Tuesday, September 23, 2008
One of the best ways to examine a study Bible is to see if it answers the questions you yourself are asking about the Bible. What questions do you have about the Bible? Go ahead, ask your questions, and then see what study Bible does the best job of answering them.
posted by Sean Harrison at 8:00 AM
Well here I go! I have been a faithful user of the NASB 95 for a decade. I have used it for preaching, teaching, personal study, and seminary classes. Recently, the NLT SB caught my eye, so I examined it further. What I have seen from this website and others has convinced me to buy a copy. I have decide to give the NLT a serious look as a replacement for the NASB for my personal study and possibly public preaching and teaching. I would like some suggestions on how to educate the masses on the benefits of using the NLT, as there are lots of misconceptions being tossed around. Most of the crowd I am in contact with are KJV, NKJV, very few NASB and NIV users. Would appreciate your feedback.
Hi, Stephen! Perhaps you could just suggest that folks treat the NLT Study Bible as a one-volume commentary on the Bible translation that they are already using. Read the NASB or KJV or NIV or whatever else, then read the NLT and the corresponding study materials. That way, you get the best of both worlds -- the familiarity of your favorite translation, plus clear readability and insight into the Bible text in its original historical, cultural, and theological context.
Sean, I think that's great advice. The people Stephan is dealing with will probably have varying degrees of resistance to the NLT, some strongly against it (as I used to be), and others very open to it.
No matter their preferences, they are bound to find the study notes, etc., in the NLTSB to be a valuable asset to their study time, and their exposure to the NLT will probably result in greater understanding, and some will even be looking to buy an NLT in the future.
Hi,
I like the NLT; but I'm confused because a lot of people say stick with KJV and I have been reading NKJV and I understand most of it; but some of it is confusing. ESV seems to
be popular now too.
What are the best reasons to get an NLT study bible?
Thanks,
Harriet
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi, Harriet,
People like to stick with the KJV for a variety of reasons, but the fact is that the KJV and even the NKJV are quite archaic, which means that even well-educated readers of modern English can have difficulty understanding it.
Regarding the NLT itself, I just published a post that answers the question, "Is the NLT good for study?"
Alongside the NLT Bible text, The NLT Study Bible provides a study system that enables you to get deeply into understanding the Bible text in its original historical context.
The result is a study tool that makes it very easy to understand Scripture initially, while giving you excellent tools to dive deeply into understanding the Bible accurately. So the NLT Study Bible provides a deeply rewarding study experience.
I've written more about some of these things in the following articles:
The Birth of the NLT Study Bible
How is the NLT Study Bible Different
N.B. Sorry, good readers, I had to remove a comment because it slandered a contemporary translation of God's word, in violation of our comment policy.
Having used more traditional Study Bibles [NKJV, Scofield, Spirit-Filled Life etc] over the years, to name a few, I find it difficult to transition to the NLTSB. Reasons? The NLTSB notes are more open-ended and non-doctrinal. I understand this is what was intended in some ways. But it also bothers me to have Preterist approach to Revelation. Is this part of the attempt to speak to the context the original Scripture was written in, without laying interpretation on the text?
Yes, we were intending to be more open-ended about theological matters. In Revelation materials were written from the perspective, What was the message of this book for the original readers, in their context? So that tends to produce a "preteristic" reading: There is the attempt to relate things to that historical context first.
Hello,
I am in a theology class. As part of an assignment, I am to ask four different people, one being from a church, pastor, working in a church..I am sure you understand. It cannot be someone off the street. I am having trouble finding someone to answer a question, because I do not belong to a church. My question is:
According to my theology class, there were additional books that were left out of the bible. Why do you believe that the books that were selected to be in the universal bible are the correct ones, versus the ones that were left out?
Sincerely,
Lisa Trudell
Wisconsin
Lisa
The process of choosing was meticulous and took many years. In other words, it was not a hasty undertaking. Many of the books were obvious, such as the gospels and Acts. Others were not as obvious, yet godly men were led by God to choose the inspired books. Therefore, it is my opinion that God is capable of leading men to collect His Scripture in order for us to have His Word today. For a more technical answer you might want to consult Sean. God bless
The following is the note from NLT regarding Luke 10:1-20:
Luke 10:1-20
... this mission was his outreach to the Gentiles. ... The point is that the Good News is for both Jews and Gentiles.
The mission to "gentile nations" does not seem to be scriptually based. Where does this idea come from?
Carl Brown – 817-370-1169
Delta Web Design
4036 Cypress Gardens Drive
Fort Worth, Texas 76123
deltaweb@sbcglobal.net
Hi, Carl, I'm not sure I understand the question. The note on Luke 10:1-20 itself explains the basis for making a connection with the Gentiles in this passage. Can you clarify? Thanks.
My question is just that only in the note does there appear any indication that these 70/72 disciples went to “all other nations”. The scripture indicates they went to "other places Jesus was going to visit". This would mean other places in Israel since that is the only place it seems that God or Jesus intended he should visit. I am eager to find places where the New Testament is fully applicable to Gentiles as that includes me. I am just a plain old (non-Jewish) American Christian. When I brought up this passage as being evidence of Jesus intending his message to “all” people, my study group discounted my finding as coming only from a “NOTE” in a particular bible, not from the scripture itself. Can you point to any place in the scripture where it states these 70/72 disciples actually went outside Israel? Or to another valid outside piece of literature?
Carl Brown
deltaweb@sbcglobal.net
Carl,
I consulted the author of the Luke study materials (Mark Strauss) and he gave me the following answer. The short version is, we made a mistake in editing that no one caught before publication, and we will be fixing it in the next printing.
Here is Dr. Strauss's answer:
The reader is right that the text says the 70/72 went to Israel, not the Gentiles. The point is not where they went, but what Jesus was symbolically portraying: that his ministry will ultimately go to the Gentiles. First the Twelve, then the Seventy. In Luke-Acts the gospel goes first to Israel, then to the nations. This is key to Luke's theology.
There was actually a small edit to my original note, which read this way:
10:1-20 The Lord now chose seventy-two.... While the mission of the twelve (Luke 9:1-6) represented Jesus' ministry to Israel, this second one represents his outreach to the Gentiles. The numbers seventy-two or seventy (see NLT text note) symbolize the nations of the world. The table of nations in Genesis 10 lists seventy nations in the Hebrew text and seventy-two in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This explains the textual difference between 70 and 72. Luke, who uses the Septuagint, probably wrote seventy-two, while a later scribe "corrected" the text to agree with the Hebrew Old Testament. In either case, the point is that the Gospel is to go to both Jews and Gentiles.
Notice it doesn't say "this mission was his outreach to the Gentiles" as the present text says, but rather, "this second one represents his outreach to the Gentiles." The word "represents" is being used in the sense of "symbolizes," as the next sentence indicates.
For you questioner, some further indications of Luke's vision for the Gentiles are: genealogy to Adam (3:23-38), extending the quote of Isa. 40:5 to "all people will see God's salvation" (3:6), God's past blessings for Gentiles (4:25-27), commendation of the centurion (7:9), Simeon's prophecy of salvation as a light for the Gentiles (2:32). Then, of course, you have the whole book of Acts, which narrates this mission to the Gentiles.
When you combine all this evidence with the choice of 70/72 (which only Luke records), it is very likely that this mission is meant (for Luke at least) to symbolize the (future) mission to the Gentiles.
Hi, I’m a big fan of the NLT and when the NLT Study Bible came out I had to have one. Anyway, my question is what makes the determining factor(s) for the use of certain translations in today’s bibles taken from the manuscripts. For instance: In the KJV Revelation 22:14 reads, “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they might have the right to the tree of life”. The NIV reads: “Blessed are they are that wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life”. Or: Jude 1:5 and the use of Lord or Jesus here.
Is it the reliability of the certain manuscripts or the believed date of when written? Is it the bias of the translators? Most of the translations I know usually have some kind of footnote to let the reader see the alternate reading which is good but sometimes it’s confusing.
Yes, it is a matter of textual scholarship, making a determination of which manuscripts have the most reliable, accurate reading in each situation.
Regarding Rev 22:14, there's a textual difference, with the KJV following the Textus Receptus, while the NIV, the NLT, and others follow the early manuscripts such as Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus.
Regarding Jude 1:5, once again it is a textual issue, with "Jesus" appearing in the best early manuscripts, replaced by "Lord" in others.
Hi I am reading Genesis and am very confused.
After Cain killed Abel he was banished to the Land of Nod.
4:17 Says he then had sexual relations with his wife.
1. Where did she come from?
2. Was she his sister?
3. If so God says it is a sin to sleep with your sister.
Can anyone clarify this for me please.
What does the abbreviation cp. mean in the study notes in the NLT Study Bible. I have looked for a list of abbreviations and have not been able to find one. I am really enjoying my NLT Study Bible!
Thanks for info on the texts. I’ve always wondered about the differences in the texts themselves when I notice a notation in the Bible. Can you recommend a good book(s)on the subject the textual differences and/or criticisms? Thanks and keep up the good work!
"cp." means "compare". Scholars traditionally use "cf." (Latin confer, "compare"), but its usage is typically an ambiguous mix of "compare" and "see". In the NLT Study Bible, we use "cp." for related information, and "see" for information that is more directly supporting of the point.
On textual issues, Kurt & Barbara Aland's The Text of the New Testament is excellent and thorough -- the best thing I have read on the subject. There are also three books by Bruce Metzger that are very much worth your time:
* The Text of the New Testament* The Canon of the New Testament* The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and ContentAlso, Bruce Metzger edited A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, which explains the textual decisions of the UBS4/NA27 Greek text -- very helpful for answering textual questions about specific passages.
In the same vein, I should mention Phillip W. Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, which discusses the textual decisions behind the NLT.
I also benefited from reading, during my schooling, J. Harold Greenlee's Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism.
Larry, the Bible doesn't say where Cain's wife came from, but if Adam & Eve were actual individuals, then Cain's wife pretty much had to be his full sister. Marriage to a full sister has long been taboo, and the law of Moses affirms that taboo (Lev 20:17). But at the very beginning of the human gene pool, marriage to a full sister would not have been problematic (genetically) the way it would be later on.
Are there plans to bring out a compact version of the NLTSB, similar to what Tyndale House have done for the Life Application Study Bible?
First let me say how much I love reading and studying from this Bible as one who has read Scripture daily for more than forty years (well almost daily).
I do have one request. For the online Bible is there any way to bookmark or redesign the access list so as to quickly go to individual chapters not just books?
I like to spend my time reading not going through chapter by chapter to the last place I read and I don't always remember exactly where I left off.
Thanks to Wheaton College for providing this Bible.
God bless you. Oh and one last thing. Spanish version? Any plans for this as I have a mission in Peru and many pastors and people there need this Bible.
Bob H.
Hi Stephen,
I too used the NASB for study, personal devotions and preaching. I also referred to the NIV and the ESV when it became available. However, when I learned of the NLT I started using it as my primary Bible and the others as references. I personally believe that it is one of the best translations on the market.
Tom Marks
What is the justification for the NLT changing Romans 9:21 and taking out the words "honor" and "dishonor"?
I noticed all the newer translations do the same, but like one says "vessels for common use," is not the same as "making some vessels for DISHONOR."
Since the Greek is honor and dishonor, why the change, unless it is to try and make God seem more mellow, you know the nice guy in the sky that loves everyone.
Well, I find the change repulsive, as I do Luke 2:33. Instead of saying Joseph and the child's mother, it says his parents. I guess that's not as bad as some: "The child's father and mother," which attacks the deity of Christ.
Just wondering about the reasoning.
I purchased the NTL Study Bible a few years ago. It has sat on my book shelf since. I now wanted to use the online resources and it seems I need a little card I received years ago. Why not put the code I need on the book cover or on the book itself. I assume now I cannnot register. Please let me know.
@royandjans: Call Tyndale customer service, they should be able to help you.
@objective truth: I don't see how the NLT changes Rom. 9:21, because to say that the NLT is changing it implies that it's tinkering with the Greek text.
You might think I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek, but it's a serious point: It seems you are judging the NLT on the basis of earlier English translations rather than on the basis of the Greek text.
The NLT doesn't "take out" the words "honor" and "dishonor", as though the NLT were modifying an earlier English version. It translates the Greek words τιμη .. ατιμια with terminology that is understandable in contemporary English. We don't use the English words "honor" and "dishonor" much anymore -- when was the last time you talked with your friends or family about the suit you bought for honorable use, or the worn-out jeans that you just designated for dishonorable use? No, you'd talk about dress clothes and grungies. In the same vein, the NLT (following Paul's lead in talking about "jars") talks about "one for decoration and another to throw garbage into." That's a pretty clear translation into contemporary English of what Paul meant.
So how does this make God "seem more mellow"? After all, the NLT has just translated Paul essentially saying that some people are made for God to throw garbage into, and that they are destined for the garbage dump themselves. He's not a tame God, to quote C.S. Lewis.
As for Luke 2:33, I don't see what is repulsive about attempting to represent the meaning as expressed by the earliest and best Greek manuscripts. The NLT, like many other recent translations, agrees with the NA27 and the UBS4 Greek texts in taking the reading ο πατηρ αυτου και η μητηρ (his father and mother) as being more likely original than Ιωσηφ και η μητηρ (Joseph and the mother). You might like the original text to have read "Joseph" rather than "his father," but you'll have to take that issue up with the ancient scribes who thought it was the reading in the manuscripts that they had before them.
Sean, you make some good points, and I admit I'm not a Greek scholar. However, looking at the Greek in "The Complete Word Study New Testament," by Spiros Zodhiates, the Greek words are "honor," and "dishonor." (G819)--Atimia--which means "dishonorable, vile, disgrace, unseemliness, insolence, etc."
Now, as you well know, Paul has just stated that God will have mercy on who he will, then using the metaphor of vessels as referring to human beings, he says God makes one vessel (humans) unto honor and some unto DISHONOR.
He's referring back to verse 20.
When is the last time you said you have thrown garbage into a human being?
It is trying to make God more mellow because the modern day person seems to think God loves everybody, and to say that he made one vessel (human) for honor and another for, oh no, not a vessel for DISHONOR! It can't be. I mean, golly, God loves everybody, right?
Now, don't get me wrong, I really like the NLT. I love the notes, and I love the way it reads. What I do when the NLT is far different on some of the passages, I just write a note in the margin to "see KJV).
Like at Luke 2:33. Joseph was not the FATHER of Jesus. Jehovah God, was.
I bought a new NLT the other day, the Leather Like, brown/tan ISBN 13-978-1-4143-2449-4 got it home, stated transferring some notes from my other bible, and after I had it marked up pretty well, I noticed that most of the pages in the book of John have a nasty crease down the middle. So really looking at it from the side, those pages even stick out more than the rest and is a mess. Oh well, I should have looked more carefully at it.
I have the Genuine Leather on pre-order, and can't wait to receive it. Cheers!
Better manuscripts?
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=234
The KJV says Joseph in Luke 2:33. Don't you think that is more accurate than saying Jesus's father and mother?
I thought the Father of Jesus was God. What do you think the average reading thinks when he reads Jesus Father and Mother were.....? It seems to imply that Jesus had a human father, which is rather terrible theology.
@Objective: Regarding your new NLT, you should be able to get a replacement from the store - that's a printing error (a small percentage of Bibles that are printed do that crease thing, it's because the paper is so light), and you should be able to get a good one if you're willing to re-do your notes transfer.
Okay, so there are a couple of issues we need to clear up. First, the NLT has chosen to communicate the concept of "vessels for honor" and "vessels for dishonor" using language that we are more likely to use in our daily speech. That's the nature of the NLT, whereas other, more literal translations will use an English word, even if it's not in common use in that kind of situation, because it is close to the Hebrew and Greek. Some translations put English words into the service of Hebrew and Greek grammar, whereas others recast what is said in more natural English. As Mark Taylor (president of Tyndale House and chair of the NLT translation committee) likes to say, "Vive la différence."
So yes, the KJV (or the NASB, for that matter) can be useful in getting you closer to the Hebrew and Greek (but even the KJV uses idiomatic English -- as used in the 1600s! -- in many places rather than translating "word-for-word").
But in Rom. 9, it really has nothing to do with making God more mellow, at least in the NLT. Again, the message in Rom. 9 is that God has the right to do whatever he wants with human beings, and we have no right to question him. Instead, we should thank him for his mercy and receive it gratefully.
Better manuscripts: In the judgment of many textual scholars, based on good manuscript support, "father and mother" is more likely the original reading in Luke 2:33. It might be, it might not be. If it is, then Luke meant it in the conventional sense, and it would not be appropriate to read into it more than it means. Perhaps that's why the NLT uses "his parents" -- because that is easily understood as "speaking conventionally."
Yes, sometimes the biblical writer used conventional ways of speaking, and we shouldn't read too much into it theologically. Even Jesus did this when telling about the Good Samaritan. Jesus said, "By chance a man went down...." Did Jesus really think it was by chance? Did he not believe in the providence of God? Of course he believed in God's providence. But he was telling a story using conventional language.
Sean, thank you for the follow up comments. Maybe it's the manuscripts used that I have a problem with, since I believe the best manuscripts were the ones the KJV was based on.
I will live with the differences, and make the necessary notes in the margin.
I marked up the bible, underlined, etc., so I don't think Mardel's will refund the money. I should have looked more carefully before I started marking. Although you don't expect a band new bible to have such a flaw in it.Like I said, I have a GENUINE Leather one on pre-order for Oct 6th, I believe. Believe me, I'll check that one more thoroughly.
One more comment I forgot to respond to. You said, referring to John 4:4
"Yes, sometimes the biblical writer used conventional ways of speaking, and we shouldn't read too much into it theologically. Even Jesus did this when telling about the Good Samaritan. Jesus said, "By chance a man went down...." Did Jesus really think it was by chance? Did he not believe in the providence of God? Of course he believed in God's providence. But he was telling a story using conventional language."
See, that's what I mean. Why change the word in John 4:4 from "must" to "by chance."?
KJV JOHN 4:4--
"And he must needs go through Samaria."
Now he could have done like most Jews and gone around Samaria. But he MUST go because one of the Elect was at the well.
The better manuscripts, the one's the KJV is based on, has it right. To change the MUST to BY CHANGE, changes the theology involved.
Just a point. However, I LOVE the NLT and will use it as my study bible, although, like I said I have my Word Studies also by my side.
Peace
@Objective: I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to John 4:4 but to Luke 10:31, which I misquoted from memory. Nevertheless, it reads "by chance" in the KJV as well as the NLT; the Greek phrase κατα συγκυριαν means just that.
May your genuine leather copy of the NLT be "without spot or blemish"! Blessings, SAH
AMEN TO THAT!!
When is this Bible coming out in large print? I'll gladly buy one then. Thanks.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home