some randomness for monday

Mondays are so hard to distill motivation from. That’s why I’m blogging this morning, then I’m gonna move on to *actual work*.

Last night Melissa and I were playing Dark Age of Camelot, our oft-used pastime. Melissa was in a group of fairly high-level characters. It had three slots open for more people, but there were two wardens incoming, so only one spot was really open. I told the group leader than I was available. I was a level lower than they wanted, but they had a spot open and weren’t getting anywhere.

So then the group leader replies “We’re full”. That annoyed me. Since was Melissa was in the group, I could *see* that they were not full. So I called him on it. “liar” I replied simply. He had many and varied colorful terms for his feelings on everything from my intellect to genetalia. Some 15 minutes later, the spot did fill. Who knows, maybe the person who filled that spot was actually on his way that whole time. I do feel bad, since that is a possibility. I spoke too soon and too harshly. ::sigh::

People make it easier to not feel so guilty about mistreating them. I do feel guilty though. I was a jerk. blah. ):

We helped some friends move into their new apartment here in Winamac Sunday. Becky and Travis are friends from school who were living and working in Kansas City, but will be here with us now. Yay!

We’ve tried two new churches since last I blogged about church-hopping. One Christian and Missionary Alliance, one non-denom. Both were nice. The non-denom had friendlier people overall, but fewer people our age. Lots of trade-offs, but both seemed acceptable. The one thing I was really unsure of with the Christian and Missionary Alliance church was their choice of the New Living Translation as their main teaching text. I don’t know what I think of that, but it doesn’t exactly sit comfortably with me.

  1. Does the NLT really even claim to be a translation, or is it a paraphrase? I think my parallel Bible uses it, I’ll check when I get home. If it is the one I’m thinking of, it is definitely not a translation, not by any strict definition of the word. In any case, I agree with your reservation.

  2. Don’t quote me, but I think the difference between the old-time “Living Bible” and the NLT is that the NLT is actually a translation, and the “Living Bible” was a paraphrase.

  3. My current church uses NLT as the text of choice, I think because it’s in contemporary language and easy to understand. They don’t push the NLT, though. I’ve always used NIV and still do, and nobody has said anything about it. :)

    My previous church used NKJV and pressured its members to do so too. They would sell NKJV leather-bound Bibles (*only* NKJV) and the pastor had a habit of asking the congregation to read a passage aloud together, which of course made you feel left out if you were using a different translation.

    I think I should have recognised that as a bad sign. Oh well, we live and learn…!

  4. I attended a church where the pastor preferred NKJV and asked people to read passages aloud. However, he would have a slide with the passage projected onto a screen, and his wife would “lead” the reading with a microphone.

  5. I don’t think there are many “translations” in the strict sense of the word. Every translation has to make choices and interpretations at some points.

  6. I think what you are trying to say, Josh, is that there are always going to be inaccuracies when translating. While there is always some interpretation going on during translation (because language both shapes and reflects culture), a good translation communicates the original thought with as little “cultural adjustment” as possible. I am currently really liking the NASB; it is very sparse as far as the English goes, but I’m confident that I’m reading a very close rendering of the way it was actually written. Part of it is also a personal protest against Zondervan’s NIV over the whole TNIV debacle. But I digress.

    I did check on the NLT and it is a translation, so to speak. The translators added an awful lot of their own thoughts to the original text. One prominent example is that they replace the word properly translated as “brethren” with “brothers and sisters.” I guess that is okay, as long as you know that it is an addition to the original text. Or does that violate the directive of Rev. 22:19? (Aside: I have never made the leap, as some have, of supposing that this verse applies to the entirety of Scripture, and not just to the book of Revelation. It seems forced to me. I think the principle is correct, but I don’t derive it from that verse.)

    At any rate, personally I would never use the NLT for teaching — or if I did, it would only be in tandem with a more textually faithful version.

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>