I can't remember a world without a Superman. He was part of the modern world's mythology instilled to me by my parents from a very early age. As soon as I could begin reading (which was pretty early), my father bought me Superman comic books. I wish I still had those exact issues. I continued to buy comic books on my own up until shortly before Kathy and I got married in 1990 (I couldn't afford both). The Superman of the comics most familiar to me was the one drawn by Curt Swan, spanning almost three decades until John Byrne revamped the Man of Steel in the mid-eighties. However, I was also very familiar with the early Superman of the late-thirties, forties, fifties and sixties thanks to reprints and collections of stories in books. Superman was always one of my favorite heroes, if not the favorite (with the possible exception of the Fawcett Captain Marvel of the forties and fifties, but that's a subject for another day).

And then there was the Superman of television and film. As a kid I watched (in reruns) the late, great George Reeves (Adventures of Superman) don the cape. In many ways, although he was the Superman of my parents' generation, he set the standard for me as to what Superman should embody as a hero. I was eleven when Superman: The Movie, starring Christopher Reeve hit the theaters. For the two or three years leading up to its release, this movie had been hyped in the comic books with a two-page contest explaining how "You Could Be in the Superman Movie." I wondered if I won that contest if they'd let me play Jimmy Olson. Years later I would find out that the two winners of that contest got to act as stand-in players on the Smallville football team, and if they were actually able to spot themselves in that very brief scene, perhaps there is such thing as super-vision.

Superman: The Movie (1978) marked a shift in super-hero movies, and would not be topped stylistically for at least eleven years until 1989's Batman. Even at the age of eleven, I could tell that this film was treating the character seriously. It had well-known actors like Marlon Brando as Jor-El and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. Even today, it's hard for me to see Hackman as anything but Luthor because that's where I first noticed him. The special effects, though a bit dated today, were cutting edge for the time. The tagline for the movie had been "You will believe a man can fly." And we did. Even watching the film recently, some (but not all) of the flying scenes are quite smooth. Before anyone depicted flying in films was obviously set in front of a blue screen. Not so with at least some of the scenes in Superman: The Movie. Even today, the film stands up fairly well and no doubt that for many, when they think of Superman, they think of Christopher Reeve. To me the movie is well done up until the last quarter or so. The whole turning-back-time-by-flying-very-fast-against-the-world's-rotation shtick didn't impress me even when I was eleven. Plus, as I verified while watching this movie again the other day, Superman still doesn't stop the second missile from hitting, he just saves Lois Lane. It makes you wonder who he didn't save in order to achieve this?

The scripts for Superman: The Movie and Superman II were both written by Mario Puzo of The Godfather fame. Although I liked the story line in the second installment involving the Phantom Zone villains (a great continuation and connection to the first movie), even as a boy, by that time at age 13, I did not care for the personal themes in Superman II. It wasn't merely Superman and Lois lane engaging in unmarried sexual intercourse (something that had never taken place in the comic books), it was the personal choice that Puzo had Superman make. Here was earth's protector choosing to give up his powers and abilities to have a normal life with the woman he loved, Lois Lane. Maybe that's a romantic decision for some, but then and now, it seemed like a very selfish and unheroic choice. It was a choice seemingly made on impulse without thought for the rest of humanity. It was a choice made without wisdom. I could never imagine the George Reeves' Superman making such a choice for Noel Neill (the television Lois Lane).

Superman III, which featured then popular comedian Richard Pryor, is largely unforgettable with the exception of the fight between Superman and Clark Kent (you'd have to see the movie to understand). That scene, to me, is one of the most clever psychological visualizations I've ever seen on film. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, co-written by Christopher Reeve himself, suffers from obviously political overtones and perhaps one of the worst edits of a film I've ever seen. I remember watching the movie and wondering how the characters got from one scene to another, feeling as if something was left out. After reading a comic book adaption based on the shooting script, the story made more sense, but the product on the screen seemed incredibly rushed. The failure of this movie ended Christopher Reeve's run as the Last Son of Krypton.

The nineties saw a number of attempts to resurrect the franchise. For a while Tim Burton was schedule to direct the film. This project went far enough to see teaser posters created. Personally, while I thought Burton was a great match for Batman, I did not want him to touch Superman. The same thing goes for Nicholas Cage, who unimaginably for a time was in talks to play Superman. Cage is one of my favorite actors, but he'll make a better Ghost Rider than Superman.

So finally, after nineteen long years, Superman Returns. Rather than reinvent Superman the way Burton planned, director and story co-writer Bryan Singer, chose to pick up where the Mario Puzo stories of Superman and Superman II left off. Ignoring the events of Superman III and IV (just as well), Superman Returns is a thematic sequel to the first two films, especially the second. John Williams' unforgettable theme music (by now inseparable from the Superman mythos) returns, although Williams himself does not score this movie. The only actor from the originals to return is Marlon Brando in spite of the fact that he's dead! But this was an incredibly clever choice. Another actor from the 1978 film showing his face is Glenn Ford, who played Jonathan Kent in the original. His picture is clearly visible on the mantle in the Kent farmhouse. Even the opening titles for the new film are done in the same style as the original movies. Seeing that lettering and hearing the John Williams' music transported me back momentarily to my childhood.

SPOILER ALERT: Read no further if you haven't seen the movie yet. Superman Returns is everything Superman III should have been in 1983. The events in Returns take place five years after the events in Superman II. Over these five years, Superman (Brandon Routh) has been missing. We find out that in response to astronomers' discovery of Krypton, Superman has been on a long galactic journey to see if anything remains of his homeworld. Finding nothing, he comes home. Of course, it's never explained how Superman can get there and back in a span of five years even though Jor-El has stated that he's been dead for thousands of earth years. Oh well.

During this time, no only has life moved on for Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), she is now a mother and engaged to Richard White (James Marsden of X-Men fame who gets more screentime in this movie than he did in X-Men II and III combined), the nephew of Daily Planet Publisher Perry White (played expertly by Frank Langella, although I miss Jackie Cooper). Hell hath no fury for Lois Lane scorned, and to prove it, she has won a Pulitzer Prize (a goal mentioned more than once in the first two movies) for her editorial, "Why the World Doesn't Need a Superman." It seems the boy in blue left without even as much as a goodbye, something she (rightly) took very personally.

The Richard White character is handled quite well. From a formulaic standpoint, usually an audience is made to hold contempt for any third wheel getting in the way of the characters you want to see hit it off. This is normally necessary so that he can be eventually discarded. When first introduced to Richard White in the movie, I wanted to dislike him, but as the movie progressed, that became something very difficult to do. I found myself feeling sympathy toward White, who was clearly insecure about Lois' past relationship with Superman--I mean, what man wouldn't be? Further, White is established as heroic in his own right, despite not being able to bend steel in his bare hands. Further (I warned you about spoilers), he is not removed from the triangle at the end of the movie, but the security of his relationship with Lois is at least questionable now that Superman's back in town.

The more significant plot point regarding Lois is her five-year-old son--coincidentally the same age as the length of time that Superman has been gone. Hmmm.... I'm going to break a golden rule of movie reviewing for the sake of later discussion and reveal to you that, yes--if you hadn't already guessed it--Jason Lane is actually Superman's son, the result of their coupling in Superman II. Of course, Time Magazine revealed the secret this week before me.

The third plot point revolves around Superman's arch-nemesis, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey). Superman has not only been an absentee father to his son, but he failed to make the parole hearing for Luther who is now legally a free man. And having visited Superman's Fortress of Solitude in Superman II, he goes back there to steal Kryptonian technology. Just as in Superman: The Movie, Luthor has a real estate scheme; although this time, he's creating a new continent rather than dropping missiles on an old one. Of course, just like the first time, if he succeeds, billions will die in the process because raising a new land mass will cause flooding of existing ones.

Bryan Singer is an incredible director and story-teller. You can tell he is a true Superman fan, familiar not just with the movies, but also with the comic books. In this movie Superman is doing very Superman-like things--walking through sprays of machine gun bullets, preventing a plane crash, tunneling through the earth. Kathy and I were in a theater on opening day and the audience was quite fun--they applauded and cheered at all the appropriate times. The 1938 Action Comics #1 cover in which Superman lifts a car over his head is reproduced in the movie, something that the true fan will instantly recognize. Regardless of whether in the end a viewer likes this film or not, I can't see how anyone would not feel excitement and awe at the end of Superman's first appearance when he keeps a Boing 777 from crashing.

Although the 1978 film was supposed to make us "believe a man can fly," the flight in Superman Returns is how I imagine it really would be. There's not one scene that looks superimposed over a blue screen thanks to modern computer graphics and computer-based editing. And as opposed to the Christopher Reeve Superman, who when flying at tremendous speeds still never messed up his hair and his cape only lightly flapped, Routh's Superman's hair looks like he's riding in a convertible and his cape really seems to be pulling hard in the wind. Speaking of the cape, Superman's costume in this movie is slightly altered. The colors are darker for a modern audience (watching the original movies a few days ago, Reeves' costume comes across almost like pajamas by today's standards). The "S" on Superman's chest has been slightly altered somewhere between the version we're most familiar with and the original 1940's Siegel and Shuster rendition. However, Singer goes crazy with that S and it becomes superfluous. The S on his belt is redundant to the one on his chest. And there are even little S's on the heels of Superman's boots--oh my.

Besides the aforementioned connections to the earlier Superman movies, there are two nods to the fifties' Adventures of Superman television show. Noel Neill (the Lois Lane of the forties serials and seasons 2-5 of the TV show) and Jack Larson (Jimmy Olson of the TV series) both have roles in the movie. Although their roles are small, they are significant characters, not merely walk-ons such as when Stan Lee makes a cameo in a Marvel Comics movie. Neill's character is in a very early scene and although she was unrecognizable physically, her voice instantly gave her away to those of us familiar with the show. Larson's character is actually in a scene with the new Jimmy Olson (Sam Huntington) which makes it even more memorable.

Speaking of cameos, folks familiar with billionaire adventurer, Sir Richard Branson will spot him as one of the space shuttle pilots in one of the movie's early scenes. I wonder how much he paid to be in this movie? More trivia: Noel Neill has now been in more Superman renditions than any other actor. She played Lois Lane in the movie serials with Kirk Alyn and in the television show with George Reeves. In Superman: The Movie--if you can view an uncut version--she plays the mother of a very young Lois Lane who, while riding on a train, sees a young Clark Kent run speeding past. Kirk Alyn is also in that scene playing Lois' father. Neill also guest starred on a episode of the Superboy TV show.

Brandon Routh obviously won the part of Superman because he bears not an identical, but a striking resemblance to Christopher Reeve. But in all fairness, not everyone would be able to easily wear that costume. While Routh captures the essence of his predecessor, and some of his lines sound almost exactly like Reeve's (in fact, at least two lines are identical to those in the 1978 movie), he also makes the character into his own. When the bank robber shoots Superman in the face--actually in the eye--Routh's Superman looks ticked off in a way that I don't ever remember seeing in the Christopher Reeve portrayal of Superman. And Routh's Clark Kent goes even beyond Christopher Reeve's performance making him not just a nerd, but an outright geek (there is a difference, you know).

Incidentally, according to the trivia on the IMDB, Routh thought he had blown the role when at his first meeting with Singer, he stumbled and spilled coffee all over the table where they were sitting. However, Singer later told him that blunder helped get him the role because it convinced him that he could play not only Superman but Clark Kent as well.
Some will disagree with me, but I never saw Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. She didn't have the spirit of Margot Kidder, the charisma of Teri Hatcher, and certainly not the brass of Noel Neill. There was great chemistry between Kidder and Reeves in Superman I and II. But even with characters' relationship estranged, I never saw any such connection between Routh and Bosworth. I kept wondering what Superman saw in this Lois anyway. To me, Bosworth's Lois came across a bit flat and lacks energy, but in interviews of Bosworth I've seen, she comes across that way in real life.

Kevin Spacey makes a wonderful Lex Luthor, who in the end was not quite over-the-top as one of my friends feared based on previews. Rather, he was a much darker and seemingly smarter Lex Luthor than the Hackman version. In one interview that I saw, Spacey says that after accepting the role, he purposefully did not go back and watch Gene Hackman's version of Luthor so that he could make the role into his own. For this type of Lex Luthor, I believe Spacey was the best casting choice imaginable. And fortunately, there was no "Otis-like" character as in the Puzo scripts, which I believe took away from Luthor's character. However, I hope that one day we can get beyond the Puzo version of Lex Luthor who simply seems to pursue one land scheme after another. I like the John Byrne version of Luthor depicted in the comic books who is not only a scientific genius, but also a politician who runs and wins the presidency making Superman's conflict with him even more complex. This is the Luthor I'd like to see on film. Michael Rosenbaum's Luthor on Smallville, by the way, is a nod toward Byrne's version.

One of the strengths of the movie and certainly part of Singer's genius was to tie this Superman movie to the iconic versions from 1978 and 1980. However, in my opinion, this is also one of the film's greatest weaknesses. The ultimate connection to Superman II is the night that Superman and Lois spent together in his Fortress of Solitude. Lois' son is the consequence of this action. So, now the storyline begun with Superman's selfish disregard for all of humanity is now continued with his role essentially as that of an absentee father, perhaps even a "deadbeat dad." He certainly didn't pay child support during those five years he was gone, did he? Rather he left mother and son in the lurch. Granted, he didn't know about the Jason, but he didn't have a chance to find out because he left earth without telling Lois goodbye. C'mon, Superman, get a spine. This is certainly not heroic actions. Is this Superman supposed to look more human to us? Is he supposed to be an example perhaps to unwed fathers because now he's going to take responsibility for the child? I don't know. Again, I could never see George Reeves in this situation, and it's not what I want in Superman. Unfortunately, now that Singer has resurrected this storyline, I can only imagine that I won't see the kind of Superman movie I really want until I'm a very old man, if then.

Plus, here's an interesting continuity question. If Clark Kent (who as Superman had all kind of "extra" never-seen-before-or-since powers in Superman II) removed Lois' memory of events and his secret identity with some kind of super-kiss at the end of the second movie, how in the world does she know that Jason is Superman's son? This question is never addressed, let alone answered in Superman Returns. One wonders whether or not Lois shouldn't speculate that the child was some kind of "virgin birth."

Speaking of such things, it's hard to deny the Judeo-Christian imagery in the Superman myth. Superman is the story of a savior sent to our world from a heavenly father, who's last name just happens to be "El," the Hebrew word for God. In the Christianity Today interview, Singer rightly points out that Superman started out as more of a Moses figure seeing as Superman's creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were both Jewish. However, the story has been written and rewritten by many, many different writers over the years and the Christian imagery has grown. In fact, in the 1990's "Death of Superman" saga, Superman actually died and rose from the grave! There is a new book out that explores some of this imagery in the Superman myth, but from the reviews of it I've seen, too much is being read into the story. A better treatment of this imagery is in John Galloway's The Gospel According to Superman written about three decades ago. Although it's out of print, used copies are still attainable.

Bryan Singer, although Jewish, certainly plays this Christian imagery up in the film. The Superman of this movie hears the voices of everyone at once, like the God of the Bible who can hear the prayers of all people. There's much talk in the movie about whether or not the world needs not just a Superman, but a savior (that exact word is used). Jor-El's words from the first film about sending "my only son" are repeated. Superman is stabbed in the side like Christ, and toward the end, even stretches out his arms in a very Christ-like pose.

Personally, I'd rather leave the Christ analogies out. I love the Superman story, but Superman is not Jesus. And the Puzo-Singer Superman, the one who selfishly gave up his powers and had what turned out to be a one night stand in Superman II, resulting in a son of his own in Superman Returns is not my Jesus. Pardon me for saying this but the Superman of the Puzo-Singer storyline has more in common with Dan Brown's Jesus of the Da Vinci Code than the Superman of the Bible. Forgive me, but I'd simply prefer to keep Jesus and Superman separate (notwithstanding that Jim Caviezel was turned down for the role of Superman for this movie).

Kathy and I saw the IMAX 3-D version of Superman Returns. I hadn't been to a 3-D movie in years, and I thought this might make a good one to see with the effects. However, while fun, it doesn't really add anything to the story and may actually take away from it because the viewer is more concentrated on the effects than the story. In the end, there was less than 20 minutes of the two and a half hour movie that were actually in 3-D with nothing in the second half in 3-D at all except for the final flight scene. My hunch is that the team responsible for adding the 3-D effects simply ran out of time. These days, the final cut of a movie is often completed mere weeks before actual release. The lack of 3-D scenes in the second half and especially during the opening titles (which scream 3-D) seems to give away this tight schedule.

Go see Superman Returns. Overall, it is a good installment in the series. If you saw the first parts of the storyline as a kid like I did, it will take you back to your childhood. Just don't put the Man of Steel on too high of a pedestal. Remember instead that the world actually does have a Savior, and he's not vulnerable to Kryptonite, let alone rash choices.

Tags: Superman

Christianity Today Movies has a great interview with Bryan Singer, director of the upcoming Superman Returns.

The interview is fairly significant because CT really tries to pin Singer down on the spiritual influences in the film. Although Singer comes across as a pluralist, he doesn't deny the Judeo-Christian imagery in the movie. Here's an excerpt of the Interview:

---

The guys who created Superman were Jewish, so I don't think they intended him to be a Christ figure, but he seems to have kind of become that over the years.

Singer: I don't think Jesus … Well, I can't get into religious things, but um…

Well, you are talking to Christianity Today!

Singer: Well, yeah, that's true, so I guess it's going to come up! (Laughs) I think that it [Superman as Christ figure] is kind of a natural evolution, because he began as kind of a Moses figure, of the child sent by the parents down the river to fulfill a destiny.

Kind of as a liberator in response to Hitler and the Nazis?

Singer: Yes. The Second World War presented an interesting dilemma for the Superman creators, because he was a very much an inspirational figure for the troops—and yet even though he was so powerful, he did not simply go clean up the Nazi menace and solve all the problems in Europe. He helped out, but he primarily led by example. He stirred others; he inspired. He left the actual heroism to the real heroes, to the soldiers in the field and abroad, and in that way, he became this very inspiring figure.

And that, obviously, translates into these kinds of allegories, Christ being a natural one, because Superman's a savior. And even more so in my film, because he's gone for a period of time, and then he returns. For me to say that those messianic images don't exist in the movie would be absurd.

The 1978 film seemed to push the messianic imagery, especially with the Jor-El quote about sending "my only son."

Singer: "They can be a great people Kal-El. They wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way." It's very powerful and very meaningful, that monologue and the other moment in the film where Kal-El's mother says, "He will be isolated alone," and Jor-El takes the crystal and places it into the ship and says, "He will not be alone. He will never be alone." Those two scenes resonated the strongest with me in the making of this movie, which is why I ultimately used Marlon Brando's voice and image.

As a Jewish guy, have you embraced this Christology/mythology, or do you see it as more than that, or what?

Singer: I grew up as a relatively secular Jewish kid in a Catholic neighborhood. I went to a Christian youth club as a kid, 'cause I liked the sports.

Mr. Ecumenical, huh?

Singer: It was very peculiar! And I had a Hindi friend, so I had some measure of exposure to multiple faiths. I have an aunt who's a born-again Christian; I wonder what kind of impression the film will make on her. I think it'll be obvious to her.

But when you grow up in a Judeo-Christian culture, these things find their way into your subconscious and your storytelling. So some of the imagery is, I think, unintentional, and some of it is very thought-out and celebratory. If I try to say, "Oh, I didn't know about that imagery," I'd sound like a fool—or like I was just being insincere.

In an action adventure film, if you don't care about the people that the action adventure is happening to, then the action adventure doesn't work as well. It's not as thrilling and meaningful. So, by calling upon certain romantic feelings, by calling upon certain spiritual feelings, by calling upon those thoughts and ideas and manifesting them in this kind of movie, it allows the audience to have a multiple of experiences besides just fireworks. For me, that's a very important part of the movie.

Obviously this was a very personal and emotional project for you. Was it also a spiritual experience in any way?

Singer: Uh, I think I have a spirituality that I keep very much to myself. I don't talk about it much, because I'm a filmmaker, I'm not a preacher (laughter)! I think spirituality exists in the movie, but I have my own [spirituality]. I pray in my own way, I guess you'd say.

---

Read the full interview. And look for This Lamp's review of Superman Returns late Wednesday or sometime Thursday.

Tags: Superman

A Guest Retro-Review by Andrew Wells

I really loved the Ocean's 11 remake (I can’t vouch for the original, having never seen it). It was popcorn fare done really smart, like they used to do in Hollywood. Big stars acting but still being stars. Effective character actors in supporting roles. A commercial director who has artistic ambitions. Smooth as cotton candy, but not forgettable--the kind of movie you want to watch when it shows up on late-night TV, or you pull out of your DVD stack when you are in the mood for fun.

So I saw the Ocean's 12 sequel when it came out in theaters, and it was bad. I got to watch it on DVD a couple of nights ago, and only did so because I wanted to give the movie a fair shake. It’s still bad. What went wrong?

The plot: Benedict (Andy Garcia), the bad guy that Danny Ocean (George Clooney) and his crew stole money from in 11, is given information about who robbed him from a shadowy figure known as The Night Fox. Benedict demands his money back or else. Feeling they have no choice, Danny and the gang head to Europe to do a job to repay Benedict, but The Night Fox is a step ahead of them. Meanwhile, Rusty (Brad Pitt) must deal with an old flame turned police investigator (Catherine Zeta-Jones).

It seems like it takes forever to figure that out, because I’m guessing two-thirds of the time the movie gets in the way of itself. 12 commits three serious mistakes, in addition to a great many smaller ones.

First, the movie is too…French. Or European, if you want to be politically correct. Director Steven Soderberg has always made clear that foreign films and the avant-garde has an affect on his directing style. In his big studio productions, he’s usually been able to make effective use of these influences. Out of Sight, Traffic, and 11 and even Solaris are all good examples. In 12, however, the style just gets in the way. The oblique conversation with Danny, Rusty and Linus (Matt Damon) in the bar, the wacky comedy scene at the Paris train station, the attempt at farce when Tess (Julia Roberts) shows up to help in the heist—the style and format is all taken from French New Wave movies (such as The 400 Blows and Breathless). But no attempt has been made to work this material into the film; in fact, 12 comes off like a bunch of scenes strung together poorly, many of them improvised by the actors goofing around.

Improvisation, if there is any, may also be 12's second mistake. There were character moments in the first movie, but they were secondary to the plot. Here it is the other way around—the movie is less about plot than getting the characters together. There are long scenes where the characters just jabber, without getting anywhere, especially in the hotel. The characters, especially the supporting ones, aren’t built for the work, and neither are most of the actors playing them.

The third mistake involves the golden rule of con movies, which is show the audience the con. The idea is that the audience is supplied the information in the movie, but then something happens or is said that changes the meaning of everything that comes before it; thus, the con is revealed. In 11, this worked effectively. The audience knew the crew was pulling off an impossible robbery (i.e., the con), but did not realize the depth and cleverness of the con till the very end. Here, the audience doesn’t even get to see the real robbery, but also have to accept the improbable—that Danny and his crew knew the whole situation almost from the first moment, and were playing The Night Fox and Isabel the whole time. Special mention must be made of the improbable lasers (you’ll know it when you see it). Remember another movie golden rule: audiences will believe the impossible, but not the improbable.

The film has some good in it. The soundtrack is by retro-cool artist David Holmes, with lots of good percussion and horns. There are some excellent in-jokes regarding Hollywood and the first movie, including a hilarious cameo meltdown by Topher Grace. My favorite in-joke is what song Benedict is playing on the piano when he finds the Don Cheadle character. You have to watch the credits to discover it. Matt Damon comes off the best here--his character actually develops, and instead of goofing around, he’s trying to act. I can’t wait to see what he does with The Departed and The Bourne Ultimatum.

Amazingly, 12 made enough money that there will be an Ocean's 13 in 2007. Roberts and Zeta-Jones aren’t scheduled to star, but Al Pacino is involved, and supposedly the movie will take place in Las Vegas again. That’s probably a good idea, since 12’s visit to Europe was such a bust. Bon débarras!

Note: all mangling of French is the writer’s fault, since he doesn’t speak it.


Andrew Wells can be reached at arwell012002@yahoo.com.

Tags: Andrew

Our Bible study at church this morning is taken from Job 28. As I was going back over the passage, the last four verses stood out:

            When God fixed the weight of the wind
            and limited the water by measure,
            when He established a limit for the rain
            and a path for the lightning,
            He considered wisdom and evaluated it;
            He established it and examined it.
            He said to mankind,
            “Look! The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
            and to turn from evil is understanding."
           
            (Job 28:25-28, HCSB)

The last two lines are particularly striking. The choice for humanity was set at the beginning of creation. This same choice was echoed by Moses in Deut 30:19-20.

And I remember another wise person once saying, "In life some people get it; some don't." Me? I want to be one of the ones who gets it.

Tags: Job, HCSB

No, I promise this isn't a Mac vs. Windows entry. But it is an every decent browser in the world vs. Internet Explorer 6 polemic.

If you're using Internet Explorer 6 for Windows (IE6), not only are you not seeing my website correctly, but you're probably missing out when viewing lots of other websites as well. Look for instance at the way my menu system is supposed to look:



But if you're using Internet Explorer 6 for Windows, you get this:



The problem is that IE6, a browser released five years ago, will not read .png graphics and CSS styles correctly even though they meet current internet standards. Sadly, IE6 does not meet current internet standards. Sometimes, graphics or tables that I include in a blog get pushed down below the last bit of text in my sidebar meaning that the IE6 user has to scroll down. When I posted my last entry I included a table, and because it was the top entry of my blog, any visitor to the site using IE6 either thought there was only one very short entry on the page or perhaps was smart enough to scroll down to see the rest.

So what are you going to do? If you are a Windows user, it's not your fault that Microsoft hasn't updated Internet Explorer in five years. But it is your fault if you choose to stay with a browser representative of old technology. I recommend that all Windows users do one of two things--either install the beta for MS Explorer 7 (which is actually quite stable) or download the Mozilla Firefox browser (better option). Who knows what else you're missing as you surf the internet by not using a modern browser?

Here's the deal--I'm no expert on these things, but I'm told that I could go in and supposedly edit the CSS style sheets and tweak them for IE6 users. But IE6 is old technology that will eventually go away.

Currently, according to the Sitemeter stats, IE6 users only make up about 47% of visitors to my site. That's way down from what it used to be. That number can only get lower, so I'm not going to tweak my site so that it will work for IE6 users. To me, that's a bit ridiculous even if they are the current majority. It's a shrinking majority.

By the way, if you're using a Mac browser such as Safari or Firefox to view this site, everything should be fine (unless you're using IE5). I find it very interesting that while supposedly Windows is supposed to have a 90%+ niche of the computer market, Windows users only account for 69% or so of the visitors to my site. Look at this Sitemeter chart:

So don't just continue to look at the internet through scratched old dirty glasses. Download Firefox, the IE7 beta, or better yet, get a Mac.

For those who are interested, I am placing some thumbnails below that demonstrate how my website looks in different browsers. Click on any of them to get a fullscreen view.


THIS LAMP BY BROWSER THUMBNAILS (click on an image to get a fullscreen view).

Tags: Windows

I left one item out of my review of the New Living Translation that I originally planned to include. When I remembered it this afternoon, I at first started to go back and add it, making a note of redaction at the bottom of the entry. However, the NLT review seems to be long enough as it is, so I've left it alone.

In my earlier review of the TNIV a couple of weeks ago, I commented about the translation of verses like Psalm 34:20 which I feel trades a messianic connection to John 19:36 for the sake of inclusive language. As I've stated many times, I'm not opposed to inclusive language for humans when the context clearly implies a male and female audience, but I'm conservative enough to prefer that messianic references be left alone. For the sake of fairness, in my follow-up to the TNIV, I presented the other side of the argument, even though I don't agree with it.

Since this had been the point of good discussion, I originally intended to show how the NLT handled a passage such as Psalm 34:20.

PSALM 34:20
TNIV	NLT1	NLT2
he protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken.	For the Lord protects them from harm-- not one of their bones will be broken!	For the Lord protects the bones of the righteous; not one of them is broken!

Note, first of all, that the 1996 edition of the NLT handled the verse in a similar manner to the TNIV--it, too, obscures the messianic reference. However, the 2004 edition has a much more creative solution to the issue. Instead of making the verse inclusive by substituting a plural pronoun for a singular pronoun, pronouns are avoided altogether in the NLT2. The one being protected is simply referred to as "the righteous" which could be construed as singular or plural, male or female.

An elegant solution such as this can satisfy all interests, and it's this kind of clever outside-the-box creativity that keeps me coming back to the New Living Translation.

Tags: NLT

Series note: My early hunch had been that as I got further into this series, the postings would become shorter. Frankly, I don't use the BIbles later in the list as much as I use the earlier ones. And I also assumed this post--the one on the New Living Translation--would mark the point where the entries began to shrink. However, I was mistaken. In the process of reflecting and taking a fresh look at the NLT, I became aware at how little I realized the massive number of changes made between the 1996 and 2004 editions. Whereas before, I had in mind one entity known as the NLT, I now realize that these two editions are quite different. I admit I was simply unaware; I had not been keeping up. Therefore, the focus of this entry is no longer merely on the NLT itself, but a substantial portion of it makes note of the changes made between the first and second editions. And of course, I don't feel that I can ignore some of the history leading up to the NLT, so that's included as well. I have considered breaking this entry up into two or even three parts, but in the end decided it was best left as a single piece.

A reminder that this series is not just a collection of reviews, but more importantly a very subjective take on these Bible versions, including my personal history with them.

Edition designations: I have seen the second edition of the New Living Translation referred to as the NLTse and NLT2. In this blog entry, when referring to the 1996 edition, I will use NLT1; and for the 2004 edition, NLT2. When simply referring to the New Living Translation in general, I will use NLT.

---

The other day, I noticed the elderly lady sitting in front of me at church was carrying a rather unusual looking black Bible. The Bibles people carry always interest me. When we stood to sing, I leaned over and noticed that the black Bible she was carrying was actually one of the original green padded Living BIbles from a generation ago. The Bible had received so much use over the years that it had turned from green to black! Such devotion is characteristic of what the Living Bible meant to a number of people. I've seen similarly worn Living Bibles used by my grandmother, my father, and Kathy's grandmother.

Kenneth Taylor's "Living" Legacy. Supposedly, the Living Bible came from Kenneth Taylor's desire to produce a version of the Bible that his children would understand. The Bible he produced was not a translation from the original languages, but rather a paraphrase, specifically of the 1901 American Standard Version. The complete Bible was published in 1971. For many people, Kenneth Taylor's Living Bible simply spoke their language. It made the Bible real to them and come alive. Complain all you want about the deficiencies of a paraphrase, this is the Bible that many people were willing to read. The Living Bible held the distinction of being the first Bible version to knock the King James Version out of the top spot in monthly Bible sales. Although it was not able to maintain this dominance, it's brief time in the top spot testifies to is acceptance and significance. The Living Bible would remain in the top ten list of Bibles sold, usually in the top five, until it was replaced by Tyndale with the New Living Translation in 1996.

Billy Graham called the Living Bible "the world's greatest evangelist." I've seen firsthand evidence to that declaration. When I was in college in the late eighties, I worked in a small Christian bookstore. Tyndale House Publishers, the publisher of the Living Bible, sent us a display with free samples from their forthcoming Life Application Bible. These were simply gospels of Mark in the Living Bible with the Life Application notes at the bottom of the page. Over the weeks I had worked at the store, I became acquainted with our mail carrier. From our brief conversations, I gathered that he was probably not a believer, had a bit of a rocky past including a number of failed marriages, and there were hints that alcohol had been a recurring problem in his life. While he was in the store one afternoon, he asked if he could take a copy of the Life Application Gospel of Mark with him. The next day, he came into our store absolutely beaming. He said that after he had made his last mail run on the previous day, he went to a diner and began reading the Gospel of Mark in the Living Bible over dinner. He told me that the words seemed to seize him and he couldn't put it down. Sitting in that diner, he read the entire gospel AND the Life Application notes. Feeling overpowering conviction of the Holy Spirit, and convinced that Jesus had died for his sins, he prayed to receive Christ all by himself in the diner that night. Rarely have I ever heard of people coming to Christ in settings where they were all alone. But in a sense, he was not alone. He said that he had never been able to understand the Bible before he read it in the Living Bible paraphrase. I kept up with him over the next three or so years until we moved. From my observances, his conversion was very real and life-changing.

I never used the Living Bible much, although very early on I had a Children's Living Bible (the text was the same, but color pictures were added) that my grandmother gave me. As I've said elsewhere I rarely carried it to church because I was embarrassed of the word "children" on the cover. However, two uses of the original Living Bible stick out in my memory. First, on the number of occasions when I actually did carry it to church, it was often used as a distraction during a boring sermon by looking up 1 Samuel 20:30 (which was definitely rendered into contemporary English) and snickering with my buddies sitting beside me. Later printings of the Living Bible put the offending phrase down into the footnotes.

My most significant use of the Living Bible came, when as a child in Sunday School, I left church absolutely baffled after our study of Romans 7. Verses 14-20, a mental tongue-twister in most translations, really confused my childlike mind. When I got home, I opened the King James Version (which I had in class) alongside the Living Bible and the light bulbs went off.

ROMANS 7:14-20
King James Version	Living Bible
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.	14 The law is good, then, and the trouble is not there with me, but because I am sold into slavery with Sin as my owner. 15 I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can't. I do what I don't want to--what I hate. 16 I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience proves that I agree with these laws I am breaking. 17 But I can't help myself, because I'm no longer doing it. It is sin inside me that is stronger than I am that makes me do these evil things. 18 I know I am rotten through and through so far as my old nature is concerned. No matter which way I turn I can't make myself do right. I want to but I can't. 19 When I want to do good, I don't; and when I try not to do wrong, I do it anyway. 20 Now if I am doing what I don't want to, it is plain where the trouble is: sin still has me in its evil grasp.

Not only did I understand the passage and was able to apply the Living Bible text back to the King James version, but I also discoverd the value of studying the Bible with translations in parallel--a practice that I continue to this day.

One final note about the Living Bible... As I was preparing to write this blog entry, I pulled my copy of the Living Bible off the shelf to re-familiarize myself with its tone and feel. The copy I have with my collection of English Bible translations is not the green padded hardback with which most people are familiar, but rather a black imitation leather text edition. I purchased this Bible around two decades ago as one of the early items added to my collection. Upon looking at the title page, I was surprised to see something I had never noticed before:

THE
LIVING
BIBLE

PARAPHRASED
A Thought-for-Thought Translation

I had never paid attention to the line that reads "A Thought-for-Thought Translation." I find this interesting for two reasons. One has to do with recent discussions (see here and here) trying to distinguish how a paraphrase differs from a translation. I find it interesting that at some point the publishers began defining a paraphrase as a thought-for-thought translation. I don't think (but someone else will have to verify) that this line was used in the green hardbacks. Is calling a paraphrase a thought-for-thought translation a contradiction in terms? I also found it interesting that the very phrase "A Thought-for-Thought Translation" is now used as a marketing description for the New Living Translation, which is never referred to as a paraphrase, although it undoubtedly includes elements of paraphrase here and there.

I've only heard this secondhand from one of the NLT translators, but supposedly in the eighties, Kenneth Taylor had a strong desire to update the Living Bible. Unable to complete the task himself, his son Mark Taylor convinced him to turn the reigns over to a translation committee. The end product of that effort would, of course, be the New Living Translation.

However, before discussing the NLT, it might be worth noting that in 1990, Tyndale published a text simply known as The New Translation that included Romans through Jude (this corresponds to Taylor's Living Letters, the first portion of the Living Bible published in 1962). The copyright is held by "The Society for the New Translation." As of yet, I have not been able to determine exactly how the New Translation relates to the NLT or if the translation committees are the same. But a number of this text's features stand out.

In the preface, written by Ken Taylor, he notes first of all that the New Translation is translated from the Greek; and thus, it's not merely a paraphrase of an earlier version like the Living Bible was in regard to the ASV. Second, Taylor notes that the New Translation will go back to the method of using italics to identify words added to the text for meaning in English (always a bad practice in my opinion since modern readers see italics as indicators of emphasis). He adds that no modern translation uses this practice (and for good reason I might add), but I think he means that no translation outside of the Tyndale/KJV tradition uses italics.

A third, and very significant feature in light of recent controversies, is the use of gender inclusive language (although that phrase is not used). Talylor writes:

Another outstanding feature of The New Translation is its correct translation of such statements as "He who has the Son has life" to become "Whoever has the Son has life." Since God's grace is for men and women alike, a valid translation must reflect this. It may be an unimportant point for many readers, but to others, both in and outside the church, it is important and helpful.

At the time of the New Translation's publication (1990), only the New Revised Standard Version and the Revised English Bible (both released in 1989) featured inclusive language. This indicates that Taylor and the translation committee had a mindset early on in favor of inclusive language. This would later be reflected in the final release of the New Living Translation six years later. The connections between the two seem to end there, though.

On both the back cover and immediately following the preface, Rom 1:5, 7, 14 and 1 Cor 2:7 are paralleled beside other English translations. To give you a flavor of the New Translation in context with Tyndale's other Bibles, let me recreate the chart with the Living Bible and NLT1 included as well.

	Living Bible	Other	THE NEW TRANSLATION	NLT1
Rom 1:5	And now, through Christ, all the kindness of God has been poured out upon us undeserving sinners; and now he is sending us out around the world to tell all people everywhere the great things God has done for them, so that they, too, will believe and obey him.	NIV: Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the oebedience that comes through faith.	Through Christc I have received the gracious gift of being an apostle, to lead people of every nation to obedient faith in Him for the glory of His name. c Greek: "we"	Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has done for them, so that they will believe and obey him, bringing glory to his name.
Rom 1:7	And you, dear friends in Rome, are among those he dearly loves; you, too, are invited by Jesus Christ to be God's very own--yes, his holy people. May all God's mercies and peace be yours from God our Father and from Jesus Christ our Lord. [note that in the Living Bible, vv. 6-7 are combined]	KJV: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	This letter is written to all of God's loved ones in Rome, called to be His holy people. may God's wonderful, undeserved favor and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.	dear friends in Rome. God loves you dearly, and he has called you to be his very own people. May grace and peace be yours from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 1:14	For I owe a great debt to you and to everyone else, both to civilized people and uncivilized alike; yes, to the educated and uneducated alike.	NKJV: I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise.	For I am under obligation both to the Greeks and all other Gentiles,c to the wise and simple alike. cLiterally, "and to barbarians,"	For I have a great sense of obligation to people in our culture and to people in other cultures, to the educated and uneducated alike.
1 Cor 2:7	Our words are wise because they are from God, telling of God's wise plan to bring us into the glories of heaven. This plan was hidden in former times, though it was made for our benefit before the world began.	NASB: but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory;	but we teach the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery in the past, but planned for our glory from before the beginning of the world.	No, the wisdom we speak of is the secret wisdom of God, which was hidden in former times, though he made it for our benefit before the world began.

Comparing the New Translation to the NLT seems to demonstrate no real influence upon the latter at all. The two are very dissimilar. One might suppose that the New Translation project was completely abandoned in favor of the New Living Translation; however, this may not completely be the case based on information I will present below about the NLT. I wish I had more details about this stage of history at Tyndale House Publishers.

The Old Is New Again: The NEW Living Translation. A couple of Sundays ago Kathy and I were asked to provide a Scripture reading in the worship service. A few days before, our minister of music handed us a copy of Eph 1:2-14 from the NIV Dramatized New Testament., a copy of the Scriptures broken down into "parts" for public reading or performance. Our church has recently gone through the difficult process of combining a declining traditional service with a growing contemporary service. The new format has been called "blended," but probably leans a bit more to the contemporary. As Kathy and I read through the NIV text of Eph 1:2-14, we weren't sure that it was the best translation for the service. Kathy put it bluntly, "It sounds too liturgical."

Now, I should say that upon reflection, I find great irony in thinking of the NIV as "too liturgical." Such an idea three or four decades ago would have been quite laughable. But she was right. This passage in Ephesians has a number of weighty concepts and the vocabulary it contained seemed to be too formal for a passage that was going to merely be proclaimed with no commentary. Immediately, of course, she wanted to use the New Living Translation--her version of choice. But I was more cautious. I wanted to compare a number of Bible versions, especially in regard to how they sounded out loud. We read the CEV and the REB since they are known for their quality when spoken. We read the passage in about half a dozen translations before we settled on the NLT which was, of course, what my wife had suggested in the first place. She was right. The NLT rendered this passage in a manner that was much more like normal people speak in regular conversation than any of the other translations we considered.

This is one of the reasons I like the New Living Translation. Its use of English seems very natural, and in my ear, moreso than most translations. When I was searching for a primary translation of the Bible to use at church in replacement of the NASB, the NLT was a top contender, perhaps behind the HCSB and TNIV. In the end, I eliminated it not because I thought it was necessarily less accurate than these other translations, but because its renderings sounded so natural that I was afraid it would be too different from the Bible carried by the average person I teach. Plus, since Kathy uses it, I am always able to turn to her and have her read a passage.

Tyndale House Publishers released the New Living Translation midyear in 1996. I was just starting the doctoral program at SBTS (first time around), and at that time our school boasted four of the ninety or so translators: Daniel Block, Gerald Borchert, Thomas Schreiner, and Robert Stein. Tyndale gave every student on campus a copy of the new Bible. I was interested in it simply because it was a new translation, but the more I read, the more it impressed me.

I've always been a fan of clever translation, and verses like Mark 2:16 really stood out: "But when some of the teachers of religious law who were Pharisees saw him eating with people like that, they said to his disciples, 'Why does he eat with such scum?'" (NLT1). I'd never seen a word like "scum" in the Bible before, but I felt like that verse accurately captured in English the essence of the original text's meaning. I completely read through the NLT over the next few months and introduced Kathy to it as well. It instantly became her primary Bible version.

The New Living Translation differs greatly from the Living Bible in that not only is it a translation (albeit a fairly loose one) instead of a paraphrase, but it also relied on the work of a translation committee instead of the primary work of one person. The "Note to Readers" in the 1996 edition states that "ninety evangelical scholars from various theological backgrounds and denominations were commissioned in 1989 to begin revising The Living Bible. The end result of this seven-year process is the Holy Bible, New Living Translation--a general purpose translation that is accurate, easy to read, and excellent for study."

The quotation above makes one wonder if the committee referenced is not the same committee that produced The New Translation in 1990 since the above group began work a year earlier. If so, direction seemed to have significantly changed after publication of the letters in the New Testament. Further, whereas the Living Bible (regardless of actual use) was intended as a complementary version for other translations, the NLT was designed to stand on its own as a primary Bible for everyday use.

The introduction to the 1996 edition spends practically the entire first page and then some extolling the virtues of a dynamic equivalence translation, something that the 2004 edition seems to back away from some in its introduction. In fact in the earlier intro, one reads "A thought-for-thought translation prepared by a group of capable scholars has the potential to represent the intended meaning of the original text even more accurately than a word-for-word translation." Strong words in light of the battle over translation philosophies to follow in the years following the NLT's initial publication.

From my perspective, of all the major translations in print today, the English in the NLT seems the most natural-sounding in its use of language. It's one thing to translate the Bible into English; it's another thing to translate the Bible with a contemporary English-speaking audience in mind. With the 1996 NLT, a concerted effort was made to translate ancient designations into terms that would be more meaningful to the English-speaking reader: measures (1 Kings 7:26, "11,000 gallons of water") weights (Ezra 8:26, "24 tons of silver"), calendar days (Ezek 33:21, "On January 8..."), time (Matt 4:25, "About three o’clock in the morning Jesus came to them") and currency (Acts 19:19, "The value of the books was several million dollars"). It's not that this had never been done before, but it cuts against the grain of most major translations, including ones produced in the last five or six years. One has to ask whether the text has been fully translated if the reader is left wondering how much or what time a passage is actually referring to.

The first edition of the NLT is much freer in its translation than the second edition, and it's much freer than most popular translations. I've blogged about this before, such as the entry I wrote about Rom 14:4 in the NLT1. I've also written a post about the NLT's influence from the LXX in Isa 18:1. The dynamic nature of the NLT's translation philosophy gave its translators a great deal of freedom in rendering the biblical text. As I concluded in my post on Romans 14:4, although it's a bit more free than what I prefer in a primary translation for my own use, I cannot say that such renderings are inaccurate. Most of the time when I've had questions as to why a passage has been translated a particular way in the NLT, when I've dug a little deeper, I've received my answer. But that doesn't mean that there's not some paraphrase at play, too, now and then. Consider a verse like Ecclesiastes 9:8, shown here in the HCSB for reference to a literal text with the NLT 1 and NLT2 beside it:

Ecclesiastes 9:8
HCSB	NLT1	NLT2
Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head	Wear fine clothes, with a dash of cologne!	Wear fine clothes, with a splash of cologne!

I have no doubt that cologne communicates meaning well to a modern audience, but it's very difficult to say that this is anything but paraphrase. You find verses like this in the NLT now and then. However, most of the renderings--however free--fall on the border of meaning-driven translation as opposed to actual paraphrase.

You Only Live Twice. The NLT Bible Translation Committee continued to hone their work even after the NLT was published in 1996. A minor revision followed the initial publication. I'm not sure of all the changes, but in a number of places (such as Phil 3:13) in the initial 1996 printing, ἀδελφοί was sometimes rendered "friends." A later printing changed this rendering to "brothers and sisters" which is certainly more accurate.

In 2004 the Bible Translation Committee delivered a second edition of the NLT. I'll admit that I was using the NLT less at this point than I had when it was initially released, and I didn't rush out to get a copy of the update. In fact, I only picked one up earlier this year for my collection. Even then, I didn't take the time to compare the 1996 and 2004 editions other than noting that the Prophets were finally in poetic form, so I had no idea how extensive the changes were.

To be honest, it was when Kathy and I decided to use the NLT in our Scripture reading at church a couple of weeks ago that I first noticed how extensive the changes were. Compare for instance, the passage we read--Eph 1:2-14--in the two editions:

Ephesians 1:2-14
NLT1	NLT2
2 ¶ May grace and peace be yours, sent to you from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 ¶ How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we belong to Christ. 4 Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. And this gave him great pleasure. 6 ¶ So we praise God for the wonderful kindness he has poured out on us because we belong to his dearly loved Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness that he purchased our freedom through the blood of his Son, and our sins are forgiven. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. 9 ¶ God’s secret plan has now been revealed to us; it is a plan centered on Christ, designed long ago according to his good pleasure. 10 And this is his plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because of Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us from the beginning, and all things happen just as he decided long ago. 12 God’s purpose was that we who were the first to trust in Christ should praise our glorious God. 13 And now you also have heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us everything he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God.	2 ¶ May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace. 3 ¶ All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ. 4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. 5 God decided in advance to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ. This is what he wanted to do, and it gave him great pleasure. 6 So we praise God for the glorious grace he has poured out on us who belong to his dear Son. 7 He is so rich in kindness and grace that he purchased our freedom with the blood of his Son and forgave our sins. 8 He has showered his kindness on us, along with all wisdom and understanding. 9 ¶ God has now revealed to us his mysterious plan regarding Christ, a plan to fulfill his own good pleasure. 10 And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. 11 Furthermore, because we are united with Christ, we have received an inheritance from God, for he chose us in advance, and he makes everything work out according to his plan. 12 ¶ God’s purpose was that we Jews who were the first to trust in Christ would bring praise and glory to God. 13 And now you Gentiles have also heard the truth, the Good News that God saves you. And when you believed in Christ, he identified you as his own by giving you the Holy Spirit, whom he promised long ago. 14 The Spirit is God’s guarantee that he will give us the inheritance he promised and that he has purchased us to be his own people. He did this so we would praise and glorify him.

I noticed when comparing these passages in the two NLT versions for the first time, that the NLT2 was tighter, less given to unnecessary words. Note in v. 5 that there is a preference for active voice over passive. And yet the second edition was still able to do what the NLT1 had done best--communicate God's Word in a natural, even conversational manner. Some might find it interesting to note that when we put our Scripture reading together, Kathy and I chose to use vv. 2-11 from the NLT2 and vv. 12-14 from the NLT1. The words Jews in v. 12 and Gentiles in v. 13 in the NLT2, while certainly implied in the context of Paul's message, seemed less appropriate for our Southern Baptist congregation. We also liked the freer rendering of the NLT1 for the last sentence in v. 14: "This is just one more reason for us to praise our glorious God." In fact that freer rendering is one of the very reasons I've liked the NLT over the years. I admit that I have not spent as much time as I would like with the NLT2 yet, but I hope that in the desire to streamline the translation, wording such as this has not been lost in too many places.

But such tightening (my term) has certainly been one of the goals for the NLT2. In the FAQ section of the NLT website, one reads, "The translation of difficult terms is made more concise. In the NLT, difficult terms are often made easier to understand by expanding them into longer phrases. The second edition often shortens these expansions--without sacrificing clarity." In most cases, this is probably for the best, but I believe some changes could be debated. Consider, for instance, Romans 3:25.

Romans 3:25
NLT1	NLT2
For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times.	For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood. This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past,

What exactly did Jesus do for us on the cross? Well in more traditional translations, specific theological words have been used: propitiation in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and HCSB and expiation in the RSV, NEB, and REB. However, some translations such as the NIV, NRSV and TNIV have opted simply for "sacrifice of atonement" which can be said to mean either of the two previously stated theological words. When the NLT1 stated that "God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us," the translators are clearly communicating propitiation without using the word. By opting for "God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin," the result is something much more like the NIV or NRSV. Was this the translators' intention or merely the result of making the NLT2's wording more concise?

It's interesting to note the differences found in the first page of the Introduction to the second edition. Whereas the first edition served as a defense for dynamic equivalence translations, most of that wording is now gone, or at least lessened. The new introduction speaks more to the differences, strengths, and weaknesses of the formal and dynamic philosophies of translation. And surprisingly, one reads:

The translators of the New Living Translation set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear and natural English text. Many words and phrases wer