I do not much about NLT can anyone expound?
Does anyone here use it?
Does it have staying power?
Is it a better translation than the NIV?
Does anyone preach from it?
The NLT is considerably less literal than the NIV. Not suitable at all for public reading, pulpit use or serious study.
-----Added 3/5/2009 at 10:11:16 EST-----
Yesterday, I listened to a Shepherd's Conference message from a few years ago by Masters Seminary Professor Dr. Barrick on Bible translations.
I understand the desire to switch soon, but I agree with Dr. Barrick's emphasis that it shouldn't be done hastily, that even a year or two spent studying the issue is not too long, and that if the leadership is on board with the switch and it's not just something the pastor is pushing, they "own" it and will be much more likely to continue with the same version after you're gone.
Interestingly he thought very highly of the NKJV even though he (and Masters Sem. as a whole) favor the Critical Text of the NT. He is an OT scholar and said the NKJV Old Testament is the best hands down for its fidelity to the Masoretic Text and pointed out problems with the NASB and ESV time and again with emendations, resorting to the Septuagint, etc. As a non-specialist I have been troubled by what appear at times to be curious renderings in these translations (esp. in the OT) and my thoughts (and leaning toward the NKJV) were confirmed by this message. He (and his colleague Dr. Thomas, who has a helpful book on Bible versions) also favor the 1977 edition of the NASB over the 1995 update (which is still one of the better versions) but the 1977 edition is rapidly going out of print with the exception of editions like the Open Bible, the Thompson Chain Ref. and the Hebrew Greek Study Bible.
This message was from 2005. I would recommend signing up for a free account at the
Shepherd's Fellowship website if you don't already have one and downloading it. (I'm not sure if the link will work at all since registration is required, but it's a seminar from the 2005 Shepherd's conf.) It's entitled "King James Version Only, Sometimes, Never: Examining the modern versions of the Bible." I see that he addressed the same topic in 2006, but I haven't listened to it yet. Both messages are aimed more at the process you need to go through to evaluate and choose a translation for pulpit use, etc. than telling you which version to choose.
Dr. Barrick thought highly of the ESV but interestingly stated that one should never adopt a new version until it had been through a revision since revisions will tell you which direction the translation committee is headed--will they fix the issues that currently exist or will they simply create new ones? (For example, the TNIV is a clear example of the inclinations of the NIV committee.) I would be very interested to hear what his thoughts on the 2007 revision (which was pretty minor I think) are. My guess is that they were so minor (it was not a major revision) that they didn't make much of a difference one way or another.
Edit:
Here is a list of the 2007 changes in the ESV, although I don't know that this is an "official" list and I don't know that it is a complete list either. (Considering its brevity I doubt it is complete.) The editions that incorporate the changes will have "2007 text edition" on the copyright page.
in my opinion the only ones I would even have on the list to consider are the NKJV, NASB, ESV and perhaps HCSB, which is freer than the above in translations, but more literal than the NIV.
I have never thought the NASB was quite as unreadable as some have made it out to be, but for the best combination of literal translation and readability, the NKJV and the ESV are probably the two best choices. (The
HCSB appears to be surprisingly good too, but I don't have a copy and thus am not that familiar with it. But it has some very helpful notes as well as an explanation of key theological terms.) The ESV retains too much of the old liberal RSV for my taste (although the most glaring theological errors have certainly been removed) and some of the changes from the RSV actually weren't for the better, thus the best choice is the NKJV in my admittedly amateur opinion.
I have attached the manuscript for Dr. Barrick's 2005 seminar. The comments I mentioned above about the NKJV being the best OT translation were made during the subsequent Q&A and aren't in the manuscript.