"There may be a place for this version in the education of children, but we conclude that it is not suitable for use by adults in the Church. The version carries over too much of the unsound paraphrasing of the Living Bible. The attempt to provide a blanket justification for this paraphrasing by calling it "dynamic equivalence" is a mere fig leaf, as Poythress aptly calls it. It was a mistake to have used such a problematic version as the basis of the NLT to begin with. The "reviewers" would have done much better, no doubt, if they had produced a fresh translation. In addition, there obviously has been a good deal of editorial meddling for non-scholarly reasons, in connection with the "inclusive language" and other things. Moreover, even if we were to grant that dynamic equivalence is the best method to use in translating the Bible (which we do not), we find that other versions have made a much more successful application of its principles at every point where we have compared them with the NLT.
Finally, we note that Craig L. Blomberg of Denver Seminary, who was a reviewer for the NLT's Gospel according to Matthew, has explicitly stated that this version is not suitable as a regular Bible for adults. Responding to criticism of the NLT, Blomberg explained that the version is for "kids or very poor adult readers," and he suggested that readers of the NLT should move on to a more accurate version when they are able"
Whaddya think? Kid or very poor adult reader?
Back off, man.
This prophet IS a more accurate version.