Humanoids

[Dave G]

Permit me to quote from the NET Bible regarding updates/revisions:

"Additional research, additional discoveries of new manuscripts, or archaeological discoveries that shed additional light on first century history and culture, also contribute to the need for revision. Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of users will also result in frequent revision of the notes accompanying the NET Bible. Thus the production of the NET Bible is not a one-time undertaking to be completed and put aside, but an ongoing project with planned improvement and revision.

Nevertheless, with the completion of the whole Bible, revisions to the translation itself will occur in five-year increments, allowing readers to memorize passages with at least a measure of durability." (Preface xv)

Please permit me to analyze the above:

What I see the writers of this doing, is trying to promote their translation for a number of reasons...
Reasons that, to me, aren't entirely satisfactory to my way of thinking or that result in a translation that can be counted on, like God's word is counted on, to never change.

For example:

1) "Additional research"...what additional research?
As I see it, we're not told.

2) "Additional discoveries of manuscripts"...what discoveries?
I'm aware of none, but that does not mean there haven't been any. However, we are not told what discoveries.

3) "Archaeological discoveries that shed additional light..."
Please pardon me for asking, but what does that have to do with translating God's word?

4) "Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of the users..."
Aren't the words of God enough? Why the reliance on notes, then?
Notes in the margins are what the "KJV" and some other version translators have sought to discourage, and I believe no Bibles should have notes.


5) When will it be completed, so that everyone can point to it and say, "There are the words of God...never changing as He never changes ( Malachi 3:6 )? "


With the translators of the NET, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Perhaps these reasons, as well as others are not important to many here, but they are to me.

 

[Yeshua1]

Please permit me to analyze the above:

What I see the writers of this doing, is trying to promote their translation for a number of reasons...
Reasons that, to me, aren't entirely satisfactory to my way of thinking or that result in a translation that can be counted on, like God's word is counted on, to never change.

For example:

1) "Additional research"...what additional research?
As I see it, we're not told.

2) "Additional discoveries of manuscripts"...what discoveries?
I'm aware of none, but that does not mean there haven't been any. However, we are not told what discoveries.

3) "Archaeological discoveries that shed additional light..."
Please pardon me for asking, but what does that have to do with translating God's word?

4) "Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of the users..."
Aren't the words of God enough? Why the reliance on notes, then?
Notes in the margins are what the "KJV" and some other version translators have sought to discourage, and I believe no Bibles should have notes.


5) When will it be completed, so that everyone can point to it and say, "There are the words of God...never changing as He neXAMPLE WHN ver changes ( Malachi 3:6 )? "


With the translators of the NET, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Perhaps these reasons, as well as others are not important to many here, but they are to me.

I see a legit need to revise when for example the Nas 1977 switched from Nestle Aland Greek text 23 to the 26 one, but there was no real reason for the 2020 Nas update, other then wanted to get on Inclusive Language band wagon!

 

[Rippon2]

I see a legit need to revise when for example the Nas 1977 switched from Nestle Aland Greek text 23 to the 26 one, but there was no real reason for the 2020 Nas update, other then wanted to get on Inclusive Language band wagon!

You specialize in saying untrue things Y-1.

 

[Jerome]

we know that blessed is the man refers to women also!

LOL, except when it doesn't:


"Blessed is the man* that hath a virtuous wife"

*or the woman (understood) that has such a wife, cause "we know that blessed is the man refers to women also!"



"Thy wife shall be as the fruitful vine on the sides of thine house, and thy children like the olive plants round about thy table. Lo, surely thus shall the man* be blessed, that feareth the Lord."

*or the woman (understood) is blessed with such a wife and children, cause "we know that blessed is the man refers to women also!"


See where your gender fixation and pronouncements get you?
Rippon has you pegged:

You are obsessive regarding the use of inclusive language; and quite frankly, your understanding is skewed and absolutely false in this realm.

 

[Conan]

4) "Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of the users..."
Aren't the words of God enough? Why the reliance on notes, then?
Notes in the margins are what the "KJV" and some other version translators have sought to discourage, and I believe no Bibles should have notes.

The original 1611 KJV came with notes in the margin. In their preface they defended their use of marginal notes under the section called
Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each

It is towards the bottom. The Translators to the Reader

I will only quote a few lines from the 1611 KJV Translators from that section....

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point"

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

The Translators to the Reader

 

[Origen]

"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

This sentence is especially noteworthy. It is freely admitted another reading is possible in some cases and it is not wise to be dogmatic about which one is correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

This sentence is especially noteworthy. It is freely admitted another reading is possible in some cases and it is not wise to be dogmatic about it.

The 1611 Kjv did have marginal notes indicating variants, so they did not see themselves as making a finished perfect translation, as there were areas where could have legit reasons to translate other then they choose to do!

 

[Yeshua1]

The original 1611 KJV came with notes in the margin. In their preface they defended their use of marginal notes under the section called
Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each

It is towards the bottom. The Translators to the Reader

I will only quote a few lines from the 1611 KJV Translators from that section....

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point"

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

The Translators to the Reader

Why an inspired perfect translation even have to show variant readings though?

 

[Conan]

Why an inspired perfect translation even have to show variant readings though?

Because it is not an inspired perfect translation. Excellent point Yeshua1

 

[Yeshua1]

Because it is not an inspired perfect translation.

Still trying to get them to identify which TR was perfect, and which Kjv was!