Featured The NET Bible

How is it a wrong question? From all the threads you have started on this subject it seems like you are fixated on it. You need everyone to agree with your particular view. But since we can find different biblically back views you have just latched onto one of those views.

Well since I have been a Christian for over 60 yrs that goes without says.

But for some strange reason you think only your understanding of what the Holy Spirit has said is true. But others have come to different conclusions.

 

So just because the problem existed before you does not mean that you should be adding to the problem. All your threads do is provide more posts the non-believer can point to so as to bolster their case.

 

The question has been answered. And you refuse to know it.

Contradictory answers do not come from God. 1 Corinthians 14:33, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

You refuse to hear there is an actual solution.

 

That question was in 1969. Out of studying that question, the finding from Scriptures to correctly identify what is needed to know to identify actual crucifixion date.

 

Every answer that you give is from your understanding of the text which others see leads to a different conclusion. What you believe is what you believe.

You are the one that seems to require those type of answers I do not. I actually trust what the bible has told me even when you can not nail it down to date /time as you seem to think you can.

You just will not accept the fact that the information that is available is not as clear as you think it is.

 

So you suppose. Alleging is not the same as dealing with actual case evidence.

 

You have been beating this horse for a long time now.

You seem to think you have proven your position but you have not.

All you have been able to provide is your opinion of what the information shows.

I am not really that concerned about what day or time such and such happened. Factually I know that Christ was crucified, buried, and rose the third day. That is all I need to know. My not knowing the day/time does not impact my faith in the least.

You it seems need to know beyond the shadow of a doubt the day/time.

 

I don't know that I would call the Net Bible liberal. The directors of the team were all Dallas Theological Seminary profs, including Daniel Wallace, who is probably the main exponent of the translation among scholars.

I certainly would agree that there are concessions to liberal thinking, such as the rendering in Isaiah 7:14 of ‛almâh (עלמה), which as has been pointed out is rendered as "young woman" rather than "virgin." That goes right along with liberal versions going back to the RSV, and it was protested back in that day by many fundamentalists.

I've done my own research on alma. It occurs only 7 times in the OT, and here there are:

Ge 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;
Ex 2:8 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child's mother.
Ps 68:25 The singers went before, the players on instruments [followed] after; among [them were] the damsels playing with timbrels.
Pr 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid. {midst: Heb. heart}
Song 1:3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name [is as] ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
Song 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. {shall call: or, thou, O virgin, shalt call}

As has been pointed out, there are usages which are provably "virgin." However, just looking at the list you can tell that there is not a single usage where the meaning is provably not referring to a virgin.

 

I further object to the Net Bible in that the translation method is openly described as dynamic (functional) equivalence. The inventor of this method, Eugene Nida, was Neo-Orthodox, which is existential theology. He based his method on that philosophy, so that his "reader response" theory is actually an existential experience. (Remember that Neo-Orthodoxy refers to inspiration as when the Bible becomes the Word of God when read, not that it is objectively the Word of God.)

 

The NET Bible is a very useful comparison bible, and its footnotes provide a wealth of useful information.

I use it just as much for comparison as I do the CSB, KJV, NKJV, WEB, ESV, NIV and NLT. My study bible is the NASB.

 

Consistency Rate of Word Choices Version Score

KJV 73.48%
NASB 70.70%
NKJV 69.52%
ESV 66.89%
NRSV 62.88%
CSB 59.25%
NET 57.06%
NIV 54.19%
NLT 47.25

This analysis indicates the practice of consistently translating the same source word or phrase meaning into the same word or phrase in English is declining over time.

 

NET, John 19:14, (Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover, about noon.) Pilate said to the Jewish leaders, "Look, here is your king!"

NET, Luke 23:44, It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon,

 

One of the things I find enlightening concerning the NET bible is how it treats some of the genitive phrases concerning faith and Jesus. "Faith of Jesus" could mean Christ's faithfulness, or our faith toward or upon Jesus. Two completely different things.

Romans 3:26 (NET)
This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness.

Romans 3:26 (NASB
for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus.

Obviously I do not know if either view is required by the Greek grammar, but I believe the NET's view best fits the context, we were not made alive because of our faith, but because of Christ's sacrifice.

I have come to the same conclusion for all these additional verses, where the NET deviates from the NASB, but I believe the NET has it right:

1) Romans 3:22
2) Galatians 2:16
3) Galatians 2:20
4) Galatians 3:22
5) Ephesians 3:12
6) Philippians 3:9
​

 

It's a terrible translation. Don't have time today to explain, but hopefully can post more tomorrow.

 

I did. Repeating each issue isn't making the issues go away.

One case where does the NET Bible acknowledge John 19:14 was using Roman time 6am, as opposed to a contradictory noon?
Re: Matthew, Mark and Luke using Hebrew hours.

 

It is some what surprising which translations, and where bend to liberal modernism.

The NASB supplies the better view.

NASB, John 19:14, Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the *sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!”

* John 19:14 Perhaps 6 a.m.
Some NASB editions also include the contradictory,
* John 19:14, noon

 

My first objection to the NET Bible is that the translators are anonymous. I had the same objection to the NASB. People ought to take responsibility for their work for God. I should be able to easily tell who the translators are, but the website won't even let me follow the link to "Endorsements." Wikipedia (always anonymous, therefore suspect) says that W. Hall Harris III of Dallas TS was the editor, but is that accurate? (W. Hall Harris III - Wikipedia) Who knows!

37818 says the NET is liberal. Is it? I can only determine or debunk this if I know the translators. Even the Japanese New Interconfessional Version supplied a list of translators, mostly Catholics and liberal Protestants, with a couple or three evangelicals thrown in. I have a Japanese NT translation simply called The New Testament that very clearly lists its liberal translators. (It lists Paul's epistles in "Epistles by Paul" and "Epistles said to be by Paul.) Why don't conservatives do this? It's only right.

P. S. A suggestion to 37138 who says the translation is liberal: since it hides the translators, maybe it is conservative!! However, the DE methodology was invented by Neo-Orthodox Eugene Nida, so who knows.