The New Living Translation and Calvinism

The New Living Translation (the most popular English version of the bible) has numerous translation errors that favor Calvinism and oppose standard Arminian or Traditional Baptist interpretation of the texts.  For example, Ephesians 4:30 in the ESV states “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”  However the New Living Translation has “And do not bring sorrow to God’s Holy Spirit by the way you live. Remember, he has identified you as his own, guaranteeing that you will be saved on the day of redemption.”  There's no basis in the Greek for the NLT's additions and it appears to be more of a commentary than a translation.  The attached study documents these errors.

 The New Living Translation and Calvinism

Comments

Pumice said…
I refuse to refer to the NLT as a translation. My pastor has it in the pews and treats it seriously. It is the biggest disagreement I have with him.

Another example of why being popular with the masses is a reason to reject.

Grace and peace.
June 19, 2013 at 9:43 AM
wjcollier3 said…
In the attached article, you refer specifically to the NLT 2007 edition. Is this the NLT 1st edition or 2nd edition?
June 19, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Godismyjudge said…
The 2nd (and current one). The first was 1996.

God be with you,
Dan
June 19, 2013 at 1:16 PM
THEOparadox said…
Calvinists generally seem to favor the NASB and especially the ESV, or any translation that is reasonably accurate and fairly literal. I don't personally know of any Calvinist who likes or uses the NLT, and can't think of an example of one.

I never liked it as an Arminian, from the unfortunate day it arrived, and I certainly haven't warmed up to as a Calvinist. I am amazed that any serious student or teacher of the Bible has ever endorsed it or taken it seriously. In short, I despise it as a "translation" or version or whatever.

Sorry for the rant, but it is a pleasure to agree with you on this topic. The NLT is a terrible excuse for an "accurate" "translation" of God's Holy Word.

Frankly, I think this is a much more serious issue than Calvnism/Arminianism. The Word itself is foundational, and should never be tampered with in this way!
June 19, 2013 at 8:31 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Yep, glad we can agree on that. I wouldn't want a translation that had mistakes in favor of Arminianism either. Just God's word, please!

God be with you,
Dan
June 20, 2013 at 7:06 PM
Mr. Guthrie said…
This may interest you, a video series on Arminius from the Francis Asbury Society: http://www.mattoreilly.net/2013/06/arminian-theology-videos-fasociety.html
June 20, 2013 at 10:23 PM
THEOparadox said…
Mr. Guthrie,

Thanks for the link -- enjoying those lectures today!

Blessings,
Derek
June 22, 2013 at 2:51 PM
Steve Finnell said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
August 2, 2013 at 5:26 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more