I was sold on the NET Bible because of the correct understanding of Genisis 3:16, which turns the old wording on its head. I first became aware of this when reading the ESV Bible of the same passage and comparing these to the majority of the older, respected translations. Word-for-word translations fail since figures of speech and idioms become almost impossible to detect. "How do you wrap that around your head?" is an English idiom. Now imagine that you have to convey this in a different language. In these cases, some wisdom is required when translating to convey the thought rather than rendering it word-for-word for a clear understanding.
@@JoshuaHults Really? So most people read the older translations and just knew that the phrase "toward her husband" meant there would be a war between the sexes? Color me skeptical. 🖖
I’ve caught up on a few of your videos, and I just wanted to say “thank you” for having such an even-keeled and balanced perspective on these topics. People can become extremely defensive about different translations and it’s important to remember that no English translation can be perfect!
Thank you for your review of the NET Bible, Tim. I purchased a First Edition Net Bible with Full Notes around 2006 and a Reader's Version about three years later. You make excellent points. Many of the contributors are from Dallas Theological Seminary not far from where I live. The bible and notes make a worthy contribution to bible study. You make a good point regarding the extensive notes. They can be overwhelming.
Thanks for this. A fellow pastor introduced me to the NET (on-line) last year & I've been using it regularly since for sermon preparation. Love the text notes! Really useful.
Great review. I have the NIV, KJV, NKJV and NASB. My NASB is not a study format but I do like that is word for word. I have read and used my NIV study Bible for Church services for years but it was big that is why I bought the NASB. I use the NKJV Evidence Bible at home in conjunction with my Devotional readings in the morning and evening. I want to get a NET study Bible for a deep dive into the translation process and the meanings of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek wording. I'm turning into a Bible nerd too. I just love being in the word.
I have a copy of the 2003 version of it. I put it off to the side a couple years ago and kinda forgot about it but now I’m taking a look at the notes as they are quite interesting.
I have the hardback NET Full notes. love it as a reference material. I don’t think it’ll really take off as a primary bible, but a compliment. Love the video! Good dives on the text comparison!
Very thorough analysis, and citing comparative verses between the NIV and NET was helpful. Your remark about the NET "overselling itself" in its confidence about its own accuracy was humorous and thoughtful. Your statement that word-for-word translation philosophy is still inherently better than thought-for-thought shows too much bias. It is still nothing more than an opinion……unless you can give extensive examples. You are complimentary of the extensive notes, but don't provide details of just how valuable they are. There is no other study bible like the NET full-notes edition, which gives detailed Greek and Hebrew behind-the-scenes insights. It is very specialized, true, and unless the reader has some understanding of Greek and Hebrew (I do), the notes will overwhelm them. Your advice that the notes can get in the way of Bible reading is true. I have two editions, one full-notes (for study) and one without (for reading) because I had that problem myself. One thing that would make your reviews rise to the top, would be to study Greek and Hebrew yourself. Anyone writing a review comparing translations, but can't translate the Bible themselves from Greek and Hebrew, is only giving an opinion about "what they like," not about "what is more accurate." Without first-hand knowledge of the biblical languages, you can't show that the NASB is closer to the Greek/Hebrew text than the NIV. There's enough videos done by people who are too ignorant to actually give helpful advice on Bible translations. So Tim, be the first on your block to learn Greek. Then your reviews, already sensitive and thoughtful, will have an objectivity and insight that will give your readers real clarity in the translation process, rather than just giving them another opinion.
Well my 2 cents are: ☆ if we accept that the words of scripture themselves are inspired and ☆ God's thoughts are way higher than our thoughts (interpretation) then the flaws of dynamic-equivalence become very apparent. Thought for thought translations lose many nuances and mysteries in the bible.
I've been using it for a couple of years now and it is my 2nd favorite complete (well, almost) bible translation after the RSV. (if we are counting just the NT it is a toss-up between RSV or EOB being my favorite.)
Thank you so much for discussing this. I’ve been wrestling between starting with the NASB95 or moving forward with the NASB 20 or NET. Appreciate your hard work.
I recently purchased the NET Full Notes Edition and I think it is a good Bible translation and your review has helped me in knowing the pros and cons. I will certainly keep it in my Bible library in the years to follow.
I would say that provided people get the full notes edition, the first "dowmside" isn't a downside at all! Sure? Their main text is more dynamic than to my liking (I personally translate using formal equivalency), but the footnotes have the more "literal" readings. So this is the BEST Bible to buy on the market precisely because of this very reason. It is like buying a parallel Bible that has four translations paralleled to eachother. It is also the best because instead of just saying "some earlier manuscripts read x" or "other mss lack x text", it provides actual manuscripts that contain the variant readings.
Hi Mathew, Have you by chance reviewed which would be better the Net full notes Bible or the Thompson chain reference Bible? I personally like them both, but I’d prefer to use one really good one!
@@almann8968 I've had a NIV Thompson Chain Reference,. I wound up giving it away to a friend of the family I went to church. There are some good things to it, but i prefer the NET full notes edition over that. But then again, I look for different things in Bible's than many others do.
@@matthewmencel5978 Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts on this question. I have both right now I’m very impressed with the Net second edition full notes, and the ESV Thompson chain bible. Perhaps it’s going to be better for me to use both. I study the meat of the word.
@@almann8968 what I really love about the NET bible is that it's like having access to to the UBS text without needing to know Greek AND having a parallel bible, both in one format. It's a parallel bible with a Textual Critical Apparatus. So it is for those reasons alone that if I had to pick just one bible and it had to be an English translation of it, I'd go with the NET Bible. Now if I could have 2, it would be the NT Bible and the Catholic New American Bible.
I put off listening to this video because of things I had read about the NET. I finally decided to listen today and am glad I did. The language of this Bible might speak to the younger generations, but not to an old gal like me! If it calls the youth or the new Christian, great. God opens the door to the heart, and The Spirit leads us to understanding. As far as having the translation notes included, I think they could reveal the beliefs of the individual translators. Not my cup of tea.
@@GaryM260 That's a good point. I try not to let my personal beliefs (denominational, traditional, personal biases) to form my understanding. I pray my beliefs are formed by scripture and Holy Spirit give me understanding.
Thank you for your review. I was interested in this until I saw this review. I love Dallas Theological Seminary (live 45 minutes away), but this translation would totally turn my memorization upside. down.
I also generally prefer stricter translations , but still quite often refer to this type of bible for reference or just to read for enjoyment. I quite like the ISV lately, NIV is also quite good. AMP (2015) seems good but some of the added notes in brackets can be a bit cheesy at times, or unnecessary. CSB is quite good but still feels slightly watered down in some sense to me, but still fairly solid. I like the footnotes of CSB as well. I don't like massive amounts of translator notes, just straight to the point
I have been following the NET for awhile now and I love what the translation has become. Especially with how they render John 3:16 which has been a very misunderstood verse even by the most influential pastors and teachers. It accurately captures the fact that “God so loved the world” does not speak of the magnitude by which God loved the world, but of the way in which God loves the world. I love this translation as well as the way in which it was produced.
I would be interested in hearing your review of the NABre Bible translation. In spite of its origin, I had some Greek professors who said it is actually an accurate translation. Thanks!
Do you intend to imply that Catholic Translations are somehow suspect? In general, they seem to have a higher floor than Protestant translations. There is no Catholic Equivalent of "The Message" The imprimatur is a fairly rigorous process; the Catholic Church doesn't just stamp it on anything. I'm not Catholic by the way, but the arrogance and ignorance in your comment with the underlining assumption that the NABre is good "in spite" of it's origin is ridiculous. Catholic Translations have a higher floor than Protestant ones because there is gatekeeping and an actual approval process. The only critiques you could offer of Catholic Translations of the bible would apply to the DR or the Knox bible, but that isn't anything to do with the quality of the translations which are excellent, but that they are translations from the Vulgate (with help from the hebrew and greek). All of the English translations of the Bible that the Catholic Church has been involved in since they began focusing on translations from the original languages are excellent. the NAB, NABre, the various Editions of the RSV and ESV etc. There are far fewer Catholic Approved Bibles out there and all of them are good or excellent translations. Really the only issue with the NAB or NABre IMO is some of the footnotes and the fact that it isn't a very beautiful translation. The actual translation is very accurate.
I only have access to the digital version and am reading it through this year. Great translational notes, with tons of information, but only average as to the biblical text itself. The Psalms are particularly weak; they lack the poetic beauty we're accustomed to from older versions. Overall, worth having for the notes alone.
I have the 2003 edition of the NET Bible. I'm a big fan of the NIV, but quite comfortable with the NET. Daniel Wallace was just added to the CBT team. Actually the CSB, NAB, NIV and NET are in the middle ground. To the right of the NET would be the CEB and NLT. To the left of the above four would be the NRSV/ESV. Some folks try to say the CSB is far, far more form-oriented, but in actuality, it's rather close to the current NIV. A lot of those charts contain misinformation.
@Jason Bored Face facts, the ESV and NRSV are close cousins. They are more similar to one another than the CSB is to the NIV. In the words of Conservative New Testament scholar D.A. Carson regarding the NRSV "It's a jolly good translation."
Thanks for this; I like your perspective. Just ordered this Bible, finally, after using it in E-Sword (without notes), but do think it's important in it's place as you are saying, but not as an "only" Bible.
In this particular version you absolutely need the text notes. For example, in Ruth 4:1, the nearest relative is referred to as “friend” in other translations. In the NET Ruth 4:1 refers to the nearest relative as “John Doe”. Sounds crazy right? But they explain why they made that choice in the notes.
The NIV sounds traditional to those who grew up with it. For myself, coming from the KJV, the NIV does not sound more or less traditional than the NET. Having been raised on the KJV, it's better to skip the NIV completely and use the NET With Full Notes as a companion bible for study. I've quickly come to love the NET and while many of the verses have a contemporary sound, they can still be quite beautiful. I find myself most often reaching for my NET while the NIV sits collecting dust on the shelf.
Has anyone done a review of the Logos Complete Study Bible, also known as the Logos International Study Bible. This American Standard Version (ASV)? I really like it although its quite dated.... the notes and the readings & renderings are excellent...
Isaiah 41:10 NIV "So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." Isaiah 41:10 NET "Don’t be afraid, for I am with you! Don’t be frightened, for I am your God![a] I strengthen you- yes, I help you- yes, I uphold you with my victorious right hand." The NIV at that point sounds more like the KJV
After watching this video and the one on HCSB,,1995 NASB,CSB,NLT ,NKJV and your mention of help for pastoral studies I think I'll just settle for NKJV,NASB,HCSB,NIV and NLT.Thanks for this video about NET I learn a lot about the translation and its need to make reading the Bible helpful and enjoyable.Pastor Tim which translation do you think is a better the Christian Standard Bible or the NET Bible,please comment.Thank you in advance.
The most important feature of the NET translation is the footnotes, which give a great deal of information about the translation process and why certain decisions were made. I don't much care for the way it sounds--the language is too contemporary--but the footnotes are invaluable.
@@sorenpx For me the footnotes in the NET Bible is good for those will use it preaching or teaching in Bible seminary I tried to look at the NET Bible in Biblegateway.com particularly in Isaiah 7 because I want to find out as to whether virgin is the way it was translated instead of young woman like what they did in the RSV 1946.For me it should be translated virgin even though the Hebrew is almah according the footnote and its young woman.But in the LXX has it virgin and in Matthew 1:23 one can find this is a quote from Isaiah 7:14 which is really referring to Mary the human mother of the Lord Jesus.Would it not be consistent to render it virgin in Isaiah because the early Christians use the LXX at that time when the new testament is being written.This fact alone is one reason I don't like NET Bible and RSV 1946.This just my opinion and I respect others who want NET Bible.
@@joseenriqueagutaya131 This is one of those times when having the original writer around would be very helpful. Unfortunately, we can't consult him. I'm not an expert but my understanding is that the Hebrew "almah" essentially means "a young woman of marriageable age." She would be expected to be a virgin but her virginity is not explicit in the Hebrew term. The word doesn't exactly mean "virgin," but it doesn't mean simply "young woman" either. Truth is, from my estimation, I just don't think we have an English word that means precisely what "almah" means, so no matter how you translate it you'll be making a compromise. You do have a point about the LXX. And we should also keep in mind that even if you translate it as young woman, it still fits Mary. Ultimately, I want the word translated according to the original author's intent. And I've seen compelling arguments for both "young woman" and "virgin."
@@sorenpx That's is the reason why I dislike the NET Bible.I even tried looking again at biblegateway.com and see what CEV,ASV,ESV though in the GNT and NRSV both translated it young woman.And so in my opinion if ever I have to explain what virgin birth means I would definitely avoid using versions with young woman in the passage in Isaiah.In my opinion when Matthew was writing his Gospel why would he use the word virgin or parthenos in Greek if he knew young woman or almah in Hebrew is the correct word to use or maybe he was quoting from the Greek Old testament or LXX.
How would you rate this against the CSB? Would you say the full notes version is more of a study bible? I've ordered both the full notes and the slimline to function as a reader only. I do understand that the notes are available online for free (?). But I feel the need to support such an exciting and promising translation. Thank you!
Now if only a red-letter edition would be available. Question, as I'm thinking about workflow. Do feel a combination of the thinline + free online notes or the full notes edition (as a single hardcopy, albeit large) is the way to go? I'm debating which way to go. On one hand I can see that having the full notes edition would be great for everything being available on my fingertips. On the other hand, for going to church and portability the ultrathin + free online notes (via my smartphone) might be better for mobility. I'm really trying my best to justify not having both hardcopies (thinline + full notes)! I currently use the CSB Study Bible, but usually leave this at home.
@@AFrischPerspective can you please explain to me... if the NASB and the NASU ,.. are both abbreviations for the New American Standard Bible... why the NASU is further down on the chart closer to the "thought for thought"... area than the NASB...?.. should they Not be on top of each other on the graph shown,,, if they are the same exact translation?.. or is the NASU... different than the NASB... somehow...and if so, how?...
I love the NET Bible's notes. I just feel its text has an unfortunate way of slipping into excessive colloquialism - e.g. the second half of Ps 123.3 "For we have had our fill of humiliation, and then some" - or even banality - e.g. it renders the Resh line of Psalm 111 as "To obey the LORD is the fundamental principle for wise living".
The NIV is easily the most accurate reading and easy reading bible translation with some of the most scrutiny behind its translation of any other translations. Easily the desert island bible if ever there was one. Just recently got the NET and I have to say, Im in absolute love with it. NASB is starting to really fall out of relevance as time goes on and these other translations show a much more dynamic approach to the translation that is more in line with the context of the original greek.
Palm slappin my face guy. I can't tell of this comment is a serious one. Is today opposite day lol? The NIV has some problems. Yes it reads easy but accuracy isn't it's strong suit. And then to say the NASB is somehow inferior to these is insane. With all due respect.
@@19nineteenthirteen19 I would argue the NIV has the strongest scholarship and the strongest case for the deity of Christ over any translation. Name one translation with better scholarship behind it.
@@19nineteenthirteen19 Leading people to Jesus Christ is the goal, the translation itself is quite frankly irrelevant, because all English translations have issues and that will always be the case. Some words in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have no English equivalent, so when they are translated into English "word for word" goes completely out of the window. This is the reason why some translations such as the NIV use a "thought for thought" approach instead. Denominations are also an extremely foolish thing, it's not like we're going to get to heaven and there's an angel directing people of different denominations to the right place. We are all one body under Christ and there is but one version of the word of God.
That is a different version, what you referred to is published by the Church of England I believe. New English Bible, not the same as New English Translation (NET) published in America
I had that paperback translation in college, about 35 years ago. It's okay, a lot like the NET, NLT, a readable Bible. I think I lost it somewhere, but I liked it at the time.
I have no use for the NET translation. Despite its supposed conservative roots, it is anything but. This translation, like so many others, has not been as committed to preserving God's Word as advertised. Its use of gender neutral language shows its bias for appeasing modern sensitivities over preserving the integrity of God's Word. Psalm 8 for example replaces all male pronouns with words like "human race", "mankind", "them", and "their". But Hebrews chapter 2 quotes this very same scripture as a prophetic sign of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Sovereign. The maleness of Psalm 8 is therefore important and meaningful. The NET clumsily handles this disparity that they've created and some liberal translations go one step further, morphing all male pronouns in Hebrews 2 as well, completely destroying the messianic link. But this isn't the only place where the NET translation butchers longstanding tradition in favour of postmodern thinking. It also drops the word "virgin" in Isaiah's prophecy of a virgin birth (Isa. 7:14), replacing it with "young woman", despite the fact that Matthew 1:23 explicitly quotes it as "virgin". Moreover, when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint (Greek translation of Old Testament Hebrew bible) translated the Hebrew word for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, they chose the one Greek word that explicitly means virgin, not simply "young woman". The NET's footnotes on the interpretation of "almah" are not even internally consistent. In some places they defend their decision in Isaiah 7:14, elsewhere they argue for a "virgin" translation. Postmodern preachers like Rob Bell use the idea of "young woman" to question whether or not Jesus was ever born of a virgin. This should alarm us. In all these ways, these modern translations that use "thought for thought" or "dynamic" methods of interpretation may be appealing to some, but are increasingly changing key scripture to reflect more secular ideas, mute the hard truths of scripture, or pander to peoples' worldliness and feelings. They unapologetically replace God's Word with men's, often relegating the original Word to mere footnotes while promoting their thoughts to the level of scripture. Small wonder when so many seminary teachers and translators don't even believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of scripture. More and more preachers using these translations are teaching very heretical ideas from the pulpits. Apostacy is growing in the Church and Christians in general are heeding voices and ideas that are not biblical because they feel good, not because they are good. We need to be Bereans, we need to think critically about these issues, do our homework, and not easily buy into the hype about the latest and greatest translation like it was some new Samsung phone or Apple I-Pad. For my personal study, teaching and preaching, I feel far safer with a KJV, NKJV, NIV1984 (won't touch any NIV versions since then), ESV, or NASB.
@@darapdiengdoh2179 A myth? I was reading reviews about different versions of the Bible, and I came accross your comment. It confused me. God's ways are not our ways. My thoughts are not God's thoughts. I need help with every aspect of my life. As Paul says, I do what I do not want to do. :) I'm 68 years old, and this is the first time in my entire life that I have journaled. If I had not done this, I don't think I would have been as aware of how God speaks to me through reading God's word and asking Holy Spirit for help. Some people may think the following "quoted items" I've listed are a person's own ideas or thoughts. However, each of these things are my personal experiences with Holy Spirit speaking to me and leading me. A "great idea came to mind", or "a lost item is found that I had been looking for and praying for help to find", or "a particular person comes to mind, you just know you need to pray for that person, and later find out that person is having a health crisis", or "just a few days before the leak of the Roe vs Wade, the Holy Spirit puts on my heart an idea about the santity of life and how God knits us together in a mother's womb and to pray hard that abortion is abolished", or I could go on and on listing experiences that I have had during the 2022 year. Since I never journaled before, I don't have year's past revelations. However, I have always believed in Holy Spirit. I mean, IF you believe the Bible, the Holy Spirit is there. Jesus said it is better that I go because I will send you the comforter. Thanks be to the Lord for sending us the comforter. I pray this will help you understand Holy Spirit. However, I still get confused about many things of God. Unlike other subjects, for me, the more I study and learn about God throught the Word, the more I realize I do not know.
@@theresamillender717 Most likely this person is not a believer. Most genuine followers of Jesus have knowledge of The Holy Spirit and experience with Him even if they don't necessarily understand the ways in which He interacts with them. The gentleman's comment exposes him as most likely not a Christian. The Holy Spirit is referred to many times in the scriptures and The Lord Jesus spoke much of Him. Blessings to you beloved daughter of The Lord.
Yes, but with the caveat that an incomprehensible translation is a barrier to getting to that point. I only had a KJB New Testament to start with, and it was really not giving me much. I quickly bought an NIV (1984) as I had seen that before and was surprised at how easy it was to follow.
Also listen on TH-cam what Prof DR Dan Wallace says. He is a most expert Bible scholar and translator. Look for a video "Is what they wrote then, what we have now?"
The NET Bible has fascinating notes and revealing insights into how Bible translations are produced, and its transparency is in stark contrast to other modern versions. Its very generous policy regarding usage vs. copyright restrictions is also in stark contrast to other modern versions. Having said that, the NET, just like other modern translations, is not so much a Holy Bible as an ongoing and never-ending research project produced with the mindset of secular scientism. There can be nothing "holy" or "authoritative" in a "bible" whose text is constantly changing, where the scholars lord over the text rather than submit themselves to it. Even passages which are deemed "firm and fixed" today are in principle open to challenge, revision, or outright rejection at any time if the majority of scholars on the translation committee deem it necessary to do so. The Bible has passed out of the hands on the Church, and into the hands of publishers, committees of scholars, and the mindset of secular scientism.
I wouldn't put much faith in the comparison chart shown @3:40. KJV is definitely not a more literal translation than ESV. In fact, with each discovery of older manuscripts we're finding, I'd say the KJV is one of the least reliable translations available today. I've always found it interesting that the KJV came into existence based on the arrogance of the King. To me, it makes sense why earlier versions that it attempted to replace, due to.political motivation, have been proven to be more accurate translations. In any event, good video.
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 Mark's insight on the topic of "accuracy" and his ratings of common bible translations. He also brought my attention to lesser known literal english bible translations. I wasn't surprised to find that the NKJV is far more literal than the NASB or ESV, which while being a solid translation is rather lose at times already. The ESV translators didn't value literalness too highly - they don't italicize interpolated words. How are you going to do indepth study with that? I'm aware of the Masoretic text vs septuagint issue and I'm with you on that: The septuagint is the more reliable text. The comments you made on it are true. Only the ,,Orthodox Study Bible" has the septuagint as its basis for the OT. I have that one and can recommend it. All modern evangelical bibles use mostly the masoretic text and only deviate at times in favor of the septuagint or dead sea scrolls or other translations.
I was reading the NIV from the beginning and got to 1 Chronicles 21, all of a sudden they're talking about someone named Satan with a proper noun? This was confusing to me. I looked in the NET, and it provides a good explanation, and uses the term "adversary" instead. The NET is very useful, but Tim is right, it's very bland in how it reads overall...
The “this is the way” from the Mandalorian always makes me cringe because I think of John 14:6. So I think the way the did John 3:16 is kinda cool. I don’t know how accurate it is and I know they didn’t do it for the show.
I dont UNDERSTAND WHY the niv is ALWAYS SO FAR RIGHT IN THE SPECTRUM of bible translation. The translators of the niv 84 have said it was IN BETWEEN thought for thought and word for word. Never did they say it was a thought for thought translation. And not only this but when you READ IT. It literally leans more word for word than thought for thought. These scales are always different than each other and are not reliable.
@@RyGuy8989 actually wouldn't that be the far-left according to most Bible translation charts as in word for word on the left and then you have thought for thought on the right and to the very far right you have a paraphrase such as TLB & MSG? Unless this is a different type of chart that you are talking about?
The king James version translates It's Jacob not James. Even The king James version Transport the words from 2. They transferred holy ghost its Holy Spirit.
When you find a bible that proves a god exists or any particular set of beliefs to be correct and true above all other 3,999 world brands of religions, let me know...
I have the full version NET bible.. the notes are ok.. but looking at the text ...once again I feel too many things have been changed or omitted which dumbs down the Word.. for instance in the Psalm 23 example you show the NET mentions nothing about lying down in green pastures.... Did you know this lying down is a significant.. lesson?... sheep only lie down when they are completely satisfied... so.. in the NET we get the part that we lack nothing... but this does not give us the next part of lying down.. which is imprortant in our daily walk... we lack nothing AND we are satisfied...and that is just in the examples shown can you imagine how many other places.. readers are getting "cheated " out of God's word?.. once again... remember the serpent in the garden with EVE.. he did this as well.."hath God said?"....
“We Do Know What The Bible is Saying”. I think this is the most presumptuous comment I have ever heard. It is saying “We KNOW the WORD of GOD” through whatever translation er hold closest to our heart. As for the “Notes detracting from the message” I could not disagree more. The notes provide full credence to what is stated and may I note; take into account “context” over tradition (Gen 3:16) Is a classic example of this and the notes describe the transliteration perfectly. Something that is sorely lacking in the majority of “traditional” translations. Since when did Traditional = Truth? It is good for us the question our beliefs constantly, for we must never stop asking our LORD for Wisdom and understanding. I “know” what tradition wants me to believe; but, does anyone truly know the mind of God? I think not. I have many study bibles and this one is one of my favorite because of the “Full Notes”
OK.... I must be old...I am 77... but I don’t really care for how the NET sounds... I was raised I as a Methodist...on the KJV, and RSV..,... So .l, I did nit like how the NET passages you read sounded. The poetry ...and gracefulness were gone. It sounded flat to me. I have been a Catholic since the early 89’s, and while the NAB is read at mass....a real shame, IN-HOUSE... I prefer the NKJV, and. the RSV:CE.. I just bought my first ESV, and like it a lot. I thunk the ESV retains a traditional “sound”, while being easy to understand. I find your reviews both interesting and informative, and always enjoy them. Thanks for taking the time to give us your perspective on various Bibles, and the different translations.
I use the NET regularly and agree that it's not a great-sounding translation. The language is very contemporary. Its value is largely in its massive wealth of footnotes, which allow the reader to peak behind the curtain of the translation process.
Your argument would be fair if we were talking about the original Greek and Hebrew texts, precisely as penned by the original writers. But when publishers dump millions of dollars into a new translation, paying the scholars to do the work and also financing marketing campaigns to get their new translation into the marketplace, yes, it makes sense that they will want to copyright the text. If you want a Bible version that has no copyright restrictions then look at the World English Bible.
By copy writing the English translations publishers and the translating entities can mitigate all revisions, and thereby, better protect any translation published. In even the meanest translations the doctrines of God are found, like the NWT of the cult the Jehovah's witnesses, who, although they tried to remove the deity of Jesus Anointed, the were unsuccessful. They literally changed words or added words when trying to remove Jesus' deity, but many passages were ignored, I believe the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow them to do it and it had to be Spiritual blindness as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 2.
The only thing good about the NET is the notes... The translation itself is ridiculous. the "ministry first" copyright policy means absolutely nothing to me when the translation is so loose- especially in the old testament. it would have been wonderful if it was a more formal translation.
your not right the people just 2 from bible inst: all the rest werer just well not a good bible rong info you best look it up make you look well like you dont know what your talking about
I’m proud to be a Christian NERD!!!!!!! so god bless you my Christian NERD brother🙏🏼
I was sold on the NET Bible because of the correct understanding of Genisis 3:16, which turns the old wording on its head. I first became aware of this when reading the ESV Bible of the same passage and comparing these to the majority of the older, respected translations.
Word-for-word translations fail since figures of speech and idioms become almost impossible to detect. "How do you wrap that around your head?" is an English idiom. Now imagine that you have to convey this in a different language. In these cases, some wisdom is required when translating to convey the thought rather than rendering it word-for-word for a clear understanding.
That is what everyone mostly believed anyways.
@@JoshuaHults Really? So most people read the older translations and just knew that the phrase "toward her husband" meant there would be a war between the sexes?
Color me skeptical. 🖖
@@BruceRHaskinSr LOL never claimed it true just referencing what some on panel said.
@@JoshuaHults Sorry, My guess is most believe it from experience and not scripture.
@@BruceRHaskinSr very interesting. And it's no doubt true! Makes sense this is the interpretation because Eve is who deceived Adam, not Satan.
I’ve caught up on a few of your videos, and I just wanted to say “thank you” for having such an even-keeled and balanced perspective on these topics. People can become extremely defensive about different translations and it’s important to remember that no English translation can be perfect!
Well said, I can't stand the tribalism some people have when it comes to Bible translations.
Thank you for your review of the NET Bible, Tim. I purchased a First Edition Net Bible with Full Notes around 2006 and a Reader's Version about three years later. You make excellent points. Many of the contributors are from Dallas Theological Seminary not far from where I live. The bible and notes make a worthy contribution to bible study.
You make a good point regarding the extensive notes. They can be overwhelming.
Thanks for this. A fellow pastor introduced me to the NET (on-line) last year & I've been using it regularly since for sermon preparation. Love the text notes! Really useful.
You can actually write a Bible from the notes alone; they are that comprehensive and complete.
Been using it for two years and appreciate the fresh wording, even though different from favorites I memorized. Thanks.
Thank you Mr Frisch. I'm loving the NET, and appreciate your evaluation.
Great review. I have the NIV, KJV, NKJV and NASB. My NASB is not a study format but I do like that is word for word. I have read and used my NIV study Bible for Church services for years but it was big that is why I bought the NASB. I use the NKJV Evidence Bible at home in conjunction with my Devotional readings in the morning and evening. I want to get a NET study Bible for a deep dive into the translation process and the meanings of Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek wording. I'm turning into a Bible nerd too. I just love being in the word.
Would you recommend the NASB and the NKJV? I use the NIV and KJ mostly.
I have a copy of the 2003 version of it. I put it off to the side a couple years ago and kinda forgot about it but now I’m taking a look at the notes as they are quite interesting.
Great review. Thank you!
I have the hardback NET Full notes. love it as a reference material. I don’t think it’ll really take off as a primary bible, but a compliment. Love the video! Good dives on the text comparison!
Agree, It actually opens up deeper meaning for me on different verses. My favourite now.
My favourites, because of the notes. And the notes is really useful. It’s a must have bible in your study. They did a good job on this version.
Very thorough analysis, and citing comparative verses between the NIV and NET was helpful. Your remark about the NET "overselling itself" in its confidence about its own accuracy was humorous and thoughtful. Your statement that word-for-word translation philosophy is still inherently better than thought-for-thought shows too much bias. It is still nothing more than an opinion……unless you can give extensive examples.
You are complimentary of the extensive notes, but don't provide details of just how valuable they are. There is no other study bible like the NET full-notes edition, which gives detailed Greek and Hebrew behind-the-scenes insights. It is very specialized, true, and unless the reader has some understanding of Greek and Hebrew (I do), the notes will overwhelm them. Your advice that the notes can get in the way of Bible reading is true. I have two editions, one full-notes (for study) and one without (for reading) because I had that problem myself.
One thing that would make your reviews rise to the top, would be to study Greek and Hebrew yourself. Anyone writing a review comparing translations, but can't translate the Bible themselves from Greek and Hebrew, is only giving an opinion about "what they like," not about "what is more accurate." Without first-hand knowledge of the biblical languages, you can't show that the NASB is closer to the Greek/Hebrew text than the NIV. There's enough videos done by people who are too ignorant to actually give helpful advice on Bible translations. So Tim, be the first on your block to learn Greek. Then your reviews, already sensitive and thoughtful, will have an objectivity and insight that will give your readers real clarity in the translation process, rather than just giving them another opinion.
Well my 2 cents are:
☆ if we accept that the words of scripture themselves are inspired and
☆ God's thoughts are way higher than our thoughts (interpretation) then the flaws of dynamic-equivalence become very apparent.
Thought for thought translations lose many nuances and mysteries in the bible.
Very informative review! Much appreciated! 😉✌️
I've been using it for a couple of years now and it is my 2nd favorite complete (well, almost) bible translation after the RSV. (if we are counting just the NT it is a toss-up between RSV or EOB being my favorite.)
Excellent review. Thank you.
I love my NET BIBLE full notes edition❤.
thank you for your wisdom brother! I ordered one today. I too like many translations!
Thank you so much for discussing this. I’ve been wrestling between starting with the NASB95 or moving forward with the NASB 20 or NET. Appreciate your hard work.
What did you ultimately decide on getting?
I recently purchased the NET Full Notes Edition and I think it is a good Bible translation and your review has helped me in knowing the pros and cons. I will certainly keep it in my Bible library in the years to follow.
I love my net Bible
Thanks for your thought. I will buy and see God bless
As usual very helpful insights. Now I know the full-notes edition is excellent for deep bible study, for those who don't Greek or Hebrew.
Great video. Very well done 👍🏻
today. I received the NET FULL NOTE GENUINE LEATHER on a trade.☺
I would say that provided people get the full notes edition, the first "dowmside" isn't a downside at all! Sure? Their main text is more dynamic than to my liking (I personally translate using formal equivalency), but the footnotes have the more "literal" readings. So this is the BEST Bible to buy on the market precisely because of this very reason. It is like buying a parallel Bible that has four translations paralleled to eachother. It is also the best because instead of just saying "some earlier manuscripts read x" or "other mss lack x text", it provides actual manuscripts that contain the variant readings.
Hi Mathew,
Have you by chance reviewed which would be better the Net full notes Bible or the Thompson chain reference Bible? I personally like them both, but I’d prefer to use one really good one!
@@almann8968 I've had a NIV Thompson Chain Reference,. I wound up giving it away to a friend of the family I went to church. There are some good things to it, but i prefer the NET full notes edition over that. But then again, I look for different things in Bible's than many others do.
@@matthewmencel5978 Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts on this question. I have both right now I’m very impressed with the Net second edition full notes, and the ESV Thompson chain bible. Perhaps it’s going to be better for me to use both. I study the meat of the word.
@@almann8968 what I really love about the NET bible is that it's like having access to to the UBS text without needing to know Greek AND having a parallel bible, both in one format. It's a parallel bible with a Textual Critical Apparatus. So it is for those reasons alone that if I had to pick just one bible and it had to be an English translation of it, I'd go with the NET Bible. Now if I could have 2, it would be the NT Bible and the Catholic New American Bible.
They used the word "delete" in one of the Psalms. 😅 I still love my copy, though.
According to someone on panel, it was written for easy memorization. This may be super smart technique and selling point if true.
Great Review. I just might buy a new NET. Currently I have a KJV, NKJV - Spirit Filled Study and a NIV Study. Thanks. God Bless. In Jesus' Name. Amen.
I put off listening to this video because of things I had read about the NET. I finally decided to listen today and am glad I did. The language of this Bible might speak to the younger generations, but not to an old gal like me! If it calls the youth or the new Christian, great. God opens the door to the heart, and The Spirit leads us to understanding. As far as having the translation notes included, I think they could reveal the beliefs of the individual translators. Not my cup of tea.
"beliefs of the individual translators"....what about the belief of the individual readers?...just saying
@@GaryM260 That's a good point. I try not to let my personal beliefs (denominational, traditional, personal biases) to form my understanding. I pray my beliefs are formed by scripture and Holy Spirit give me understanding.
Well balanced review!
Thank you for your review. I was interested in this until I saw this review. I love Dallas Theological Seminary (live 45 minutes away), but this translation would totally turn my memorization upside. down.
I also generally prefer stricter translations , but still quite often refer to this type of bible for reference or just to read for enjoyment. I quite like the ISV lately, NIV is also quite good. AMP (2015) seems good but some of the added notes in brackets can be a bit cheesy at times, or unnecessary. CSB is quite good but still feels slightly watered down in some sense to me, but still fairly solid. I like the footnotes of CSB as well. I don't like massive amounts of translator notes, just straight to the point
I have been following the NET for awhile now and I love what the translation has become. Especially with how they render John 3:16 which has been a very misunderstood verse even by the most influential pastors and teachers. It accurately captures the fact that “God so loved the world” does not speak of the magnitude by which God loved the world, but of the way in which God loves the world. I love this translation as well as the way in which it was produced.
I don't have an NET. How does it render John 3:16 ? Thanks.
I would be interested in hearing your review of the NABre Bible translation. In spite of its origin, I had some Greek professors who said it is actually an accurate translation. Thanks!
Do you intend to imply that Catholic Translations are somehow suspect? In general, they seem to have a higher floor than Protestant translations. There is no Catholic Equivalent of "The Message" The imprimatur is a fairly rigorous process; the Catholic Church doesn't just stamp it on anything.
I'm not Catholic by the way, but the arrogance and ignorance in your comment with the underlining assumption that the NABre is good "in spite" of it's origin is ridiculous. Catholic Translations have a higher floor than Protestant ones because there is gatekeeping and an actual approval process.
The only critiques you could offer of Catholic Translations of the bible would apply to the DR or the Knox bible, but that isn't anything to do with the quality of the translations which are excellent, but that they are translations from the Vulgate (with help from the hebrew and greek).
All of the English translations of the Bible that the Catholic Church has been involved in since they began focusing on translations from the original languages are excellent. the NAB, NABre, the various Editions of the RSV and ESV etc. There are far fewer Catholic Approved Bibles out there and all of them are good or excellent translations.
Really the only issue with the NAB or NABre IMO is some of the footnotes and the fact that it isn't a very beautiful translation. The actual translation is very accurate.
One of the translators said that we could reconstruct a whole literal translation from the footnotes of the NET.
is that true ?
0:43 "more than twenty-five" don't they know how many?
I only have access to the digital version and am reading it through this year. Great translational notes, with tons of information, but only average as to the biblical text itself. The Psalms are particularly weak; they lack the poetic beauty we're accustomed to from older versions. Overall, worth having for the notes alone.
I have the 2003 edition of the NET Bible. I'm a big fan of the NIV, but quite comfortable with the NET. Daniel Wallace was just added to the CBT team. Actually the CSB, NAB, NIV and NET are in the middle ground. To the right of the NET would be the CEB and NLT. To the left of the above four would be the NRSV/ESV. Some folks try to say the CSB is far, far more form-oriented, but in actuality, it's rather close to the current NIV. A lot of those charts contain misinformation.
@Jason Bored Face facts, the ESV and NRSV are close cousins. They are more similar to one another than the CSB is to the NIV.
In the words of Conservative New Testament scholar D.A. Carson regarding the NRSV "It's a jolly good translation."
I was one of those layperson beta testers. I made a suggestion for a change which the translaters actually implemented.
Concern re feedback from online lay persons during translation process. How much effect from potentially radical feedback?
Depends on your definition of ‘accurate’.
Thanks for this; I like your perspective. Just ordered this Bible, finally, after using it in E-Sword (without notes), but do think it's important in it's place as you are saying, but not as an "only" Bible.
In this particular version you absolutely need the text notes. For example, in Ruth 4:1, the nearest relative is referred to as “friend” in other translations. In the NET Ruth 4:1 refers to the nearest relative as “John Doe”. Sounds crazy right? But they explain why they made that choice in the notes.
@@carolbarlow8896 Hadn't seen that, but yes, I agree!
The NIV sounds traditional to those who grew up with it. For myself, coming from the KJV, the NIV does not sound more or less traditional than the NET. Having been raised on the KJV, it's better to skip the NIV completely and use the NET With Full Notes as a companion bible for study. I've quickly come to love the NET and while many of the verses have a contemporary sound, they can still be quite beautiful. I find myself most often reaching for my NET while the NIV sits collecting dust on the shelf.
will you be reviewing the YLT Bible?
Where can I get one of those English bible translation comparison charts?
Has anyone done a review of the Logos Complete Study Bible, also known as the Logos International Study Bible. This American Standard Version (ASV)? I really like it although its quite dated.... the notes and the readings & renderings are excellent...
What does line matched mean? Thanks for a great and thorough video.
Sentences match up with the sentences on the other side of the thin paper. This way it doesn't give a shadowy look between the lines.
Isaiah 41:10 NIV "So do not fear, for I am with you;
do not be dismayed, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."
Isaiah 41:10 NET "Don’t be afraid, for I am with you!
Don’t be frightened, for I am your God![a]
I strengthen you-
yes, I help you-
yes, I uphold you with my victorious right hand." The NIV at that point sounds more like the KJV
After watching this video and the one on HCSB,,1995 NASB,CSB,NLT ,NKJV and your mention of help for pastoral studies I think I'll just settle for NKJV,NASB,HCSB,NIV and NLT.Thanks for this video about NET I learn a lot about the translation and its need to make reading the Bible helpful and enjoyable.Pastor Tim which translation do you think is a better the Christian Standard Bible or the NET Bible,please comment.Thank you in advance.
The most important feature of the NET translation is the footnotes, which give a great deal of information about the translation process and why certain decisions were made. I don't much care for the way it sounds--the language is too contemporary--but the footnotes are invaluable.
@@sorenpx For me the footnotes in the NET Bible is good for those will use it preaching or teaching in Bible seminary I tried to look at the NET Bible in Biblegateway.com particularly in Isaiah 7 because I want to find out as to whether virgin is the way it was translated instead of young woman like what they did in the RSV 1946.For me it should be translated virgin even though the Hebrew is almah according the footnote and its young woman.But in the LXX has it virgin and in Matthew 1:23 one can find this is a quote from Isaiah 7:14 which is really referring to Mary the human mother of the Lord Jesus.Would it not be consistent to render it virgin in Isaiah because the early Christians use the LXX at that time when the new testament is being written.This fact alone is one reason I don't like NET Bible and RSV 1946.This just my opinion and I respect others who want NET Bible.
@@joseenriqueagutaya131 This is one of those times when having the original writer around would be very helpful. Unfortunately, we can't consult him.
I'm not an expert but my understanding is that the Hebrew "almah" essentially means "a young woman of marriageable age." She would be expected to be a virgin but her virginity is not explicit in the Hebrew term. The word doesn't exactly mean "virgin," but it doesn't mean simply "young woman" either. Truth is, from my estimation, I just don't think we have an English word that means precisely what "almah" means, so no matter how you translate it you'll be making a compromise.
You do have a point about the LXX. And we should also keep in mind that even if you translate it as young woman, it still fits Mary.
Ultimately, I want the word translated according to the original author's intent. And I've seen compelling arguments for both "young woman" and "virgin."
@@sorenpx That's is the reason why I dislike the NET Bible.I even tried looking again at biblegateway.com and see what CEV,ASV,ESV though in the GNT and NRSV both translated it young woman.And so in my opinion if ever I have to explain what virgin birth means I would definitely avoid using versions with young woman in the passage in Isaiah.In my opinion when Matthew was writing his Gospel why would he use the word virgin or parthenos in Greek if he knew young woman or almah in Hebrew is the correct word to use or maybe he was quoting from the Greek Old testament or LXX.
The note is gold
What does it mean 'more of an Evangelical translation'? What other types are there?
Ecumenical, Catholic, etc. Evangelical means it was mainly influenced by evangelical translators
I was under the impression that this translation used the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic. Is this true?
Grant Macdonald? The creator of ram ranch works with bibles? Wow
How would you rate this against the CSB? Would you say the full notes version is more of a study bible? I've ordered both the full notes and the slimline to function as a reader only. I do understand that the notes are available online for free (?). But I feel the need to support such an exciting and promising translation. Thank you!
The note in net is gold
Now if only a red-letter edition would be available.
Question, as I'm thinking about workflow. Do feel a combination of the thinline + free online notes or the full notes edition (as a single hardcopy, albeit large) is the way to go? I'm debating which way to go. On one hand I can see that having the full notes edition would be great for everything being available on my fingertips. On the other hand, for going to church and portability the ultrathin + free online notes (via my smartphone) might be better for mobility. I'm really trying my best to justify not having both hardcopies (thinline + full notes)!
I currently use the CSB Study Bible, but usually leave this at home.
I think the thinline with online notes is a great way to go.
@@AFrischPerspective
can you please explain to me... if the NASB and the NASU ,.. are both abbreviations for the New American Standard Bible... why the NASU is further down on the chart closer to the "thought for thought"... area than the NASB...?..
should they Not be on top of each other on the graph shown,,, if they are the same exact translation?.. or is the NASU... different than the NASB... somehow...and if so, how?...
I ordered a thin line and a full notes imitation leather
You know NAS is closer to the Greek because it is a literal translation. While the NIV is a dynamic equivalent.
@A Frisch Perspective, which is easier to read? The comfort Print by Zondervan? Or the one put out by Net Bible (Cromwell bonded leather)?
I have never owned one other than the Nelson, so I can't say for sure. But the Comfort Print is very nice to read.
I love the NET Bible's notes. I just feel its text has an unfortunate way of slipping into excessive colloquialism - e.g. the second half of Ps 123.3 "For we have had our fill of humiliation, and then some" - or even banality - e.g. it renders the Resh line of Psalm 111 as "To obey the LORD is the fundamental principle for wise living".
NET - dispensation oriented
The NIV is easily the most accurate reading and easy reading bible translation with some of the most scrutiny behind its translation of any other translations. Easily the desert island bible if ever there was one. Just recently got the NET and I have to say, Im in absolute love with it. NASB is starting to really fall out of relevance as time goes on and these other translations show a much more dynamic approach to the translation that is more in line with the context of the original greek.
Palm slappin my face guy. I can't tell of this comment is a serious one. Is today opposite day lol? The NIV has some problems. Yes it reads easy but accuracy isn't it's strong suit. And then to say the NASB is somehow inferior to these is insane. With all due respect.
@@19nineteenthirteen19 I would argue the NIV has the strongest scholarship and the strongest case for the deity of Christ over any translation.
Name one translation with better scholarship behind it.
@@19nineteenthirteen19 Leading people to Jesus Christ is the goal, the translation itself is quite frankly irrelevant, because all English translations have issues and that will always be the case. Some words in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have no English equivalent, so when they are translated into English "word for word" goes completely out of the window. This is the reason why some translations such as the NIV use a "thought for thought" approach instead.
Denominations are also an extremely foolish thing, it's not like we're going to get to heaven and there's an angel directing people of different denominations to the right place. We are all one body under Christ and there is but one version of the word of God.
I recently bought a copy of the 'New English Bible' - New Testament from 1961. It cost me £1. Have you come across that translation?
That is a different version, what you referred to is published by the Church of England I believe. New English Bible,
not the same as New English Translation (NET) published in America
I had that paperback translation in college, about 35 years ago. It's okay, a lot like the NET, NLT, a readable Bible. I think I lost it somewhere, but I liked it at the time.
I have no use for the NET translation. Despite its supposed conservative roots, it is anything but. This translation, like so many others, has not been as committed to preserving God's Word as advertised. Its use of gender neutral language shows its bias for appeasing modern sensitivities over preserving the integrity of God's Word. Psalm 8 for example replaces all male pronouns with words like "human race", "mankind", "them", and "their". But Hebrews chapter 2 quotes this very same scripture as a prophetic sign of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Sovereign. The maleness of Psalm 8 is therefore important and meaningful. The NET clumsily handles this disparity that they've created and some liberal translations go one step further, morphing all male pronouns in Hebrews 2 as well, completely destroying the messianic link.
But this isn't the only place where the NET translation butchers longstanding tradition in favour of postmodern thinking. It also drops the word "virgin" in Isaiah's prophecy of a virgin birth (Isa. 7:14), replacing it with "young woman", despite the fact that Matthew 1:23 explicitly quotes it as "virgin". Moreover, when the Jewish translators of the Septuagint (Greek translation of Old Testament Hebrew bible) translated the Hebrew word for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, they chose the one Greek word that explicitly means virgin, not simply "young woman". The NET's footnotes on the interpretation of "almah" are not even internally consistent. In some places they defend their decision in Isaiah 7:14, elsewhere they argue for a "virgin" translation. Postmodern preachers like Rob Bell use the idea of "young woman" to question whether or not Jesus was ever born of a virgin. This should alarm us.
In all these ways, these modern translations that use "thought for thought" or "dynamic" methods of interpretation may be appealing to some, but are increasingly changing key scripture to reflect more secular ideas, mute the hard truths of scripture, or pander to peoples' worldliness and feelings. They unapologetically replace God's Word with men's, often relegating the original Word to mere footnotes while promoting their thoughts to the level of scripture. Small wonder when so many seminary teachers and translators don't even believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of scripture. More and more preachers using these translations are teaching very heretical ideas from the pulpits. Apostacy is growing in the Church and Christians in general are heeding voices and ideas that are not biblical because they feel good, not because they are good. We need to be Bereans, we need to think critically about these issues, do our homework, and not easily buy into the hype about the latest and greatest translation like it was some new Samsung phone or Apple I-Pad. For my personal study, teaching and preaching, I feel far safer with a KJV, NKJV, NIV1984 (won't touch any NIV versions since then), ESV, or NASB.
Bottom line, without the Holy Spirit enlightenment you can’t understand the deep spiritual meaning of all the translations put together.
True! A lot of hardened atheists and satanists read the bible aswell and never get true insight into the scriptures.
Holy spirit is a myth.
@@darapdiengdoh2179 A myth? I was reading reviews about different versions of the Bible, and I came accross your comment. It confused me. God's ways are not our ways. My thoughts are not God's thoughts. I need help with every aspect of my life. As Paul says, I do what I do not want to do. :) I'm 68 years old, and this is the first time in my entire life that I have journaled. If I had not done this, I don't think I would have been as aware of how God speaks to me through reading God's word and asking Holy Spirit for help. Some people may think the following "quoted items" I've listed are a person's own ideas or thoughts. However, each of these things are my personal experiences with Holy Spirit speaking to me and leading me. A "great idea came to mind", or "a lost item is found that I had been looking for and praying for help to find", or "a particular person comes to mind, you just know you need to pray for that person, and later find out that person is having a health crisis", or "just a few days before the leak of the Roe vs Wade, the Holy Spirit puts on my heart an idea about the santity of life and how God knits us together in a mother's womb and to pray hard that abortion is abolished", or I could go on and on listing experiences that I have had during the 2022 year. Since I never journaled before, I don't have year's past revelations. However, I have always believed in Holy Spirit. I mean, IF you believe the Bible, the Holy Spirit is there. Jesus said it is better that I go because I will send you the comforter. Thanks be to the Lord for sending us the comforter. I pray this will help you understand Holy Spirit. However, I still get confused about many things of God. Unlike other subjects, for me, the more I study and learn about God throught the Word, the more I realize I do not know.
@@theresamillender717 Most likely this person is not a believer. Most genuine followers of Jesus have knowledge of The Holy Spirit and experience with Him even if they don't necessarily understand the ways in which He interacts with them. The gentleman's comment exposes him as most likely not a Christian. The Holy Spirit is referred to many times in the scriptures and The Lord Jesus spoke much of Him. Blessings to you beloved daughter of The Lord.
Yes, but with the caveat that an incomprehensible translation is a barrier to getting to that point.
I only had a KJB New Testament to start with, and it was really not giving me much. I quickly bought an NIV (1984) as I had seen that before and was surprised at how easy it was to follow.
Also listen on TH-cam what Prof DR Dan Wallace says. He is a most expert Bible scholar and translator. Look for a video "Is what they wrote then, what we have now?"
The NET Bible has fascinating notes and revealing insights into how Bible translations are produced, and its transparency is in stark contrast to other modern versions. Its very generous policy regarding usage vs. copyright restrictions is also in stark contrast to other modern versions. Having said that, the NET, just like other modern translations, is not so much a Holy Bible as an ongoing and never-ending research project produced with the mindset of secular scientism. There can be nothing "holy" or "authoritative" in a "bible" whose text is constantly changing, where the scholars lord over the text rather than submit themselves to it. Even passages which are deemed "firm and fixed" today are in principle open to challenge, revision, or outright rejection at any time if the majority of scholars on the translation committee deem it necessary to do so. The Bible has passed out of the hands on the Church, and into the hands of publishers, committees of scholars, and the mindset of secular scientism.
I just taking a look at it, I like it, but seems they didn't have a audio version yet, it will be a down side for me.
Hopefully they will do that at some point.
Olive tree does have the audio Bible version, and I listen to it myself, however the audio version is of 1st edition, not 2nd.
N.I.V nearly inspired version
I wouldn't put much faith in the comparison chart shown @3:40. KJV is definitely not a more literal translation than ESV. In fact, with each discovery of older manuscripts we're finding, I'd say the KJV is one of the least reliable translations available today. I've always found it interesting that the KJV came into existence based on the arrogance of the King. To me, it makes sense why earlier versions that it attempted to replace, due to.political motivation, have been proven to be more accurate translations. In any event, good video.
You might find Mark Overton's article on bible translation insightful. It is excellent!
@@apostasiaelegcho5612 Mark's insight on the topic of "accuracy" and his ratings of common bible translations. He also brought my attention to lesser known literal english bible translations.
I wasn't surprised to find that the NKJV is far more literal than the NASB or ESV, which while being a solid translation is rather lose at times already.
The ESV translators didn't value literalness too highly - they don't italicize interpolated words.
How are you going to do indepth study with that?
I'm aware of the Masoretic text vs septuagint issue and I'm with you on that: The septuagint is the more reliable text. The comments you made on it are true.
Only the ,,Orthodox Study Bible" has the septuagint as its basis for the OT. I have that one and can recommend it.
All modern evangelical bibles use mostly the masoretic text and only deviate at times in favor of the septuagint or dead sea scrolls or other translations.
I was reading the NIV from the beginning and got to 1 Chronicles 21, all of a sudden they're talking about someone named Satan with a proper noun? This was confusing to me. I looked in the NET, and it provides a good explanation, and uses the term "adversary" instead. The NET is very useful, but Tim is right, it's very bland in how it reads overall...
Is this for Catholics?
The “this is the way” from the Mandalorian always makes me cringe because I think of John 14:6. So I think the way the did John 3:16 is kinda cool. I don’t know how accurate it is and I know they didn’t do it for the show.
I dont UNDERSTAND WHY the niv is ALWAYS SO FAR RIGHT IN THE SPECTRUM of bible translation. The translators of the niv 84 have said it was IN BETWEEN thought for thought and word for word. Never did they say it was a thought for thought translation. And not only this but when you READ IT.
It literally leans more word for word than thought for thought.
These scales are always different than each other and are not reliable.
The scales only vary in the middle and left sections. The NASB, KJV, NKJV and ESV will always be the most literal and be in the far right.
@@RyGuy8989 actually wouldn't that be the far-left according to most Bible translation charts as in word for word on the left and then you have thought for thought on the right and to the very far right you have a paraphrase such as TLB & MSG? Unless this is a different type of chart that you are talking about?
During translation opened to internet for multi millions of comments, from??? Sounds dangerous and inviting mere opinions
You should do a review of the World English Bible (WEB) based on the Majority Text instead of the TR.
Good day Sir..
I need your help..
I need a NET Bible..Am a minister and l cant afford one..
Want to understand Scriptures more!
The NET Bible with full notes is available for free at: www.stepbible.org/version.jsp?version=NETfull
Why doesnt the NET bible have Jesus words in red? or another color?
They probably don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t either tbh
Kjv perfect, complete, good sa if
En español cuando salen
9:10 lush vs green pastures: 'green' has too many meanings today to be unambiguous! :)
The king James version translates It's Jacob not James. Even The king James version Transport the words from 2. They transferred holy ghost its Holy Spirit.
🐩💨
Is there not enough "new translations"... Money is the root of all evel.
When you find a bible that proves a god exists or any particular set of beliefs to be correct and true above all other 3,999 world brands of religions, let me know...
I have the full version NET bible.. the notes are ok.. but looking at the text ...once again I feel too many things have been changed or omitted which dumbs down the Word.. for instance in the Psalm 23 example you show the NET mentions nothing about lying down in green pastures.... Did you know this lying down is a significant.. lesson?... sheep only lie down when they are completely satisfied... so.. in the NET we get the part that we lack nothing... but this does not give us the next part of lying down.. which is imprortant in our daily walk... we lack nothing AND we are satisfied...and that is just in the examples shown can you imagine how many other places.. readers are getting "cheated " out of God's word?.. once again... remember the serpent in the garden with EVE.. he did this as well.."hath God said?"....
The passion translation should not be on that list.
“We Do Know What The Bible is Saying”. I think this is the most presumptuous comment I have ever heard. It is saying “We KNOW the WORD of GOD” through whatever translation er hold closest to our heart. As for the “Notes detracting from the message” I could not disagree more. The notes provide full credence to what is stated and may I note; take into account “context” over tradition (Gen 3:16) Is a classic example of this and the notes describe the transliteration perfectly. Something that is sorely lacking in the majority of “traditional” translations. Since when did Traditional = Truth? It is good for us the question our beliefs constantly, for we must never stop asking our LORD for Wisdom and understanding. I “know” what tradition wants me to believe; but, does anyone truly know the mind of God? I think not. I have many study bibles and this one is one of my favorite because of the “Full Notes”
OK.... I must be old...I am 77... but I don’t really care for how the NET sounds... I was raised I
as a Methodist...on the KJV, and RSV..,... So .l, I did nit like how the NET passages you read sounded. The poetry ...and gracefulness were gone. It sounded flat to me.
I have been a Catholic since the early 89’s, and while the NAB is read at mass....a real shame, IN-HOUSE... I prefer the NKJV, and. the RSV:CE.. I just bought my first ESV, and like it a lot. I thunk the ESV retains a traditional “sound”, while being easy to understand.
I find your reviews both interesting and informative, and always enjoy them. Thanks for taking the time to give us your perspective on various Bibles, and the different translations.
I use the NET regularly and agree that it's not a great-sounding translation. The language is very contemporary. Its value is largely in its massive wealth of footnotes, which allow the reader to peak behind the curtain of the translation process.
go to CBS holdman he know whats what the truth on this bad bible
Bible Copyright my foot. It is God's Word to His People. They have NO Rights to Copyright. Pride.
Thank Goodness the NET does the right thing. God bless them.
EXACTLY!!
Your argument would be fair if we were talking about the original Greek and Hebrew texts, precisely as penned by the original writers. But when publishers dump millions of dollars into a new translation, paying the scholars to do the work and also financing marketing campaigns to get their new translation into the marketplace, yes, it makes sense that they will want to copyright the text. If you want a Bible version that has no copyright restrictions then look at the World English Bible.
By copy writing the English translations publishers and the translating entities can mitigate all revisions, and thereby, better protect any translation published. In even the meanest translations the doctrines of God are found, like the NWT of the cult the Jehovah's witnesses, who, although they tried to remove the deity of Jesus Anointed, the were unsuccessful. They literally changed words or added words when trying to remove Jesus' deity, but many passages were ignored, I believe the Holy Spirit wouldn't allow them to do it and it had to be Spiritual blindness as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 2.
No, it is protecting your product from someone else from using it
Can you preach out of this version?
The only thing good about the NET is the notes... The translation itself is ridiculous. the "ministry first" copyright policy means absolutely nothing to me when the translation is so loose- especially in the old testament. it would have been wonderful if it was a more formal translation.
your not right the people just 2 from bible inst: all the rest werer just well not a good bible rong info you best look it up make you look well like you dont know what your talking about
"...it's more of an Evangelical translation of the Bible."
Thank you for clarifying, now I know to stay as far away from it as possible.
Just stick with the KJV and you'll be ok!
Why?
@@mjolnir9855 why not?