4 Responses for "New Living Translation or New International Version of Bible?"

1. jelly jelly jelly March 23rd, 2009 at 2:13 am 1

   I find that the New Living is more understandable but the KJV’s poetry, especially in the Psalms, is much nicer.

2. GrahamH March 25th, 2009 at 8:24 pm 2

   In my view, the N.I.V.

   The English is more formal (and therefore perhaps, slightly harder work) but the NLT always sounds to me like a paraphrase rather than a translation and therefore possibly less reliable.

3. Knowitall March 26th, 2009 at 2:52 am 3

   King James!

   Both of those versions mentioned made changes most Christians should be upset about. For example the new international version removed references to the Holy spirit. That should be a big deal.

   But then I’m just a well read atheist; what do i know.

   I do know that the method by which the King James was translated was by the best team of translators in the world at the time. The other two where just translated from the King James by hippies in the 60s and 70s.

   You pick who is better.

4. BibleChooser March 28th, 2009 at 6:30 am 4

   I agree with GrahamH, the NIV has superior credentials to the NLT2. If these are your only two options, *I* would go with the NIV.

   In-depth reviews
   NLT2

   NIV

   I think it clear from these reviews that there are problems with both of these versions. but the NLT2 appears to have more pronounced inaccuracy than the NIV.

   If you are interested, you can see my recommendations below.

   Jim,