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?
NET Bible Vs. NASBU
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Jul 13, 2014.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
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?
-
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.
-
-
-
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. :) -
-
-
The Unreformed now claim Tyndale, Luther and Purvey, advocated paraphrase.
-
-
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? -
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.
-
-
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 -
-
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. -
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. -
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. -
Page 3 of 5