NET Bible Vs. NASBU

[Van]

So you think a biased bible should be liked like a relatively unbiased bible. Not very discerning.

Second the NASB95 is superior to the 1977 edition, because it dropped the KJV thees and thous. But if you want to present actual examples where the 1977 presents "superior" translations of verses, over the 1995 edition, have at it. Otherwise, it is just yet another assertion devoid of any basis in reality.

 

[JonC]

So you think a biased bible should be liked like a relatively unbiased bible.

"unbiased bible"?

 

[Rippon]

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

Just pointing out your very obvious inconsistencies Van.

One could easily find verse after verse when the NASB95 and NET use exactly the same phrase.

Do it. Don't merely talk about it. Just do it.

Any objective reader would see your "evidence" as a joke.
Your "Any objective reader" would have a very odd sense of humor.

My point exactly, the NET is akin to the NIV.

You just shot yourself in the foot.

But the NET does not disqualify itself with numerous mistranslations to be consistent with Calvinism.

You and your oddball campaign. Get yourself a more constructive hobby such as tiddlywinks.

A few, yes, but contains nowhere near the number of malfeasances contained in the ESV, NIV and NLT.

You know Van, your indefatigable efforts on behalf of demeaning good Bible translations is wearisome for the rest of us. I'll bet you haven't made a single convert to your weird enterprise.

 

[Van]

Lots of folks believe word for word translation philosophy versions make the best study bibles. Rippon, you are the one demeaning good bible translations to push the Calvinistically biased ones.

The NASB95, NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB are all fine versions, and none of them translate "from" as before [snipped - warning about attack translations of the Word God just because you don't like them]

 

[Yeshua1]

Lots of folks believe word for word translation philosophy versions make the best study bibles. Rippon, you are the one demeaning good bible translations to push the Calvinistically biased ones.

The NASB95, NET, WEB, NKJV and HCSB are all fine versions, and none of them translate "from" as before, but take a look at the ESV, NIV and NLT. These are worthless because they change the word of God to make it conform to Calvinist doctrine.

I also think thatthe formal/literal appraoch is the better way to go, but again, how did the Niv get biased translating, when more of the scholars on board were NOT calvinist in their doctrines?

 

[Yeshua1]

So you think a biased bible should be liked like a relatively unbiased bible. Not very discerning.

Second the NASB95 is superior to the 1977 edition, because it dropped the KJV thees and thous. But if you want to present actual examples where the 1977 presents "superior" translations of verses, over the 1995 edition, have at it. Otherwise, it is just yet another assertion devoid of any basis in reality.

Actually, while the revision did drop those thee and ye and thou parts, there were times when it seemed to depart to some degree from being literal, for the sake of "reading ability"