I’m not Nick but… Romans 11:36 (aion is translated forever) and Romans 12:2 (aion is translated as world). Paul’s entire point is lost in the NLT, because of fear of using “age” which would sound more Greek. Particularly when you start looking at place like 1 Cor 10:11 when he is making the point that now, when he is writing, is a transition point between two aions, and this time the NLT does use age.

That’s a good example of where meaning is entirely lost by simplifying the text.

Rom 1:17a
“because in it the righteousness of God is seen at work… “.

Jn 17:6
“I have made your name known to the men whom you gave me out of
the world.”, (except that these days I suspect people would want to say ‘those’ rather than ‘the men’).

Jn 17:11b
“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you have given me, that they may be one, as we are one.

On the other hand, from this morning’s OT reading, Job 18 at v 4. Bildad the Shuhite is speaking.

ESV
“You who tear yourself in your anger, shall the earth be forsaken for you, or the rock be removed out of its place?

Technically close to the original, but not conveying the sense (whatever the sense is) at all.

REB
“Is the earth to be deserted to prove you right, or the rocks to be moved from their place?”

Excellent on the second 2/3 of the verse – I suspect that’s what the text actually means – but for some reason omits the first phrase altogether. There’s a footnote saying this, but not explaining why.

NLT
“You may tear your hair out in anger, but will that cause the earth to be abandoned? Will it make rocks fall from a cliff?”

Not too bad, but a bit free. Are either hair or cliff are really there?

The interesting one is the AV
“He teareth himself in his anger: shall the earth be forsaken for thee? and shall the rock be removed out of his place?”

The second 2/3s of the verse are very like the ESV, clearly where the ESV comes from, and like the ESV not clear to the ordinary reader. For the first third of the verse, the part the REB leaves out, it turns out the C17 translators are keeping the original grammar. This is in the third person.

I don’t have the knowledge to know. I’m fairly ignorant and must defer to those that know what they are talking about. Virtually every other modern translation changes this to a more idiomatic ‘you’. But just suppose the AV is right. Suppose the original is written so as to be read with pauses. Is it just possible that makes the first third an aside, either Bildad addressing Eliphaz and Zophar, or even muttering to himself, but in a way that it is intended Job can hear?

[aside]“See how he tears himself in anger”
[turning back to Job again] “Is the earth to be deserted to prove you right, or the rocks to be moved from their place?”

Oh Weh.

Amen to your post. And hurray for Kathy.

So, I’m an advocate of the NLT. At the church I now pastor, I’m slowly using it more and more in my preaching and teaching while using the NIV the rest of the time (don’t want to do too much too fast for a people who were used to the old kjv). I always keep copies on hand of the Abundant Life NLT to give to others, too.

Koine
A fellow one time told me he had bought an ESV
Word-for-word, not thought-for-thought, its claim – acc’racy
It borrowed terms, inserted forms, and things I’d yet to see
Apparently the standard language of the bourgeoisie

But why now in their Intro did they not stick to that mould?
No ‘grinding’ women, no goats in charge, no trembling loins, I’m told
It seems they plied a different rule when wanting to unfold
Their message to their readers than the Message from of old

This standard English Bible teaches us that good translation
Is a word-for-word from Hebrew/Greek to English imitation
But what about the other language parts and their relation?
Like discourse, culture, figures, focus, style, and collocation

It were that would but wither here that thither God would speak
Archaic forms of Aramaic, Hebrew, and of Greek
That He might once for all obscure the meaning that we seek
And justify the English of the ESV technique

Should Bibles now be written in the language of today?
Or do old words and foreign forms do better to convey
The ‘antiquated’ language that we find in the Koine
For what’s the meaning of that good ol’ Greek word anyway?

Romans 1:17
‘For in it the righteousness of God is revealed’ ESV
‘This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight.’ NLT
The ESV rendering surely includes the NLT rendering but encompasses a lot more. Is ‘the righteousness of God’ merely his accounting us righteous? Does it not encompass his righteousness too, i.e. his righteous way of righteous-ing the unrighteous?

John 17:6
‘I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.’ ESV
‘I have revealed you to the ones you gave me from this world.’ NLT
The simpler NLT rendering obscures the link with Exodus. Jesus is the one who has declared the name of the Lord, just as YHWH declared his own name to Moses.

John 17:11
‘Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.’ ESV
‘Holy Father, you have given me your name; now protect them by the power of your name so that they will be united just as we are.’ NLT
The NLT is simpler, but does it capture the sense of the passage? The word ‘keep/kept’ has sprung up throughout the passage. Jesus has said, “They kept your word, now you keep them in your name.” Carson believes this means ‘keep them faithful to your name’. Would that the ESV had translated it this way. Mind you, I’d rather go with the ‘not imediately obvious’ rendering than the ‘simple but wrong’ rendering.

I’m no linguist nor the son of a linguist, so I’m open to correction and to having my nagging insecurity stilled (i.e. the insecurity mentioned before when using a functional bible). Nevertheless, the differences between the ESV and some more functional translations can be quite staggering and perplexing to untrained readers like myself.

Chandler, the two comments look different to my aging eyes. If you still see the same comment twice please email me so by seeing (with your help) I will believe.