Questions?

English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called “formal-equivalence,” “literal,” or “word-for-word” translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called “dynamic-equivalence,” “functional-equivalence,” or “thought-for-thought” translation. It is now referred to as meaning-based translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style.

Both of these translation theories have their strengths. A formal-equivalence translation preserves aspects of the original text—including ancient idioms, term consistency, and original-language syntax—that are valuable for scholars and professional study. It allows a reader to trace formal elements of the original-language text through the English translation. A meaning-based translation, on the other hand, focuses on translating the message of the original-language text. It ensures that the meaning of the text is readily apparent to the contemporary reader. This allows the message to come through with immediacy, without requiring the reader to struggle with foreign idioms and awkward syntax. It also facilitates serious study of the text’s message and clarity in both devotional and public reading.

The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely meaning-based translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by meaning-based theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite focused on meaning when the original text is obscure.

The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and meaning-based in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next. On the other hand, the NLT translators rendered the message more toward the meaning when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader’s understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful.

More than 90 Bible scholars, along with a group of accomplished English stylists, worked toward that goal. In the end, the NLT is the result of precise scholarship conveyed in living language.

The translators of the Old Testament used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as their standard text. They used the edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977) with its up-to-date textual apparatus, a revision of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on textual problems.

The translators of the New Testament used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty-seventh edition, 1993). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent the best in modern textual scholarship.

All translations use a combination of formal equivalence and meaning-based. A good way to demonstrate this is to look at how the King James Version translates the phrase mee genoito in Paul’s epistles. A literal rendering of this phrase is “may it not be.” The KJV is generally quite literal, but it consistently renders this phrase “God forbid.” That’s very meaning-based!

Conversely, there are many places where the NLT is quite literal in its renderings. After all, there’s no reason not to be literal if a literal translation communicates clearly to the English reader. For example, Psalm 118:1 is translated very literally in the NLT: “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good! His faithful love endures forever.”

All of the Bible scholars and stylists involved in this work are Christians who accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Most of the translators are professors in seminaries or universities, and all of the translators have written books and/or scholarly articles in the specific books of the Bible where they did their translation work. They represent a rich variety of theological and denominational backgrounds, and they came from various geographical locations where English is the primary language: the United States (in all major sectors), Canada, England, and Australia. View the list of names of The Bible Translation Team.

The New Living Translation was first published in 1996. Shortly after its initial publication, the Bible Translation Committee began a process of further review and translation refinement. The purpose of this revision was to increase the level of precision without sacrificing the text’s easy-to-understand quality. This revision is notable in several ways:

Various portions of the Old Testament (especially the Prophets) previously set in prose format have now been set in poetic format to reflect the poetic nature of the Hebrew text.

Various passages throughout the text were fine-tuned with regard to precision of translation.

Many marginal notes were added to help the reader study manuscript differences and to show the relationship between a literal translation and the rendering in the NLT. For example, the phrase “they beat their breasts” (Luke 23:48) in ancient times meant that people were expressing deep sorrow. Thus, the NLT translates the expression dynamically: “They went home in deep sorrow.” A footnote shows a literal rendering of the Greek as follows: “Greek went home beating their breasts.”

The translation of difficult terms is made more concise. In the NLT, difficult terms are often made easier to understand by expanding them into longer phrases. The second edition often shortens these expansions—without sacrificing clarity.

Literary character is preserved. The original Bible text often repeats words or phrases for literary effect. Where these repetitions don’t add additional meaning, the original NLT often condensed them. The NLT second edition restores many of the repetitions to show the English reader the literary flavor of the original text.

Wording is more consistent. In the NLT second edition, a particular Hebrew or Greek word is more consistently translated with the same English word where the word has the same meaning—making the entire translation more consistent for serious study.

The NLT second edition represents a new benchmark in dynamic equivalence. Since it is not possible to translate literally every Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word into English, the vast majority of Bible scholars embrace the principle of dynamic equivalence—rendering the actual meaning of an ancient phrase or passage in its closest English equivalent. The NLT second edition carefully takes into account both literal and dynamic renderings. This balance of living language and precise scholarship sets a new standard for Bible translations.

The New Living Translation uses a meaning-based translation philosophy. As a result, it differs in style from other modern versions that follow in the venerable tradition of the King James Version—namely, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New King James Version, and the English Standard Version. The New Living Translation also differs from other translations such as the New American Standard Bible and the Holman Christian Standard Bible and from versions that are denominationally based such as the New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible, both Catholic versions. The New Living Translation is a fresh translation produced by translators with divergent denominational ties, and it is a translation that seeks to communicate the meaning and content of the original biblical text in language that English readers will readily understand. Learn more about meaning-based translation

The NLT, like most modern versions, is more accurate than the KJV in several ways. First, knowledge of Hebrew was not very advanced when the KJV was translated. The Hebrew text they used (i.e., the Masoretic Text) was adequate, but their understanding of the Hebrew vocabulary was insufficient. Second, the Greek text underlying the New Testament of the KJV is an inferior text. The KJV translators used a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (commonly abbreviated as TR), which came from the work of Erasmus, who compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press. When Erasmus compiled this text, he used five or six very late Greek manuscripts dating from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries. These manuscripts were inferior to earlier manuscripts that were unknown to Erasmus.

After the KJV was published (in 1611), numerous earlier New Testament manuscripts were discovered—manuscripts that began to show deficiencies in the TR. Around 1630, Codex Alexandrinus (dated c. 400) was brought to England. In 1859, a German scholar named Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus in St. Catherine’s Monastery located near Mount Sinai. The manuscript, dated c. 350, is one of the two oldest vellum manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. The earliest vellum manuscript, Codex Vaticanus, had been in the Vatican’s library since at least 1481, but it was not made available to scholars until the middle of the nineteenth century. Codex Vaticanus, dated slightly earlier (c. 325) than Codex Sinaiticus, is one of the most accurate manuscripts of the New Testament in existence.

At the end of the nineteenth century, two British scholars, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort, produced a volume titled The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). Along with this publication, they stated their position that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, along with a few other early manuscripts, represent a text that most closely replicates the original writings. In the twentieth century, many second- and third-century papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered. Most of these papyrus manuscripts have a text that is very similar to Codex Vaticanus and to Codex Sinaiticus.

One of the most noteworthy papyrus manuscripts is P75, a copy of Luke and John dated c. 175–200. It is universally recognized as a very accurate manuscript and one that bears extremely close resemblance to Codex Vaticanus. This shows that a pure line of textual transmission was preserved from the middle of the second-century to the fourth century. The papyrus P75 and several other papyrus manuscripts have helped twentieth-century scholars produce a Greek text that is even closer to the original text than that of Westcott and Hort. This most recent edition is commonly known as the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

The upshot of the nineteenth-century and twentieth-century discoveries and publications of better Greek texts is that we now have a Greek text that is far more accurate than the Textus Receptus. Subsequently, English versions (like the NLT) that are based on the better Greek manuscripts are superior to the KJV, which is based on the Textus Receptus.

As far as modern readers are concerned, one of the most obvious textual differences between the KJV and modern translations like the NLT is that the KJV (following the TR) includes several passages that most contemporary scholars believe were not in the original text. These differences are reflected in the KJV (and NKJV) versus what is usually printed in modern translations. The extra verses in the KJV and NKJV are as follows: Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; 27:35b; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 9:55b-56a;17:36; 23:17; John 5:3b-4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6b-8a; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7b-8a. Most modern versions, including the NLT, exclude these verses from the text and then provide a note about each exclusion in deference to the KJV tradition.

It is evident in Scripture that the biblical documents were written to be read aloud, often in public worship (see Nehemiah 8; Luke 4:16-20; 1 Timothy 4:13; Revelation 1:3). It is still the case today that more people will hear the Bible read aloud in church than are likely to read it for themselves. Therefore, a new translation must communicate with clarity and power when it is read aloud. For this reason, the New Living Translation is recommended as a Bible to be used for public reading. Its living language is not only easy to understand, but it also has an emotive quality that will make an impact on the listener. The NLT speaks right to the hearts and minds of listeners because they immediately understand its message without having to process technical biblical language.

The NLT is an excellent translation for serious Bible study because at every turn of the page the NLT provides illuminating renderings of passages that are difficult to understand in other versions. The most common response we hear from those who read the NLT is: “I’ve read that passage before and never really understood it. Now that I’ve read it in the NLT, I understand what the Bible is saying.”

We live in an age where there are multiple translations of the Bible in English. Many of these are very similar to one another—especially those produced according to the formal-equivalence (or word-for-word) approach. There are only so many ways a text can be translated literally. The advantage of a dynamic-equivalence (or thought-for-thought) translation is that it can provide fresh insights into Bible texts. Therefore, serious students of the Bible will benefit from use of the NLT along with various word-for-word translations to gain a fuller grasp of the meaning of Scripture.

To aid people in their studies, the NLT has several kinds of textual footnotes: on all New Testament passages that clearly quote from the Old Testament; on cultural and historical information that may be obscure to modern readers; on variant readings in ancient manuscripts; on alternative renderings (these are prefaced with the word “Or”); and on certain translations that depart from long-standing tradition.

Yes. Besides publishing several study Bibles including the NLT Study Bible and the Illustrated Study Bible, Tyndale House Publishers offers a variety of reference products. The complete 18 volume Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series is available for purchase in both print and electronic formats. This series looks at textual issues related to the original languages, structural and contextual issues, and of course focuses on the meaning and significance of the text. It is a perfect series for pastors, small group leaders or those who are seeking to do their own deeper study of God’s Word. Swindoll’s Living Insights New Testament Commentary series by well-known pastor and author Chuck Swindoll uses the NLT alongside the NASB. This series is highly illustrative and practical. Other reference titles include the Life Application Bible Commentary series, Life Application Bible Study series, Tyndale Handbook of Bible Charts and Maps, and Tyndale Bible Dictionary.

We use English punctuation in the NLT to help readers understand the flow of the message. From time to time, we separate off “asides” that might confuse a reader if they aren’t marked off in some way, and using parentheses is one way this is done in English. The Hebrew of these texts doesn’t use punctuation as we do in English, so all punctuation used in English translations has been added to help readers understand the meaning of the text. Our use of parentheses in these cases was done to help readers to see immediately that the parenthesized sentence or phrase interrupts the larger flow of the argument, a hint that will help readers avoid having to backtrack as they read to figure out what’s going on.

Since not all NLT Bibles are the same, the symbols you encounter in the text flow of your Bible may differ. However, there is one symbol that you will encounter in the text flow of all NLT Bibles: the asterisk (*). The NLT uses asterisks within the text flow to mark where textual footnotes are connected to the Bible text. Whenever you see an asterisk in the text, you will find a corresponding footnote at the bottom of the page. The footnotes begin with the verse reference of the text they are connected to. The location of the asterisk in the text is important, since its location connects the wording of the text to the footnote.

Some NLT Bibles include a concise cross-reference system that places key cross-references at the end of many of the paragraphs. These references will point you to a related Bible passage somewhere else. These cross-references are linked to the associated verse or verses within the paragraph with a cross symbol. When you find a cross symbol in the running text of these Bibles, you should expect to see a reference at the end of the paragraph.

For Bibles that have a full-column cross-reference system, the parallel slashes (//) that appear in the cross-reference column identify the cross references that point to parallel passages. You will find many of these parallel slashes in the New Testament gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), since these books share many parallel passages with each other. Asterisks (*) that appear within the cross-reference column identify the cross references that show a close connection between the Old and New Testaments.

In some study editions of the NLT (for example, the NLT Study Bible), there is an additional word-study feature added into the full-column cross-reference list. In such Bibles, the superscript italic letters that appear within the Bible text flow mark the existence of a Greek or Hebrew word-study term that appears in the cross-reference column. The item in the cross-reference column then points to a word-study glossary at the back of the Bible that gives information about the Greek or Hebrew terms expressed in the English text. This feature takes 100 of the most significant Hebrew words in the Old Testament and 100 Greek words from the New Testament and creates a chain reference that points to key instances of these words.

While reading the NLT on YouVersion, you may see three white dots in a gray box. This symbol indicates that there is a textual footnote connected to the Bible text. When you click on the symbol, a box will open that displays the footnote. Each footnote begins with the verse reference of the text it is connected to.

In the Tyndale Bibles app, footnotes are noted with superscript italic letters in the text. Cross-references are noted with text that is underlined. To access a footnote, tap on the verse to select it and then long press on the word by the notification, and a box will appear displaying the footnote. For a cross-reference, long press on the word that is underlined. A cross-reference button will appear. Click on it, and the cross-referenced verse or passage will appear in a box above the text.

Though a few special editions of the NLT have been published with capitalized deity pronouns, the standard text of the NLT does not capitalize them. This is also true for most other English Bible translations, beginning with the earliest English Bible translations, including the King James Version. Only the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the New King James Version (NKJV) capitalize deity pronouns in their standard texts.

The decision to keep deity pronouns lower cased is in no way motivated by a lack of respect for God's name. It is based on standard English usage and standard translation practice. The original Hebrew and Greek Bible manuscripts did not highlight divine pronouns in any way. The pronouns in the ancient texts were treated grammatically and typographically like other standard pronouns. So for most English translations, this characteristic of the original texts has been preserved in translation.

Another factor that comes into play in this decision involves the fact that there are pronouns in the Bible that could be understood in more than one way—it could refer to God but it might also refer to a person. In such cases, capitalizing it or not becomes an exegetical decision by the translator rather than a simple translation of the text. Since there are a fair number of ambiguous pronouns in the Bible, it has been deemed safer by many translators to just treat them all the same and allow the reader and expositor to deal with the ambiguities.

One challenge the translators faced was in determining how to translate accurately the ancient biblical text that was originally written in a context where male-oriented terms were used to refer to humanity generally. They needed to respect the nature of the ancient context while also trying to make the translation clear to a modern audience that tends to read male-oriented language as applying only to males. Often the original text, though using masculine nouns and pronouns, clearly intends that the message be applied to both men and women. One example is found in the New Testament epistles, where the believers are often called “brothers” (adelphoi). Yet it is clear that these epistles were addressed to all the believers—male and female. In such contexts, the NLT translates this Greek word “brothers and sisters” in order to represent the historical situation more accurately. The NLT is also sensitive to passages where the text applies generally to human beings or to the human condition. In many instances, the NLT uses plural pronouns (they, them) in place of the masculine singular (he, him).

It should be emphasized that all masculine nouns and pronouns used to represent God (for example, “Father”) have been maintained without exception. The translators believe that essential traits of God’s revealed character can be conveyed only through the masculine language expressed in the original texts of Scripture.

Though we cannot be certain without knowing which Scripture passage is being viewed, a verse number discrepancy between the New American Bible and other English translations most likely has to with the fact that the NAB follows modern Hebrew versification in Old Testament books rather than the versification introduced to the Bible by printer Robert Estienne in the 1500s. Robert Estienne began by versifying the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament. But his system has since then appeared in most English Bibles starting with the Geneva Bible, first printed in 1560.

This issue is probably most noticeable in the book of Psalms, where in the NAB the Hebrew psalm titles (following modern Hebrew Bibles) are included in the verse sequence. A good example of this is found in Psalm 102, where the NAB labels the psalm title (“A prayer of one overwhelmed with trouble, pouring out problems before the LORD”) as verse 1 (resulting in a psalm of 29 verses), where most English translations don’t number this title (resulting in a psalm of 28 verses). So the numbering between NAB and other translations for Psalm 102 is off by one verse throughout the psalm.

This actually doesn’t have anything to do with Catholic doctrine, but rather with modern scholarship. The NAB translation scholars simply decided to follow modern Hebrew versification, which does offer some improvements from the standpoint of scholarship. As it turns out, however, this causes the NAB to differ from most modern English translations, including the New Jerusalem Bible and the New Revised Standard Version (both often used in Catholic worship). So the NLT Catholic Edition stands in a long tradition in its system of versification. The NAB, on the other hand, stands pretty much alone in this regard.

The fact that all Bible translations are not identical in versification can cause some confusion for readers as they try to follow along or find a verse being referenced. This shouldn’t be a concern from the standpoint of accuracy, since the verse numbers are not part of the original Scriptures, but a very late addition to the text, added to aid in Bible study and discussion.