This article was requested for a publication in 2016. But the publication never ended up being put together by the editors. So I am making it available here at this time.
The New Living Translation (NLT) is a widely influential and popular translation. It was rated as the #3 selling Bible translation by Nielsen in 2016.
Outline:
The Origins and Production of the New Living Translation
The Inerrancy and Inspiration
The Christ of the NLT
Explicit denial of Divine Monergism
Denying Christ’s Sacramental Union with His Church
Corrupting the Sacrament of the Altar
Corrupting the Sacrament of Baptism
Translation Theory Followed
Translation or Paraphrase
Grammatical Changes: Active v. Passive, Gender-Pronouns
Active/Passive: Changing the Work of God into an Appeal to Human Experience
Pronoun Confusion Leading To Theological Confusion
Formal or Informal (e.g. contractions used?)
Usefulness for the Divine Service
The Origins and Production of the New Living Translation
The NLT published in 1996 by Tyndale House Foundation began in 1989 as an intended revision of the The Living Bible (1971). The older Living Bible was Kenneth N. Taylor’s paraphrase of the English 1901 American Standard Version. The editors soon changed their direction stating that they desired to base their NLT on the United Bible Societies’ 4th Edition of the Greek New Testament, and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, with some influence by the Septuagint. The text of NLT has been updated since its original publication “with the purpose of increasing the level of the NLT’s precision without sacrificing its easy-to-understand quality.”
However, when readers familiar with The Living Bible read the NLT they cannot help but be struck by the similar choice of language, phrases, and words kept by NLT. Perhaps the intent was to maintain some familiarity for those switching from The Living Bible to NLT. But very often the NLT preserves the paraphrase of Taylor and his particular theological positions rather than reflecting the words and meaning of the original language texts.
There are now three editions of the NLT. This review focuses on the 3rd edition. However, there are many 1st editions (1996) circulating. The 2nd (2004) and 3rd (2007) editions did far better at actually translating than did the 1st. And, while the 1st edition was more colloquial in its use of informal language forms, like contractions, the 2nd and 3rd editions moved in a more formal direction by eliminating many contractions and some overly colloquial language choices.
Examples:
Contractions kept in some passages:
I Cor 10:16
When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing
Eliminating overly colloquial language from first edition, when the Lord addresses Eve regarding her sin:
Genesis 3:13
NLT: 1st ed uses the language of TLB
"How could you do such a thing"
NLT: 3rd ed
“What have you done?”
With regard to the NLT maintaining the language of TLB rather than translating we will give four examples. The first translation given is the New King James Version (NKJV) followed by the New Living Translation (NLT). The Living Bible (TLB) from 1971 is given last so the reader can see how it is really the base for the NLT.
Psalm 1:1a
NKJV Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly
NLT Oh, the joys of those who do not follow the advice of the wicked
TLB Oh, the joys of those who do not follow evil men’s advice
Genesis 1:20
NKJV Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
NLT Then God said, “Let the waters swarm with fish and other life. Let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”
TLB Then God said, “Let the waters teem with fish and other life, and let the skies be filled with birds of every kind.”
Luke 2:11
NKJV For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
NLT The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David!
TLB The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born tonight in Bethlehem!
Romans 1:17
NKJV For in it [the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith;
NLT This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith.
TLB This Good News tells us that God makes us ready for heaven—makes us right in God’s sight—when we put our faith and trust in Christ to save us. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith.
This last example from Romans highlights a theological problem. The original language is neither obscure nor misleading. The original text refers to God’s righteousness as external to us and as being revealed to us. The NLT distorts the Bible’s teaching on Justification by Faith by obscuring the declarative language of God and transforming righteousness into a human possession and human process. Righteousness is no longer rightly understood as God’s verdict to the sinner but a process accomplished through growth in individual faith. This misrepresentation of the righteousness of God shows up many times in the NLT. The danger here is that where these passages speak of Divine Monergism (that God alone does all the work for our salvation), they are turned into passages that speak of individuals somehow meriting greater grace from God through the strength of their faith or works.
Someone might raise an objection to this last observation: “But that’s just how you are reading the NLT. Are you sure you are not just biased against the NLT?” In what follows there are enough examples to show that problems of theological bias and mistranslation permeate the whole of the NLT.
The Inerrancy and Inspiration
Neither the Tyndale House website nor the Tyndale Foundation website have an easy to find statement on Biblical Inerrancy. In an interview the CEO of Tyndale House, Dr. Peter Williams, affirmed that “God has given them words in Scripture” which are “inerrant.” However, given this opportunity to clearly state what inerrancy means he chose not to affirm that the all the words and thoughts are inerrant. The clearest statement on the minimum commitment to biblical inerrancy and inspiration is made on the Tyndale House website: that the scholars on the NLT translation team “represent a rich variety of theological and denominational backgrounds, united by the common conviction that the Bible is God’s Word and that all people should have a translation of Scripture that they can really understand.”
The Christ of the NLT
How does the NLT handle Christ? Presenting Christ accurately as the center of Scripture also means presenting accurately what He taught and what His Apostles and Prophets taught.
While NLT does translate most New Testament Christological passages without denying the divinity of Christ, there are some odd verses that stand out.
Matthew 5:11-12
NKJV 11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
In the Beatitudes Jesus closes by stating that the unbelievers persecuted the prophets for the same reason that His followers would be persecuted, that is “for My sake.” That is: Christ is asserting that He is the God who sent His servants, the prophets, and that the prophets were persecuted because of their faith in Christ.
NLT 11 “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. 12 Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way.
The NLT unnecessarily obscures this in two ways. First: Christ is removed from the center as the cause for persecution. The NLT places the cause on the individual’s following Christ. Second: since Christ himself is no longer the central cause, the issue is no longer the faith of the prophets in Christ. The NLT shifts the focus to the physical methods of persecution by stating that Jesus followers will be persecuted “in the same way” as the prophets.
In the original language Christ is the reason the prophets were persecuted— the reason for being persecuted is their faith in Him. In the NLT the faith of the prophets in Christ is eliminated. This allows for a false theology of Dispensationalism.
Explicit Denial of Divine Monergism
We mentioned this problem with the NLT above in Romans 1:17. Another, and very clear example of the NLT creating confusion about the Righteousness of God and Divine Monergism is in the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 6:33
NKJV But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
NLT Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need.
The NLT’s choice to translate “and His righteousness” και την δικαιοσυνην αυτου as “and live righteously” cannot be justified on the basis of the original text being unclear, obscure, or colloquial. Likewise Romans 1:17 “the righteousness of God” δικαιοσυνη γαρ θεου does not mean “how God makes us right” as the NLT translates the phrase. In these cases the issue is not a need to make the original text clearer. But the NLT translators apparently object to the original text referring to the external righteousness of God and desire that the reader should rather understand their own righteousness worked out by good living or by a growth in their own personal faith or faith life—in whatever way that might be measured.
Thus, while the NLT may argue that their translations of phrases like these were justified under “dynamic-equivalence” there is no actual linguistic basis for such a radical change in meaning. The change they make is based on their theological worldview. And in these passages one can see that their framework does not endorse Divine Monergism or an orthodox understanding of Justification by Faith. For they take the external, objective righteousness of God and change it into the personal struggle of the individual through works, making even faith into a struggle or work done by the individual.
This next passage is another example of the NLT’s persistent denial of Divine Monergism. Jesus showed a young man that his claim to have kept the commandments was false. Christ only lists commandments from the 2nd Table, love your neighbor as yourself. This rich young man loved his goods more than he loved his neighbor. By demonstrating this to the young man Christ demonstrated that this young man did not have faith, and he did not love God above all else. Christ pointed out how difficult it is to overcome one’s selfishness and sin. The disciples were astounded:
Matthew 19:25-26
NKJV 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
There is nothing unclear or obscure about the original Greek. Christ states plainly that men, sinful humans cannot save themselves. They can do nothing. It is impossible. It is not merely a way of speaking or a way of looking at things. God alone saves. And only God saves. He alone can do this and He alone does this saving.
But the NLT translators seem uncomfortable with this clear and simple statement.
NLT 25 The disciples were astounded. “Then who in the world can be saved?” they asked.
26 Jesus looked at them intently and said, “Humanly speaking, it is impossible. But with God everything is possible.”
The translators of the NLT change Christ’s explicit and clear statement into an adverbial phrase describing a manner of speaking. While their translation can include the meaning of the original text, this translation “Humanly speaking” hides from the reader the clear declaration of Christ that man cannot save himself in any way.
These are not merely cherry-picked examples. Throughout the NLT God’s work is reduced and man’s work in saving himself is introduced. This becomes clearer when we look at the texts where God describes how He bestows the gift of salvation to His Church by uniting us with Christ in Word and Sacrament.
Denying Christ’s Sacramental Union with His Church
The NLT translators seem to retain Christ’s statement on Unity with God in His High Priestly Prayer. This may show that they do not object to there being a kind-of spiritual Union between Christ and His Church. The NKJV translated:
John 17:21-22
NKJV 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one
The NLT introduces a subtle difference in their text from what the Greek actually says:
NLT 21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one.
The difference is subtle, but significant. The NLT separates the original Greek’s statement of the Oneness of the Father and the Son from the Unity of the Church with God. It does this by starting a new sentence at this point. The NKJV follows the Greek with a ἵνα [pronounced “hina”] clause. This Greek word usually is translated “that,” meaning either “for the purpose that” or “with the result that”. Christ is praying to the Father with the purpose ἵνα “that” the Believers be “one” as in one Union together with the result ἵνα “that” the believers may also be in Unity with Him and the Father. The NLT’s choice to start a new sentence at this point allows the reader to be more vague about what being “in Us” is meant to convey.
In the original Greek text there is a spiritual unity, that is, a Unity created by the Holy Spirit. This Unity is not ‘spiritual’ in the sense that this unity excludes our unity with God in body and soul. It is ‘spiritual’ in the sense that this Unity is the working of the Holy Spirit. This Unity exists not only among and between the members of the Church, but this Unity is the work of the Holy Spirit uniting God with the mortal believers. That is also, after all, the meaning behind the name Immanuel, the Person who prayed these words.
But the NLT made a different choice in sentence division. The NLT translators refused to translate ἵνα (and the phrase that follows) as a clear statement of result. This leaves the nature of this Unity among and between Christians to be considered apart from Unity with God by the Holy Spirit through Christ. The NLT demonstrates a theology which holds a much more distinct and non-Biblical division between God and Man, obscuring what the original language text says about the believers’ Unity with Christ. Here we see a bit of Gnosticism, separating things made of matter from spiritual where God’s Word is not drawing such distinctions. This Gnostic attitude reverberates throughout the NLT in passages which address Unity with Christ through His Word by means of things made from matter— that is, the Sacraments.
A very clear example of how the NLT drives a wedge between God and Man is found in how the translation handles the unity of a man and a woman in marriage. As explained by Paul this marriage covenant was designed in the image of God. The particular model upon which Oneness in marriage was designed is the Oneness of the Sacramental Union between Christ and His Church.
In Ephesians 5 Paul shows that marriage is designed by God on the basis of Christ’s relationship to His Church. That relationship between husband and wife is spiritual and physical. Christ’s relationship with the Church is spiritual and physical. He is the Savior of both body and soul. The relationship in human marriage is designed to reflect the sacramental relationship of Christ with His Church. In the context Paul highlights water baptism as the means by which He cleanses ‘her’, that is, His Church:
Ephesians 5:26
NKJV that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
NLT to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word.
The NLT eliminates the explicit reference to water baptism from the text.
Shortly after this, Paul highlights the sacramental unity of flesh the Church shares with Christ:
Ephesians 5:31-32
NKJV “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
NLT As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.” This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.
The NLT eliminates this sacramental union of the Church in the Flesh of Christ by asserting that this text is an “illustration” rather than the reality of which Paul is clearly writing.
The theological bias of the translators against this Sacramental Unity of the Church with Christ is shown very clearly in how they handle the passages on the explicit subject of the Sacraments.
Corrupting the Sacrament of the Altar
The translators of the NLT reject the contextual readings of the Scripture in favor of their theological presuppositions. With respect to the Sacrament of the Altar they carry forward their agenda by separating the earthly elements of the Lord’s Supper from the real presence of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine. Thus they separate the real presence of Christ from those who partake of Christ’s institution at His altar.
In the Words of Institution the NLT obscures the Sacramental Union of the Church with the Body and Blood of Christ:
Matthew 26:27-28
NKJV 27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
NLT 27 And he took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. He gave it to them and said, “Each of you drink from it, 28 for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.
In the original language, and in faithful translations, the cup of wine at the Last Supper is Jesus blood. This cup of Christ’s blood is the New Covenant that He establishes and bestows for the forgiveness of sins. The NLT, even though it retains the words “this is my blood” separates the cup of Christ’s blood from the sacrifice. It adds an idea not found in the original, making the cup a forward-looking symbol of the sacrifice Jesus would make, rather than an actual participation in His Blood of the Covenant at that very Supper and at every celebration of that Supper according to Christ’s institution.
The NLT’s agenda to divorce Christ’s real presence with His Body and Blood is carried through in their mishandling of Paul’s statements about the Supper.
I Corinthians 10:16-18
NKJV 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
In contrast the NLT changes the meaning of the text in this way:
NLT 16 When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing in the blood of Christ? And when we break the bread, aren’t we sharing in the body of Christ? 17 And though we are many, we all eat from one loaf of bread, showing that we are one body. 18 Think about the people of Israel. Weren’t they united by eating the sacrifices at the altar?
The NLT shifts the emphasis away from what God does in the original text to their desired interpretation on what we are doing, “When we bless,” “aren’t we sharing,” we are “showing that we are.” The reference Paul makes to the Old Covenant sacrifices is changed from Unity as a benefit received at the altar into a unity established by the participant through his own act.
In Matthew 26 (above) the NLT divorced the Cup from the Covenant and the actual blood of Christ. The translators carry the same theological agenda through in Paul’s restatement of Christ’s institution.
I Corinthians 11:23-25
NKJV 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
In the Greek and in good translations the Cup of wine is equated with the New Covenant. And it is clearly stated that this Cup of wine is Christ’s blood. These terms are not separated from one another. The translators of the NLT again divorce one from the other.
NLT 23 For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread 24 and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it.”
The cup in the NLT is the covenant, however, it is made into a mere token or symbol. The translators introduce words and thoughts which do not exist in the Greek text: “between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with.” The purpose of these phases is to separate the cup and covenant from the claim that the cup is actually the Blood of Christ.
Thus, both in the Words of Institution in the Gospel of Matthew and in Paul’s restatement the translators of the NLT have worked to obscure the Sacramental Union of Christ with His Church. This Sacramental Union with the Body and Blood of Christ is unambiguous in the original language and in faithful translations.
Corrupting the Sacrament of Baptism
The NLT reshapes Baptism, whether by John or as instituted by Christ, co-opting it, transforming it into an act done by sincere devout people who desire to prove to God that they really mean it when they say they have repented:
Mark 1:4
NKJV John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
NLT This messenger was John the Baptist. He was in the wilderness and preached that people should be baptized to show that they had repented of their sins and turned to God to be forgiven.
There is no lack of clarity in the words in the original Greek. The NKJV renders the Greek clearly and faithfully. John’s baptism is described simply as consisting of repentance and the forgiveness of sins. The NLT divorces both repentance and forgiveness from John’s baptism. It makes John’s baptism into a work done by people as an outward act to demonstrate the sincerity of their repentance and as a demonstration of their having turned to God so that they can be forgiven.
In this way the NLT stands on the Pelagian theology of TLB:
TLB This messenger was John the Baptist. He lived in the wilderness and taught that all should be baptized as a public announcement of their decision to turn their backs on sin, so that God could forgive them.
The twisting of Christ’s gift of Baptism into a human work pervades TLB. While the NLT does choose different wordings from TLB in some of these contexts, the NLT still changes the passive nature of the person baptized into an active work on their part.
There is no legitimate linguistic reason for these changes in meaning. The original language texts are not complex, nor are they obscure. But throughout their version the translators of the NLT divorce Baptism from God’s work, make it into a human work, and erase God’s saving work through Baptism from the original texts:
Romans 6:3
NKJV Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?
Here the person baptized is passive, through baptism the person is brought into union with Christ in His death.
NLT Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death?
In the NLT the baptized person is active in joining Christ, making baptism the work of the person being baptized. Again, there is no linguistic difficulty which would warrant such a change in meaning. The original text is clear and simple, and it is accurately translated in the NKJV.
NLT destroys Paul’s explicit reference to Baptism as the work of the Holy Spirit effective in regenerating us.
Titus 3:5
NKJV not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
In the original language and in faithful translations: Christ, in His mercy, saves us “through the washing of regeneration” which is also the “renewing of the Holy Spirit.” The original text describes Baptism as a means through which God saves.
NLT he saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins, giving us a new birth and new life through the Holy Spirit
The NLT spiritualizes the idea of washing, rejecting it as a means of grace, and separating it from Baptism. Christ saves us “because of His mercy.” The thought is stopped there with a period and end of sentence. For the NLT the spiritual effect is that “He washed away our sins.” The NLT’s rephrasing practically eliminates Christ’s institution of water Baptism from the understanding of Paul’s message in this text.
The same kind of divorcing of Christ from Baptism and Baptism from Christ’s work is carried out in the NLT’s rendition of Paul’s words to the Colossians:
Colossians 2:11-12
NKJV 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Note that in the NKJV, which follows the Greek text accurately, it is in baptism that you are raised with Christ. Baptism raises you, and God does this through the faith He works by means of that Baptism.
But the work of God is divorced from Baptism in the NLT. The Unity with God which God establishes through Baptism is eliminated.
NLT 11 When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised,” but not by a physical procedure. Christ performed a spiritual circumcision—the cutting away of your sinful nature. 12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.
Notice, again the NLT inserts a period, ending the sentence. This essentially separates God’s work of raising us by means of Baptism. Baptism, in the NLT is not linked to being raised in Christ. This is contrary to what the original language text says. Note also how the NLT changes the faith given by God through baptism into a work of trust by the individual. And in the NLT this work of trust which the individual does is the reason God raises the individual. Thus, the NLT denies the original language text where it teaches our Unity with Christ through water Baptism as God’s work.
The NLT also divorces Baptism from God’s election and introduces a system of actions demonstrating personal change as a prerequisite for baptism.
Acts 2:38-39
NKJV 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”
Faithful translations of the original text show that repentance, that is sorrow over sin is followed by Baptism through which Jesus Christ bestows the remission of sins and gives the Holy Spirit. According to the Apostle Peter, this is the Promise of Joel 2 which applies to old and young, near and far, for all whom God in the future “will call.”
NLT Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise is to you, to your children, and to those far away—all who have been called by the Lord our God.”
The NLT introduces a second condition after repentance, that you must “turn to God.” This second condition is not found in the original Greek. The NLT does state that baptism in Jesus’ name is “for the forgiveness of your sins.” But at the same time the NLT separates Baptism from being the means through which forgiveness and the Holy Spirit are both given. According to the NLT the Holy Spirit is given after one repents, turns to God, and is baptized. The Promise in Joel 2 is separated from the first part of the passage. The gift of the Holy Spirit in this Promise is consequential to the previous acts. And with the NLT’s change in verb tense, the Promise is only really available to a limited set of people who have already been called by God. This change in verb tense strongly resembles the Calvinist theology of a Limited Atonement. Even if this is not what was intended by the NLT translators, this twisting would strongly reinforce the false teaching of the Limited Atonement.
The Apostle Peter wrote explicitly about Baptism as a means of grace through which Christ saves us.
I Peter 3:21
NKJV There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Thus, in a faithful translation, we see that Peter says Baptism is the fulfillment of a type which was shown us in the Flood of Noah. God saved 8 people through that flood by destroying all the evil in the world, preserving these 8 people. Baptism saves. It is not of value because it washes dirt off the flesh. Baptism, like the flood of Noah, is God’s work. In Noah’s flood God destroyed evil and cleansed the world for the benefit of Noah and his family. In Baptism God destroys our evil and creates a good conscience. Baptism does this through the power of Christ’s resurrection.
However, the NLT changes the focus on who is doing the work of Baptism and why it is done:
NLT And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But according to the NLT a clean conscience responds toward God by doing the work of becoming baptized. Baptism is made into a work that a person does to respond to God. God’s Work in the original languages is made into man’s work in the NLT. The Unity with God which He establishes through Baptism is destroyed, divorced from the text.
Translation Theory Followed
The Introduction to the New Living Translation printed in The New Believer’s Bible: New Testament (Tyndale 2007) contains a short discussion of what constitutes a Formal-Equivalence translation at one end of the spectrum and a Dynamic-Equivalence translation at the other. The writer states that the NLT uses techniques from both schools of thought. The NLT translators “translated as simply and literally as possible when the approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text.” But they rendered the text more dynamically “when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording.” The Introduction states: “They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid the reader’s understanding.” Their assertion is that “the result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.” (pages are not numbered in this volume)
Given the very serious exegetical errors listed in the previous section the reader should beware that there is a very strong anti-sacramental bias which forms the foundation for the translators’ exegetical approach. The translators might argue that these interpretations were justified under “dynamic-equivalence” because “the literal rendering ... was misleading.” They did not agree with what the text actually said. Their bias undercuts the clear and grace oriented statements of the original text, exchanging grace for the willful self-dedication and work of humans. In these passages the theological worldview of the translators is not only anti-sacramental but in some cases borders on Pelagianism.
Translation or Paraphrase
The theological worldview of the NLT translators prevents this reviewer from categorizing this version as a genuine translation. They appeal to a vague theoretical translation framework called “dynamic-equivalence” in order to lend some kind of scholarly credibility to their choices of paraphrase. But their claims of exegetical fidelity to the original language texts are less than convincing. One would hope that, strictly speaking, a paraphrase would be faithful to the clear meaning of the original texts. But in critical theological passages this version is neither literal, nor is the offered translation an accurate paraphrase of the original. The text is certainly consistent with American English of the early 21st century in many ways. However, the translation also leans heavily upon its predecessor, The Living Bible, for many of its expressions. Perhaps this last feature of the text was meant to provide familiarity to the readers who would move from TLB to NLT. But if the primary goal of this version is actually to be up-to-date with respect to English usage one wonders why they did not break completely with the idiom of TLB.
Grammatical Changes: Active v. Passive, Gender-Pronouns
There is a strong difference between the first edition of NLT and the later editions on this particular issue. The first edition was much more gender-neutral in its translations. Very often this effected a drastic change in theology.
Active/Passive: Changing the Work of God into an Appeal to Human Experience
The Apostle Peter in his 2nd Epistle directs his readers to have faith in the declarations of God. God is the one who declared something would be. God is the one who made it happen. In chapter 1:16-18 he recalls the work and word of God at the mountain where Christ was transfigured. The Apostles did not base their preaching on human stories or appeals to reason, but upon the openly declared Word of God. They heard this declaration about Jesus clearly on that day He was transfigured before them.
2 Peter 1:19
NKJV 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
Peter’s argument is that God said it clearly in their own hearing. He had fulfilled His promise in Christ. Jesus is the Eternal Son of God in human flesh. The Father confirmed the Old Testament prophecies about the Christ with His own word declared to them. His prophetic word is Confirmed in Christ.
NLT 19 Because of that experience, we have even greater confidence in the message proclaimed by the prophets. You must pay close attention to what they wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts.
The NLT eliminates the focus upon God’s Word confirming the fulfilment of His own prophetic Word in the person of Christ. The NLT shifts the focus onto Peter and his experience. Something which Peter does not state at all in the original texts. The reader of the NLT is directed to value Peter’s experience rather than to focus on the declaration of the Father about His Son. The NLT does away with God confirming what He promised and urges the reader to see Peter as an example of confidence because of his experiences.
A similar shift from passive to active is found in Paul’s second Epistle to Timothy where Scripture is described as a means of Grace.
2 Timothy 3:15
NKJV 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures,
which are able to make you wise for salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
In the original language context it is the Holy Scriptures that are credited with the work of making Timothy wise for salvation. These Scriptures convey faith in Christ.
But in the NLT there is a not-so-subtle shift away from the power of God’s written Word. The Scriptures are changed into information, and by adding a word “to receive” and changing the noun “faith” (which is a gift given by God) into a human action “that comes by trusting” the focus is placed on Timothy’s ability to receive and to trust.
NLT 15 You have been taught the holy Scriptures from childhood, and
they have given you the wisdom to receive the salvation
that comes by trusting in Christ Jesus.
Pronoun Confusion Leading To Theological Confusion
There are passages where confusion is introduced by the changing of pronouns for the sake of gender inclusiveness. Proverbs 16:9 provides a clear example. In Hebrew the masculine pronoun is often contextually inclusive of male and female. This is also the case for modern English. But in the NLT political sensitivities tend to override the actual meaning of the original context. The passage states:
Proverbs 16:9
NKJV A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.
Efforts to render this text in gender neutral language tend to be cumbersome and awkward. One could make the referent gender-neutral and replace the pronoun with the gender-neutral referent:
A human’s heart plans that human’s way, But the Lord directs that human’s steps.
The NIV attempts to solve the problem by changing to plural:
In their hearts humans plan their course, but the LORD establishes their steps.
Several translations keep the singular using a gender neutral referent to lead the reader to understand that the masculine pronoun is inclusive:
A person plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps. [ISB, NET Bible, God’s Word, etc.]
But the approach taken in the NLT is to change the referent into a 1st person plural pronoun. This obscures the meaning of the text. The text is a statement applying universally to all mankind and to each individually. The NLT shifts the meaning to be limited to the reader’s opinion of who “we” might be.
NLT We can make our plans, but the Lord determines our steps.
It is very useful to read the passages in context to help determine what kinds of change in meaning actually take place through such substitutions. First we will read a more “formally-equivalent” translation that does not use gender-neutral language, the NKJV. Contextually the verses leading up to verse 9 state:
Proverbs 16:7-9
NKJV
7 When a man’s ways please the Lord,
He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.
8 Better is a little with righteousness,
Than vast revenues without justice.
9 A man’s heart plans his way,
But the Lord directs his steps.
Verse 7 refers universally to all human individuals. The term “ways” includes not only behavior but also the faith and confession of the individual.
So the logical flow of the Hebrew is: All persons, every individual is held accountable by God. When his faith and life are pleasing to God it is God who makes that individuals enemies at peace with him. God does not look at things the way sinful humans look at them. Righteousness, faith and life, is of utmost importance to Him; even in poverty. Righteousness in faith and life is to be valued by all over a large income, especially if that income is tainted by sin. All individuals believe they are in charge of their own destinies, whether they are righteous or not. But in reality God is actually in control of everything. So be humble, believe in Him, and live according to His will.
The NLT chose to make the referent in verse 7 gender-neutral, but it interpreted the meaning of “ways” with the term “lives”. This translational choice implies that how one lives is the limit of the meaning of the text. The NLT shifts the simple statements of situation in verse 8 to an action, substituting “in righteousness” בִּצְדָקָ֑ה with a popular but theologically loaded term “godliness.” This term is not in the original text and leads the reader to reflect on what he thinks of as being “godly.” The NLT says:
NLT
7 When people’s lives please the Lord,
even their enemies are at peace with them.
8 Better to have little, with godliness,
than to be rich and dishonest.
9 We can make our plans,
but the Lord determines our steps.
The logical flow in the NLT is: Live lives pleasing to the Lord, then He will give you peace with your enemies. Strive to be godly, even if it means you only have little; better that than getting rich dishonestly. So we godly people living lives pleasing to God can make our plans, they might not turn out as we plan. But God is there determining our steps.
The original meaning of humble trust in God, and universal warning against sin and against evaluating things on outward appearances is turned into a text on prosperity through behaving in an appropriate way.
Formal or Informal (e.g. Are contractions used?)
Contractions are used in the NLT, as we saw in the reference to I Corinthians 10:16 above. Though they are not used quite as frequently as they were in the first edition. We also noted above with reference to Genesis 3:13 that the later editions of NLT have made some efforts to be less colloquial and more formal. But there are also other examples where informal language has been retained.
Matthew 19:25
NKJV 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
NLT 25 The disciples were astounded. “Then who in the world can be saved?” they asked.
Sometimes the drive for informality obscures theological terminology used by the Scripture in a specific way. For example, the term “saints” is used by Paul to refer to believers, the church.
Romans 1:7
NKJV To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
The NLT chose to avoid this term, though the word ‘saints’ is not unclear, and there is no linguistic need to change the term in English. The NLT replaces this term with something a bit more vague.
NLT I am writing to all of you in Rome who are loved by God and are called to be his own holy people.
The NLT’s “his own holy people” is vague in that it permits the reader to look at their own holiness through works or faith-struggle. In the original Greek it is God who calls us to be saints. God is the one who sets us apart for Himself. God is the one who defines us as His people.
In the NLT God calls people to be holy, however this might be accomplished. Given how the rest of the NLT treats the external righteousness of God, it would be difficult to think of being a holy people in the context of the NLT in any other way than by works or faith-struggle.
One cannot maintain that using informal language to represent the original text does not affect the theology taught by the translation. The informal language actually becomes a vehicle through which the theological worldview of the NLT translators is promoted over and against the teachings found in the original language texts.
Usefulness for the Divine Service
No. This translation should never be used in worship, instruction, Bible study, or personal devotional reading.
In fact, this version of the Bible is detrimental to the Christian faith because it falsifies God’s testimony to us about how He says He comes to us and gives us the forgiveness won by Christ on the Cross.
There are many other translational and theological problems with the NLT that we could have discussed here. For example, there is a consistent re-shaping of ‘faith’ into a work done by people rather than as a gift of God. This is clear in the way that the NLT translated Ephesians 2 and Hebrews 1:1-2, among other passages. Very often the NLT chooses to render prophetic texts against their simple clear meaning in a way that supports the false doctrine of Dispensationalism.
It is our hope that the examples given in the above review are more than adequate for the reader to be able see:
1) that the NLT has been fairly represented in this review and
2) that the NLT is not a sound translation, but rather a subversion of the original language Scriptures away from their clear and simple meaning.
The NLT should be marked and avoided.
