. That's why, when I came on board Tyndale about 2 1/2 years ago I was excited to see print outs of Isaiah. I had been bugging my sales rep for a couple of years "where's the study Bible?" and I was not disappointed. I was actually blown away. I can't say enough about the job that the editorial team and the scholars have done. I believe that the best comparison will literally be to start in Genesis and look at the NLT Study Bible side by side with any other study Bible in the market, I have that much confidence in it. Now if only I can actually get my copy . . .

The second focus for us was the Operation Worship Bible. This is a unique and particularly gratifying product. The concept is simple and the ministry impact is huge. Call me crazy, but those are the kinds of products that I can get behind. Tyndale has partnered with several organizations, most notably Operation Worship, to create a Bible that will be given to U.S. troops. It's a compact Bible that fits in a fatigue pocket. The really cool part is that there are a couple of pages in the front for people to write a personal note to a soldier. It's not about supporting a war (or not supporting a war), but ministering to the hearts and minds of our service personnel.

Here's how it works. Go to a Christian bookstore, buy a Bible for under $5. Write a note. Give the Bible back to the store. That's it. The store gets a pre-paid UPS call tag and once a case of 32 is filled, they print the label and put it in the mail. The Bibles go to one of several locations around the country and Operation Worship gets them out to the troops. Very cool.

Our goal was 100,000 Bibles in 100 days. There will be more on that later, but let's just say it's going very well. It's still going and has helped push the NLT to the #2 spot in translation marketshare in Christian bookstores. It was encouraging to hear from retailers how happy they were to be a part of this program. The store gets to sell a Bible, make their full margin and be directly involved in a tremendous ministry. Don't get me wrong, it's a $5 Bible, the stores aren't making a lot of money here, but that's not the point really. I like to think of it as benevolent capitalism.

We gave retailers the opportunity to come by our booth and sign the Bibles to the troops over the several days of the convention. (They didn't have to pay for them). The stories we heard were amazing. One of our favorites was the Bible signed by someone from Beirut, Lebanon. You get chills. I talked to another person who was with the Kuwait Bible Society. On Thursday, I talked to an African American gentleman from, I believe, Alabama (forgive me if I got that wrong). He owns a bookstore. He was an Air Force Advisor in Vietnam. He told me some stories of what he saw and how people are still dealing with the affects of what they saw, did, and how they were treated when they returned to the States. He said he was called a warmonger. It was clear that it wasn't true and that it hurt. He was so excited to be a part of the Operation Worship Bible. He implored me to keep it up.

That's why I do this. It's really easy to get jaded. It's really easy to get competitive and want to "beat the competition." But in the end that misses the point. We want to minister to people. We want to be a part of what God is doing to redeem us all. That's why I am excited not only about the products that Tyndale is producing, but believe it or not, about what the ESV Study Bible is going to do as well even though it's from the "competition" across town.

Labels: ESV, ICRS, Kevin O'Brien, NLT, NLT Study Bible, Operation Worship

It's been just over a week since the NLT Blog launched, and already we're enjoying the discussion and interaction that makes blogging what it is. Here's a sampling of how our week went (if I missed something, let me know):

After a brief post in which Laura introduced the blog (and another in which I introduced myself), things started off with a bang when I responded to Tim Challies' post from that morning, Every Word of God. Pretty quickly, several bloggers took note and linked to the post and the new blog, including the first two blogs I ever read (Better Bibles and the Internet Monk). It was fun to engage with so many folks about Bible translation and the NLT. I also wrote about my NLT Odyssey and encouraged you to write about your own Bible translation journey.

Mark Taylor has also chimed in with a great post on one translation decision in Matthew 17:24-27. I am certainly looking forward to seeing more from him, as his insider vantage point on the history of the NLT and specific translation decisions make for a very unique perspective.

Kevin and Laura will also have plenty of interesting things to say in the future. One of the greatest features of this blog is the multiple perspectives that we bring, as I think will become apparent over time. Keep an eye out for another new contributor or two in the coming weeks as well.

Also, check out the NLT Study Bible site and Sean Harrison's blog. Sean is the general editor for the NLT Study Bible, and he's been showing off some of the great features of this forthcoming Bible for a few weeks now. One post I'll highlight is where he gives a glimpse of the original language word study chain system, an interesting and unique feature of the NLT Study Bible.

Thanks to all of you who are reading and commenting on this blog for helping us get off to a good start. We welcome your feedback on anything: posts you'd like to see, questions you'd like answered, etc. We really want this blog to become an integral part of the online community that is interested in the Bible as we offer "issues, perspectives, and news related to the New Living Translation and Bible publishing."

Update: Minutes after I finished this roundup, Laura piped in with some Bible news from an industry convention.

Labels: blogs, Keith Williams, NLT

I love the NLT. It is one of my primary translations at home and at church, but this wasn't always the case.

The first Bible I ever used with any regularity was an NIV. The small Christian school that I attended in first through fourth grade allowed us to memorize Scripture from either the NIV or the KJV, and I went with the NIV since it was the pew Bible at my church. When I was in high school and began to get "serious" about Bible study, I made the switch over to the NASB. I also used other translations, including the NIV, NKJV, and KJV. In the church circles I was running in, literal was best. And it didn't get more literal than the NASB.

I got a lot of mileage out of the NASB, and in fact I still have the leatherbound, ultrathin reference edition that my future wife gave me for my birthday in 1998, all marked up from my first couple of years in Bible college.

I don't remember when I first learned about the NLT, but I do remember when my wife discovered it. She was in a study group, reading through the entire Old Testament for a survey class in our first semester at Moody Bible Institute. One of her friends had an NLT, and the group quickly decided to simply pass the NLT around rather than having everyone read from their own translation. She took note and made sure that her next Bible purchase would be an NLT. Despite her enthusiasm, I still wasn't convinced, and I stayed with the NASB. This was in the fall of 1998, and she has been an NLT gal ever since.

The first time I actually used the NLT for more than checking a verse occasionally was in the spring of 2001, when my wife and I led an evangelistic Bible study through the Gospel of John. Everyone in our college ministry was able to invite their friends to come and read through John together, one chapter each week, to discover Jesus for themselves. We chose the NLT as our group text, and the church generously provided a complete copy of the NLT for everyone that attended the study. It was a fun, and fruitful, experience.

While we were leading this group through John, I was also flexing my new--and still somewhat awkward--Greek skills by translating through myself, along with the NLT, NASB, NIV, and D.A. Carson's commentary. I certainly didn't agree with the NLT everywhere, but often I found that I agreed with the NLT over against another translation in a particular reading. By the end of the 21-week session, I was quite pleased with the NLT. I still didn't switch to it as my primary Bible translation, but I had very positive feelings about it. In fact, we used it again for a new group the next year.

Through my study of Greek, I spent a lot of time in class and on my own thinking and reading about translation and language. More and more, I became disillusioned with the way I used to read a "literal" translation, under the impression that I had virtually unfettered access to the Greek and Hebrew original. As a result, I was "converted," and became a very strong advocate of dynamic equivalency. I returned "home" to the NIV, looking forward to the publication of the TNIV.

At this point, I went through a stage in my journey where I was harshly critical of more formal translations. I took every opportunity to criticize the "poor English" of the NASB. I was vocally critical of the "essentially literal" argument surrounding the (then) new ESV. This was a time when my voice was changing, and I probably should have kept my mouth shut.

In retrospect, I realize that the problem was with the way I had understood the NASB, not the translation itself. I was overconfident in the ability of any English translation to give me a transparent view of the original text, right down to words and grammar. I took my erroneous assumptions about how to use such a translation and compounded the error by blaming the translation itself.

I was just getting settled with using the TNIV when I became aware of an open position on the Bible editorial team here at Tyndale House Publishers. My wife had been using the NLT as her primary Bible (and therefore my secondary Bible) for several years, and so I was excited by the opportunity. I came in for my interview and was surprised to learn that the NLT had received a facelift. In 2004, a second edition had been released, of which my wife and I were completely unaware. We had been reading the 1996 edition. I left that interview with a copy of the new edition and burgeoning interest in the NLT.

I went home that afternoon and spent several hours poring over the NLT second edition: comparing specific passages with the 1996 edition (and my TNIV), reading Galatians straight through, checking individual verses against the Greek and Hebrew, noticing that poetry was now set as poetry, etc. I was impressed. It seemed like every verse had been gone over with a fine-toothed comb and improved where necessary. Whether I got the job or not, I became an "NLT guy" on that day.

The picture on this post is of my Bible shelf at work, and you can probably identify several of the Bibles I mentioned thoughout the post. I carry an NLT and my Reader's Greek NT to church with me on most Sundays (so they're not in the picture), but I also make regular use of the NRSV, I listen the the TNIV on my iPod, and I read the KJV in my pocket edition of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. So even if I am an NLT guy, I'm not an NLT-Only guy.



What's your story?
Post your story in the comments. Or, if you have a blog, write up a post about it and give us a link in the comments.

Labels: bible, Keith Williams, NLT, translation

Greetings, blogophiles and bibliophiles. My name is Mark Taylor, and I will be contributing to the NLT blog from time to time.

In addition to serving as President and CEO of Tyndale House Publishers and Tyndale House Foundation, I've had the privilege of serving on the Bible Translation Committee for the New Living Translation. And more specifically, I was the Chief Stylist for the NLT.


I will be happy to respond to specific questions about wording in the NLT or differences between the first and second editions of the NLT. And since I've been involved in the NLT from the very beginning of the idea, I will post some entries about the history and process of the translation.

Some of you will already have recognized the family relationship--and that Bible translation is in my blood. Yes, my father was Kenneth Taylor, who was the translator/creator of The Living Bible. He also founded Tyndale House Publishers and Tyndale House Foundation, so I've been in the family business ever since I was a kid.

I look forward to interacting with you.

Mark D. Taylor

Labels: Bible Translation Committee, Mark Taylor, NLT, Tyndale House Publishers

What exactly does that mean? Hasn't that already been taken care of? Is it even, well, biblical?

I'm glad you asked. And trust me, I ask the same questions. A lot. We Bible publishers walk a fine line. We take very seriously the privilege and responsibility we have in publishing the Bible. Our goal, and on this I am pretty sure that the folks at the other major Bible publishers would agree, is to get the Word of God into the hands of those that need it (that would be all of us the last time I checked). We want people to pick up and read the Bible, to take it to heart, to hear from God and be transformed by it.

And here is where the line comes in. We are constantly asking ourselves what it takes to get people to 1) pick up the Bible, and 2) actually (here's the kicker) read it. Sometimes we get it right. Sometimes we get it wrong. It is very easy, even with the best of intentions to inadvertently turn the Bible into a widget. I am constantly asking myself not just can we create a Bible, but should we. I am not perfect, so I know that I have suggested things that I shouldn't have and have probably turned down others that I should have accepted. But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

What does a "Director of Bibles and Bible Reference" do exactly (other than blogging and chasing down endless strings of e-mails)? Basically, my job is a combination of acquisitions and coordination of various departments here at Tyndale to create "new" Bibles and reference products (if you want to have some fun sometime tell someone you meet on a plane that you create Bibles. Interesting responses). This can be as simple as reviewing our Bibles to see if there is a hole (like "Select" a Bible we released last summer in a calfskin leather binding), to something as complex as working from the concept stage forward on a new study Bible. A given project may be a concept developed internally that we then take to writers to flesh out or it may be something that is brought to Tyndale that we review and determine whether or not to publish.

There are a whole lot of steps that are a part of the process: writing proposals, getting manufacturing costs, looking at sales trends, working with the design team, coordinating with the editorial team to make sure that what we intended to create is what we actually got (and if not does it work? is it better?). Thankfully I don't have to keep track of all of the details, but I am involved in some way in all of these steps.

I want to make sure that in the middle of details and pro formas, of analyzing the "market" (or maybe it's "THE market", I'm not sure really) that we don't lose site of why we are doing this in the first place. Way back when, Ken Taylor started working on the Living Bible for a simple reason - he wanted his kids to understand the Bible. As the father of three, I get that. It matters. More than just about anything else. And it matters for everyone, not just my kids. I have used a whole lot of translations over the years, I still do, but I chose to come to Tyndale because I believe that the NLT offers something unique.

Around Tyndale we use the tagline "the Truth made clear" in reference to the NLT. It's more than a nice marketing statement, more than something you can remember easily. I believe that it is a reflection of what the NLT aspires to be. It is the legacy of Ken Taylor and I am privileged to be a small part of it.

Labels: bible, development, Kevin O'Brien, NLT

One of the most common misconceptions about the NLT is that it is a paraphrase. It is not. The NLT is, in fact, a translation from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; it represents the work of nearly 100 scholars, specialists in the book(s) of Scripture to which they contributed.

The history of the NLT is one reason for the confusion, but another is related to other common misconceptions about Bible translation itself, specifically the philosophy known as dynamic equivalence. In the simplest terms possible, dynamic equivalence is a philosophy of translation that intends to communicate the meaning of the Bible, as it would have been understood in its original setting, as accurately as possible in today's language. This is often discussed in contrast with another philosophy of translation, formal correspondence or essentially literal. Again, simply, formal correspondence intends to communicate the words and word order of the original as closely as possible in the modern language. Of course, every translation of the Bible is more complex than those definitions imply. A strict formal correspondence translation would be unintelligible in any language, and a dynamic equivalent translation could become overly concerned with the limitations of its intended audience.

The juxtaposition of these two complementary translation philosophies, often with an eye to which of the two is "superior," often feeds some misconceptions about one philosophy or the other. This can happen from either side of the debate. In a recent post at Tim Challies' blog, some misconceptions about dynamic equivalence are presented, and I'd like to address them here.

The main idea of Challies' post is that words are of the utmost importance in any communication. At a basic level, that is certainly true. He begins his post with a few examples to illustrate the importance we often place on knowing and studying the exact words and not simply the message of important documents such as ransom notes, court transcripts, and love letters. Very true, but in all of the examples he cites, translation is not in view. If the kidnappers had written the ransom note in French, I'm sure any parent would insist on getting a fluent French speaker to translate the letter for them in language that made sense. And courts use on-the-fly interpreters to translate witness testimony into English for jurors. So, there isn't one-to-one correspondence between the emotional examples Challies begins with and the conclusions he makes about Bible translations.

But what about words in translation? First, it is important to understand that there is almost never a one-to-one correspondence between any word in one language and a word in another language (especially when one of the languages is ancient). To point to one example used in the post, machaira is a Greek word that refers to "a relatively short sword or other sharp instrument, sword, dagger" (BDAG), along with related metaphorical meanings. It is unlikely that any English reader, when given the word "sword," would conjure up the mental image of a 5-inch dagger. So the English word and the Greek word are similar--certainly related--but not equivalent.


So Challies' concern that the English word "sword" isn't present in the NLT and other dynamic equivalent translations isn't quite the problem he makes it out to be. To translate a metaphor in the original with an English phrase that captures its meaning, as the NLT does in Romans 13:4, is not "making a mockery of the words that were breathed out by God," as Challies characterized it. Rather, it is a transparent attempt to clearly communicate the force of the language to English readers today. When Paul wrote Romans, representatives of the government literally phorei machairan ("carried a sword"). This is no longer the case, at least not in most English-speaking areas of the world. It is appropriate to explain the metaphor in this context. In Acts 12:2, the word machaira is not being used metaphorically. James was probably literally killed with a sword. This doesn't display an inconsistency in the NLT translation philosophy; rather, it displays a deep commitment to communicate the meaning of Scripture as clearly as possible.

In Psalm 32:1, Challies compares the NLT to the ESV and wonders, "what has become of the word 'covered'? . . . Is 'covered' not one of the words God breathed out and wrote in His book?" Again, the assumption that an English word is inspired is suspect. The word in Hebrew is kesuh, and "put out of sight" is just as legitimate a translation as "covered."

More could be said about these issues, but I would like to close by pointing out some of the implicit and explicit claims about the value of dynamic equivalent translations of the Scriptures in Challies' post. Here is a sampling of his words:

Labels: bible, dynamic equivalence, essentially literal, Keith Williams, NLT, translation, words