The entire article is well worth the read, but this part is, well, sums it up:
The NLT is a high quality English translation (opinion, I guess; mine versus his). The scholarly work that went into the translation is evident throughout. Just because the English isn’t high brow, stale as a college textbook, and doesn’t need a thesaurus as a companion, does not mean its status as a true translation and role as a text all Christians can use in study are in question. Yet, Dr. White went on to consider the NLT as not on par with “scholarly translations”:
He is taking on a recent post by Dr. James White who seems to think that unless a translation comports with previous doctrinal stances, such as Calvinism, and uses theological words (found only in English) that it is not scholarly. Well, that is how I took it.
One of the commentators on the former post states that he preaches from the NLT and uses other more literal versions as support then speaks about defending the NLT. He states that he caught himself defending the NLT from a certain group of people:
1.) Those who have Strict Reformed Views on the Elect
2.) Those who have Strict Reformed Convictions on all 5 Calvinist Points
3.) Those opposed to reading the Bible as it could relate culturally
4.) Those who oppose understanding how God can and does interact with people today
5.) Those who have never read it.
Not sure I completely agree, as I do know a few Reformed who read the NLT, but I do think that many times, it is a certain doctrinal viewpoint that leads one away from not just the NLT, but other ones, such as God’s Word, which doesn’t use the theological words of but a few centuries.
And frankly, looking at the Translation team for the NLT, there are plenty of scholars on there.