1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured NET Bible Vs. NASBU

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Jul 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 5
  1. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #61 Van, Jul 26, 2014
  2. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
    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.
     
    #62 Rippon, Jul 26, 2014
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please furnish examples.
    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 Bible is very much like the NIV --so you're hypocritical. You'd be forced to say the NIV is a sound translation.
     
    #63 Rippon, Jul 26, 2014
  4. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #64 Van, Jul 28, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2014
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Better in what way? The notes in the Niv Study bible perhaps overall best in any bible!
     
    #65 Yeshua1, Jul 28, 2014
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #66 Rippon, Jul 28, 2014
  7. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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?
     
    #67 Rippon, Jul 29, 2014
  8. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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. :)
     
    #68 Van, Jul 30, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2014
  9. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Rippon made the statement on page 12 of the ESV thread, post #114.
     
    #69 Van, Jul 30, 2014
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes to all but the NET footnotes!
     
    #70 Yeshua1, Jul 30, 2014
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #71 Rippon, Jul 31, 2014
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is next to impossible on this Board though, as that would make it less interesting and engaging!
     
    #72 Yeshua1, Jul 31, 2014
  13. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #73 Van, Jul 31, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2014
  14. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #74 Rippon, Aug 1, 2014
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #75 Rippon, Aug 1, 2014
  16. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #76 Van, Aug 1, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2014
  17. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Huh?

    That's the aim of all good translations.

    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.
     
    #77 Rippon, Aug 1, 2014
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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

     
    #78 Rippon, Aug 2, 2014
  19. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26,995
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You make your groundless charge again and again, thinking the use of logical fallacies somehow bolsters your bogus views. Twaddle

    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.

    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.
     
    #79 Van, Aug 2, 2014
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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!
     
    #80 Yeshua1, Aug 2, 2014
Page 4 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...