Featured NET Bible Vs. NASBU

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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, 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?

 

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.

 

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?