I'm a christian and I think the new living translation of the bible is crap how about you ?

Question

whoever wrote this, missed the part about not adding to or taking away from the Holy scriptures, and they poorly interpreted everything.

I also think one can understand more clearly by combining the king james and the new american standard versions, and they dont use words like intercourse.

Answer 1

Personally, I believe most of the "New Age" translations are candy coated crap. Not everyone agrees but it makes me wonder why many of our modern day churches are devoid of the true knowledge and power of God once experienced by our 1st century brethren.

I've learned that the closer one goes back to the Old King James, the safer they are in getting the real meat. We can chose real steak or we can choose that plastic steak that looks just as yummy but is used for display purposes only.

I personally struggle with the thees, thous, and hithertos of the King James so I'll alternate from King James and New King James.

UPDATE: Not to mention, for some reason, reading the old King James version seems to make me smarter. I don't know why. Maybe because of all the thees and thous.

Answer 2

Well, there's no perfect way to translate a language, expecially when the languages have completely different structures. Unlike comparing English and Spanish or French, which have similar structures and bases (Subject - Verb being the simplest), we simply don't have equivalents in English for many Hebrew phrases and words.

I think the best translation is a combination of several if you want the closest meaning. They sell bibles with several translations next to eachother for comparision. Personally, my favorite single Translation is the New American Standard Bible. (NASB)

Edit:
Translations run down:
King James Version -KJ - Old english language (Thee's and Thou's, ect.)

New King James Version- NKJ- Keeps most of the KJ, but with more modern words.

New International Version- NIV- Tries to use easier and simpler language than NKJ.

New American Standard Bible- NASB- Sticks a little closer to the origional language than NIV, but still pretty easy to understand.

Answer 3

To be honest, every Bible translation as we know it should be taken with a grain of salt and used as a moral guidebook. The Bible was originally translated by scribes for King James who had his OWN intentions behind translating it - and he ORDERED certain things left out or added in. So, unless you know ancient Hebrew and can read the scrolls, then you're not reading the true scripture. Now, think of it this way - have you ever played the rumor game? The one where you sit in a circle and 1 person says a sentence like: I'm painting my car on Thursday with Jen & Bob. Each subsequent person whispers the same "message" to the next person and so forth until the message gets back to the original person who said the sentence first. It was always amazing to me how hilariously the sentence had changed in that short time and with only 10 people in a circle! Now apply that same thinking to HUNDREDS of years of a message being passed down from one group to another - each with their own intentions. So, when various groups of Christians want to nit-pick and fight over this word or that word is just well....stupid to me. Why fight over every literal word when it's obvious everyone can get wisdom from the Bible's VALUES and lessons? The basic tenents of the Bible are valuable as human beings, not just as Christians. People need to stop fighting over which translation is better because ALL of them have been messed with.

Answer 4

it is probably wise to have access to at least 2 or 3 of the major translations (KJV (King James Version), NIV (New International Version), NAS (New American Standard), NKJV (New King James Version), NLT (New Living Translation), for comparison's sake. If a verse or passage in one translation is a little confusing, it can be helpful to compare it side-by-side with another version. It is difficult to say which translation is the "best." "Best" would be determined by a combination of the translation method personally considered best and your interpretation of the textual data underlying your translation.

Answer 5

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen.

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).


Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly

Answer 6

I prefer the King James version....the NIV I know very little about.....but I have been told that the blood has been left out in some of the passages...I don't know for sure but I just feel better staying with King James....:)

Answer 7

I prefer the old fashioned King James Version. I grew up with it, memorized a lot of it, and when I hear the newer ones read or quoted, the words just seem too fakey...I really treasure the old style of Bible I am used to.

Answer 8

It's not a translation, it's a paraphrase. If you want accurarcy learn Greek and Hebrew. The JPS (Jerusalem Publishing Society: TaNaK) has a real nice Old Testament translation. I'm not an expert on Greek, but I've heard nice things about NRSV.

Answer 9

Translations made by committee never work out well. The NLT is just one paraphrase of the Bible that makes it easy to read, but loses MUCH in the translation.
But truthfully, I'd rather read an NLT than an NIV, or NIrV.
The NIV and subsequent NIrV creep me out.

Answer 10

Then don't read it.