Is The Living Bible a Reliable Translation

[Blood Bought 1953]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

 

[Hank77]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

There is not a lot of criticism about some other versions besides the KJV, except from the KJV only people. I use the KJV and the YLT only because I got used to the KJV years and years ago.
The NASB, is thought by many to be the best.
As for the Living Bible, I think it a fine paraphrased version. It is the Bible we got for our kids as their first real, whole Bible. I like reading it myself. You may want to use a complete, not paraphrased, version for study purposes such as the NASB or the KJV.

 

[Radagast]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before?

It's more of a paraphrase than a translation; that is, it reflects what Kenneth N. Taylor thought the Bible meant. There is a more modern and greatly improved version of the Living Bible called the New Living Translation (NLT). The New International Version (NIV) would be better still.

But what you say reflects the importance of having a Bible you can understand. Apart from being a poor translation, the KJV is impossible for most people to understand (even though they may think that they understand it).

 

[jax5434]

Its a good paraphrase but I wouldn't recommend it for study
God Bless
Jax

 

[Cat Loaf You]

You use KJV(best 1611) or go back to greek LXX or hebrew manuscripts.

 

[DW1980]

As others have said, the Living Bible is a paraphrase, great for leisure reading but not daily reading or study. If you like it try the New Living Translation which is an accurate and highly readable translation (not a paraphrase). The NLT is my "second" Bible after the New International Version, which I like as it's also accurate but is a "thought for thought" translation which I value. It's also good to have a more literal version, though they are harder to read - and for that I use the English Standard Version. I'd recommend the NIV or NLT as your "main" Bible, and the ESV for comparison for "serious" study.

 

[Halbhh]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

If that were the popular New Living Translation then the answer is NO, the NLT is inaccurate too often. I haven't routinely seen the "Living" translation though.

Here's the way to check any verse where some issue is being discussed and there is disagreement about meaning:
1. Fully having read that book the verse is in, with real paying attention, and not only skimming.
2. Reading the context of the verse, so that one has all the passage and situation correctly, thus helping get the intended meaning.
3. Faith, of course.
4. And still, at times it helps to check the translation version you are using, by comparing it to what are known to be excellent translations, like the ESV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, which is very easy and quick to do at Biblehub. I simply type in the verse in a google search (because the ASV used here even is often not such a good translation compared to the ESV), and then click on the Biblehub result in the list, and then look for the NIV, ESV, and often now the YLT (at the bottom).

On many verses, there will be practically no difference.

But sometimes there is a real difference that matters.

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This was a very interesting verse to look at -- the clear meaning in all the main translations except the NLT from the proceeding verses is Christ says to them they must become humble like little children or they will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven, a special emphasis on a correct humble attitude.

But in the NLT, with the verse alone, one can mistakenly get a somewhat different message, itself true, but not the message in the real verse, which is about humility in particular, that we must be humble like little children in particular. Many will still get that key message from the NLT, but diluted, combined with another message which then de-emphasizes the crucial nature of having a humble attitude before God, which cannot be diluted correctly.

This isn't an example I got of an NLT error from a list of errors. I didn't expect the NLT to have this trouble with this verse, until I just looked a minute ago. But there are lists of NLT errors one can examine though.

 

[Halbhh]

As others have said, the Living Bible is a paraphrase, great for leisure reading but not daily reading or study. If you like it try the New Living Translation which is an accurate and highly readable translation (not a paraphrase). The NLT is my "second" Bible after the New International Version, which I like as it's also accurate but is a "thought for thought" translation which I value. It's also good to have a more literal version, though they are harder to read - and for that I use the English Standard Version. I'd recommend the NIV or NLT as your "main" Bible, and the ESV for comparison for "serious" study.

Unfortunately the NLT is said to be inaccurate too often, and I've found that also over time. Therefore it's wrong to use for most people that don't already have an excellent full knowledge of the Bible so they can catch it's errors. They should instead use the NIV for an easy to understand translation.

 

[Radagast]

But sometimes there is a real difference that matters.

Matthew 18:3 And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This was a very interesting verse to look at -- the clear meaning in all the main translations except the NLT from the proceeding verses is Christ says to them they must become humble like little children or they will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven, a special emphasis on a correct humble attitude.

Actually, that verse is one where the NLT is perhaps better than other translations.

Literally, the Greek says strephō = "turn" (as the ESV, ASV, and CSB have it), but that's confusing. Adding the words "from your sins" clarifies the meaning. Given the way that a closely related word (epistrephō) is used elsewhere in the N.T., "turn to God" might have been even better.

The NASB, KJV, and older HCSB have "be converted," which means much the same as "turn from your sins," but is less literal.

To translate "change," as the NIV does, is actually not correct at all.

 

[DW1980]

Unfortunately the NLT is said to be inaccurate too often, and I've found that also over time. Therefore it's wrong to use for most people that don't already have an excellent full knowledge of the Bible so they can catch it's errors. They should instead use the NIV for an easy to understand translation.

I lot of the research I did said it was good, and I used it for 5 years before returning to the NIV. Most of the criticism I've seen comes from the KJV only supporters - and they are usually just as critical of the NIV (well, anything that's not KJV!). I've used it side by side the NIV and ESV and can't think of anywhere it puts an unwarranted translation in. I've seen some of those lists and it seems other scholars seem to think it is a good translation.

That said, even some "good" translations have issues, the ESV has come under fire too. For example, it's committee was all male, all committed to complementarianism - which will bias the translation in relevant verses.

But that's why I would always say for serious study you need to use more than one. As I said, my 3 are NIV, ESV and NLT. I think that should help safeguard against bias. Needless to say, there are some to avoid, like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Halbhh]

To me the NLT looks accurate about 99.5% of the time (that's only a suggestive number). But something like 0.5% wrong meanings (or 0.1% would be just the same) should worry a person, because some of those errors can be harmful.

What do you think Matthew 18:3 means?

 

[Radagast]

I lot of the research I did said it was good, and I used it for 5 years before returning to the NIV. Most of the criticism I've seen comes from the KJV only supporters - and they are usually just as critical of the NIV (well, anything that's not KJV!).

I stand by my statement that the NLT has a similar flavour to the Living Bible, but is better. Personally, I would prefer the NIV, ESV, and CSB, but like I said about Matthew 18:3, sometimes the NLT does better than other translations.

I've seen some of those lists and it seems other scholars seem to think it is a good translation.

Those lists mostly point out that the NLT, NIV, ESV, etc. differ from the KJV (hey, guys, maybe the KJV is wrong!).

That said, even some "good" translations have issues, the ESV has come under fire too. For example, it's committee was all male

And that's bad?

all committed to complementarianism - which will bias the translation in relevant verses.

Any literal translation of the relevant NT verses will sound complementarian, because the Greek NT as written is complementarian. For example, every decent modern translation has "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" in Ephesians 5:23 (apart from The Message, which throws out what the Bible says, and substitutes Eugene Peterson's own thoughts).

In passages like Colossians 1:2, the ESV has "brothers," with a footnote indicating that this includes sisters. This is literally correct, and in line with its translation philosophy. The NLT has "brothers and sisters," with a footnote indicating that the Greek word can mean only "brothers."

In Galatians 4:7, the ESV has "son," while the NIV and NLT have "child." But the ESV is quite right here: the Greek NT unambiguously means "son" and nothing else. Indeed, the point of the passage is that, in Christ, both women and men have the "property rights" of Roman sons.

Needless to say, there are some to avoid, like the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Agreed. The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses has been radically altered in several ways to support their heretical beliefs.

 

[Halbhh]

One careful, neutral and very educated view of the NLT, with is itself an attempt to improve problems with the Living Bible.

The New Living Translation - A Critical Review
and then in response to this review the NLT got edited, and then a new review is here:
Review of the New Living Translation, second edition

It's got some pretty serious flaws I didn't know about until I just saw this article.

The other respondents here didn't know either. We can and should rely on something widely respected like the NIV or ESV, which are not hard to understand at all.

 

[Radagast]

The other respondents here didn't know either. We can and should rely on something widely respected like the NIV or ESV, which are not hard to understand at all.

The NIV and ESV are both better than the NLT, but the NLT is definitely easier to read. And that's where we came in: the O.P. benefited from the Living Bible, because it was the first Bible he could really understand.

This chart underestimates the difficulty of the KJV, but is a good guide:

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

GOOD and VERY GOOD !?
(as long as you trusted and trust YHWH, Him guiding you and granting you truth and understanding, you relying on Him to save you from anything false)

 

[Radagast]

This chart underestimates the difficulty of the KJV, but is a good guide

This chart might be a little more accurate. Mind you, it suggests that if you can read the Living Bible, you can also read the NIV, as Halbhh suggested (and the NIV is indeed better than the Living Bible or NLT):

 

[Halbhh]

This chart might be a little more accurate. Mind you, it suggests that if you can read the Living Bible, you can also read the NIV, as Halbhh suggested (and the NIV is indeed better than the Living Bible or NLT):

Interesting. The first Bible I read through was a KJV, and it was often a fun puzzle, but often great wording too.

The KJV renders that great verse about do not worry about tomorrow, each day has enough trouble if its own as "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Today I'd hardly ever use the KJV.

I'd always look to the ESV or NIV.

 

[Halbhh]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

Is the New Living Translation actaully ok though?

Consider in one of the most amazing and awe inspiring verses in the Bible:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isn't that amazing, wonderful?

It's living.


Consider major translations:

New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

BUT....
New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.


See the problem?

It's just like the reviewer said about even the corrected new version of the NLT:

"...the version is not "especially good for study," as the "Note to Readers" claims. Nor do I think it is especially good for "devotional reading and to be read aloud in public worship." It is not clear to me how the NLT's paraphrastic renderings can be seen as very helpful (let alone necessary) for the common reader of the Bible, and the bland and overly colloquial tone of the version will work against any proper feeling of devotion in those who take up the sacred text for daily reading."
Review of the New Living Translation, second edition

 

[Halbhh]

Many years ago at work, somebody left a copy of The Living Bible lying around.For the first time I actually enjoyed reading aBible and couldn’t believe what was in there! Many years,many churches....why all this stuff I had never heard before? I read it from cover to cover and now that I know what’s in it,I don’t have to depend on anybody else for what is true and what is false . I know that much criticism exists over versions other than the KJV,so i was interested in the take of others in regard to this specific version......thanks for your input.

Consider how John chapter 1 verse 1 has some of the ineffable life taken out of it (just above post #18) in the New Living Translation.

It's fair to call it "The Oddly Not Living Translation" at times.

If you have one, I sincerely suggest you take it immediately to the trash can, because even a little wrong here isn't a small thing. God's word is living because we haven't paraphrased it into a dead thing.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

Consider how John chapter 1 verse 1 has some of the ineffable life taken out of it (just above post #18) in the New Living Translation.

It's fair to call it "The Oddly Not Living Translation" at times.

If you have one, I sincerely suggest you take it immediately to the trash can, because even a little wrong here isn't a small thing. God's word is living because we haven't paraphrased it into a dead thing.

I personally use a four translation Bible...I consider the King James as the authority if I detect something weird going on within other versions