In both the Old and New Testaments we find many references to weights and measures of various types. For example, Noah’s ark is described as being 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. But how are we to understand these dimensions, since we don’t use cubits today?

We know from various ancient sources that a cubit was approximately equivalent to what we call 1.5 feet (or 46 centimeters). So Noah’s ark was around 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. Many translations simply use the Hebrew term “cubits,” even though very few readers would understand the size of the ark when it is described in cubits. If you read Genesis 6:15 in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, or NIV²⁰¹¹, you will find the word “cubits.” But some translations, including the NLT, CSB, NIV¹⁹⁸⁴, and The Message, list the ark’s dimensions in terms of feet. (Note that the earlier NIV text—published in 1984—used feet, but their translation committee decided to revert to cubits in their 2011 edition.) The few translations that use feet do so to give the reader terminology that is instantly understandable.

Similarly, let’s look at Ezekiel 46:7, where we find measures of volume. Most translations render it this way (as in the ESV): “As a grain offering [the prince] shall provide an ephah with the bull and an ephah with the ram, and with the lambs as much as he is able, together with a hin of oil to each ephah.” As with cubits, we ask ourselves, “What is an ephah or a hin?” This terminology is used in the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NIV. But the NLT, CSB, and The Message use this kind of terminology: “With the young bull he must bring a basket of choice flour for a grain offering. With the ram he must bring another basket of flour. And with each lamb he is to bring whatever amount of flour he chooses to give. With each basket of flour he must offer one gallon of olive oil” (NLT). The few translations that use “basket” or “bushel” and “gallon” do so to give the reader terminology that is instantly understandable.

Now let’s look at a New Testament passage: In Matthew 10:29, Jesus makes reference to a Roman coin—an assarion. The KJV translates this by using an old British coin—a farthing (which was equal to one-quarter of a penny). The NASB simply transliterates it as “assarion.” The RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, and CSB all use “a penny”: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care” (NIV). The NLT and NKJV both use “a copper coin.” An assarion was actually worth much more than a penny in today’s terms. It was equal to 1/16 of a denarius, a denarius being the standard day’s wage for a laborer. If we think of a day’s wage today as around $120, an assarion would be equivalent to 1/16 of that value, or $7.50. The translations that use “a penny” give the reader an incorrect understanding of the value of the coin as Jesus used it. “Copper coin” is a more flexible term that still gives the impression of a relatively small amount, which is the point of Jesus’ statement.

Finally, let’s look at the term “denarius” itself, which was a Roman coin. In Jesus’ parable about the workers who worked all day, half a day, or only an hour (Matthew 20:1-16), the laborers are each given a denarius, regardless of how long they worked. As indicated above, the denarius was the typical day’s wage for a laborer, which might be the equivalent of around $120 in today’s American economy. Most translations simply transliterate the term “denarius” (NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, CSB), which does not give the reader any sense as to the value of the wage that is given to the laborers. The NLT renders a denarius as “the normal daily wage” (with a footnote that reads “Greek a denarius, the payment for a full day’s labor”). So the reader of the NLT gets an instant understanding of how much the landowner gives the workers.

In a sense, the specific value of the denarius is not important, since the point of Jesus’ parable is that the landowner will give each laborer a fair wage. But the all-day laborers complained that it was unfair for those who worked only one hour to receive a full day’s pay. The landowner replied, “Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?” (Matthew 20:13-15, NLT). Jesus then makes the connection to the Kingdom of Heaven when he says, “So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last” (Matthew 20:16, NLT).

As the NLT translation team discussed these issues, our consistent decision was to render Hebrew or Greek weights and measures in terminology that would be instantly understandable to the reader. Translation accuracy involves more than simple word-for-word, literal correspondence or transliteration of ancient terms. A translation is fully accurate only when it makes sense to the reader.

There are four Gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The word gospel, meaning “good news,” is the traditional translation for the Greek term euangelion (pronounced you-ahn-GEL-ee-on, with a hard g in the accented syllable). Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called Synoptic Gospels because they tell much of the story of the life and ministry of Jesus in a similar way. (In this context, synoptic means seeing that two or more documents tell an account from a common viewpoint.)

Some elements of the story of Jesus are told in only two of the Gospels, some are told in all three of the Synoptics, and some are told in all four of the Gospels. But as we read the Gospels, we often find minor differences between the various accounts. For example, let’s look at the story of Jesus’ interaction with the “rich young ruler.”

As highlighted in the above passages, the description of this man varies across the accounts. Matthew describes him as “someone . . . a young man . . . [who] had many possessions.” Mark describes him as “a man . . . [who] had many possessions.” Luke describes him as “a religious leader [or ruler] . . . [who] was very rich.”

When we look at the three Synoptic Gospels together, we see that he can be called a “rich young ruler.” This descriptor is an example of a harmonization of the Gospel accounts.

Notice also how Jesus responds to the man’s question in the three accounts. Matthew tells us that Jesus quoted five of the commandments from Exodus and Deuteronomy, along with an additional command from Leviticus (“Love your neighbor as yourself”).

Mark likewise tells us that Jesus quoted five of the commandments from Exodus and Deuteronomy. But Mark’s account also includes “You must not cheat anyone,” which is not a direct quotation of a command (though this idea is alluded to in the Old Testament), and no mention is made of the command from Leviticus.

Luke also tells us that Jesus quoted from these five commandments from Exodus and Deuteronomy, but with a slightly different ordering, and he does not include the command about cheating or the command from Leviticus.

Does this suggest that there are errors in one or more of these passages from the Gospels? No, they simply tell the story with slightly different details. When we combine those details, we get a more complete picture than we get from any one of the Gospel writers. And this is the case in many stories throughout the Gospels. Study Bibles (including the NLT Study Bible and the Life Application Study Bible) often indicate where parallel passages occur, so readers can easily find and read the different accounts.

There are benefits to reading parallel passages in relation to each other, and there are benefits to reading through the Gospels on their own. Regardless, may we regularly read the stories and words of Jesus and allow them to transform us.

The NLT is designed to be accessible to readers of all ages and stages of life. Its clarity allows everyone— from new believers to seasoned scholars—to understand the Bible deeply and engage with it meaningfully.

The NLT scholars began their work with extensive proficiency in understanding the original-language texts in their ancient contexts. Then they expertly translated the meaning into expressions that are clear to readers of English in the twenty-first century. The NLT translation philosophy helps readers access the texts’ original meaning in words they can truly understand.

This translation philosophy means the New Living Translation is well suited for sermon preparation, preaching, teaching, Bible study, family devotions, group discussions and everyday reading for people of all ages and stages of life.

Accuracy is at the heart of the New Living Translation (NLT). A team of over 100 leading biblical scholars worked directly from the earliest and most reliable Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts to create a translation that is faithful to the ancient manuscripts and their intended meaning.  

The NLT scholars employ a meaning-for-meaning translation philosophy. They understand that the most accurate translation must be faithful to the words of the ancient manuscripts and their intended meaning.

When a single word in the original-language text can be rendered in English without losing clarity, they use it. However, when a literal translation might obscure the intended meaning, the NLT scholars use the exact words necessary to convey the most accurate meaning of the original message with precision. This meticulous process ensures that readers receive a translation that is both accurate and clear, allowing them to engage deeply with the Scriptures. 

See the list of scholars

By Jonathan W. Bryant, PhD, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

The Greek word ἀκούω (akouō, pronounced ah-KOO-oh) generally refers to the exercise of the sense of hearing. The term appears around four hundred times in the New Testament, and in the majority of instances, modern English translations, including the NLT, render the word with the English verb hear.

But the word akouō can denote more than simply physical hearing. It can also refer to the understanding or even the action that results from hearing. In other words, akouō sometimes describes a sort of careful attentiveness to something that includes a response (of heeding or obedience). We can pick up this sort of multi-layered meaning even in the ways we use the English word hear. If I were to ask one of my children, “Did you hear me?” I might be asking a simple question about whether they physically heard the words I spoke, or, I might be asking if they really heard me (did it really sink in?), which I’m only asking because I don’t see any accompanying action from what I had just said.

Bible translators must take into account not only the basic or most common meaning of a word but also the context in which the word occurs. A single term may carry different nuances in different contexts. Such is the case with akouō.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul is talking about the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, specifically offering caution about using this gift in a way that fails to build up others. The NLT renders the verse this way: “If you have the ability to speak in tongues, you will be talking only to God, since people won’t be able to understand (akouō) you. You will be speaking by the power of the Spirit, but it will all be mysterious.” Paul uses the verb akouō to describe not simply the ability to physically hear someone speaking in tongues (that wasn’t in doubt) but the ability to understand what’s being said (in other words, to hear and comprehend). In fact, all the major English translations recognize this contextual meaning and render akouō here as “understand.”

Another example is Acts 28:28. Here akouō is used to describe the response of Gentiles to the message of salvation. Throughout this passage (Acts 28:17-28), Paul is highlighting a contrast between the response of a group of Jewish people who were not accepting the message about Christ and certain Gentiles who were accepting that message. Both groups described are indeed “hearing” this message, but the emphasis in this context is on the reception of that message—whether it was truly “heard” to the point that it generated a response of belief or acceptance. Some translations simply render the term with its basic meaning “hear,” while others use the word “listen,” which can imply a deeper level of hearing but still may not fully capture the meaning of akouō in this context. The NLT seeks to render akouō here with an appropriate contextual meaning and opts for “accept”: “I want you to know that this salvation from God has also been offered to the Gentiles, and they will accept it.” In other words, while some “heard” or “listened to” the message but did not accept it, this group of Gentiles did.

As these examples show, translation is not as simple as plugging in a single word-for-word correspondence. Often, words in the source language carry nuances that cannot be caught by one word in the receptor language. Bible translators are tasked with trying to communicate ancient meaning in contextually specific ways. All translations, including the NLT, attempt to account for this reality.

As we read or listen to God’s messages as conveyed through his Word, may we not simply hear what he is saying. May we also understand, receive, and heed his words. And may we truly hear his Spirit guiding us and teaching us as we seek to communicate his message through our words and through the way we live.

By Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The writers of the New Testament letters make several references to hospitality. They use two closely related Greek words: the noun philoxenia (pronounced phil-ox-en-EE-ah) and the adjective philoxenos (pronounced phil-OX-en-os). Both terms are compounds formed from the Greek words philos, meaning “love,” and xenos, meaning “stranger.” A third Greek word that is used is xenodocheō (pronounced xen-o-dock-EH-oh), which comes from two words that mean “stranger” and “welcome.”

Here’s how the NLT renders these terms:

Romans 12:13: When God’s people are in need, be ready to help them. Always be eager to practice hospitality
1 Timothy 3:2: A church leader must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach.
1 Timothy 5:10: [Regarding a widow who is put on the list for support by the church] She must be well respected by everyone because of the good she has done. Has she brought up her children well? Has she been kind to strangers and served other believers humbly? Has she helped those who are in trouble? Has she always been ready to do good?
Titus 1:8: [Regarding an elder in the church] Rather, he must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life.
Hebrews 13:2: Don’t forget to show hospitality to strangers, for some who have done this have entertained angels without realizing it!
1 Peter 4:9: Cheerfully share your home with those who need a meal or a place to stay.

As you can see, the NLT uses the traditional term hospitality in Romans 12:13 and Hebrews 13:2, both of which use the noun philoxenia. In 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:8, and 1 Peter 4:9, where the adjective philoxenos is used, the NLT provides contextual descriptions of what it means to be hospitable: having guests in our homes and sharing a meal or a place to stay. In 1 Timothy 5:10, where xenodocheō is used, the NLT translators convey the general concept of being welcoming or kind to strangers. This variety reflects the NLT’s meaning-for-meaning philosophy of translation. All these Greek terms point to the notion of hospitality, but the translation team often fleshed out the meaning of these Greek words with expressions that show what it means for followers of Christ to live our lives in a hospitable way toward others.

In Matthew 25:34-40, Jesus himself gave his followers numerous examples of hospitality:

Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.”

Then these righteous ones will reply, “Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?”

And the King will say, “I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!”

Jesus viewed the practice of hospitality as a key component of being his follower. And in our world today, these instructions from the Bible hit close to home. We are to be kind to strangers, which applies both to neighbors we don’t yet know and to foreigners, refugees, and immigrants—in other words, everyone we encounter. May we compassionately live out these instructions in our daily lives and through our interactions with others.

By Jonathan W. Bryant, PhD, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

The title Yahweh Tsebaoth occurs around 250 times in the Old Testament, mostly in the prophetic literature. The expression may be familiar to many with a church background because of its appearance in the second verse of the well-known hymn by Martin Luther A Mighty Fortress:

Did we in our own strength confide,
our striving would be losing,
were not the right Man on our side,
the Man of God’s own choosing.
You ask who that may be?
Christ Jesus, it is he;
Lord Sabaoth his name,
from age to age the same;
and he must win the battle.

The King James Version (KJV) rendered this title “Lord of hosts.” This rendering has been followed by a number of translations, including the ESV, NASB (1995), HCSB, NRSV, and NKJV. But what does “Lord of hosts” mean? Today, the English word “host” can have numerous connotations, from someone who seats you at a restaurant, to someone who’s running a Zoom meeting, to someone who facilitates your stay at an Airbnb. Some readers may recognize that “host” can sometimes mean “a large number,” but a large number of what?

The Hebrew term tsebaoth (sometimes rendered sabaoth) is a plural form of the noun tsaba, which is a military term referring to a group that is organized for battle (i.e., what we might call an army). For example, in Numbers 1, Moses and Aaron are assigned the task of numbering all those in the community of Israel who are able to go to war, the tsebaoth (the “troops” or “army”). Hence, the title Yahweh Tsebaoth conveys the notion that God is the Lord of armies.

That could simply mean that God is sovereign over any human army that might form. Indeed, the Old Testament frequently alludes to the fact that God orchestrates human armies to serve his purposes (for example, using Assyria or Babylon for his judgment on other nations). However, he is also Lord over the supernatural realm as well, including having command over a vast angelic army. We see hints of this in Scripture. For example, in 2 Kings 6, we read about Elisha the prophet being pursued by an Aramean army. When Elisha’s servant expresses hopelessness, Elisha prays for the man’s eyes to be opened, and he then sees a vast army of horses and chariots of fire. When Jesus commands Peter to put away his sword in Gethsemane, he states, “Don’t you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly?” (Matthew 26:53). And in the book of Revelation, there are many references to the Lord’s armies, ready to do battle against the cosmic forces of evil.

The widespread use of the title Yahweh Tsebaoth in the Old Testament seems to point to this aspect of God’s sovereignty—the command of angelic armies. As such, the NLT translators have rendered the title “ Lord of Heaven’s Armies.”

Interestingly, some other major translations have moved away from the language “Lord of hosts.” The CSB uses “Lord of Armies,” and the updated NASB (2020) uses “Lord of armies.” The NIV goes with a more general “Lord Almighty,” aligning well with the approach of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament), which often translates Tsebaoth with pantokratōr (“almighty” or “all-powerful”).

The NLT has rendered the title in a way that accurately reflects the meaning in its ancient context in a way that readers today can understand.

May we keep in mind that God is sovereign over what we currently see and also over forces that we cannot see. What an astonishing reality that this God cares about each of us!

The words of a Bible text are vitally important, but there are other elements that play a role in how we understand the meaning of any text. Think, for instance, of punctuation.

The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible did not use punctuation. As a result, readers had to make their own interpretation regarding sentence structure. Of course, the syntax of the strings of words gave clues as to sentence structure and who was speaking.

The King James Version added periods, commas, question marks, semicolons, and colons to the English translation, which were all very helpful. But it did not use quotation marks, as they weren’t in common use in the 1600s. The New King James Version (NKJV) used all those same elements of punctuation but also added quotation marks, which made the flow of the text easier for contemporary readers to understand.

For the most part, the placement of quotation marks is very intuitive. But sometimes the translators have to decide where a quotation ends. Look, for example, at John 3:10-21. In Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus, we see that one of Jesus’ speeches begins at verse 10. But is Jesus still talking in verses 16-21?

The translators of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) used a closing quotation mark at the end of verse 15, though they added a footnote that said, “Some interpreters hold that the quotation continues through verse 21.” But the translators of the New Revised Standard Version did not use an ending quotation mark after verse 15. As a result, they indicate that Jesus was still speaking in verses 16-21. Similarly, the English Standard Version (which is a revision of the RSV) includes verses 16-21 as words of Jesus.

The 1984 edition of the New International Version (NIV) included verses 16-21 as words of Jesus. But the 2011 edition of the NIV stops Jesus’ speech at the end of verse 15. The NIV translators concluded that verses 16-21 were part of the apostle John’s narrative, but not part of Jesus’ speech.

The translation team for the New Living Translation wrestled with this same issue. Should verses 16-21 be included as part of Jesus’ speech? Our conclusion was these verses should be treated as words of Jesus. This all becomes very obvious in a red-letter Bible. The text of verses 16-21 is presented either in black type or red type depending on the translators’ decision as to whether Jesus is still speaking in these verses.

In the final analysis, the meaning of verses 16-21 does not change. Whether these are the words of Jesus or of the apostle John, the message is very clear. The NLT renders verses 16 and 17 in this way:

¹⁶ “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.”

These familiar verses provide a wonderful promise of redemption for all who believe in Jesus as the Son of God.

by Jonathan W. Bryant, PhD, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

In late September or early October, the Jewish people celebrate Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This holiest day of the Jewish calendar, in which the Jewish people abstain from various practices, including eating, drinking, and sexual relations, stems from the instructions given in Leviticus 16 (see also Leviticus 23:26-32; Numbers 29:7-11). On that day, the high priest was to enter the Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple), and offer purification for the sanctuary, the priests, and the entire community. In this way, the people, marred by sin, would be atoned (or made right) before God.

Leviticus 23:26-32 outlines what the observance of this day was to look like for the people of Israel. The description of some of these practices can sound confusing to our modern ears, so translators take various approaches to help readers understand the meaning of the Hebrew wording in this description.

For example, in Leviticus 23:27, in the instructions given to the people, the KJV reads, “Ye shall afflict your souls.” The ESV picks up this language: “You shall afflict yourselves” (see also NKJV). Are readers to understand that these ancient Israelites were doing physical harm to themselves (the most natural understanding of “afflict” today)? The Hebrew verb used here is ‘anah (ah-NAH), which appears more than eighty times in the Old Testament. This term can have numerous connotations but generally refers to being in a bent down or low position. It can be used to speak of a physical, crouched-down or bowed-down position. In a non-physical sense, it can refer to being humble, subjected, or oppressed. So if the action is done to oneself, as here, it essentially means to make oneself humble or weak. But many people today are likely to get the wrong impression with the term “afflict.” Some translations have rendered the term “humble yourselves” (for example, NASB, NRSV). The NLT translators opted to go with “deny yourselves,” which gets at the general sense of humble submission but also conveys the idea that there is an active rejection of desire (mainly for food), which is behind the meaning of “affliction” as used in the KJV. Most modern translations also include a footnote to suggest that this “denial” or “affliction” is practiced chiefly in abstaining from food (i.e., fasting).

Another English term often used in this passage that may not be readily understood by modern readers (particularly those without a church background) is the word “atonement” itself. In Leviticus 23:28, the Hebrew verb kaphar (kah-FAR) is used to describe what happens before the Lord on the Day of Atonement as the high priest performs his duties. This Hebrew term, which means “to cover” (see Genesis 6:14, where Noah’s ark was “covered” [i.e., waterproofed] with tar or pitch), is taken up in a metaphorical sense throughout the Old Testament to refer to the “covering” or appeasement of sin. God provided the people with a way (through sacrifices and the Day of Atonement) for their sin to be forgiven and their relationship with him to be restored. This is what our English term “atonement” means. But in the interest of making this concept more understandable for modern readers, the NLT translators rendered the wording in Leviticus 23:28 as “making you right with the lord your God.”

These are two examples in which the NLT renders the contextual meaning of Hebrew terms but does so in language that is readily understood by modern readers. As we reflect on the Day of Atonement as described in Scripture, let us pause to let the reality sink in that Jesus, our great High Priest, has provided atonement, making us right with God, through his once-for-all sacrifice on the cross (see Hebrews 10:1-18).

If you compare two or more Bible translations, you will occasionally find differences in the breakup of paragraphs or major sections of the text. What’s going on?

For starters, we need to recognize that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which our translations are based did not have chapter breaks, verse numbers, paragraph breaks, or punctuation. In fact, the earliest Greek manuscripts didn’t even have spaces between the words. All those features have been added by Bible copyists and scholars through the centuries.

The standard Greek text used by most students today, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), includes chapter and verse numbers and a minimal level of punctuation. The scholars who compiled that Greek text have also inserted section headings in the text, but translators have to make their own judgment as to the placement of paragraph breaks and section headings.

An example where translations differ comes in the section break at Ephesians 5:20-21. The syntax of the Greek text suggests that verses 18-24 comprise one long sentence, yet the UBS text introduces a paragraph break and a new section header beginning at verse 21. Some translations (e.g., RSV, NIV²⁰¹¹, NLT) follow the UBS text and introduce a section header prior to verse 21. Other translations (e.g., NASB, NIV¹⁹⁸⁴, NKJV, NRSV, ESV) introduce a section header prior to verse 22. We can see the difference when we compare this passage in the NLT and the ESV:

Why the difference? It relates to the translators’ understanding of what Paul is saying in verse 21. Is the concept of “submitting to one another” the end of a thought and therefore the end of a major section, as in the ESV? Or is verse 21 the beginning of a new thought that is continued in verses 22-33? If the section break comes before verse 22 rather than before verse 21, it implies that submitting to one another (v. 21) is somehow unrelated to the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands (v. 22).

The NLT translators see verse 21 as an introduction to the relationships within a marriage. Believers are to submit to one another (v. 21). This thought is then fleshed out in terms of the relationship between wives and husbands. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (v. 22), and husbands are to love their wives, just as Christ loved the church (v. 25).

We must remember, though, that the section headings in any translation have been created by the translators as a tool to help readers understand the flow of the text. Those headings were not in the original Hebrew or Greek texts.

This is just one small glimpse into the kinds of decisions that Bible translators make as they prepare the text for print. Translators take their work very seriously since they are dealing with God’s message for all people in all cultures and languages. May we as readers also take the text seriously as we read it and apply it to our own lives.