I disliked it when I saw some verses from it. It seemed to have twisted the words of the Bible. I just don’t remember what I read before.
I don’t know much about that translation (I had to google it to find out what it was).
I’m hoping this link is what you are referring to.
Whether or not this is an orthodox translation aside, when you read a very literal translation, it is going to read very oddly because sentence structure is so different between English and other languages. This is very apparent if you look at an interlinear Bible, that is, a Bible that gives a literal word for word translation of the original text. (example here)
To add to the confusion, often words may not have a literal equivalent in English like in the NT, the discussion on love there is, I believe, at least 3 words in Greek meaning varying types of love, that in English has 1 word.
That being said, for ease of reading, you may want to stick to more common translations.
Can you link us up? I can’t find any such translation on Google.
As to the Concordant version (linked above), a Google search of Adolph Ernst Knoch (the translator) raises many flags. For one thing he was a Protestant (Plymouth Brethren), so his Bible is going to be missing several books and parts of Daniel and Esther. If Wikipedia is right, he didn’t believe in the Trinity or the existence of hell. I’d say away from this translation.
Sorry, I had a huge mistake. What I meant is "New Living Translation. Can I still change the title?
I don’t care for the NLT, but like almost every other version its still a world better than the Message Bible. The Message is just excruciating.
Ah yes, the New Living Translation. Like many dynamic equivalent versions, they are very heavy on translator bias. They even openly admit that they “clarify” the meaning of the text. Here is a link on their philosophy and methodology. The following is from their FAQ page.
On the other hand, the NLT translators rendered the message more dynamically 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.
It’s not hugely bad, but it can be misleading. You are better off with a more literal translation (but not too literal ). Here is a link to CA’s Bible Translation Guide for more info.
I checked out “The Message” version one. Maybe it’s what I’m talking about, still not sure. the probably sample verse I stated in The Message sounds ill mannered.
The Newer editions of the Message have verse numbers, but when it first came out it did not. The Message is a paraphrase that really, at least in my mind, butches the text. The only thing that would be worse is the Cotton Patch Version.
This is how The Message renders the Lord’s Prayer (in Matthew 6)
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.