NLT vs NIV: What's the Difference Between Bible Translations?

[Delighting In Grace]

Of those two I'd choose NLT over NIV.

Any particular reason why?

 

[Delighting In Grace]

Well, shoot. I had a nice post typed up, and when I went to check a grammatical question I had, an advert crashed my browser. Yuck.

Let me (re)start by saying that the NIV and NLT are both good Bible versions. I actually just completed a search for my personal Bible version. I personally settled on the ESV, but I use the NLT for the youth group I lead. We chose the NLT because of the accesibility of the translation (it's a small, growing church, so I have a wide age range right now) and also because the Student's Life Application Study Bible has some supplemental content that stays true to Scripture and supplements Scripture in a postive manner.

I do not like when people call the NLT a paraphrase. The NLT is not a paraphrase. Peterson's The Message Bible is a paraphrase because it seeks not just to translate the material of the Bible, but to summarize it for a modern reader.

The reason for the paraphrase confusion is that the NLT is much closer to the end spectrum of dynamic equivalence translation. This is just a fancy term for the translation being a thought-for-thought translation. As any dynamic equivalence Bible will, the NLT inherits the positives and the negatives of that aspect of translation. The positive is that the NLT presents very conversational English, the negative is that this comes at the expense of figurative language.

Contrast this somewhat with the NIV. The NIV probably lies closest to the theoretical center of the dichotomy of formal (think literal, essentially word-for-word translation seeking to preserve the structure/form of the text) equivalence and dynamic (again, thought-for-thought) equivalence. The NIV will preserve more of the figurative language yet still remains quite easy to read, as I am sure you've seen.

To close out, the criticism you've seen for the NIV can just as easily be applied to the NLT. The NIV catches more criticism because of its popularity (it retains the #1 position in terms of Bibles sold (dollar-wise and volume-wise). The NLT flies under the radar somewhat although it too stays in the top 4 in both categories. I also think many people dismiss the NLT as a paraphrase whereas the NIV is viewed as all the more devious because it's an imitation of the real thing closer to their coveted literal Bible translation. Most of the criticism swirls around the gender neutral language that the NIV uses - which again is present in the NLT.

If you plan to use the Bible as a study tool, then I would recommend the NIV. If you go with the NLT, I would recommend a more literal translation (NASB, ESV, HCSB or NKJV) to be used in tandem with the NLT. (You don't necessarily need to purchase a second one, as you can take advantage of free online resources.)

Thank you for the helpful post. Now that my fears over the NIV are being settled I find the decision between the two becoming harder to make!

 

[L0NEW0LF]

Now I must ask you, why, exactly, are you limiting your choices to just the NIV and NLT?

 

[Delighting In Grace]

Now I must ask you, why, exactly, are you limiting your choices to just the NIV and NLT?

Refer to my original post.

 

[L0NEW0LF]

What do you find comforting about them?

 

[Delighting In Grace]

What do you find comforting about them?

They are the easiest for to me to understand with general reading.

 

[Unix]

I would choose: Amazon.com: The Story: Zondervan: Books

They are the easiest for to me to understand with general reading.

 

[Striver]

Thank you for the helpful post. Now that my fears over the NIV are being settled I find the decision between the two becoming harder to make!

I'll give you the sage advice someone gave me when I allowed a very similar decision to paralyze me:

Pick one.

You can do it! God will direct your steps, and you'll know if you make the wrong choice. FWIW, neither of your choices is the wrong choice.

 

[ebia]

The Jerusalem is common overseas among the Catholics,

It's the bible used for the Catholic Mass for most of the English speaking world.

 

[ebia]

Any particular reason why?

I find the NIV dull.

 

[ElainaMor]

I find the NIV dull.

I don't know much about the NIV but I'm curious why you find it dull.

 

[Delighting In Grace]

I'll give you the sage advice someone gave me when I allowed a very similar decision to paralyze me:

Pick one.

You can do it! God will direct your steps, and you'll know if you make the wrong choice. FWIW, neither of your choices is the wrong choice.

Thanks, I'll be going to the local christian store this weekend. I'll take a look at there NIV's and NLT's and see what they have available. Maybe looking at the bibles and what features they have will help me make a final pick.

 

[ebia]

I don't know much about the NIV but I'm curious why you find it dull.

A personal taste for the style of language.

 

[rdcast]

Hi All, I'm a new christian looking to invest in a new bible. I have done what research I can on translations and compared versions on biblegateway.com I feel most comfortable with the NIV and NLT. I'm only going to buy one bible and use biblegateway when studying since it has all the other versions available. I'm having a tough time deciding between the NIV and NLT, mostly cause I've read several bad reviews about the NIV 2011. If the reviews are true about the new NIV being so bad than I will obviously pick the NLT. If the reviews aren't true than I will most likely pick the NIV.

Does anyone know much about either translation? Is one better than the other? Like I said, I can only buy one bible so I want to make sure I make the right choice. Thanks for the help!

Hello Ms Delighting In Grace. Finding this forum should prove to be very challenging in a positive way.

You're the only one I've mentioned this to, but I lost my mom a week ago and I miss her more than words can say. She had a ministry of giving away bibles and I have received many from her myself. She was always interested in which version was the best and because of that, I too have found the subject interesting. We both have had a long standing love for the KJV. I like the NKJV and the 21st Century KJV also, just because. There's a roaring debate over the deleterious influence from commercial demands on modern translations. Regardless of how much more ancient transcripts are found, these influences are a persistent factor. Part of it might well be due to the approach of the end of the age. Satan not having much time left is showing his full colors, so to speak.

I'm a little embarrassed to suggest this, but I like doing some research on YouTube I enjoy video and there are many experts who have bothered to speak on this issue of translations. Keep in mind that the more you discover, the more you realize it's the Holy Spirit who alone, provides the perfect translation deep within your heart and soul.

I'll leave you with this one challenging thought concerning a battle among many Christians and most Atheists. While on YouTube, look up the gap theory as it tries to reconcile the presumed age of the earth and the 6 days of Creation. Then search for the "Young Earth" theory. As it relates to translations, you'll discover an interesting fact.

Genesis 1 21st Century King James Version
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If you remove the "the" then you remove an obstacle to the gap theory as found in the NASB as follows(neither bible you've entertained has this discrepancy):

Genesis 1 New American Standard Bible
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

This allows for the apologist to imagine that God's "one" day could be infinite, or at least long enough to accommodate the evolutionists insistence that to believe God created Heaven and earth in 6 days or 6 thousand years, would be patently ridiculous. Do check out the "Young Earth Theory" on YouTube. I particularly enjoy the glaring proof that man walked with the dinosaurs.

Welcome to CF

 

[Delighting In Grace]

Hello Ms Delighting In Grace. Finding this forum should prove to be very challenging in a positive way.

You're the only one I've mentioned this to, but I lost my mom a week ago and I miss her more than words can say. She had a ministry of giving away bibles and I have received many from her myself. She was always interested in which version was the best and because of that, I too have found the subject interesting. We both have had a long standing love for the KJV. I like the NKJV and the 21st Century KJV also, just because. There's a roaring debate over the deleterious influence from commercial demands on modern translations. Regardless of how much more ancient transcripts are found, these influences are a persistent factor. Part of it might well be due to the approach of the end of the age. Satan not having much time left is showing his full colors, so to speak.

I'm a little embarrassed to suggest this, but I like doing some research on YouTube I enjoy video and there are many experts who have bothered to speak on this issue of translations. Keep in mind that the more you discover, the more you realize it's the Holy Spirit who alone, provides the perfect translation deep within your heart and soul.

I'll leave you with this one challenging thought concerning a battle among many Christians and most Atheists. While on YouTube, look up the gap theory as it tries to reconcile the presumed age of the earth and the 6 days of Creation. Then search for the "Young Earth" theory. As it relates to translations, you'll discover an interesting fact.

Genesis 1 21st Century King James Version
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

If you remove the "the" then you remove an obstacle to the gap theory as found in the NASB as follows(neither bible you've entertained has this discrepancy):

Genesis 1 New American Standard Bible
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

This allows for the apologist to imagine that God's "one" day could be infinite, or at least long enough to accommodate the evolutionists insistence that to believe God created Heaven and earth in 6 days or 6 thousand years, would be patently ridiculous. Do check out the "Young Earth Theory" on YouTube. I particularly enjoy the glaring proof that man walked with the dinosaurs.

Welcome to CF

I'm sorry about the loss of your mother. It's never easy losing a loved one.

I'm a little confused as to what you are telling me. Are you saying modern translations are wrong? Less accurate?

 

[Jonathan95]

Please don't be offended but I must say you speak from ignorance.

The NIV is a "dynamic equivalence" translation and therefore to say it's "missing words is erroneous because dynamic equivalence translations seek to translate "though for thought" not word for word.

If you don't like the NIV that's fine, but you misrepresent those who translated the NIV.

I would say at least read the preface of what the purpose of the translators is before making such statements.

This is just a portion of the NIV Preface which states the purpose of the translation:

The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thoughtof the biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.


The rest of the preface may be seen here: PREFACE TO THE NIV BIBLE


I myself prefer the NASB but the NIV is a good thought for thought tranlation for help in study.

You should do research. NIV and other bible translations use the Corrupt Alexandrian Text.

For example Matt 5:22 in NIV and other versions makes it look like Jesus sinned!

 

[rdcast]

I'm sorry about the loss of your mother. It's never easy losing a loved one.

I'm a little confused as to what you are telling me. Are you saying modern translations are wrong? Less accurate?

Thank you.

There is no way possible for linguistic translators to give an exhaustive word for word translation. Keep in mind that it is only due to our laziness that we pay modern commercial translators to bring God's written word to us, to avoid learning the original languages ourselves. To attempt a direct word for word translation, the commercial venture working to bring a new and "improved" translation" to market, MUST worry over readability to attract the largest customer base possible, due to tremendous competition. More and more, this becomes an ever growing problem. You will hear tell of all the continuing and wonderful findings and translation improvements since the production of the early works, but the readability mandate rules. We shouldn't be surprised with this, considering Satan's increasing influence in all societies, as we approach the end of this age.

Here is one very in-depth debate that might be good to start questioning.
James White Debates Jack Moorman On Exclusive KJVOnlyism - YouTube

 

[ebedmelech]

A very good debate!

I would say that James White was really more academic, and presented facts instead of "beliefs".

Moorman appealed to such aesthetic things such as "majesty" and "fuller meaning" that are not substantive. He appeals to the KJV as the standard not recognizing that there were translations prior to the KJV....what about them?

There's firmer footing if we recognize we are the better with more manuscripts to compare with.

The arguments will continue but the KJV only types simply come across as "traditionalist", more than anything else and refuse to acknowledge newer manuscripts that are older than the textus receptus.

If you have scrutinized the translation you prefer to read...USE IT!!! But don't have a bias about it compare readings of other translations.

 

[dbcsf]

I'm a little confused as to what you are telling me. Are you saying modern translations are wrong? Less accurate?[/quote]

Modern translations are not wrong. All translations are inspired. All have their advantages and disadvantages. All are helpful in leading believers into a better relatonship with Jesus, each other, and the world at large.

I agree with Rad, word for word is going to be tough. For example, there are sentences in Ephesians with 40+ words. Translated word for word, how is that going to be readable and helpful in English?

For bible study, word for word, or literal translations are nice. You are going to get a little closer to what was likely written. For readability, understanding, you are going to need some scholar to add their opinion as to the meaning. Imagine a 40 word sentence. There will be multiple meanings in one sentence. Consequently, all translations are going to be a little unique.

The good news is that the bible is mostly well understood. From a big picture perspective, all translations will say the same basic things. Jesus was the Messiah, not the Emperor. He died on a cross, not in an arena. He rose from the dead on the third day, he was not resusitated.

Where it gets tricky is when you try to support theology, like predestination or something.

The NIV tries for the middle ground. It is partially word for word, for bible study. It is partially thought for thought, for easier understanding and readability.

 

[rdcast]

A very good debate!

I would say that James White was really more academic, and presented facts instead of "beliefs".

Moorman appealed to such aesthetic things such as "majesty" and "fuller meaning" that are not substantive. He appeals to the KJV as the standard not recognizing that there were translations prior to the KJV....what about them?

There's on firmer footing if we recognize we are the better with more manuscripts to compare with.

The arguments will continue but the KJV only types simply come across as "traditionalist", more than anything else and refuse to acknowledge newer manuscripts that are older than the textus receptus.

If you have scrutinized the translation you prefer to read...USE IT!!! But don't have a bias about it compare readings of other translations.

Oh sooo true. We must always be sensitive to Satan's intentions to confuse God's believers, if it were possible. The rubber meets the road where we can't get out from under our sins without our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Believing in Him transcends every argument. GLORY BE TO GOD OUR FATHER!!!!