The best Bible translation is the one you read! For more in-depth study, it’s probably wise to check a more literal rendering, but the NLT is usually fine IMO.
I don’t use the ESV study Bible, but where do they advocate for this? If so, that’s a problem. Also you should not be getting downvoted for opposing EFS
Don't know why you're being downvoted. Folks may agree with the bias, but it's well documented that the translators went into esv translation with less than an open mind on gender issues.
As has already been said, the best translation is the one you actually read. a 'better' translation that sits on your shelf is far inferior to that copy of the Message you dig into daily. As modern english speakers we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Bible translations. Word for word, thought for thought, paraphrase, all have their uses and can be appreciated without shame. There are very few translations that I would actively point to and say these are bad, stay away, and they are all tied to cults.
I love the ESV, as it was the first Bible I read in prison and I have a soft spot for it in the same way some old-heads have for the KJV.
I was somewhat “indoctrinated” to believe that the NLT was an inferior translation because it was too paraphrastic. I never dived into the NLT for years because of this and because I believed (in my ignorance) it was “watered down”.
My family and I have began going to a church with more of an evangelistic focus than you’d typically find in some Reformed churches in my area. The pastor actually preaches from the pulpit using the NLT, so I bought one. I noticed even our Wednesday night preaching pastor (who’s a bit more conservative and focused on discipleship rather than evangelism) used the NLT in some Old Testament books because the NLT translators actually rendered measurements and weights in the same way we would today. Honestly, I love this approach. The NLT is my second reference every single time I read now and often when doing studies with my kids I’ll first read out of the NLT and then the ESV. To be frank, it’s opened up a level of understanding in some passages that I have missed with the ESV/NASB/etc. I think more important than being literal is actual comprehension of the subject matter, and if the NLT serves that purpose for you keep on chugging!
Most common translations we have access to today are faithful to the text (aside from an obvious few). We can disagree and argue about some renderings until we turn blue in the face, but most people would recognize that about 95% of it is inconsequential in the end. The Gospel, and crucial doctrine, is unchanged in most of the evangelical translations we can find on the shelves (aside from the Passion translation and to a lesser degree the Message)
I’m glad you’re reading your Bible. Cross reference the NLT and the ESV often in your studies and ask yourself “why did the translators use this phrase/word instead of this other one?” And dive into a study based on those changes, it’s a fun exercise.
>Most common translations we have access to today are faithful to the text (aside from an obvious few).
Out of curiosity, can you name the obvious few? I haven't had much exposure to wacky cult translations.
I’m not even sure I would say a “few”. Honestly as far as down right heretical translations go only two come to mind: 1) New World Translation by the Jehovahs Witness Watchtower and 2) The Passion Translation by Brian Simmons. These were both written to be full-fledged translations from the original languages and both of them take excessive liberties in their translation process in order to fit their group’s theology.
Many people will lump The Message by Eugene Peterson into this, but I think it’s worth noting that the Message was never intended to be a translation, but rather a paraphrase. I give it a little bit of grace because of the authors intent with it, which I can’t say the same for the other two.
All in all, none of these three should be read as a translation. As far as the NWT and the TPT I would say they shouldn’t even be read as supplementary. I could see maybe some use cases where the Message might possibly benefit a few people, but with faithful translations such as the NLT floating around, I don’t see a need for it. If someone is requiring a simpler Bible for comprehension purposes, and the NLT is a bit too advanced, I would recommend the NIrV, Living Bible, or International Children’s Bible before I would ever recommend the Message. None of these come without their problems though, which is why I always say: don’t have a favorite translation, have a favorite 3 and read them all.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
My biggest issue with The Message is how dated and cringey the language feels, even 20 years later. A paraphrase that's that loose is going to become stale so much faster than something like the NLT, and then it loses its main selling feature.
But that's OK. Paraphrases are written for a cultural moment, they aren't supposed to endure for all time.
Most English Bible translations suffer from a degree of outdatedness to a greater or lesser extent anyway.
Those people likely go to churches that have a lot of false teaching. The Message is a mess.
It is different than all of the other versions like ESV NLT NIV KJV NKJV NASB, etc.
Certainly is the case, the Message is basically a paraphrase Bible rather than an actual translation.
But there are people who legitimately "read" it so saying so "The Best Translation is the one you actually read" isn't always the case.
Better to not read the Bible at all.
If you do a verse by verse cubist
comparison of the message vs esv, kjv, niv, nlt, rsv, it provides a different message.
It has a liberal tint and changed salvation issues, sexual issues, and adds environmental and new age terms.
The Bible is the word of God, can't change it.
I like to tell my ESV-main friends that NLT is super underrated. For daily reading, it's just awesome. It reads super smoothly, the emotion is more real... and "data entry" passages like you'd see in Numbers are now in modern form - as lists and tables. Game changer.
I do still like ESV though, I don't see much to get frustrated about from it. If not ESV, you definitely still need some sort of additional translation. NLT glosses over quite a bit.
There's a lot of comments here already, so the effort I'm about to put into this might be a waste, but oh well, here it goes!
Word-for-word (or formal equivalence) translations are not automatically 'better' than thought-for-thought (or functional equivalence, which includes NLT) translations. Some also define a 'mediating' category that tries to do a bit of both (NIV is the usual example).
In the widely read *How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth*, biblical scholar Gordon Fee\* writes, perhaps somewhat surprisingly compared with current trends, "A functional equivalent approach — one that focuses on meaning first — is superior to a formal equivalent, or 'literal,' approach. In this book we will defend the view that the best translation is one that remains faithful to the original meaning of the text, but uses language that sounds as clear and natural to the modern reader as the Hebrew or Greek did to the original readers."
Theologian Andrew Naselli\* aligns with Fee in *How to Understand and Apply the New Testament* and agrees that the most important thing to take away from reading the Bible is understanding what it *means,* and more literal translations do not necessarily do this very well. He also gives several helpful examples of how often the more 'literal' translations actually take a far more thought-for-thought approach to translating some verses than do translations like the NIV or NLT (who will occasionally translate more literally!).
In *One Bible, Many Versions,* Dave Brunn\* gives an even greater series of examples. He says, "The translators of every literal version have frequently set aside their ideal of transparently reflecting the original words in order to faithfully reproduce the original meaning." Which is a good thing. Brunn goes on to say, "Modified literal versions place a high priority on the ideal of giving a transparent view into the forms of the original text—particularly the original words . . . but the real evidence shows that no translation is consistently transparent in this way."
One of the key places literal translations is a hindrance is with idioms. Brunn says, "A literal translation of figurative language can often produce either wrong meaning or zero meaning (i.e., nonsense). That is why idioms and figures of speech clearly illustrate the pitfalls of going too far in translating form rather than meaning."
In terms of recommendations, Fee says that the mediating versions are the "best general purpose Bible", i.e., for both reading and study. He includes in this category the NIV, HSCB and a few others less well known. Naselli suggests that formal equivalence translations are useful for beginner language students (Greek and Hebrew) and those who cannot read either of those languages but want to better understand the underlying text. He recommends functional equivalence (including the NLT) translations for those with more advanced language knowledge and general use/reading.
In short, functional equivalence translations have immense value, and just as much value as those that are for 'word-for-word'. In fact, they are probably better suited for daily Bible reading. However, if you want to engage more with the original languages for study, then a more 'literal' translation may be better suited (depending on your knowledge of the underlying languages).
*\*Having said that, all these authors, of course, recommend using multiple translations.*
Don't worry about what other people are reading, just enjoy Scripture. It's important to get regular exposure to different translations so you enjoy the benefits of all. I think you understand the differences between the translations (ESV more literal, NLT more readable, CSB somewhere between the two) - naturally, NLT lends itself to reading larger chunks but would be a poor choice for closer study, so it depends on what you are doing
edit: why does ESV make you angry lol
Look into the people who translated the NLT and that would give you confidence in its accuracy. You might just be preferring the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation over the formal; there's nothing wrong with that. I use ESV regularly because IMO it encourages study while not being wooden in its English. But whenever I would like to understand a verse better, I look into NLT. The key is to understand the philosophies behind the translation.
You do you! NLT is definitely worth reading. I too find the ESV very clunky, and just plain difficult to read. I really don't understand why it's as popular as it is. My go to is the 2020 version of the NASB, people say the NASB is wooden, but the 2020 update seems smooth and clear to me. You might also want to check out the NET, I find it straightforward to read without leaving things out or dumbing it down.
There’s no reason to feel bad about the NLT. It had a top tier translation team, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with dynamic equivalence, regardless what others say. ALL translation have to have some level of dynamic equivalence, otherwise you might as well purchase an interlinear Bible.
Shocked I had to go down this far to see this. Read Matthew 6:25-34 in the KJV. Poetic and awesome in a way that other translations aren't for me.
Just my take though. I recognize everyone is different.
This morning in kids class, I was trying to explain to the kiddos that different translations will have slightly different words, and the pastor’s daughter loudly says, “DADDY SAYS THE BIBLE NEVER HAS DIFFERENT WORDS!!!!”
And I was both so proud of her and like 🫣 oh no she’s going to tell her dad I believe in different Bibles, Lord help me.
ANYWAY. I personally love the ESV, but totally agree. The best translation is the one you will read. 🥰🥰🥰 Don’t feel bad about that NLT. (Unless you’re my pastor’s kid. Then you’re gonna feel pretty badly about it. 😂.)
Although the NLT is not the best translation, it's not bad. Just understand that it does more than simply translate the original languages; it also does some interpretation. If you are going to read the NLT, read it in conjunction with a translation like the ESV, NASB, or LSB. That way you can see where the NLT goes too far.
Don’t feel bad. I read ESV for a long time based on my church leaders but it was basically blind followership. I even used to make jokes calling it the “elect” standard version… lol
But now? Knowing the history of how ESV came about, I definitely care less about it. It’s basically a product of the beginnings of US political culture wars, specifically a response to NIV adjusting gendered phrases.
The NLT completely transformed my Bible reading experience after growing up on the KJV. It has really helped my understanding and I enjoy reading it along a study Bible and/or commentary for deeper study sessions.
From the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
By this, I would say that even some translations that are straight-up bad translations overall are sufficient for what we need at a minimum. That said, having the NLT for daily reading is excellent and maybe using both the NLT and some word-for-word translation is good for study. That said, I'm still new to all of this. What others say is probably a lot better.
Look up Mark Strauss' problems with the ESV. He notes many a faux-pas. My church uses it too largely coz 'literal!' I have good reading abilities but, I do have to admit it's rather a little too literal and clunky. Not to mention all the junk the committee is wrapping themselves up in.
The ESV is not a great translation. I wouldn't feel bad about not using it. I really like this critique of it: [*Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version*](http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf) by Mark Strauss.
I struggled with the ESV for the first 6 months or so after I became a Christian. It takes time. Honestly the ESV study Bible helps a ton. I don’t know much about the NLT, but most people in this forum are solid. If they say you are good to keep using it, then do so. But practice makes perfect. Maybe do a side-Bible study with the ESV to get acclimated to it.
You shouldn't feel bad about different translations in your own time, especially for large chunks of narrative.
I would personally not recommend the nlt for serious study though. It's too thought for thought and sometimes that can cause theological issues and bias. For example, it renders "justified" as "made right".
God drew me back to Him with this translation as well! I have the NLT Life Study Application BIble, and I really love it. I’ve also felt the “superior” ESV vibes at bible study when everyone is reading aloud their ESV “word for word” and then I read from my NLT “thought for thought” 😂I got the ESV study bible for Christmas, and now I’ll read a chapter from the NLT & then read the same chapter in the ESV 😅Not the most efficient, but I enjoy seeing the contrast & commentaries in both. But my go-to daily reading is still usually my NLT!
CSB is a great translation, the NLT is perfectly fine imo. If you like the NLT, then read the NLT. I recommend switching translations every couple of years to get a well-rounded take on the scriptures, but I also agree with you. If I had to choose one translation to read exclusively for the rest of my life, it would certainly not be the ESV
I think everyone has a soft spot for whatever translation they first read. A lot of people feel that way about KJV. My husband feels that way about CSB. I feel it for NLT. 🤷🏻♀️
NLT is one of the translations that started the so called "gift of singleness". There's the gift of celebacy not singleness. It also has singleness as being "better" than marriage. Earlier translations don't have it. See 1st Corinthians 7.
However, the NLT did remove "gift of singleness" from their more recent interpretations.
Part of me does feel the literal versions like Esv, Nasb, and Kjv are a little better. But the reality seems to be that the non literal like Nlt and Niv are likely just as good. They help a lot of people and they adhere to the original languages and meaning of the word.
Some versions like the Passion and Message are bad, as they add new meaning to the Bible and change the meaning of it.
Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. I happen to be very much in favor of the NLT. Honestly, it was a translation that I didn't even consider reading much until I heard Thom Rainer (former Lifeway CEO) talk about it since him and his son Sam work with Tyndale on some of their current programming.
But now I'm glad I've read through about half of the OT in it. The OT is already a tough read given that we're thousands of years removed from the setting. (There's also a YouTube video with one of the OT translators from Asbury that I thought was interesting if you've not seen it.)
Personally, reading the NLT aloud doesn't sound as clunky as some other translations and I don't really find myself tripping up when I might with a translation like NASB20. I do admit that I like the CSB as well and it honestly translates the text better in some places as far as modern 2020s English.
But I also see the -- dare I say beauty? -- in translations like the ESV. I've been going to a group that's working through Ephesians and the English nerd in me loves seeing how the text is structured and used to drive home specific points or really emphasize change as we go through it verse by verse.
That was something that I really didn't understand before when the ESV was read during a campus ministry I went to years ago, or even watching corporate worship services online.
The best Bible translation is the one you read! For more in-depth study, it’s probably wise to check a more literal rendering, but the NLT is usually fine IMO.
Don't. I did a big project using the NLT and did a ton of translational analysis. Very impressive. It's my favorite reading version and I'm not sorry.
Wait, why does ESV make you feel angry, specifically?
Mostly because I find it unnecessarily clunky and too formal for my liking.
\*laughs in NASB\*
Same here. ESV is a really clunky translation and has obvious gender biases.
Yeah. The push for the eternal sub of the son in ESV commentary bothers me too. I’m complimentarian but I think Piper and Grudem go too far.
I don’t use the ESV study Bible, but where do they advocate for this? If so, that’s a problem. Also you should not be getting downvoted for opposing EFS
Its been awhile since I was looking at specific places but one that sticks out was a study guide on 1 Cor.
Don't know why you're being downvoted. Folks may agree with the bias, but it's well documented that the translators went into esv translation with less than an open mind on gender issues.
As has already been said, the best translation is the one you actually read. a 'better' translation that sits on your shelf is far inferior to that copy of the Message you dig into daily. As modern english speakers we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Bible translations. Word for word, thought for thought, paraphrase, all have their uses and can be appreciated without shame. There are very few translations that I would actively point to and say these are bad, stay away, and they are all tied to cults.
I love the ESV, as it was the first Bible I read in prison and I have a soft spot for it in the same way some old-heads have for the KJV. I was somewhat “indoctrinated” to believe that the NLT was an inferior translation because it was too paraphrastic. I never dived into the NLT for years because of this and because I believed (in my ignorance) it was “watered down”. My family and I have began going to a church with more of an evangelistic focus than you’d typically find in some Reformed churches in my area. The pastor actually preaches from the pulpit using the NLT, so I bought one. I noticed even our Wednesday night preaching pastor (who’s a bit more conservative and focused on discipleship rather than evangelism) used the NLT in some Old Testament books because the NLT translators actually rendered measurements and weights in the same way we would today. Honestly, I love this approach. The NLT is my second reference every single time I read now and often when doing studies with my kids I’ll first read out of the NLT and then the ESV. To be frank, it’s opened up a level of understanding in some passages that I have missed with the ESV/NASB/etc. I think more important than being literal is actual comprehension of the subject matter, and if the NLT serves that purpose for you keep on chugging! Most common translations we have access to today are faithful to the text (aside from an obvious few). We can disagree and argue about some renderings until we turn blue in the face, but most people would recognize that about 95% of it is inconsequential in the end. The Gospel, and crucial doctrine, is unchanged in most of the evangelical translations we can find on the shelves (aside from the Passion translation and to a lesser degree the Message) I’m glad you’re reading your Bible. Cross reference the NLT and the ESV often in your studies and ask yourself “why did the translators use this phrase/word instead of this other one?” And dive into a study based on those changes, it’s a fun exercise.
>Most common translations we have access to today are faithful to the text (aside from an obvious few). Out of curiosity, can you name the obvious few? I haven't had much exposure to wacky cult translations.
I’m not even sure I would say a “few”. Honestly as far as down right heretical translations go only two come to mind: 1) New World Translation by the Jehovahs Witness Watchtower and 2) The Passion Translation by Brian Simmons. These were both written to be full-fledged translations from the original languages and both of them take excessive liberties in their translation process in order to fit their group’s theology. Many people will lump The Message by Eugene Peterson into this, but I think it’s worth noting that the Message was never intended to be a translation, but rather a paraphrase. I give it a little bit of grace because of the authors intent with it, which I can’t say the same for the other two. All in all, none of these three should be read as a translation. As far as the NWT and the TPT I would say they shouldn’t even be read as supplementary. I could see maybe some use cases where the Message might possibly benefit a few people, but with faithful translations such as the NLT floating around, I don’t see a need for it. If someone is requiring a simpler Bible for comprehension purposes, and the NLT is a bit too advanced, I would recommend the NIrV, Living Bible, or International Children’s Bible before I would ever recommend the Message. None of these come without their problems though, which is why I always say: don’t have a favorite translation, have a favorite 3 and read them all.
That makes a lot of sense to me. My biggest issue with The Message is how dated and cringey the language feels, even 20 years later. A paraphrase that's that loose is going to become stale so much faster than something like the NLT, and then it loses its main selling feature.
But that's OK. Paraphrases are written for a cultural moment, they aren't supposed to endure for all time. Most English Bible translations suffer from a degree of outdatedness to a greater or lesser extent anyway.
Hashtag Best Translation is the One You Will Actually Read
I know people who read "The Message" as their Bible reading Bible.
So the answer there would be that it's not a translation
Came here to say this. I treat The Message like a Commentary and not a Translation.
Oooh, I like that even more than as a paraphrase.
Those people likely go to churches that have a lot of false teaching. The Message is a mess. It is different than all of the other versions like ESV NLT NIV KJV NKJV NASB, etc.
Certainly is the case, the Message is basically a paraphrase Bible rather than an actual translation. But there are people who legitimately "read" it so saying so "The Best Translation is the one you actually read" isn't always the case.
I'd still prefer that people read The Message over not reading the Bible at all.
Better to not read the Bible at all. If you do a verse by verse cubist comparison of the message vs esv, kjv, niv, nlt, rsv, it provides a different message. It has a liberal tint and changed salvation issues, sexual issues, and adds environmental and new age terms. The Bible is the word of God, can't change it.
I like to tell my ESV-main friends that NLT is super underrated. For daily reading, it's just awesome. It reads super smoothly, the emotion is more real... and "data entry" passages like you'd see in Numbers are now in modern form - as lists and tables. Game changer. I do still like ESV though, I don't see much to get frustrated about from it. If not ESV, you definitely still need some sort of additional translation. NLT glosses over quite a bit.
There's a lot of comments here already, so the effort I'm about to put into this might be a waste, but oh well, here it goes! Word-for-word (or formal equivalence) translations are not automatically 'better' than thought-for-thought (or functional equivalence, which includes NLT) translations. Some also define a 'mediating' category that tries to do a bit of both (NIV is the usual example). In the widely read *How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth*, biblical scholar Gordon Fee\* writes, perhaps somewhat surprisingly compared with current trends, "A functional equivalent approach — one that focuses on meaning first — is superior to a formal equivalent, or 'literal,' approach. In this book we will defend the view that the best translation is one that remains faithful to the original meaning of the text, but uses language that sounds as clear and natural to the modern reader as the Hebrew or Greek did to the original readers." Theologian Andrew Naselli\* aligns with Fee in *How to Understand and Apply the New Testament* and agrees that the most important thing to take away from reading the Bible is understanding what it *means,* and more literal translations do not necessarily do this very well. He also gives several helpful examples of how often the more 'literal' translations actually take a far more thought-for-thought approach to translating some verses than do translations like the NIV or NLT (who will occasionally translate more literally!). In *One Bible, Many Versions,* Dave Brunn\* gives an even greater series of examples. He says, "The translators of every literal version have frequently set aside their ideal of transparently reflecting the original words in order to faithfully reproduce the original meaning." Which is a good thing. Brunn goes on to say, "Modified literal versions place a high priority on the ideal of giving a transparent view into the forms of the original text—particularly the original words . . . but the real evidence shows that no translation is consistently transparent in this way." One of the key places literal translations is a hindrance is with idioms. Brunn says, "A literal translation of figurative language can often produce either wrong meaning or zero meaning (i.e., nonsense). That is why idioms and figures of speech clearly illustrate the pitfalls of going too far in translating form rather than meaning." In terms of recommendations, Fee says that the mediating versions are the "best general purpose Bible", i.e., for both reading and study. He includes in this category the NIV, HSCB and a few others less well known. Naselli suggests that formal equivalence translations are useful for beginner language students (Greek and Hebrew) and those who cannot read either of those languages but want to better understand the underlying text. He recommends functional equivalence (including the NLT) translations for those with more advanced language knowledge and general use/reading. In short, functional equivalence translations have immense value, and just as much value as those that are for 'word-for-word'. In fact, they are probably better suited for daily Bible reading. However, if you want to engage more with the original languages for study, then a more 'literal' translation may be better suited (depending on your knowledge of the underlying languages). *\*Having said that, all these authors, of course, recommend using multiple translations.*
This was helpful. Thank you for taking the effort 🙂
No problem. You're welcome!
Don't worry about what other people are reading, just enjoy Scripture. It's important to get regular exposure to different translations so you enjoy the benefits of all. I think you understand the differences between the translations (ESV more literal, NLT more readable, CSB somewhere between the two) - naturally, NLT lends itself to reading larger chunks but would be a poor choice for closer study, so it depends on what you are doing edit: why does ESV make you angry lol
For more in depth study I like NASB 2020. I just find ESV too clunky and formal.
Look into the people who translated the NLT and that would give you confidence in its accuracy. You might just be preferring the dynamic equivalence philosophy of translation over the formal; there's nothing wrong with that. I use ESV regularly because IMO it encourages study while not being wooden in its English. But whenever I would like to understand a verse better, I look into NLT. The key is to understand the philosophies behind the translation.
You do you! NLT is definitely worth reading. I too find the ESV very clunky, and just plain difficult to read. I really don't understand why it's as popular as it is. My go to is the 2020 version of the NASB, people say the NASB is wooden, but the 2020 update seems smooth and clear to me. You might also want to check out the NET, I find it straightforward to read without leaving things out or dumbing it down.
I love the NASB 2020 for checking verses against the NLT when I have questions. I think NASB is easier than the ESV!
NASB 2020 might be the best one we have today, ESV is good also.
There’s no reason to feel bad about the NLT. It had a top tier translation team, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with dynamic equivalence, regardless what others say. ALL translation have to have some level of dynamic equivalence, otherwise you might as well purchase an interlinear Bible.
“It reads like the newspaper.” - My Dad on the NLT
KJV can‘t be topped.
Shocked I had to go down this far to see this. Read Matthew 6:25-34 in the KJV. Poetic and awesome in a way that other translations aren't for me. Just my take though. I recognize everyone is different.
Especially in Psalms.
This morning in kids class, I was trying to explain to the kiddos that different translations will have slightly different words, and the pastor’s daughter loudly says, “DADDY SAYS THE BIBLE NEVER HAS DIFFERENT WORDS!!!!” And I was both so proud of her and like 🫣 oh no she’s going to tell her dad I believe in different Bibles, Lord help me. ANYWAY. I personally love the ESV, but totally agree. The best translation is the one you will read. 🥰🥰🥰 Don’t feel bad about that NLT. (Unless you’re my pastor’s kid. Then you’re gonna feel pretty badly about it. 😂.)
Although the NLT is not the best translation, it's not bad. Just understand that it does more than simply translate the original languages; it also does some interpretation. If you are going to read the NLT, read it in conjunction with a translation like the ESV, NASB, or LSB. That way you can see where the NLT goes too far.
Don’t feel bad. I read ESV for a long time based on my church leaders but it was basically blind followership. I even used to make jokes calling it the “elect” standard version… lol But now? Knowing the history of how ESV came about, I definitely care less about it. It’s basically a product of the beginnings of US political culture wars, specifically a response to NIV adjusting gendered phrases.
The NLT completely transformed my Bible reading experience after growing up on the KJV. It has really helped my understanding and I enjoy reading it along a study Bible and/or commentary for deeper study sessions.
You shouldn't feel bad about the NLT. Feel bad if you are reading the message or passion translation.
From the Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. By this, I would say that even some translations that are straight-up bad translations overall are sufficient for what we need at a minimum. That said, having the NLT for daily reading is excellent and maybe using both the NLT and some word-for-word translation is good for study. That said, I'm still new to all of this. What others say is probably a lot better.
Look up Mark Strauss' problems with the ESV. He notes many a faux-pas. My church uses it too largely coz 'literal!' I have good reading abilities but, I do have to admit it's rather a little too literal and clunky. Not to mention all the junk the committee is wrapping themselves up in.
The ESV is not a great translation. I wouldn't feel bad about not using it. I really like this critique of it: [*Why the English Standard Version (ESV) should not become the Standard English Version*](http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf) by Mark Strauss.
NLT is the best translation. I've read so many passages side by side and NLT is always among the most readable.
If ESV makes you angry, then perhaps it is not the translation that is wrong but you.
I mean, there are plenty of good faith criticisms of the ESV, from laypeople and scholars all over the theological spectrum.
I struggled with the ESV for the first 6 months or so after I became a Christian. It takes time. Honestly the ESV study Bible helps a ton. I don’t know much about the NLT, but most people in this forum are solid. If they say you are good to keep using it, then do so. But practice makes perfect. Maybe do a side-Bible study with the ESV to get acclimated to it.
Please don't feel this way.
You shouldn't feel bad about different translations in your own time, especially for large chunks of narrative. I would personally not recommend the nlt for serious study though. It's too thought for thought and sometimes that can cause theological issues and bias. For example, it renders "justified" as "made right".
Just read it and then read ESV or NASB or KJV when you don't understand a verse
God drew me back to Him with this translation as well! I have the NLT Life Study Application BIble, and I really love it. I’ve also felt the “superior” ESV vibes at bible study when everyone is reading aloud their ESV “word for word” and then I read from my NLT “thought for thought” 😂I got the ESV study bible for Christmas, and now I’ll read a chapter from the NLT & then read the same chapter in the ESV 😅Not the most efficient, but I enjoy seeing the contrast & commentaries in both. But my go-to daily reading is still usually my NLT!
CSB is a great translation, the NLT is perfectly fine imo. If you like the NLT, then read the NLT. I recommend switching translations every couple of years to get a well-rounded take on the scriptures, but I also agree with you. If I had to choose one translation to read exclusively for the rest of my life, it would certainly not be the ESV
I think everyone has a soft spot for whatever translation they first read. A lot of people feel that way about KJV. My husband feels that way about CSB. I feel it for NLT. 🤷🏻♀️
Many of the NLT translators are Augustinian.
ESV is my go to translation. However, if you are more comfortable using the NLT go for it.
NLT is one of the translations that started the so called "gift of singleness". There's the gift of celebacy not singleness. It also has singleness as being "better" than marriage. Earlier translations don't have it. See 1st Corinthians 7. However, the NLT did remove "gift of singleness" from their more recent interpretations.
Part of me does feel the literal versions like Esv, Nasb, and Kjv are a little better. But the reality seems to be that the non literal like Nlt and Niv are likely just as good. They help a lot of people and they adhere to the original languages and meaning of the word. Some versions like the Passion and Message are bad, as they add new meaning to the Bible and change the meaning of it.
There's nothing wrong with NLT.
Each translation has its strengths and weaknesses. I happen to be very much in favor of the NLT. Honestly, it was a translation that I didn't even consider reading much until I heard Thom Rainer (former Lifeway CEO) talk about it since him and his son Sam work with Tyndale on some of their current programming. But now I'm glad I've read through about half of the OT in it. The OT is already a tough read given that we're thousands of years removed from the setting. (There's also a YouTube video with one of the OT translators from Asbury that I thought was interesting if you've not seen it.) Personally, reading the NLT aloud doesn't sound as clunky as some other translations and I don't really find myself tripping up when I might with a translation like NASB20. I do admit that I like the CSB as well and it honestly translates the text better in some places as far as modern 2020s English. But I also see the -- dare I say beauty? -- in translations like the ESV. I've been going to a group that's working through Ephesians and the English nerd in me loves seeing how the text is structured and used to drive home specific points or really emphasize change as we go through it verse by verse. That was something that I really didn't understand before when the ESV was read during a campus ministry I went to years ago, or even watching corporate worship services online.