So far I have yet to convinced that it’s the best of its breed, but I have to say I’ve really enjoyed reading from it. My understanding is that the goal of the NLT was to keep things simple, clear, and very easy to read. So you won’t find lots of big words, and you’ll find it a pleasure to read aloud. Unlike “essentially literal” (word-for-word, as much as possible) translations, Paul’s letters are modified to that the sentence structure makes a bit more sense to English speakers…and it makes a world of difference. While reading my ESV and NLT together, I immediately felt like I had a better grasp on what Paul was saying from the NLT. Part of that is because the NLT adds implied words, where as the ESV, being essentially literal, doesn’t. This is especially helpful in certain sections of Romans, where Paul is talking specifically to/about certain people groups. The NLT provides helpful headings and modifies some sentences with things like, “So, for the Israelites…” or “Remember, Gentiles…” This keeps things straight in your head…with an essentially literal translation, it can be easy to get confused by Paul’s giant run-on sentences and think that he is either speaking in a global sense to or to different group of people.
That being said, there are tradeoffs. After years of study with the NASB and ESV, the Pauline epistiles—while easier to understand—don’t sound like Paul to me. Many of his strongly phrased arguments and rhetorical devices get reworded in a way that seems softened. For example, the repeated exclamation “By no means!” (ESV) throughout Romans is translated “Of course not!” in the NLT. In Romans 9:20, the ESV states,
“….who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ “
The NLT renders the same verse like this:
“No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ “
While the essence of this verse is certainly intact, we also lose the sense of admonishon from the ESV and the word-picture of God as potter or “molder” of our lives. I’ve noticed this about a few passages throughout the Old and New Testaments in NLT; the essence of the meaning is there, but some of the symbolism/word meanings are lost. This robs the scripture of some of its original and intended literary richness.
See how the venerable 23rd Psalm loses a bit of its grandeur…. Here’s the NLT rendering of Psalms 23:1-4:
The Lord is my shepherd; I have all that I need. He lets me rest in green meadows; he leads me beside peaceful streams. He renews my strength. He guides me along right paths, bringing honor to his name. Even when I walk through the darkest valleys I will not be afraid, for you are close beside me. Your rod and your staff protect and comfort me.
And the ESV:
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters. He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me.
The more formal language of the ESV is both more familiar and more meaningful to me. Phrases like “…paths of righteousness for his name’s sake” and “the valley of shadow of death” just seem more like the way Holy Scripture should be. Naturally, I recognize that in this specific case, my thoughts are highly subjective and based mostly on a certain set of aesthetic preferences.
One thing I really appreciate about the NLT is how it makes certain culturally awkward (or even incrompehsible) verses accesible to the English speaking crowd. Take Ps. 147:10 in the ESV, for example:
“His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man…”
Okay, that’s awkward ;). Here it is in the NLT:
“He takes no pleasure in the strength of a horse or in human might.”
That makes a little more sense, doesn’t it?
Obviously, neither the ESV as an essentially literal translation, nor the NLT as a dynamically equivalent translation are perfect. But, from what I can gather, they are both great translations each in their own right, and accomplish each of their very different goals well. So I’m very glad I picked up my NLT…I anticipate many blessings by using it alongside my trusty ESV, and I’m now more convinced than ever that both essentially literal and dynamically equvialent translations are needed and should be studied by all Christians.