NET Bible Vs. NASBU

[Rippon]

There doesn't have to be an adversarial deal between the two translations. I do prefer the NET Bible because it bears a closer relationship with my favorite --the NIV, than it does the NASBU. There are spots where the NET does not read as smoothy as the NIV --but generally it seeks to speak in 21st century English. The language of the NASBU is rather biblish. It bears a striking kinship with the ESV --especially with the items listed below.The NASBU has its place, but it's not as good for studying purposes as the NET Bible, NIV or even the NLT.

Let's compare the two. The NASBU will be at the top,and the NET Bible will be below. Snips will follow.

Ex. 32:19
Moses' anger burned
Moses became exceedingly angry

Deut. 5:6
the house of slavery
the place of slavery

2 Kings 2:7
the sons of the prophets
the prophetic guild

Esth. 2:21
sought to lay hands on
plotted to assassinate

Job 33:16
opens the ears of men
gives revelation to people

Ps. 11:6
the portion of their cup
what they deserve

Ps. 41:9
lifted up his heel against me
turned against me

Matt. 1:18
found to be with child
was...pregnant

Mark 4:5
It had no depth of soil
the soil wasn't deep

Mk. 12:20
the first took a wife
the first one married

Heb. 1:3
the word of his power
his powerful word

 

[Van]

Another complete work of fiction. The NASB95 does a better job at presenting the word of God as presented in the original language than the NET. But many times the NET translation and footnotes does a better job at explaining the message. But for Bible study, your primary bible translation should be the NASB95, but you also need to compare the passage under study with the NET, NKJV, WEB and HCSB.

For example, the NET inserts "to be" into James 2:5, reversing the inspired message, and does not use italics so if you were studying that verse in the NET, you would be studying the opposite of what God actually said.

 

[Rippon]

Snips from the NASBU are at the top and snips from the NET Bible are below. It is evident that the NET renderings are better than that of the NASBU.

Eph. 1:13
Holy Spirit of promise
the promised Holy Spirit
Acts 11:22
came to the ears of the church
came to the attention of the church
Ro. 6:4
in newness of life
we too may live a new life
Jn. 5:29
the resurrection of life
resurrection resulting in life
Ro. 1:7
beloved of God
those loved by God
Jn. 6:45
taught of God
taught by God

 

[Reformed]

By NASBU do you mean the New American Standard Version?

 

[Rippon]

By NASBU do you mean the New American Standard Version?

Yes, the 1995 updated edition. Some folks use NASB or NASV meaning the older version from the 70s.

 

[Rippon]

The NASBU above and the NET below.

Eph. 5:2
walk in love
live in love
1 Cor. 3:10
like a wise master builder
like a skilled master-builder
Luke 1:26
in the sixth month
in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy
Matt. 12:45
The men of Nineva [NIV has men also]
The people of Nineva
Ex. 32:28
The sons of Levi
The Levites
Gen. 6:7
I will blot out man
I will wipe out humankind
Gen. 9:6
Whoever sheds man's blood
Whoever sheds human blood
Job 2:10
Job did not sin with his lips
Job did not sin by what he said

 

[Reformed]

Brother Rippon, just my preference here, but I am not a fan of dynamic equivalent translations like the NIV or NET. Both take an additional interpretive step besides rendering the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern English vernacular. The NASB does get criticism for being a bit wooden, but that is because it attempts to go word-for-word as much as possible.

You made this statement:

The NASBU has its place, but it's not as good for studying purposes as the NET Bible, NIV or even the NLT.

Actually that's not quite accurate. Most of the major conservative seminaries (especially the Reformed ones) use the NASB or ESV in serious exegetical study because they are literal translations, not dynamic equivalents. For personal study I would defer to the reader. Most of the major translations are fine for that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother Rippon, just my preference here, but I am not a fan of dynamic equivalent translations like the NIV or NET. Both take an additional interpretive step besides rendering the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into modern English vernacular. The NASB does get criticism for being a bit wooden, but that is because it attempts to go word-for-word as much as possible.

You made this statement:



Actually that's not quite accurate. Most of the major conservative seminaries (especially the Reformed ones) use the NASB or ESV in serious exegetical study because they are literal translations, not dynamic equivalents. For personal study I would defer to the reader. Most of the major translations are fine for that.

The versions that have taken a formal/literal approach to translating the scriptures, such as the Nasb/Nkjv/Kjv , are best to use when doing serious studies of the Bible, but also profitable to use those versions such as Hcsb/Esv/Niv also...

Think that the nasb/Nkjv best ones that use a formal approach, as to me, the esv claims to be "essentially literal", but falls more into same group as the Hcsb/1984 Niv versions...

 

[Rippon]

Brother Rippon, just my preference here, but I am not a fan of dynamic equivalent translations like the NIV or NET.

Both of the above are not in the dynamic category, although the NET is slightly toward the right of the NIV. They can't be confused with the NLT.

Most of the major conservative seminaries (especially the Reformed ones) use the NASB or ESV in serious exegetical study.

Most of the Reformed-leaning seminaries may use the ESV more often. However, I think the kissing cousin of the ESV --the NRSV, is used more in academic settings.

I found the following snips doing an internet search (can't do google much here):

the NRSV is in use in nearly every accredited seminary

the NRSV is pretty much the standard in seminaries

The NRSV is preferred by most seminarry professors.

Most seminaries use the NRSV as the primary English text.

From Yale to Fuller seminary, the NRSV is a trusted present-day English translation of God's Word.

[The NRSV] is highly recommended for use in Christian seminaries today.

Most seminaries and universities recommend the NRSV translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Both of the above are not in the dynamic category, although the NET is slightly toward the right of the NIV. They can't be confused with the NLT.


Most of the Reformed-leaning seminaries may use the ESV more often. However, I think the kissing cousin of the ESV --the NRSV, is used more in academic settings.

I found the following snips doing an internet search (can't do google much here):

the NRSV is in use in nearly every accredited seminary

the NRSV is pretty much the standard in seminaries

The NRSV is preferred by most seminarry professors.

Most seminaries use the NRSV as the primary English text.

From Yale to Fuller seminary, the NRSV is a trusted present-day English translation of God's Word.

[The NRSV] is highly recommended for use in Christian seminaries today.

Most seminaries and universities recommend the NRSV translation.

Think that if you werr to actually have the baptist/Conservative seminaries checked though, many of them would NOT use the NRSV, as too liberal for their tastes, and would have indeed the nasb/esv/Nkjv instead...

the nrsv would be the version of flavor for the more liberal/critical ones...

 

[InTheLight]

Snips from the NASBU are at the top and snips from the NET Bible are below. It is evident that the NET renderings are better than that of the NASBU.

Acts 11:22
came to the ears of the church
came to the attention of the church

This is hilarious--"ears of the church". LOL.

 

[InTheLight]

The NASBU above and the NET below.

Job 2:10
Job did not sin with his lips
Job did not sin by what he said

Oh, my...that's a dreadful translation by the NASB.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh, my...that's a dreadful translation by the NASB.

How so? The same meaning is kept!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The NASBU above and the NET below.

Eph. 5:2
walk in love
live in love

The Greek is paripateo meaning "walk" or to "make one's way" -- there is no connotation of "living."

1 Cor. 3:10
like a wise master builder
like a skilled master-builder

The Greek is sophos, the root of the word sophia meaning "wisdom." The word itself means "wise" and the subtext of "skilled" applies only to education, as in "skilled in letters, cultivated, learned."

Luke 1:26
in the sixth month
in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy

The addition "of Elizabeth's pregnancy" is understood in the original Greek, but not actually present.

Matt. 12:45
The men of Nineva [NIV has men also]
The people of Nineva

One, it's v. 41, not v. 45, and two, the spelling is "Nineveh." The word is aner which cannot be legitimately translated any other way than "men" or "males."

Ex. 32:28
The sons of Levi
The Levites

The Hebrew ben translated "sons" carries a greater meaning than just offspring. It also speaks to the character of the one so identified. All of the tribe of Levi could be said to be Levites, but not all were of the character of the priesthood of Levi.

Gen. 6:7
I will blot out man
I will wipe out humankind

The Hebrew 'adam. For obvious reasons. You are proving that the NEV chooses political correctness over accuracy by including such verses.

Gen. 9:6
Whoever sheds man's blood
Whoever sheds human blood

Ditto.

Job 2:10
Job did not sin with his lips
Job did not sin by what he said

"Sin with the lips" is a Hebrew idiom that identifies the specific sins of speaking falsehood, bearing false witness, or blasphemy. It identifies the specific sin Job did not commit, as opposed to any number of sins that he could commit through words or actions.

You actually disprove the value of the NEV with this post.

 

[JonC]

You actually disprove the value of the NEV with this post.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

The Greek is paripateo meaning "walk" or to "make one's way" -- there is no connotation of "living."The Greek is sophos, the root of the word sophia meaning "wisdom." The word itself means "wise" and the subtext of "skilled" applies only to education, as in "skilled in letters, cultivated, learned."The addition "of Elizabeth's pregnancy" is understood in the original Greek, but not actually present.One, it's v. 41, not v. 45, and two, the spelling is "Nineveh." The word is aner which cannot be legitimately translated any other way than "men" or "males."The Hebrew ben translated "sons" carries a greater meaning than just offspring. It also speaks to the character of the one so identified. All of the tribe of Levi could be said to be Levites, but not all were of the character of the priesthood of Levi.The Hebrew 'adam. For obvious reasons. You are proving that the NEV chooses political correctness over accuracy by including such verses.Ditto."Sin with the lips" is a Hebrew idiom that identifies the specific sins of speaking falsehood, bearing false witness, or blasphemy. It identifies the specific sin Job did not commit, as opposed to any number of sins that he could commit through words or actions.

You actually disprove the value of the NEV with this post.

good points...

of course, someone could claim that many would not know the hebrew/greek, would misunderstand, so would be "helped" to understand by way it was translated!

 

[Rippon]

The Greek is paripateo meaning "walk" or to "make one's way" -- there is no connotation of "living."

Of course there is a connotation of living here. I think you are more into denotation though. Have you ever heard the expression of "walk the talk" TND? It means live it out.

The Greek is sophos, the root of the word sophia meaning "wisdom." The word itself means "wise" and the subtext of "skilled" applies only to education, as in "skilled in letters, cultivated, learned."

No, TND, you are wrong. It doesn't have the meaning of "wise" but skillful. Some of the following translations bear this out:ESV,NRSV,ISV,GWT, and HCSB.

The addition "of Elizabeth's pregnancy" is understood in the original Greek, but not actually present.

So what's wrong with clarifying?

One, it's v. 41, not v. 45, and two, the spelling is "Nineveh." The word is aner which cannot be legitimately translated any other way than "men" or "males."

Yes, it is Matt. 12:41, and the correct spelling is Nineveh. Although aner usually refers to males --it is not always the case as you have been led to believe. As the NET note says, here it's "used in a generic sense of people in general."

Do you think that only males were converted in Ninevah at that time?

The Hebrew ben translated "sons" carries a greater meaning than just offspring. It also speaks to the character of the one so identified. All of the tribe of Levi could be said to be Levites, but not all were of the character of the priesthood of Levi.

I don't know why this is a problem for you. In verse 27 God ( through Moses)told each man [of the Levites] to strap a sword to his side.

The Hebrew 'adam. For obvious reasons. You are proving that the NEV chooses political correctness over accuracy by including such verses.

Perfect nonsense tnd. Do you think that only males were wiped off the face of the earth during the Great Flood? No, the whole human race with the exception of the seven.

Ditto.

So you are under the impression that only males murder tnd? Whoever, Arminians love the word! ;-) . That means males and females.

"Sin with the lips" is a Hebrew idiom that identifies the specific sins of speaking falsehood, bearing false witness, or blasphemy. It identifies the specific sin Job did not commit, as opposed to any number of sins that he could commit through words or actions.

You are mistaken tnd. It simply means Job did not sin by anything he said.

You actually disprove the value of the NEV with this post.

That's the second time you've called it the NEV. It's the NET.

I trust I have proven how wrong your post has been. But thanks for the effort tnd.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I trust I have proven how wrong your post has been.

How does a petulant "No it's not" disprove anything? That's all you've said throughout, followed by restatements of your original erroneous statements. You have ignored solid hermeneutical and lexical foundations in "disproving" the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words and idioms I've cited, without the support that would actually provide such "disproof." You have also chosen to ignore Hebraic tradition that identifies both the man and his wife, who are "one flesh" by virtue of marriage, in the use of the word "man." But thanks for the effort Rippon. :thumbsup:

 

[Rippon]

How does a petulant "No it's not" disprove anything?

I said you were wrong and mistaken. I then gave reasons why you were in error. That's not childish --that's demonstrating why you are wrong.

You have ignored solid hermeneutical and lexical foundations in "disproving" the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words and idioms I've cited, without the support that would actually provide such "disproof."

I gave support. But you didn't like it. You just don't want to interact with my replies.

You have also chosen to ignore Hebraic tradition that identifies both the man and his wife, who are "one flesh" by virtue of marriage, in the use of the word "man."

Please elaborate. You didn't mention anything about such a subject in your initial post.

Please answer the questions I posed for you in my earlier post.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Here are your responses:

Of course there is a connotation of living here. I think you are more into denotation though. Have you ever heard the expression of "walk the talk" TND? It means live it out.

Sorry, but you can't use a modern English idiom to support the incorrect translation of an ancient Greek passage.

No, TND, you are wrong. It doesn't have the meaning of "wise" but skillful. Some of the following translations bear this out:ESV,NRSV,ISV,GWT, and HCSB.

OK, there's some "support" but it relies on other dynamic translations, which is like using the original text to prove itself. That fails. Check out the Thayer & Smith Greek Dictionary or Zodhiates' Complete Greek Dictionary. Both will prove to you that it means "wise" and the subtext of "skilled" relates only to learnedness, as I said.

So what's wrong with clarifying?

Other than, unlike the NASB using italics in this circumstance, it fails to put the clarification of the addition being understood from the context rather than actually being present in the text? Nothing I suppose. It isn't accurate, though.

Yes, it is Matt. 12:41, and the correct spelling is Nineveh. Although aner usually refers to males --it is not always the case as you have been led to believe. As the NET note says, here it's "used in a generic sense of people in general." Do you think that only males were converted in Ninevah at that time?

As does Thayer & Smith or Zodhiates. But it is the least preferred usage, and it does not fit the context, given that it speaks of a society -- Ninevah -- much like ancient Israel in which the man was the responsible head of the household and in naming him you were also naming his wife. Secondly, when "people" in a general usage was to be used, New Testament writers used almost exclusively the word laos which mean "people" or a "tribe."

I don't know why this is a problem for you. In verse 27 God ( through Moses)told each man [of the Levites] to strap a sword to his side.

Why only the sons of Levi? Why not all the Levites? Or all the men of Israel? The answer is, only men of righteous character could be called upon to carry out the judgment of God. The use of the word ben in this context is extremely important to the text. It indicates the character of the men called upon to bring the judgment on God's behalf. It shouldn't be translated willy-nilly for "ease of readability."

Perfect nonsense tnd. Do you think that only males were wiped off the face of the earth during the Great Flood? No, the whole human race with the exception of the seven.
---
So you are under the impression that only males murder tnd? Whoever, Arminians love the word! ;-) . That means males and females.

Again, this is indicative of your lack of knowledge about how word 'adam was used. Up until 20 or so years ago, the English word "man" was often used to identify the entire race. Now the feminists have won over through political correctness and have forced the more awkward and non-traditional usage of "humankind" or "the human race." So apparently you prefer translations that choose political correctness over accuracy by using the same lexical processes of the Hebrew when coverting it into English.

]You are mistaken tnd. It simply means Job did not sin by anything he said.

No proof. Just a statement. And it is the information that is wrong. You cannot refute the necessity of translating the Hebrew idiom as it was originally written so as to specifically identify the kind of sin Job did not commit.

That's the second time you've called it the NEV. It's the NET.

The NASB gets called the NASV or simply the NAS. So what?

I trust I have proven how wrong your post has been. But thanks for the effort tnd.

Again, you proved nothing and never really attempted to provide any.