Brian LePort has raised an important question concerning Galatians 3.1. You can find the first post here. He is dealing expressly with what some may consider a difficult passage given the rise of mysticism:
Jan 02 2010
The NLT Mosaic in South Africa
Fr. Stephen has posted his review of the Mosaic:
I think this was a brilliant (marketing) idea by Tyndale: The Holy Bible: Mosaic Blog Tour. It has resulted in no shortage of reviews of the product and the Internet is indeed proliferated with these. It was an investment however, that surely will pay dividends. By now most Bible users will already be aware the Bible and have a good idea of what it is all about. I too have mentioned it on this blog several times before, so even readers here will be familiar with the Bible.
Dec 22 2009
Examining the NLT and the Lord’s Supper at Acts 2:42
This is only a statement of my viewpoint on Acts 2.42, especially in light of the NLT. I am, as always, open to discussion and would encourage it.
Continue reading “Examining the NLT and the Lord’s Supper at Acts 2:42″
Dec 07 2009
The New Living Translation is a Valid Translation
Read the entire post here, but Joel summarizes it here:
The flaw in the reasoning seems so clear to me that I have to wonder why people are so attracted to the idea that “all translations are equally valid.”
Continue reading “The New Living Translation is a Valid Translation”
Nov 26 2009
Does the Bible need to be Mysterious?
Read the article (link below), but this part stood out to me:
Nov 25 2009
Every Translation of the Bible is a Paraphrase
So says Abraham Piper. It bothers me a bit that when NLT-haters attack my favorite translation, they use this word as if it is an mark of scorn and evil. Kinda like a red ‘P’ on the the cover of a bible. When these people issue their attacks, they usually do so from this website. They really don’t bother to read all of the site, as it notes that the 2004 is more literal than the 1996 version. (I like the 1996 version in some areas, more so than I do the 2007). I mean, the New Living Translation is more literal in places than other ‘literal’ translations.
I don’t like using that word, paraphrase, and will not use it.
On a side note, I brought my NLT Cambridge with me to visit my older relatives in Baton Rouge who still use the KJV (primary, not only) and they loved it.
Nov 16 2009
The Literalism of the New Living Translation – Luke 9.31
The criticisms leveled against the NLT are many, but the main one is the loss of ‘literalism’ – however, in Luke 9.31, the NLT is the most literal of them all.
Continue reading “The Literalism of the New Living Translation – Luke 9.31″
Nov 13 2009
More Reasons for an NLT Ecumenical Version
I’m nagging, I know, but…
The Episcopal Church has turned to I Maccabees in it’s Daily Office as of today. Much of the book will not be read, in fact only the first four chapters will be. It is one of several occasions in which the books of the Apocrypha are part of the church’s reading (Sirach being the most thoroughly read). For the Bible study in which I am engaged, I have been reading through some selections from II Maccabees. So, to refer to my post’s title, I am deep in the Apocryphal waters as it were.
via The Apocryphal Waters « O God, come to my assistance. (Also see here)
Nov 11 2009
Announcing the Online NLT Interlinear (Beta)
There are a few bugs still, as it is in beta, but head on over there. One of the positives of this is to show that solid translation of the NLT – not just a paraphrase, or word for word or thought for though but a good, solid translation based on the Greek. (You can read NLT’s take at their blog)
Continue reading “Announcing the Online NLT Interlinear (Beta)”
Next Page »
