NET Bible Vs. NASBU

[Van]

Anyone can concoct questions calculated to change the subject from the thread topic to the behavior and character of an opponent. You will know them by their fruits. They ask questions, but do not answer them.

Should a translation be as transparent as possible, presenting God's message with the least distortion, and most clarity? Yes!!

Should God's word be altered, changing bread to food, from to before, and so forth. Nope!!

The NASB95 has plenty of faults, and could be improved greatly. However, it remains the best English translation available, presenting the historical word meanings and grammar of the inspired word more closely than other less word for word and more thought for thought translations, such as the NIV, and the ESV. The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar and the NIV makes wholesale changes in the text.

The NET is a sound translation, and is one I recommend to be used in comparison with the NASB95.

 

[Rippon]

Many examples show where men have removed part of scripture, i.e. the word bread, and inserted the word food.

Do you think that the NET Bible "removed part of Scripture" when its rendering of 2 Thess. 3:8 used the word 'food' and not the word 'bread' Van?

They say we are so stupid we cannot grasp that bread was food in the 1st century.

I'd say that someone is on the daft side when he can't grasp that the word food is perfectly acceptable. It's not that bread was food in the first century --it's the case that the word bread was used to mean food, i.e. sustenance.

You have made an absurd charge that substituting the word food for the word bread constitutes removing part of Scripture. Just think of it : Van,the upholder of orthodoxy. It is an imponderable.

 

[Rippon]

The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar

Please furnish examples.

and the NIV makes wholesale changes in the text.

Every single translation from the original languages to target languages make changes to the text --that's why they are called translations. If by that you are claiming that the NIV has been unfaithful in its transmission of the originals you need to document because that is a sinful charge.

And you may not be aware, but the word wholesale means something bad on a wide scale.

The NET is a sound translation, and is one I recommend to be used in comparison with the NASB95.

The NET Bible is very much like the NIV --so you're hypocritical. You'd be forced to say the NIV is a sound translation.

 

[Van]

Why should I furnish examples, Rippon, you are the one who provided the quote that referred to a great many "grammatical transformations."

The NIV disqualified itself by translating from as before. Any translation that reads "before" at Revelation 13:8 is worthless as a study bible. Does the NIV do a better job than the NET sometimes? Yes. But, it is like a husband that is faithful to his wife 11 months out of the year.

By the way, the NET footnotes are better than those in the NIV study bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why should I furnish examples, Rippon, you are the one who provided the quote that referred to a great many "grammatical transformations."

The NIV disqualified itself by translating from as before. Any translation that reads "before" at Revelation 13:8 is worthless as a study bible. Does the NIV do a better job than the NET sometimes? Yes. But, it is like a husband that is faithful to his wife 11 months out of the year.

By the way, the NET footnotes are better than those in the NIV study bible.

Better in what way? The notes in the Niv Study bible perhaps overall best in any bible!

 

[Rippon]

Why should I furnish examples, Rippon, you are the one who provided the quote that referred to a great many "grammatical transformations."

You had said "The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar." I asked you to demonstate --to back up your assertion. Then, in reply you claim I provided "the quote." Please quote the quote. If not, you are blowing smoke...again.

 

[Rippon]

NASB at the top, and the NET snip below.

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

1 Tim. 6:5
who suppose godliness is a means of gain
who suppose that godliness is a way to make a profit

Gal. 3:5
or by hearing with faith?
or by your believing what you heard?

 

[Van]

Better in what way? The notes in the Niv Study bible perhaps overall best in any bible!

This is the sort of fabrication from whole cloth assertion often found on this forum. Has he compared the NIV study notes with the ESV study notes? With the Life Application study notes? With the Ryrie study notes? Not to mention the NET footnotes.

 

[Van]

Why should I furnish examples, Rippon, you are the one who provided the quote that referred to a great many "grammatical transformations."

You had said "The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar." I asked you to demonstate --to back up your assertion. Then, in reply you claim I provided "the quote." Please quote the quote. If not, you are blowing smoke...again.

People believe the mantra that it is "essentially literal." Although, as Moises Silva has said:"The unwary reader can hardly suspect how many major syntactical transformations are adopted by the ESV."

Rippon made the statement on page 12 of the ESV thread, post #114.

 

[Yeshua1]

This is the sort of fabrication from whole cloth assertion often found on this forum. Has he compared the NIV study notes with the ESV study notes? With the Life Application study notes? With the Ryrie study notes? Not to mention the NET footnotes.

Yes to all but the NET footnotes!

 

[Rippon]

Has he compared the NIV study notes with the ESV study notes? With the Life Application study notes? With the Ryrie study notes? Not to mention the NET footnotes.

That is not the purpose of this thread. That's why it is imporant to contribute to the theme of a given thread and not go on side-trails.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is not the purpose of this thread. That's why it is imporant to contribute to the theme of a given thread and not go on side-trails.

That is next to impossible on this Board though, as that would make it less interesting and engaging!

 

[Van]

That is not the purpose of this thread. That's why it is imporant to contribute to the theme of a given thread and not go on side-trails.

I see Rippon continues to blow smoke. I was responding to Yeshua1, yet Rippon attacks me for the same topic initiated by Yeshua1.

Folks, a study bible is more than a bible where you study the commentary provided in the study notes. It is a bible you actually use to study God's word. To do that you need a bible that uses the word for word translation philosophy, not the thought for thought rewrites of men.

Translations that stick to the grammar and historical word meanings, and not translations that change since or after to before to make the translation agree with man-made doctrine. [attack on good translations snipped]. Stick with the NASB95 and do comparisons with the NET, NKJV, HCSB and WEB.

The topic of the OP is a comparison of the NET to the NASB and the footnotes of the NET are superior to the footnotes of the NIV every which way.

 

[Rippon]

Translations that intentionally corrupt God's word, like the NLT, ESV and NIV are worthless as study bibles.

You are breaking BB rules and sinning up a storm in the process.

the footnotes of the NET are superior to the footnotes of the NIV every which way.

The topic is a comparison between the text of the NASB and NET Bible. Take your side-trails and put them in threads of your own. Stick to the OP.

 

[Rippon]

You had said "The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar."

Van, your claim of "The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar" does not = "major syntactical transformations."

Your translations are very free --recklessly so.

But Silva was not condemning the ESV at all for the necessity for making major syntactical transformations" --he was applauding it. The only thing he objected to was the false advertising of the ESV indicating that it was not into that.

I will start another thread on the subject with Silva expanding on the subject. I don't want to derail my own thread. Let's keep to the focus of the OP.

 

[Van]

You are breaking BB rules and sinning up a storm in the process.

The topic is a comparison between the text of the NASB and NET Bible. Take your side-trails and put them in threads of your own. Stick to the OP.

Note Rippon bashes me which is totally off topic but seems not be see his behavior as hypocritical. Go figure.

When others introduce these supposed side issues he remains silent. Go figure some more.

Me thinks he protests too much.

Should a translation be as transparent as possible, presenting God's message with the least distortion, and most clarity? Yes!!

Should God's word be altered, changing bread to food, from to before, and so forth. Nope!!

The NASB95 has plenty of faults, and could be improved greatly. However, it remains the best English translation available, presenting the historical word meanings and grammar of the inspired word more closely than other less word for word and more thought for thought translations, such as the NIV, and the ESV. The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar and the NIV makes wholesale changes in the text.

The NET is a sound translation, and is one I recommend to be used in comparison with the NASB95.

If anyone thinks major syntactical transformations does not equate with wholesale changes in grammar, I have a bridge in Brooklyn fore-sale.

 

[Rippon]

but seems not be see

Huh?

Should a translation be as transparent as possible, presenting God's message with the least distortion, and most clarity? Yes!!

That's the aim of all good translations.

The NASB95 has plenty of faults,

The NET is a sound translation, and is one I recommend to be used in comparison with the NASB95.

You are inconsistent as I have demonstrated time and time again Van. The numerous comparisons I have listed comparing NET Bible renderings with that of the NASB evidences the fact that the two translations bare little similarity. In fact the NET readings show a marked kinship with the NIV. But if they do, in fact, show that --then the premise that Van is hung up on vanishes with the wind. He keeps promoting the NET Bible as a good translation and yet bashes the NIV repeatedly. Inconsistency thy name is Van.

 

[Rippon]

NASB at the top and the NET snip below.

Acts 21:5
When our days there were ended
When our time was over

Ro. 15:13
peace in believing
peace as you believe in him

Phil. 2:29
Receive him then in the Lord with all joy
So welcome him in the Lord with great joy

1 Tim. 3:6
fall into the condemnation
fall into the punishment

1 Tim. 5:19
Do not receive an accusation
Do not accept an accusation

1 Cor. 6:1
dare to go to law
does he dare to go to court

1 Cor. 15:58
always abounding in the work of the Lord
Always be outstanding in the work of the Lord

 

[Van]

You are inconsistent as I have demonstrated time and time again Van.

You make your groundless charge again and again, thinking the use of logical fallacies somehow bolsters your bogus views. Twaddle

The numerous comparisons I have listed comparing NET Bible renderings with that of the NASB evidences the fact that the two translations bare little similarity.

One could easily find verse after verse when the NASB95 and NET use exactly the same phrase. Any objective reader would see your "evidence" as a joke.

In fact the NET readings show a marked kinship with the NIV. But if they do, in fact, show that --then the premise that Van is hung up on vanishes with the wind. He keeps promoting the NET Bible as a good translation and yet bashes the NIV repeatedly. Inconsistency thy name is Van.

My point exactly, the NET is more of a thought for thought translation, akin to the NIV, than a word for word translation philosophy version. But the NET does not disqualify itself with numerous mistranslations to be consistent with Calvinism. A few, yes, but contains nowhere near the number of malfeasances contained in the ESV, NIV and NLT.

 

[Yeshua1]

Note Rippon bashes me which is totally off topic but seems not be see his behavior as hypocritical. Go figure.

When others introduce these supposed side issues he remains silent. Go figure some more.

Me thinks he protests too much.

Should a translation be as transparent as possible, presenting God's message with the least distortion, and most clarity? Yes!!

Should God's word be altered, changing bread to food, from to before, and so forth. Nope!!

The NASB95 has plenty of faults, and could be improved greatly. However, it remains the best English translation available, presenting the historical word meanings and grammar of the inspired word more closely than other less word for word and more thought for thought translations, such as the NIV, and the ESV. The ESV makes wholesale changes in grammar and the NIV makes wholesale changes in the text.

The NET is a sound translation, and is one I recommend to be used in comparison with the NASB95.

If anyone thinks major syntactical transformations does not equate with wholesale changes in grammar, I have a bridge in Brooklyn fore-sale.

Think the 1977 edition of the Nas is superior to the revised one for serious bible studing, and agree with Rippon, that if you like the Net bible, you should also like the Niv!