NET Bible Vs. NASBU

[Yeshua1]

Here are your responses:Sorry, but you can't use a modern English idiom to support the incorrect translation of an ancient Greek passage.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.Other than, unlike the NASB, 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.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."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."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.No proof. Just a statement. And it is the information that is wrong.The NASB gets called the NASV or simply the NAS. So what?Again, you proved nothing and never really attempted to provide any.

If you keep this up, you will prove just why the revision from the 1984 Niv edition was not needed, as that version took less liberties with the original texts!

 

[Rippon]

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

You speak in a confusing manner. "A modern English idiom." The word 'live' is not an idiom. It is a translation of an ancient Greek text. How is it incorrect?

To walk as many translations render many Bible passages (the NIV uses it hundreds of times) is fine. But it means the way in which we live or conduct our lives. Live in such a way as to...

OK, there's some "support" but it relies on other dynamic translations, which is like using the original text to prove itself.

Huh? I cited the ESV,NRSV and HCSB. They are certainly not dynamic.

it means "wise" and the subtext of "skilled" relates only to learnedness, as I said.

Using skilled or expert is perfectly acceptable. Skilled does not relate only to learnedness. As a matter of fact. I think you know this. Check out some famous Old Testament passages in which modern versions use the word skilled. See if it has anything to do with learnedness. You leave yourself wide open when you insist it relates only to learnedness.

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?

Speaking of needing clarification --could you run that past me one more time? Please rephrase.

It isn't accurate, though.

So you assert.

But it is the least preferred usage,

Preferred by you at least.

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.

Of course it fits the context. The people, the society of Ninevah are the ones referenced. The Darby New Testament, which is considered to be even more literal than the ASV has it simply rendered "Ninevites" not men or males.

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.

Really? Almost exclusively, huh? At least you have not taken an absolutest stance as you did earlier.

Do some more research and you'll find that the use of the word people in the N.T. is not relegated to the translation of the word laos.

It shouldn't be translated willy-nilly for "ease of readability.

You see, here is where you foul up. Your allegation is senseless. I wish you had a sit-down with the translators and tell them the same thing face-to-face. You need to eat some humble pie tnd.

Up until 20 or so years ago, the English word "man" was often used to identify the entire race.

That's true.

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."

You are engaging in senselessness once more tnd. All languages change over the course of time. The feminists are a minority. They did not single-handedly bring about the prevailing current use of human race,humanity,people or any other words that you are uncomfortable with due to your sentimental attachment with tradition.

So apparently you prefer translations that choose political correctness over accuracy

What is apparent is that you have no sound discernment so you want to sling mud instead.

by using the same lexical processes of the Hebrew when coverting it into English.

That's not how translation is done. Sure lexicons are necessary in translations. But the process is not done in such a mechanical manner.

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.

Sure I can refute it. There are many idioms that cannot be translated literally. There are others such as this one that should not be translated literally because Old Testament idioms do not mean what they say.

Simply put --Job did not sin by anything he said. It's not complicated tnd.

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

It's just that you are the only one who has called it the NEV --that's all.

 

[InTheLight]

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

It shouldn't be translated willy-nilly for "ease of readability."

I want to address this. If you leave idiomatic expressions of the 1st century and earlier literally translated (as you seem to be suggesting) rather than translating it for the modern reader you will have this sort of thing happening:

Matt 10:27 (the phrase "hear in ear")
What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye on the houses. [Geneva Bible]

What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops. [NASB, note italics]

What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. [NIV]


Matt 23:32
Fulfill ye also the measure of your fathers. [Geneva Bible]

Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. [NASB, note italics]

Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! [NIV]


The Geneva translation makes no sense, the NASB uses added words to the literal translation to kind of make sense, the NIV accurately describes what Matthew is trying to convey in modern language.

The question is: Do we want the reader to understand what the writer is saying or do we want to faithfully render the most literal translation to "be true to the original Greek", even if that leaves the reader scratching his head?

 

[Rippon]

I want to address this. If you leave idiomatic expressions of the 1st century and earlier literally translated (as you seem to be suggesting) rather than translating it for the modern reader you will have this sort of thing happening:

Those were good examples itl.

The question is: Do we want the reader to understand what the writer is saying or do we want to faithfully render the most literal translation to "be true to the original Greek", even if that leaves the reader scratching his head?

Very compelling itl. Unfortunately some will just not get it.

 

[Rippon]

The word is aner which cannot be legitimately translated any other way than "men" or "males.

You made the above comment regarding Matthew 12:41.
From the wonderful little book called How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss.
"In some passages it is difficult to determine whether the reference is to men only or to both men and women. In such cases translators must make a decision based on a careful examination of the context. While the Greek noun aner (plural:andres) normally means 'man,' in some contexts it may refer to people in general. For example, in Matthew 12:41 Jesus says, 'the men [andres] of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it' (NIV; cf. RSV, NASU,HCSB). Since females were among those converted at Nineveh, the sense here seems to be 'people' (TNIV, NET, NKLT, GNT, CEV, NCV,NRSV)." (p.102)

The Hebrew 'adam.

The above was reference you made to Gen. 6:7. Indeed, the Hebrew adam.

"The Hebrew term adam, like the Greek anthropos, usually carries an inclusive sense,referring to both men and women. When in Genesis 6:7 the Lord says, 'I will blot out man [adam] whom I have created' (NASU;cf. NKJV,ESV,RSV, HCSB), it is both males and females who will be judged. The NLT accurately renders, 'I will completely wipe out this huiman race that I hav ecreated' (cf. TNIV, NET, GW, GNT,CEV). The phrase, 'Whoever sheds the blood of man [adam]' in Genesis 9:6 (ESV) means 'whoever sheds human blood' (TNIV; cf. NLT, NRSV, GW)." (p. 99 of the same book by Fee and Strauss).

 

[Yeshua1]

[/SIZE]
You made the above comment regarding Matthew 12:41.
From the wonderful little book called How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth, by Gordon Fee and Mark L. Strauss.
"In some passages it is difficult to determine whether the reference is to men only or to both men and women. In such cases translators must make a decision based on a careful examination of the context. While the Greek noun aner (plural:andres) normally means 'man,' in some contexts it may refer to people in general. For example, in Matthew 12:41 Jesus says, 'the men [andres] of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it' (NIV; cf. RSV, NASU,HCSB). Since females were among those converted at Nineveh, the sense here seems to be 'people' (TNIV, NET, NKLT, GNT, CEV, NCV,NRSV)." (p.102)


The above was reference you made to Gen. 6:7. Indeed, the Hebrew adam.

"The Hebrew term adam, like the Greek anthropos, usually carries an inclusive sense,referring to both men and women. When in Genesis 6:7 the Lord says, 'I will blot out man [adam] whom I have created' (NASU;cf. NKJV,ESV,RSV, HCSB), it is both males and females who will be judged. The NLT accurately renders, 'I will completely wipe out this huiman race that I hav ecreated' (cf. TNIV, NET, GW, GNT,CEV). The phrase, 'Whoever sheds the blood of man [adam]' in Genesis 9:6 (ESV) means 'whoever sheds human blood' (TNIV; cf. NLT, NRSV, GW)." (p. 99 of the same book by Fee and Strauss).

Again, b y the contex and the meaning intended of the passage, it is very clear whether God meant men specific, or humans in general, so no need to have it retranslated for sake of being politically correct now!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This might blow the minds of some who seem to think the HCSB or the ESV are more dynamic than formal in their equivalence. They are not. Meanwhile, the NIV and TNIV are nearly identical in their "thought-for-thought" translation concepts, rendering them as questionable as to accuracy, though readability is unquestioned.

I have to wonder, though, if you can read and understand this ...

2 Corinthians 10, TNIV
3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. ​

... what makes you think you can't read and understand this?

2 Corinthians 10, NASB
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,
4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, ​

Beyond the fact that the TNIV makes is seem that Paul was talking about merely being alive in the world rather than what he actually said, which was warning of spiritual dichotomies between the world and our walk with Christ, there is little to quibble about in the rendering of either passage. There is room for misunderstanding in the TNIV translation, but thinking through it will probably lead most Christians to the correct interpretation, and the unbeliever won't grasp the meaning behind either translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

This might blow the minds of some who seem to think the HCSB or the ESV are more dynamic than formal in their equivalence. They are not. Meanwhile, the NIV and TNIV are nearly identical in their "thought-for-thought" translation concepts, rendering them as questionable as to accuracy, though readability is unquestioned.

I have to wonder, though, if you can read and understand this ...

2 Corinthians 10, TNIV
3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. ​

... what makes you think you can't read and understand this?

2 Corinthians 10, NASB
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,
4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, ​

Beyond the fact that the TNIV makes is seem that Paul was talking about merely being alive in the world rather than what he actually said, which was warning of spiritual dichotomies between the world and our walk with Christ, there is little to quibble about in the rendering of either passage. There is room for misunderstanding in the TNIV translation, but thinking through it will probably lead most Christians to the correct interpretation, and the unbeliever won't grasp the meaning behind either translation.

Think that would be the Nasv that I use, 1977 edition, as the 1995 revision , while still very good, seemed to get more like the Esv!

 

[Rippon]

This might blow the minds of some who seem to think the HCSB or the ESV are more dynamic than formal in their equivalence.

I seriously doubt an old, often-seen chart will blow anyone's mind. And I don't know of anyone on the BB who thinks that the ESV and HCSB are more dynamic than formal.

But a few corrections should be noted.

The ESV and NRSV are siblings and should be much closer on the chart.

The HCSB should be placed within the balanced translations.

The NJB should be several clicks to the right of the NIV/TNIV.

The NCV/ICB should be to the right of the NLT.

The NKJV should be moved a slight bit to the left of the NASB.

Meanwhile, the NIV and TNIV are nearly identical in their "thought-for-thought" translation concepts, rendering them as questionable as to accuracy, though readability is unquestioned.

Even this old chart, as error-filled as it is, does not place the NIV and TNIV in the T-F-T realm. And they are not in the W-F-W area either. How in the world you make your determinations is puzzling.

And by what authority are you judging the 84 NIV and TNIV to be "questionable as to accuracy' tnd?

2 Corinthians 10, TNIV
​

3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.
​

​

Beyond the fact that the TNIV makes is seem that Paul was talking about merely being alive in the world rather than what he actually said, which was warning of spiritual dichotomies between the world and our walk with Christ,

The rendering above and your comments on the same are diametrically opposed to one another.

It makes me wonder if you can understand basic English.

There is room for misunderstanding in the TNIV translation,

The only one who is "misunderstanding" elementary English is tnd.

 

[Yeshua1]

Think the 1977 edition of the Nas would be first one listed, then Nkjv. then 1995 Nasb...

And see the Hcsb being basically a more literal translation to some degree of the same class as the Niv

 

[Rippon]

The NASB snip will be above and the NET extract will be below.

These items are from Acts.

1:9
a cloud received Him out of their sight
a cloud hid him from their sight

1:15
in the midst of the brethren
among believers

The remaining snips are from chapter 2.

vs 3
And there appeared to them tongues as of fire
And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them

7
Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
aren't all these who are speaking Galileans?

12
they all continued in amazement and great perplexity
All were astounded and greatly confused

15
it is only the third hour of the day
it is only nine o'clock in the morning

24
received his word
accepted his message

 

[Rippon]

The NASB clip will be atop the NET snip.

Deut. 15:7
nor close your hand from your poor brother
or be insensitive to his impoverished condition

Jer. 12:6
have dealt treacherously with you. Even they have cried aloud after you.
have betrayed you too. Even they have plotted to do away with you.

Jer. 12:2
You are near to their lips,but far from their mind.
They always talk about you,but they really care nothing about you.

Esther 2:21
sought to lay hands on
plotted to assassinate

 

[Rippon]

Snips from the NASB above and snips from the NET Bible below.

Luke 7:1
all his discourse in the hearing of the people
all this to the people

Is. 22:17
O man. And He is about to grasp you firmly.
you mere man! He will wrap you up tightly.

Phil. 4:11
Not that I speak from want
I am not saying this because I am in need

Phil 4:12
learned the secret of being filled and going hungry,both of having abundance and suffering need
learned the secret of being content --whether I go satisfied or hungry, have plenty or nothing.

 

[Van]

Repeated and repeated in various formulas, here is what the advocates of paraphrase claim:

The question is: Do we want the reader to understand what the writer is saying or do we want to faithfully render the most literal translation to "be true to the original Greek", even if that leaves the reader scratching his head?

They think they should remove what God inspired, and insert what they believe is a modern equivant. But a literal translation would preserve the idiomatic phrase, so any allusion to other scriptural passages using the same phrase is preserved.

At its core, they are saying you, the bible student, cannot be trusted to figure out what God is saying, these modern day Priests need to stand between you and God's word, and tell you what God wants you to know.
Lets refer to Rippon and In the Light as "UnReformed."

 

[InTheLight]

Lets refer to Rippon and In the Light as "UnReformed."

Killfile for thee.

 

[Rippon]

NASB extract at ther top and NET snip below.

Ps. 94:9
He who planted the ear
the one who makes the ear

Pro. 30:26
The shephanim are not mighty people
rack badgers are creatures with little power

Hosea 8:4
I did not know it
without my approval

Amos 4:6
I gave you also cleannes of teeth
I gave you no food to eat

Gal. 6:12
a good showing in the flesh
a good showing in external matters

1 Tim. 3:8
not double-tongued
not two-faced

 

[Yeshua1]

NASB extract at ther top and NET snip below.

Ps. 94:9
He who planted the ear
the one who makes the ear

Pro. 30:26
The shephanim are not mighty people
rack badgers are creatures with little power

Hosea 8:4
I did not know it
without my approval

Amos 4:6
I gave you also cleannes of teeth
I gave you no food to eat

Gal. 6:12
a good showing in the flesh
a good showing in external matters

1 Tim. 3:8
not double-tongued
not two-faced

All of those snippits do support the Nasb being more literal translation of the two!

 

[franklinmonroe]

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

That is only your opinion. It certainly is not mine. By the way, it's the NET (not NEV).

Your post (#14) demonstrates you have the ability to locate words in a lexicon. But it also exposes your lack of knowledge about translation. The term "literal" in relation to Bible translation is often misunderstood. William D. Mounce (a conservative evangelical translator) wrote this about formal equivalence (or, 'literal' translation) --

Let me give you two problems of the "word-for-word" approach. The first is that it is interpretive. The very reason people want a word-for-word translation is that they believe that there's not going to be any interpretation, and that simply is not true. All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretive. (p24) ... A second problem of going word for word is that, frankly, word-for-word translation can lose or distort meaning. ... (p26, Greek for the Rest of Us)​

And Bill Mounce actually favors the formal equivalent Bibles over those of dynamic/functional equivalency.

 

[Rippon]

That is only your opinion. It certainly is not mine. By the way, it's the NET (not NEV).

Your post (#14) demonstrates you have the ability to locate words in a lexicon. But it also exposes your lack of knowledge about translation. The term "literal" in relation to Bible translation is often misunderstood. William D. Mounce (a conservative evangelical translator) wrote this about formal equivalence (or, 'literal' translation) --

Let me give you two problems of the "word-for-word" approach. The first is that it is interpretive. The very reason people want a word-for-word translation is that they believe that there's not going to be any interpretation, and that simply is not true. All translation involves interpretation. It is impossible to translate without being interpretive. (p24) ... A second problem of going word for word is that, frankly, word-for-word translation can lose or distort meaning. ... (p26, Greek for the Rest of Us)
​

And Bill Mounce actually favors the formal equivalent Bibles over those of dynamic/functional equivalency.

Thanks Franklin,for the added perspective of Mounce which needs to be understood by many Christains these days.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks Franklin,for the added perspective of Mounce which needs to be understood by many Christains these days.

Assuming that one has sufficient reading and understand levels though, would see the versions such as the Nasb/Nkjv as being best for serious studying of the Bible, and that the Niv/esv are also suitable to be used along with one of those other two!