Is The Living Bible a Reliable Translation

[Radagast]

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 the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

See the problem?

That seems like a perfectly good translation of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

It has the advantage of making perfectly clear that God the Son is eternal, not created. It's readable, it's grammatical, it flows well, and it's an accurate representation of the Greek. In this verse, I think the NLT has done well.

And I really, really, really hate the suggestion that the Bible needs to be incomprehensible in order to be "holy."

 

[Radagast]

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

The King James is actually not a great translation. You'd do better to take the ESV as an authority, or to go by majority vote.

 

[Halbhh]

That seems like a perfectly good translation of Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

It has the advantage of making perfectly clear that God the Son is eternal, not created. It's readable, it's grammatical, it flows well, and it's an accurate representation of the Greek. In this verse, I think the NLT has done well.

And I really, really, really hate the suggestion that the Bible needs to be incomprehensible in order to be "holy."

We already agree I think that the NIV is clear.

We agree if the words are to have no sense of the grandeur and transcendence in them, but to be merely some facts, the NLT extra word doesn't hurt.

Are all the other translations in error? I think you'll say no.

See? If all are correct, then....which version is right?

Why not the really more moving, more mind transporting version?

An accurate translation that moves you, that's what we all want.

 

[Radagast]

We agree if the words are to have no sense of the grandeur and transcendence in them

Your "grandeur and transcendence" seems to boil down to personal taste.

I see no reason why the scriptures need to be in obscure complex language. They were not originally written that way.

 

[Halbhh]

Your "grandeur and transcendence" seems to boil down to personal taste.

I'm awed by Him.

 

[pat34lee]

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):

The only things in the KJV that are hard to read
or understand are some of the OT names, and
that should be common to most bibles.

 

[Radagast]

The only things in the KJV that are hard to read
or understand are some of the OT names, and
that should be common to most bibles.

The KJV is objectively hard to read.

And most KJV readers misunderstand what it says.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

The KJV is objectively hard to read.

And most KJV readers misunderstand what it says.

The New Testament was originally written in “Street Greek” the language understood by the most common of people.

 

[pat34lee]

The King James is actually not a great translation. You'd do better to take the ESV as an authority, or to go by majority vote.

Actually, it's one of the most reliable translations, as long as
you consider some words have changed since it was translated
to English. I've never had a problem with understanding it, and
I've read it since I could read anything above The Cat in the Hat.

The KJV is objectively hard to read.
And most KJV readers misunderstand what it says.

As for misreading the NT, that is generally because they
read it how the churches teach, which in many cases is
totally wrong

 

[Radagast]

Actually, it's one of the most reliable translations

I would disagree that the KJV is a reliable translation. In many cases, the translators have misunderstood the Greek or Hebrew.

As for misreading the NT, that is generally because they read it how the churches teach, which in many cases is totally wrong

People misread the KJV because they don't understand how the language has changed. And if you think that "how the churches teach ... in many cases is totally wrong," then you're probably misreading it too.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And if you think that "how the churches teach ... in many cases is totally wrong," then you're probably misreading it too.

Nah.
Look at the children.
Wisdom would be vindicated by her deeds/children;
foolishness bound up in the heart of a child, when it is still there when they are grown, is not wisdom. is it ?

 

[AGTG]

No, the NASB is the best out there, but you would do well to refer to an Interlinear Bible for the exact meaning of some words to assure understanding. Most translations are garbage, and filled with very subtle shifts that change the truth of God's word.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

Nah.
Look at the children.
Wisdom would be vindicated by her deeds/children;
foolishness bound up in the heart of a child, when it is still there when they are grown, is not wisdom. is it ?

You are correct—- waaaaay too many legalistic churches out there that add to Paul’s simple Gospel of faith plus nothing

 

[pat34lee]

I would disagree that the KJV is a reliable translation. In many cases, the translators have misunderstood the Greek or Hebrew.
People misread the KJV because they don't understand how the language has changed. And if you think that "how the churches teach ... in many cases is totally wrong," then you're probably misreading it too.

Ok, if you're going to make it personal, I want examples
of the KJV being wrong and other versions being right.

One other advantage of the KJV- public domain. Nobody
holds a copyright to any of it. I could print and sell any or
all of it for profit or charity without asking a publisher.

What it says -- how the editor interprets it -- what the editor thinks

 

[Halbhh]

Those that have become used to the KJV can be happy with the ESV. I am.

Those with the NLT (New un-Living Translation) can get more faithful and more living wording in the easy to understand NIV.

 

[Radagast]

One other advantage of the KJV- public domain. Nobody
holds a copyright to any of it.

The British Crown holds copyright on the KJV.

 

[tampasteve]

Ok, if you're going to make it personal, I want examples
of the KJV being wrong and other versions being right.

It is not that that words used are exactly wrong but rather that the translators of the KJV chose to interpret certain passages in light of the NT and not necessarily in what would be the correct or better word to use. So, they use a reasonable word, but it changes the statement to help prove the point of the Messiach. There are also several choices of placement of punctuation that change the meaning of the text and make it seem Messianic when it might not be.

What it says -- how the editor interprets it -- what the editor thinks

Exactly, same as the KJV.

In the end, we are best served by referencing several versions, an interlinear is great for this. That way we can compare the texts and get a better idea of the different meanings or words that could have been used.

 

[Radagast]

you would do well to refer to an Interlinear Bible for the exact meaning of some words to assure understanding

An interlinear won't tell you that, because the meaning of both Greek and Hebrew words changes with grammar.

 

[Radagast]

Ok, if you're going to make it personal, I want examples
of the KJV being wrong and other versions being right.

Let me give you just one: Matthew 23:24, which should read "strain out a gnat." This is not a textual difference, but a clear mistranslation by the KJV. There are others.

 

[WannaWitness]

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.

I sincerely hope I can be of help and encouragement here, seeing that Bible version issues seem to be pretty touchy in the realm of Christianity, stirring up much debate, and I don't want to add more to the confusion that already exists with this and other similar matters. I never wish to steer anyone in the wrong direction deliberately, only to offer my opinions and suggestions to the best of my knowledge (I am so human after all) in the hopes that anyone who reads will understand what I am getting at.

What I am seeing here is that when you found a Bible at work, it was there for a reason, and I tend to believe that God was using it to speak especially to you at the moment you needed it. Didn't matter what version it was; I simply don't think it was an accident that you found the Bible. It got you into God's Word, which He gives as a guidebook to apply what's inside to our lives as Christians.

I gave my heart to the Lord at a pretty early age, perhaps 7 or 8. My first Bible actually was a KJV which contained pictures of Bible events (such as David killing Goliath, Jesus healing the sick, the Last Supper, etcetera). Of course, the translation was not my level of understanding at the time (being the age I was), but it was the pictures that spoke to me more than anything. Naturally, I didn't know anything at the time about translations and such; I was just happy to have a Bible, and along with that, I learned a lot when I went to Sunday School. I was a teenager when I learned about (and became familiar with) other translations, and not too long after that when I became familiar with the controversy surrounding other translations. Since that time, I have met many people (in person and online) who state that they will strictly read and study from the KJV, and nothing else. The reasons vary: for some, it is merely a personal preference (it is the one that best speaks to them, they love the poetic flow, they grew up with it so they're used to it, and so on); for others, they actually believe that it is evil to so much as even take a peek at other translations, and seem to give the implication that Christians who disagree with them are lukewarm and not serious about serving the Lord. Through my own casual studies, I have come to the conclusion that while there are definitely some outlandish Bible versions to look out for, I don't see anything wrong with the use of other translations, in general. The preface of the original KJV even encourages the use of other translations.

That being said, I still use the KJV, and I will admit that there are some things that sound really beautiful from this translation. However, I am definitely not KJVO (in fact, far from it) so I read other translations as well, being careful to shy away from the truly spacey, far-out stuff. That's me personally, though.

God bless.