NET Bible Vs. NASBU

[Rippon]

NASB at the top, and the NET below.

Acts 21:39
a citizen of no insignificant city
a citizen of an important city

Matt. 5:2
He opened his mouth and began to teach them, saying
Then he began to teach them by saying:

Is. 6:10
Render...their ears dull
make their ears deaf

Ps. 10:4
in the haughtiness of his contenance
is so arrogant

Ps. 11:6
and burning wind will be the portion of their cup
A whirlwind is what they deserve

1 Cor. 1:18
For the word of the cross
For the message about the cross

Matt. 22:36
which is the great commandment in the law?
which commandment in the law is the greatest?

 

[Van]

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.

This is a typical misinformation post:

1) The actual idea is word for word versus thought for thought is "less" interpretive, rather than not interpretive. Strike one.
2) Second, a word for word philosophy translation can indeed lose or distort meaning, but the idea is that this is less likely than with a thought for thought translation philosophy. Strike two​

The Unreformed advocates of translation priests, who present their thoughts on God's inspired text, offer the same malarkey as Priests who read scripture in Latin, then explained it to the masses in their language.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Van, if I want word-for-word, is the NASV my best bet?

 

[franklinmonroe]

This is a typical misinformation post:

1) The actual idea is word for word versus thought for thought is "less" interpretive, rather than not interpretive. Strike one.
2) Second, a word for word philosophy translation can indeed lose or distort meaning, but the idea is that this is less likely than with a thought for thought translation philosophy. Strike two​

I think Mounce would agree that Formal Equivalence is less interpretive than Dynamic Equivalence. In fact, Mounce does not state in that quote that FE is
less interpretive. He is only making the point that word-for-word is not completely without interpretation. 'Literal' is not nearly as literal as many people think.

The Unreformed advocates of translation priests, who present their thoughts on God's inspired text, offer the same malarkey as Priests who read scripture in Latin, then explained it to the masses in their language.

I'm sorry I don't understand what your meaning is supposed to be. Could you explain yourself? Thanks!

 

[Van]

By the 16th century the view is gaining ground that a personal knowledge of scripture is precisely what ordinary people most need for their own spiritual good. Erasmus, though he himself translates the New Testament only from Greek into Latin, expresses in his preface of 1516 the wish that the holy text should be in every language - so that even Scots and Irishmen might read it.

In the next decade this wish becomes a central demand of the Reformation. Fortunately writers with a vigorous style undertake the task. Notable among them are Luther and Tyndale.

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66#ixzz38MOl9zb8

 

[Rippon]

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac66#ixzz38MOl9zb8

Van, your post in response to what?

 

[Van]

Prior to the Reformation, certain folks thought scripture should be kept from the people, making the people dependent upon the Priest who would tell them what it said, even when it said no such thing.

Today we have those advocating that we need thought for thought translators to tell us what scripture says, even when it says no such thing.

Perhaps the dots are so far apart, no one can connect them.

 

[Van]

Van, if I want word-for-word, is the NASV my best bet?

Yes, I think the NASB95 is the best as far as being transparent concerning the grammar and historical word meanings. But it certainly is far from perfect, so your best bet would be to study the NASB and compare with the NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB. Sometimes the message will be clouded by just looking at one translation in isolation. Many times the NASB will be ambiguous, i.e. "love of God" meaning either our love toward God or God's love toward us. The NET works hard at presenting these "of" phrases with clarity. For example see John 6:29 in the NASB and the NET. Quite a difference.

 

[Rippon]

Prior to the Reformation, certain folks thought scripture should be kept from the people, making the people dependent upon the Priest who would tell them what it said, even when it said no such thing.

It wasn't only prior to the Reformation. Remember, William Tyndale was strangled and then sent to the flames in 1536 --19 years after the Reformation started. His crime? He translated the Scripture for the common person.

Today we have those advocating that we need thought for thought translators to tell us what scripture says, even when it says no such thing.

You're confused. Tyndale, Luther and even Purvey, more than a century before, advocated a sense-for-sense way of translating.

 

[Van]

The Unreformed now claim Tyndale, Luther and Purvey, advocated paraphrase.

Following Luther, Tyndale was convinced that the doc
trine of the priesthood of all believers implies that all believers should read Scriptures for themselves. In England the conviction that all should
have direct access to the Word of God had been expressed by John Wycliffe already in the fourteenth century. But early in the fifteenth century a law had been passed which forbade the translation of Scriptures into the vernacular without special permission of the Church. It was for legal as well as theological reasons, therefore, that Tyndale wrote about the priesthood of all believers in Obedience of a Christian Man (1528). He states that “by the plain scriptures, and by the circumstances of the text, we should judge all men’s exposition, and all men’s doctrine, and should receive the best, and refuse the worst.” Pursuing the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers to its conclusion, Tyndale felt compelled to produce an English version of the Bible:

“I have perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text.”​

According to Tyndale, on the other hand, it is Roman Catholic interpreters who, when “their Holy Ghost moveth them” to defy the explicit sense of scripture, make it “a nose of wax, and wrest it this way and that way, till it agree”

When the NIV translates "from" as "before" they create a "nose of wax."

 

[Yeshua1]

I think Mounce would agree that Formal Equivalence is less interpretive than Dynamic Equivalence. In fact, Mounce does not state in that quote that FE is
less interpretive. He is only making the point that word-for-word is not completely without interpretation. 'Literal' is not nearly as literal as many people think.

I'm sorry I don't understand what your meaning is supposed to be. Could you explain yourself? Thanks!

Think that he is back to banging the drum for the "truth" that calvinists, under the guise of better explaining the Bible to us, gave us the inferior Niv/esv versions!

 

[Rippon]

Van, your last post contained a quote that was unrelated to your comments. Please try to explain yourself.

And will you acknowledge that it was not just before the Reformation that the Bible was withheld from the common people --but during the Reformation?

 

[Van]

Rippon, I am not interested in your change the subject questions. I explained my view. I believe your view is like the pre-reformation view, that the Bible must be explained by men, rather than given to lay people to study. But when you hide that scripture says "from" and present the explanation that it says "before" so as to match your church doctrine. you are behaving exactly like the pre-reformation church.

 

[Rippon]

It wasn't only prior to the Reformation. Remember, William Tyndale was strangled and then sent to the flames in 1536 --19 years after the Reformation started. His crime? He translated the Scripture for the common person.

So you were wrong about it happening only in pre-Reformation times but you are too stubborn to admit it Van.

You're confused. Tyndale, Luther and even Purvey, more than a century before, advocated a sense-for-sense way of translating.

That's right.

 

[Rippon]

NASB above.
NET below.

Acts 7:19
expose their infants
abandon their infants

Acts 7:21
Pharaoh's daughter took him away
Pharaoh's daughter adopted him

2 Tim. 1:15
all who are in Asia
everyone in the province of Asia

2 Thess. 3:8
nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it
and we did not eat anyone's food without paying

Ro. 11:25
the fullness of the Gentiles
the full number of the Gentiles

1 Pe. 3:2
chaste
pure

Matt. 8:28
the country of the Gadarenes
the region of the Gadarenes

Matt. 2:23
city
town

Luke 24:37
thought they were seeing a spirit
thinking they saw a ghost

 

[Yeshua1]

Rippon, I am not interested in your change the subject questions. I explained my view. I believe your view is like the pre-reformation view, that the Bible must be explained by men, rather than given to lay people to study. But when you hide that scripture says "from" and present the explanation that it says "before" so as to match your church doctrine. you are behaving exactly like the pre-reformation church.

So you ARE saying, once again, that those evil calvinists intentionally mistranslated certain berses in both the Esv/Niv, correct?

 

[Van]

Hi Yeshua1, so you ARE asking yet another question calculated to suggest I hold a view you invented. Are you unreformed too? Do you hold the view, also held by IntheLight and Rippon, that we need Priests (translators that tell us what God must have meant inlight of man-made doctrine?)

Thus they correct God's word, and change from to before, because they say God's word is absurd when it deviates from their man-made doctrine.

See either the ESV or NIV at Revelation 13:8 for an unreformed translation example.

 

[Rippon]

Van, you're not making any sense. You are at the Vanguard of lost and pointless causes.

Come back to the subject of the NET Bible vs. the NASBU.

It seems that though you value these two versions highly --they vary a good deal from one another. If you would research things a bit you would discover that the NET readings are quite related to 2011 NIV renderings. But for you to admit that (for you never err) your whole premise that the 2011 NIV is so bad would vanish by virture of sheer inconsistency on your part.

 

[Van]

I see the fount of disinformation has once again slandered me with the charge that I do not think I make mistakes. A broken record folks, repeating falsehoods one after the other.

The Reformation was the result in part in rejecting the idea that scripture should be reserved for the Priests, and advocating the idea scripture should be made available to the common man. Now, some unreformed advocate keeping what scripture actually says from bible students, and instead providing them with what the men think it says, even when it says no such thing.

Many examples show where men have removed part of scripture, i.e. the word bread, and inserted the word food. They say we are so stupid we cannot grasp that bread was food in the 1st century.

With friends like these, we do not need enemies of the gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

I see the fount of disinformation has once again slandered me with the charge that I do not think I make mistakes. A broken record folks, repeating falsehoods one after the other.

The Reformation was the result in part in rejecting the idea that scripture should be reserved for the Priests, and advocating the idea scripture should be made available to the common man. Now, some unreformed advocate keeping what scripture actually says from bible students, and instead providing them with what the men think it says, even when it says no such thing.

Many examples show where men have removed part of scripture, i.e. the word bread, and inserted the word food. They say we are so stupid we cannot grasp that bread was food in the 1st century.

With friends like these, we do not need enemies of the gospel.

Are calvinists enemies of the Gospel to you then?