NLT Study Bible
49 comments | Permalink
The new Study Bible for the NLT (New Living Translation) will be published by Tyndale on September 15, 2008. The official website for the NLT-SB just recently launched.
posted by JT at Saturday, May 31, 2008
49 Comments:
Many fine scholars contributed, so I am sure it is a fine Study Bible. But I noticed that in comparing approaches to Study Bibles they assert, "Using the NLT Study Bible is like being led through Scripture by a caring Bible teacher" and "Using the MacArthur Study Bible is like being led through Scripture by a theologian." I have problems with this kind of marketing. Maybe they should call it The Fireside Chat Study Bible.
25,000 study notes is a lot.
why dont they compare it to esv study?
The NLT Study Bible will be invaluable for a great number of things...except reading.
Very exciting news!
I love the New Living Translation and have great respect for a number of the scholars involved such as:
Tremper Longman III
John N. Oswalt
Mark Strauss
Douglas J. Moo
Grant R. Osborne
I can't wait to read this one.
"The GNB, NLT, and CEV share conspicuously a pronounced commitment to dynamic equivalent translation. The tradition of dynamic equivalent translation advises us to translate meaning, not form. But everything depends on how much one includes under the term meaning."
Gender and Generic Pronouns in English Bible Translation
by Vern Sheridan Poythress
Isn't putting a commentary in the NLT redundant?
Here I am, choosing among possible snarky comments, and I find that ChrisB has captured it with perfect succinctness.
ChrisB,
Isn't putting a commentary in the NLT redundant?
Funny comment.
However, I would suggest that the NLT (at least the second edition) is an excellent translation. I have been reading it this year (along with the ESV, TNIV, REB, and several other translations) and find it to be much less loose than some might believe. I was a skeptic until I purchased one and started reading it along with other translations.
This post has been removed by the author.
Study notes in a NLT... for study notes I would like to see Wayne Grudem or Leland Ryken notes on gender language if anything in a NLT... Otherwise what a waste of time to make a NLT into a study bible!
6/01/2008 0
I like to give new bible translations the Psalm 23 test, which is a good indicator of its beauty. I'll compare a fragment from the NLT to the Roman Catholic NAB (which is, frankly, quite awful).
NLT
You prepare a feast for me in the presence of my enemies. You honor me by anointing my head with oil. My cup overflows with blessings.
Surely your goodness and unfailing love will pursue me all the days of my life, and I will live in the house of the Lord forever.
Very beautiful! Now the NAB for comparison:
You set a table before me as my enemies watch; You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Only goodness and love will pursue me all the days of my life; I will dwell in the house of the LORD for years to come.
I agree with the comment left by Steve Dumas. In my opinion, the marketing method at work in making the comparisons with other study Bibles on the page http://www.nltstudybible.com/downloads/ApproachComparison.pdf reflects poorly on those presenting this resource.
In fact, I think the NIV Study Bible's notes on that comparison page are clearly better, both in terms of theology and 'life application,' than what the NLT Study Bible notes provide.
I'm glad to see good resources for learning the Bible made available; but it's sad to see this one marketed in a way that makes unhelpful and misleading comparisons.
I would like to see Wayne Grudem or Leland Ryken notes on gender language if anything...
These guys are on too much of an Anti-TNIV Crusade for me to consider them objective.
I don't think it would be wise to completely write off the NLT which resulted from the work of men such as:
Grant Osborne
Craig Blomberg
John Oswalt
Darrell Bock
D.A. Carson
Douglas Moo
Moises Silva
William Lane
Greg Beale
Robert Mounce
The Word of God in English, by Leyland Ryken: Rescuing many from the domain of dynamic equivalence since 2002.
Seriously... awesome book. Definitely worth the $11 or so. Read it before buying an NLT Study Bible.
Use an NLT as a secondary translation. It's amazing for that purpose. Personally, some should reconsider their comments. It may offend some. Is it really worth it. For the people doing the lists of scholars who worked on the NLT, you're forgetting Thomas R. Schreiner, who although he's not a fan of gender neutral, was quite supportive of the NLT as a whole!
For the people doing the lists of scholars who worked on the NLT, you're forgetting Thomas R. Schreiner, who although he's not a fan of gender neutral, was quite supportive of the NLT as a whole!
I was only listing the scholars whose work I had read, even if only a small portion.
And to my embarrassment, I have read a book edited by, and with a contribution from, Thomas R. Schreiner, namely Believer's Baptism. Excellent book by the way. So I will gladly add Thomas R. Schreiner to the list of respected scholars (whose works, even if only a little, I have read) involved in the translation of the NLT.
Please don't misunderstand my comment as tantamount to saying the NLT is a worthless translation. It's not. And, as I said before, many fine scholars contributed. The latest edition of the NLT is a great improvement over earlier editions. (In fact, the NLT SE is almost a new translation compared to previous editions.) However, the NIV and MacArthur study notes were prepared by equally caring Bible teachers, as the notes in each reflect. The NLT notes were written by scholar-theologians like MOO. The MacArthur notes by a Pastor-teacher. To imply that the NLT is superior in this regard is gimmickry.
This is a great discussion regarding the NLT which is a bible that is not faithful to the original text, my comments are not meant to offend anyone however I am less concerned about offending man than I am about offending God.
A good read on this subject and translation is "translating truth" The case for essentially literal translation by Wayne Grudem, Leland Ryken, C John Collins, Vern S Poythress and Bruce Winter with forward by J I Packer.
http://www.crossway.org/product/1581347553
About the book...
In an age when there is a wide choice of English Bible translations, the issues involved in Bible translating are steadily gaining interest. Consumers often wonder what separates one Bible version from another.
The contributors to this book argue that there are significant differences between literal translations and the alternatives. The task of those who employ an essentially literal Bible translation philosophy is to produce a translation that remains faithful to the original languages, preserving as much of the original form and meaning as possible while still communicating effectively and clearly in the receptors’ languages.
Translating Truth advocates essentially literal Bible translation and in an attempt to foster an edifying dialogue concerning translation philosophy. It addresses what constitutes “good” translation, common myths about word-for-word translations, and the importance of preserving the authenticity of the Bible text. The essays in this book offer clear and enlightening insights into the foundational ideas of essentially literal Bible translation.
Vince,
This is a great discussion regarding the NLT which is a bible that is not faithful to the original text
That comes off as pretty harsh. I don't think your assessment is accurate at all.
I have read Translating Truth. It was an interesting read yet unconvincing to me.
I found How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss to be more thorough. I would highly recommend it to all who are interested in the whole process of Bible translation.
FD: I am an editor at Tyndale and I worked on the NLT Study Bible
Thanks for linking to the NLT Study Bible website!
I'd like to speak to a couple of the things that have come up in the comments:
1. The comparison chart is in no way intended to denigrate the other study Bibles or the people who worked so hard to create them. We realize how much hard work goes into creating a study Bible, and we know that anyone who is willing to spend the time and energy required to create one is doing it for the sake of the church, to help people understand God's Word.
We did our best to find a passage of Scripture that would give a good representation of each study Bible represented on the chart; there was no attempt to make sure the NLT Study Bible was "better" on that one note. If you find that the NIV Study Bible notes are "better," that is OK. Not every study Bible is for everyone.
The chart is intended to show how these largely similar products differ from one another. The best way to capture that difference, we felt, was to describe the overall feel of the material.
The taglines on the top of each column are all positive; it is important to have each perspective when reading the Bible, and frankly all four products have elements of all four approaches. Of course John MacArthur is a caring Bible teacher. We in no way intend to imply that he isn't, but the product does tend to focus more on theology than other similar study Bibles. The chart is simply trying to quantify the overall feel of the product.
2. Why isn't the ESV Study Bible included in the comparison? We wanted to ensure that our comparisons were completely fair to the other products. The ESV Study Bible isn't available for comparison, beyond the limited materials Crossway has released to give a taste of the product.
Just as we would hope that people will give the NLT Study Bible a chance before making sweeping claims about it based solely on marketing materials, we wouldn't do that to another publisher.
I'd encourage anyone to read the first six chapters of Genesis in the NLT Study Bible, which is available for free download on the website. It will give you a better feel for the product than if you limit yourself to just the comparison chart.
This post has been removed by the author.
Dear Keith (one of the NLT Study Bible editors):
I appreciate your effort at an explanation regarding the comparisons page, but I still find it hard not to believe that the purpose of that page was to make the NLT Study Bible come across more favorably than the others -- that is understandable, I suppose.
But to say that the NIV Study Bible is like being led through the Bible by an 'historian' (versus a 'caring Bible teacher') is reductionistic, mis-leading and, frankly, patronizing.
I can't imagine that the scholars associated with this Study Bible (who would value both theology and history in understanding Scripture) are very enthused about how the marketing team has chosen to present this resource to Christians and the church.
dp,
We do think the NLT Study Bible compares favorably with other study Bibles, but that doesn't mean we think those other study Bibles are deficient. They are different, however.
I agree that the taglines are somewhat simplistic, but any time you want to describe a book that contains nearly 2 million words (as the NLT Study Bible does with Scripture and features) by using a single word or phrase, it is not going to be a nuanced and comprehensive description.
I can say categorically that there was no intent to denigrate those other Bibles. The NLT Study Bible does value historical, archaeological, and theological insight--as you will see if you read the sample available. The chart was intended to offer some of the best examples of available study Bibles, and show the the NLT Study Bible compares favorably with them.
Thanks for your interaction.
Keith,
Even a few words can be chosen carefully...or not. I'm guessing the NLT folks wouldn't welcome a comparison page that said, "The NIV Study Bible is like being led through the Bible by godly Christian scholars."
"...THe NLT-SB is like being led by a pal."
Keith,
Thank you for your work on this project. I am eagerly anticipating getting my hands on this fine resource.
Do you know if these Bibles are smyth sewn?
I have just read the Genesis extract on the dedicated NLT Study Bible website and I personally find it very strange that it completely avoids any comment on the length of the days of creation.
Whatever your view on the length of the days, it is an important issue and surely should have been at least mentioned in a Study Bible.
(My view is that they were 6 literal 24 hour days; based on the Hebrew used and the view of others in scripture and Jesus Himself)
Glennsp,
You may have missed it. On page 23 of the Study Bible, or page 8 of the pdf file, you will find a note on verse 1:5 as follows:
1:5 God called (or named): To name something is to exercise authority over it (see also 2:19-20). ● day: The Hebrew yom can refer to daylight (1:5a), to a 24-hour period (1:5b), or to an unspecified time period(2:4b, “When,” literally in the day; cp. Exod 20:8-11). ● evening...morning: The Hebrew day began at sundown, just as the first day began with darkness and brought the first morning light.
Thus, in 1:5 where it reads And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day, the notes define "day" as a 24-hour period.
Now I'm even more excited about this Study Bible.
I'm really looking forward to the NLT Study Bible. I'm sure that both this and the ESV will be great resources. Even if I would not recommend the NLT as the a person's sole translation I find it incredibly helpful. Thanks for entering the discussion Keith!
Some of the anti-NLT Study Bible comments seem off-base to me.
For example, the assertion that study notes for an NLT bible are "redundant." I guess the point is that the NLT is too "loose" a translation, but this particular "criticism" basically amounts to acknowledging that the NLT is so easy to read that it doesn't need study notes. That strikes me as an odd criticism.
And besides, no matter how loose a translation is, of course explanatory notes are always helpful.
As for the comparison with other Study Bibles, is it somehow wrong for the publisher to imply that their study bible is in some sense better than its competitors?
I think the comment on Genesis 1:5 is intentionally ambiguous on the length of the creation days, which makes sense: there's no point in alienating half of your potential audience.
I never purchased the MacArthur Study Bible because of its insistence on a "young earth." I respect that position, but I don't like the attitude that there's no other possible legitimate interpretation.
That being said, it does seem somewhat odd that the NLT Study Bible doesn't have a fuller discussion of the issue, without taking sides.
K-Funk,
As I mentioned above, in Genesis 1:5 And evening passed and morning came, marking the first day, the notes define "day" as a 24-hour period.
It seemed to me that they were supporting a 24-hour period for the creation days. In the note to 1:5 they did cite verses that used the Hebrew yom in different ways.
Just my take.
For example, the assertion that study notes for an NLT bible are "redundant." I guess the point is that the NLT is too "loose" a translation, but this particular "criticism" basically amounts to acknowledging that the NLT is so easy to read that it doesn't need study notes. That strikes me as an odd criticism.
Forgive me for speaking for Chris B, but as someone with similar concerns I may be able to clarify this.
The complaint is not that it's too loose a translation. The complaint is that it's not a translation at all, but a paraphrase. The "redundant" remark is based on the fact that the NLT is already what seems to be a commentary, and so adding one is kinda funny.
And being "too easy to read" is certainly a valid criticism, depending on what's being 'translated' and the purpose of the author(s) of the text(s). If you were to take Shakespeare from its Elizabethan language and 'translate' it to make it more 'readable' for the modern lay person, but really what you've done is changed what was actually written -- all while making it easy to read -- it's a valid criticism. We wouldn't think of doing that with respected authors of the classics. And if we did, the lovers of those classics for all the beauty the language manifests would give the disclaimer, "Well, it's not really Shakespeare; it's a paraphrase of it. Sure it's easier to read, but you lose something when you tamper with what he actually said." And they'd be right.
The words that were actually written in the Old and New Testaments translated as literally as possible (allowing for figurative speech, etc.) is clear enough and readable enough for anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. We don't need to bring the Bible into modern times, we need to bring modern people into Biblical times. Any attempt to "clarify" the Bible while still calling the clarification the Bible itself is in fact obscuring the text.
I could go on, but I'll brace myself for the onslaught. Really though, read Ryken's book that I linked to above.
Mike Riccardi,
The complaint is that it's not a translation at all, but a paraphrase.
According to their website:
"The New Living Translation follows a dynamic-equivalence translation philosophy...It is a fresh translation...it is a translation that seeks to communicate the meaning and content of the original biblical text in language that English readers will readily understand."
Are they not being truthful? Are you trying to impugn the character of those who did the translation work for the NLT?
The words that were actually written in the Old and New Testaments translated as literally as possible (allowing for figurative speech, etc.) is clear enough and readable enough for anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God.
Then why did God bother with giving us teachers?
We don't need to bring the Bible into modern times, we need to bring modern people into Biblical times.
Why are you writing in English? Take us into Biblical times. Why use English Bibles in churches? Not very Biblical.
Mike Riccardi,
It sounds like you would like the Literary Study Bible, edited by Ryken.
I guess we just disagree on the issue of translations. The whole point of translating the Bible into English was to make it readable by the masses. I certainly see the value of a literal translation that gets us as close as possible to the original authors' words, but I don't see anything wrong with making the Bible easier to read for a lay audience.
As to whether the NLT is a "translation" or a "paraphrase," it's really a matter of semantics. Certainly, the NLT is less literal than, say, the NASB or even the NIV. Does that make it a paraphrase? It depends on how you define "translation" and "paraphrase."
Stan,
Your rhetoric is almost unbearable. I'll respond later when I have some more time. That'll give you some time to get off the horse, brother.
This post has been removed by the author.
K-Funk,
As to whether the NLT is a "translation" or a "paraphrase," it's really a matter of semantics.
Good point.
As neither the NASB nor the ESV are in the original languages and are thus translations with, to one degree or another, some paraphrasing, one could also say As to whether the NASB or ESV is a "translation" or a "paraphrase," it's really a matter of semantics.
I suppose I find it irritating that Bible versions like the NLT, NIV, TNIV, etc. get (in my opinion) unjustly maligned.
Having formerly been a non-conformist in a KJOnly church, I am perhaps overly senstive to translations being declared insufficient. It's like there is a group of ESV Only folks out there. Or maybe RAOnly (Ryken Approved Only).
This appears to be an area of preferences. As such, there is no need for the infighting. I think the Christian tent is big enough for the various translations in use today. If it's not, I think our tent is in need of repair.
Are they not being truthful? Are you trying to impugn the character of those who did the translation work for the NLT?
Certainly not. When someone believes something that is false is true, it doesn't mean they're lying. It means they're incorrect in their premises. I'm not accusing them of calling something a translation that they know really isn't. I'm calling into question their criteria for recognizing something as a viable translation.
Then why did God bother with giving us teachers?
To explain that clearly revealed Word to us. That the Bible is perfectly clear and perspicuous does not rule out our need for teachers and shepherds who labor in the Word of God and unfold and explain its meaning to people. You don't want to say that since we have pastors and teachers that the Bible isn't sufficiently clear, do you?
Why are you writing in English? Take us into Biblical times. Why use English Bibles in churches? Not very Biblical.
I really thought you were above this argument, Stan. I mean seriously, haven't you gotten tired of it? There's a difference between language and register. I'm writing in English because that is the common code that people understand on this blog, because I don't mean to be cryptic. I'm not speaking in Greek or Hebrew because there's just no point to. Not everyone understands Koine and Hebrew (including me) and the point is not to converse in biblical language just for the sake of doing so. But you know that.
What I'm advocating is not that we rule out bible translations into all languages and require people to learn the originals -- though that certainly would be a valiant goal for churches everywhere. I'm advocating that, since only the original manuscripts are inspired, that we remain as faithful to those original texts as possible. I'm not prohibiting English Bibles. But I'm not asking people to read a different language when I say to read the NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, etc. I'm asking them to read their own language.
So if you have any real, substantive questions, I'd be happy interact further. But if not we'd better nip this in the bud. I enjoy our interactions, but I really do need to be honest and tell you that I've never received such rhetoric from someone with whom I agree on as many other things as you and I do.
It sounds like you would like the Literary Study Bible, edited by Ryken.
Not necessarily, actually. I'm fine with any study Bible that doesn't try to mix the commentary into the Scripture.
I guess we just disagree on the issue of translations. The whole point of translating the Bible into English was to make it readable by the masses.
Absolutely true. But I ask, are the essentially literal translations in a different language? Not at all! As I said before, the NASB, ESV, etc. are all very readable for Native English speakers and even for intermediate English language learners.
I certainly see the value of a literal translation that gets us as close as possible to the original authors' words, but I don't see anything wrong with making the Bible easier to read for a lay audience.
Even if, in the process, it ceases to be what the Bible actually said? I'm sorry man, but I do have a problem with that. There's no reason that a "translator" should get to decide what any word of the Bible means and pre-emptively interpret it for me and tell me it's what Scripture says. It's not what Scripture says. It's their interpretation of what it says.
As to whether the NLT is a "translation" or a "paraphrase," it's really a matter of semantics. Certainly, the NLT is less literal than, say, the NASB or even the NIV. Does that make it a paraphrase? It depends on how you define "translation" and "paraphrase."
This is a very perceptive point and I'll admit that my language here may have been unhelpful. My point was to say that I don't think that the philosophy behind dynamic equivalent translation theory is a valid theory of translation. That's because, simply put, it does more than translate. As I said earlier, in many places it does the interpretation for me.
That's not putting the Bible in the hands of the masses. That's actually doing exactly what the medieval catholic priests did. It's hiding or obscuring the actual word, and interpreting it for me. And then they call it Scripture! No thanks man.
And I should say that I don't like it when even the 'essentially literal' translations do this in certain spots. I see absolutely no warrant to change what the text says because you think it'll be more "readable." The emphasis shouldn't be on dumbing the text down to the lowest common denominator. It should be teaching the masses to understand the Biblical text in the Biblical context.
And let me say that I've got no beef with dynamic equivalent folks. For those who read DE bibles, I'd like them to know that they're reading a text that may or may not have been interpreted by someone else. For those who distribute DE bibles, I'd just ask that they make people understand sufficiently that they've interpreted the text for people in some places. Don't tell me it's God's Word when really it's what you think God's Word is. That's all.
Mike Riccardi,
I think you would benefit tremendously from How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss.
One of the points they stress is that "All translation involves interpretation."
Stan,
I suppose I likewise think that you would benefit tremendously from "The Word of God in English" by Leyland Ryken.
One of the points made in his chapter entitled "Seven Fallacies about Translation" is "#2: All translation is interpretation."
(Disclaimer: He does distinguish between linguistic interpretation -- the choice among similar alternatives [e.g., 'desert' vs. 'wilderness'] -- and thematic interpretation, and comments that it is the latter that is usually meant by "devotees of dynamic equivalence theory and practice" who "invoke the principle that all translation is interpretation" [p. 86].)
Mike Riccardi,
Thanks for the recommendation but I've read that one, twice (maybe even three times) actually. I find How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth more compelling.
For now, we will not be stumping together for the same translation philosophy.
However, we will be proclaiming the same Jesus. Keep up your passion for the truth.
Mike,
Good points. I guess here's my way of looking at it: I think the risk of losing some of the original authors' meaning by reading the NLT is outweighed by the benefit of actually understanding everything you're reading.
For example, when I read a literal translation, I'm often frustrated that I don't know who pronouns refer to.
For indepth study of a particular book or passage, I agree that a literal translation is best, because then you can really take the time to parse out each sentence.
But my usual goal with Study Bibles is to read through the Bible relatively quickly, and I think the NLT makes that much easier, without losing TOO much of the original authors' meaning, although I admit that there's a certain amount of trust involved that the translators "got it right."
Its funny I just finished a conversation yesterday with another ESV worshipper. Lets talk about the reality of the ESV:
1) The bible deliberately mistranslates in line with KJV traditionalism. That is where the KJV makes a mistake or a questionable choice they are reluctant to correct even when it throws off internal consistency in the book. That isn't "essentially literal" its historical based translation.
2) Formal equivalence distorts meaning in exchange for better word study. You aren't gaining meaning you are losing it. You want an example where the NLT is better than the ESV, titus 1:6. If you read the ESV neither Jesus nor Paul can be elders since they are bachelors.
3) The arguments used by most ESV proponents are arguments that would work better for something like the concordant bible:
-- Concordant uses the same English word for the same Greek word every time thus preserving word choice of the original.
-- Concordant maintains Greek sentence structure and has the reader rearrange the sentences in their head thus preserving the word play of the original.
-- Concordant translates each verse in a consistent way, in line with the given text and not other parts of the bible.
The Concordant is an "essentially literal" translation. What is the ESV is an update of the RSV with slightly more modern language, a small number of changes based on better greek originals and a shift in political philosophy to the right.
I don't personally use the NLT, but I don't use the ESV either.
You want "essentially literal" try the concordant
You want "accurate scholarship" in an RSV based bible I'd say the NRSV wins hands down.
You want to be able to do accurate word studies the NET is much better than the ESV.
You want a bible that's excellent for expository preaching I'd say the REB beats it hands down.
I think one can make a far better case that the Reformation Study Bible is what carries the ESV, than that the NLT study is what carries the NLT.
The NLT is a very good children's bible on its own. The NLT is a very good bible for people with poor reading skills (replacing say the BBE) on its own. The NLT in general manages to achieve what bibles like
I think its time I write a blog post on this. Its bad enough we have the KJVO crowd, it seems like the ESVO crowd is starting to form.
cd-host,
It sounds like you have a beef with the ESV. What's up with that? It's a fine translation.
As for the REB, it has recently become my favorite. I enjoy the NLT as well; it's not just for kids.
I think one can make a far better case that the Reformation Study Bible is what carries the ESV, than that the NLT study is what carries the NLT.
How? Looking at CBA sales figures for Bible Translations and Study Bibles, it doesn't look like the Reformation Study Bible is making a dent at all.
By the way, I own, and love, a Reformation Study Bible.
Stan --
You see that dialogue with Mike Riccardi above. Or client's first comment. My biggest beef with the ESV is that it is rapidly becoming a cult. If people understood what is was, a conservative update of the ASV. Fine no problem.
But as the be all and end all translation, the standard for churches everywhere. Yeah I've got a big beef. In fact I'm starting to put together materials for a series on my blog "ESV-onlyism".
1) Its wildly inaccurate, frequently translating things not from the original but rather in line with historical translations.
2) It lets its politics get in the way. For example it is more sexist than the KJV. I just recently had to deal with their lousy translation of Titus 1:6 in a debate.
3) If you think of translation on a 9 point scale:
1) Hebrew/Greek, Digot or Hebrew/Greek Reader (NA27, MT/BT, TR, MT-Heb)
2) Interlinear translation (Brown & Comfort, Marshall, McReynolds, Concordant interlinear)
3) Highly literal (NASB, YLT, Mounce, Concordant)
4) Formal (ESV, KJV, ASV, NKJV,HCSB)
5) Balanced (TNIV, NRSV, NET, NIV)
6) Tight Dynamic (REB, NAB)
7) Dynamic (NEB, NJB, CEV)
8) Loose dynamic (NLT, GNB)
9) Paraphase (MSG, TLB, TAB, JBP)
Ryken has managed to convince millions that steps 1-4 are the "word of God" while 5-9 aren't. What so special about the jump from 4 to 5 that isn't much more true of 2 to 3?
I could keep going. I will keep going in my series. Basically what's up with that is that I hate the ESV cult.
CD-Host,
Thanks for your response.
Leading up to my purchase of my REB, NLT, TNIV and NAB I developed somewhat of beef with the ESV myself for the following reasons:
- Primarily I was bothered by Grudem's attack of the TNIV.
- How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss won me over completely.
- Ryken's book was not convincing at all. I read it before the above book. The first read it made a little sense. The second read made less sense. The third read was somewhat frustrating.
- I disagree with its philosophy of holding on to "masculine" language when that is simply not how Americans speak today. I have heard several of the big name signers of the Colorado Springs Guidelines use "gender accurate" language on the radio in the past week alone.
I disagree with your assertion that Its wildly inaccurate.
I did stop reading the ESV for several weeks earlier this year. Since then, I have read it along with the translations above and the NASB. They are all, even the NLT, in close agreement. There are some differences but nothing drastic. I believe you may have overstated your case on that point.
"ESV-onlyism" does seem to have (at least) a small following.
I don't find the ESV to be elegant. The REB, to me, is reading at its finest. The English may be on to something when they say we (Americans) can't speak our own language.
What about your Study Bible comment?
Stan --
Lets see...
Agree 100% on Ryken. His argument would argue for an interlinear style translation, so say Brown & Comfort much more than for the ESV. It would also argue for staying much closer to the Greek in the Epistles so something more like Pagels than your typical evangelical translation. But this is where he balances paying lip service to accuracy while paying homage to tradition.
I agree the REB is excellent. I also think its likely the best all around translation in English. Since you say you are new to it, I'd pick up the NEB. The REB toned down some of the NEB's uniqueness and what you might be liking in the REB is the NEB.
Given the translation philosophy they claim, yes. But remember the NLT is heavily influenced by the American Protestant tradition too. Its just a very simplified and gushy translation in the same spirit.
I disagree with your assertion that Its wildly inaccurate.
When the ESV disagrees with the TNIV on a non gender related issue what percentage of the time do you think the ESV is correct and the TNIV just plain wrong? Now do it vice versa.
If by not wildly inaccurate you mean they don't screw things up any worse than the RV then yes I agree. The ESV fails the Isaiah 7:14 test, which is a good test of whether a bible is translating or propagandizing. I could point to other examples but that one is the most famous.
As for my Study Bible comment. Your statistics were about sales my comment was about meaning. That it is the culture around the ESV that adds value to the ESV not the translation itself. Sales figures one way or another don't address that.
Stan --
I posted to my blog a longer version of the comments I made here regarding the ESV.
CD-Host,
Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading your additional comments.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home