Thanks! I saw and clicked the 'thumbs up' on your review. I wish I had the new Comfort Print hardback instead of this bonded leather edition. But I'll likely just keep using this one, since it does the job. By the way, you've gotten me interested in eschatology again -- a topic I haven't looked into much in the past decade or so.
@@stephengilbreath840 - I tend to prefer translations in the Tyndale family, but I don't have a single favorite. When I'm listening to a sermon, I try to follow along in the speaker's translation. If I'm studying on my own, I often use a literal translation (e.g., KJV, NKJV, RV, ASV) alongside a more interpretive one. For devotional reading, I find myself using the KJV or the RSV most often.
@@RGrantJones I do the same thing, basically. For devotion, mostly RSV. For personal study, KJV, RSV, NET parallel. When listening to a sermon, I try to use the speaker's translation, if possible, RSV if not. Hey, do you know if the new edition of the NET has changed any of the stuff mentioned in this video? I'm looking to get a NET Thinline, but I don't know if I should after watching this. I agree with several of the issues you raise, though not all.
All in all parts one and two were extremely informative in the area of textual criticism. Well done young man. In the end I've subscribed to your channel ☺️
I LOVE this video, I spent several hours pouring over the texts and, yes, you are spot on! I am hereby sub'd to your channel and you are now one of my very favorite content providers on YT. As my super long comment reveals, I love examining the texts and translations at this level and you did a great job. [As you will see, I believe God knows what He is doing and He did what He did on purpose so I am very concerned about translators accurately reflecting history's testimony of the primacy of Koine Greek between 280BC and the receipt of the first legible, pointed-text "Hebrew" scriptures, put into common circulation by Jews in roughly the 11th century AD. The implications of revising history to slip in an anachronistic default to Hebrew primacy serves two wicked purposes: impugn the revelation of the Holy Spirit of God via the NT authors by introducing inconsistencies that do NOT exist in the LXX, and deny the deity of Jesus Christ. I do not think God made a mistake by having the 2nd temple Jews outside of Jerusalem exclusively speaking Koine and relying on the LXX... The Greek-speaking synagogues housing a copy of the LXX for all men to read were like God's strategically located McDonalds (Deut 8:3, Luke 4:4 Matt 4:4) among the nations for the gospel to spread into all nations (Gen 18:18, 21) across the Greek-speaking world into which the disciples were sent to bring the Koine Greek gospel (Acts 17:2, John 5:39)] OK WOW, my head almost popped off @17:55 (I wrote my LXX/ OG comment/rant below @7:45 _before_ I saw this part of the video) the OG/LXX says parthenos and the Christian Church would not even have access to alma or betula via a Hebrew text to introduce this perversion for 11 centuries after Jesus ascended... This was a corruption introduced by Masoretic Jews. Does Wallace imagine God *_forget_* to give us an accurate copy of the OT before the 11th century Jews finally got vowels into their "Hebrew" letters to make it legible and finally fit for circulation among the easily beguiled Reformers ignorantly swapping the Koine OT text Jesus quoted for a Hebrew text for which we have not even a single witness in NT texts?? There is a problem when translators are willing to deny the actual linguistic primacy of Greek and history of Christianity's spread to a Greek-speaking world, where, with the exception of Jerome's inferential edits in the Vulgate, the Christians *_only had Greek texts to work with in either the OT or NT until well after the 11th century_* This matters and believers should beware to not fall vistim to these translators imagination that God made a mistake by choreographing world history to keep His church from the very subjective interpretational flaws of a consonantal Hebrew text that devoured the children of Israel before the LXX was firmly anchored in the acuity of Koine and in world-wide circulation, well- beyond the reach of Pharisaical editions, between 280BC and 1100 AD .. Rev 12 as much as says that is what God would do to protect "the woman" for this time frame from the words of the dragon, the lies of the children of their father the devil (John 8:44)!! great point @12:16 you really point out something huge!! There are more than 2 degrees of separation for their argument and YES the disregard for the restraints of italics is huge... and aside from that, to someone who trusts that God used every Word, even variants, on purpose...the richness of what is actually there in the Greek is amazing and sadly lost to the unsuspecting reader in the arrogance of overthrowing the translator's boundary standard of italics. This is just outright hubris of a translator to someone who speaks several languages and recognizes the necessity of transparency and honesty and the humility before the original AUTHOR of applying italics to a translation! That's out of bounds!! There is no referee in this game and these guys are CHEATING- big time!!! The very reason I am so attentive to the details you generously provide in these videos is illustrated by the very point you make at around 7:45...the following rant elaborates: :/ The NETS translators are NOT ignorant of the LXX's exclusive primacy (pre-Jerome's rumors) for the first 4 centuries of Christianity and Greek textual primacy (pre-common circulation of MT) for the first _11 centuries of Christianity._ They are NOT professing _unbelievers_ either, that we should expect them to dismiss the inerrancy of Jesus' assertion in John 17 that He had _already given us both God's name and His word_ by the date of Him praying to God (see John17:8, 17:14, 17:17-26). Wallace and his crew are NOT ignorant of the FACT that there would not be a single "Hebrew" OT in common circulation until the 11 century AD nor is Wallace ignorant of the FACT that not a single NT reference to God as the tetragrammaton exists anywhere on record from before even the beginning of Christianity!!! *However,* Wallace and his staff are unashamed of anachronistically defaulting to this "Hebrew" OT as if God Himself somehow _forgot_ to arm His Church with His word and His Name for the first 1000+y _before_ the Masoretic text (or any Hebrew "letters") were put into common circulation _by the Jews about whom Jesus warned us_ (Mark 12:38, Luke 20:46). I take issue with this bible because of its insidious scholarship that denies Koine primacy; I do not understand modern (post 16th century) scholarship's neglect of the first 11 centuries of Christianity and Koine Greek primacy for BOTH the OG OT and NT (again, as if God somehow made a mistake to have His Koine OT/Old Greek match His Koine NT!! ) Wallace knows that Christianity spread because Koine Greek was the lingua franca from Spain to Ethiopia and that God Himself choreographed history so there would be a diaspora of Greek-speaking Jews with a Greek-speaking synagogue with a copy of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures (LXX) just waiting in ever city outside of Jerusalem, so all a shipwrecked Paul et al had to do was show up, enter a synagogue, and reason from the Scriptures *which were already waiting for them to argue that Jesus was the Christ!* see Acts 17, 18 etc... Wallace et al neglect to give God this glory of paving His linguistic super hwy for the spread of the gospel, as prophesied in Zeph 3:9 and "glossa" of Dan 7:6 (LXX), so Paul would NOT and did NOT have to lug a copy of "Hebrew letters" around to first teach the Jews themselves and all nations to speak/ read the dead language of Hebrew (John 7:15) before they could read and understand that Scriptures demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ (John 5:39)!! Yes, Wallace neglects to even mention where the LXX departs from the MT *_even when the text of the LXX makes their very point!_* ex: Dan 1:15 ἐφάνη ἡ ὄψις αὐτῶν καλὴ καὶ ἡ ἕξις τοῦ σώματος κρείσσων τῶν ἄλλων νεανίσκων "their appearance and physical condition was shown to be better than that of the other young men . " I am leery of this fervent push for this revisionist replacement of Koine Greek primacy for a substantially different texts in the Hebrew, especially since Jesus warned us heartily about those γραμματεῖς who would, 11 centuries later, introduce the MT. (sorry I just had to vent and your observations of this variant were apropos !) @22:53 you are spot on.. Exodus 3:14 has God calling Himself ἐγώ εἰμι Ego Eimi, John 8 see Jesus likewise refer to Himself with such emphasis that by John 8:24 He is specifically telling _the believing Jews_ that if they did not believe that He is ἐγώ εἰμι , they will die in their sins. @29:40.. yep! Good point!! ἐάν τις if anyone (that's how I would render it because it does NOT say anthropos!) and there is an undeniable series of 3 "hims" there: πρὸς *αὐτόν* , μετ’ *αὐτοῦ,* and *αὐτὸς* μετ’ ἐμοῦ @34:40 your observation here is so valid, and I think this points to the arrogance of these translators! Do they attempt to eliminate other verbatims like the ones found in Luke 4:4 or Matt 4:4?? (no..perhaps because they are backed by the improbabilities of the 2 verbatims strangely falling at precisely verse 4 and chapter 4 in both Matt and Luke, some 16 centuries _before_ chapter and verse were introduced ..lol :) Gimme a break, scholars have no fear of God and consequently the miss the supernatural signature of God upon His word across the fullness of time and history....it's just sickening to us theophiloi)
I wanted to get the Apostolic Bible Polygot until I read a debate which brought up the concept of post Christ manipulation of the Septuagint by Christians. There is evidence on both sides saying the Jews manipulated the MT to deny Christ or Christians manipulated the Septuagint to assert Christ. Arguments saying the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the Septuagint but then evidence saying only a small part of the DSS align with the Septuagint and the majority align with the MT. So now I'm kind of stuck. My bias is I would want a Bible with the same language all the way through for ease of understanding so I'm hoping I can find the evidence to support the Septuagint and get off the fence.
Nelson is bringing out new editions at the end of this year (2019) - but with an 8.75 font although there seems to be a complete overhaul of the type setting and paper
@@radical7663 - it's valuable in spots, I think. Useful information, but only in places the editors find interesting. You'll get information for just about any word in any verse from the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich lexicon, imo.
That is what I waited for and now own. Much easier than on-screen for me. Although I still find evangelical and certain end time interpretations coming thru in the notes vs strict translational and manuscript notes. Agreed though, overall the notes are interesting and helpful even where I disagree or question.
I feel the same brother. I hear Wallace’s voice while I’m reading the notes sometimes, I remember I read somewhere in the NET notes they gave a possible interpretation of a passage that would be frowned on very heavily amongst evangelical circles(even just saying it is possible to interpret like that), I really like that. But on the other hand like you said it comes through like a “study Bible” more than a “translators notes bible” sometimes. I like it a lot.
I definitely will. I think they had people like me in mind when they conceived the project. The notes are very detailed and useful. The text critical notes might not be compelling, but it's interesting to read the arguments anyway to get a sense for how solid or soft their ultimate choice is. Very worthwhile Bible.
I hear that a NET abide journaling set is coming out this month but have not been able to see any previews of the inner look of the pages like the ESV scripture journal set.
To R. Grant Jones- THANK YOU for a great and informative video. Your remarks about Isaiah 7:14 are spot on; if the reading "young woman" is correct, rather than "virgin" this is hardly in keeping with how this verse is understood and translated by Matthew the apostle in chapter 2 of his gospel. This implies that Matthew made a mistake, that there really was no virgin birth, and from that flows the kind of liberal theology that has been destroying churches and eroding Christian doctrine for over a century.The NET Bible may have a great deal of information about various MSS, but the way it handles and uses those MSS is entirely in line with the thinking of the axioms of modern liberal Biblical text criticism. It should be emphasized that the NET Bible can only deal with extant manuscripts. Most manuscripts that have existed have long since worn out and have perished. The NET translation rejects the use of the generic masculine, which logically means that its translators brazenly reject the inspiration of such words. The generic masculine is NOT "too difficult to understand"; this is just an excuse used by liberals to try stop its continued usage, by claiming that such words are "sexist" or "offensive to the transgender community" or some equally irrelevant reason. (The doctrine of the Trinity is "difficult to understand" but most opponents of the generic masculine do not argue for getting rid of the doctrine of the Trinity on that basis). Any minimizing of the usage of the generic masculine will, of course, be welcomed by the homosexual/feminist/transgender movement, which comes not from the Bible, but from American politics. The NET notes are technical, but they are all based on the axioms of modern text criticism which are not explained by the translator; they are just assumed, and this makes it easy to see why they translate the way they do, as in such verses such as Mark 1:41 and 6:22, where absurd translations are adopted on the flimsiest of grounds. These axioms go back to the writings of Westcott and Hort and their ideas about what Greek MSS should be used as the basis for translating the New Testament. It is not the job of a translator to make things "easier for the reader". That is the job of a commentator. To place comments right into the text is to violate the very function of a translator. Never before in this history of the Christian Church has the translation of the Bible been taken away from the Church and placed into the hands of various groups of scholars, many of whom are not even Christian. What one gets with the NET Bible is not even really "scientific", although this is certainly the aim. Rather, the NET Bible, like other modern translations, is the result of the secular-minded rationalism of modern scholars. All their conclusions are tentative only; there is no finality to them, and there can never be any finality to anything in this approach the the Biblical text. With this mindset, the Biblical text is not a sacred and thus authoritative text but rather a tentative text that has no real certainty whatsoever and can have no real authority. Everything in principle is open to question, revision, rejection, or adoption by the scholars at any time. This approach to the text is thus non-Christian, and it cannot be otherwise, even if Christians are using it. The absurd insistence on the primacy of the Alexandrian MSS over the Byzantine, the insistence that the harder reading is to be preferred to the easier reading, the insistence that the older manuscript must be closer to the original than the later manuscript, the use of feminist English (i.e. the rejection of the generic masculine even when it occurs in every single manuscript in existence), the insistence that the traditional New Testament Text (Received Text) is an EDITED text, where as the Critical text is not (!) are all reasons to reject the NET as a CHRISTIAN Bible. As a SECULAR Bible, the NET is a fascinating work of secular minded scholarship, and it is certainly of interest. As a sacred text for Christians as the "Holy" Bible, the NET Bible is completely without merit.
The NLT butchered the text also in Rev 3:20 ....Its almost identical with the NRSV using "YOU" it sounds so weird to my ear. Anyways your videos have really been a great learning tool brother, thanks a ton. I'm just the average Joe so this really helps.... I do like reading from the NLT its sometimes helpful yet many times kinda weird LOL .....It would be neat to see where it falls on your translation scale someday😉 It has blessed me many times but I always stick to the KJV, NKJV and NASB. The NASB cracks me up now thanks to you, now everytime I see the "more literal" footnotes from the "most literal" translation, I get a chuckle.
LOL. And then you look in the KJV or the NKJV and the literal language from the NASB footnote is in the KJV/NKJV text. It happens often. Thanks for watching it. With this video, I was moderately confident that it would total less than 10 views. I thought, "I'll watch it once (maybe), and possibly Airik1111 will watch it too, so it could end up with two views if it's lucky!" But I wanted to do it anyway. (The hardest thing was deciding what to leave out.) I'll have to take a look at the NLT to see if I can score it. I seem to recall that, when I was coming up with my scoring approach, I glanced at the Living Bible and decided against making the attempt. The more literal the translation, the easier it is to score. For instance, if the original reads, "He went to the post office on Saturday," and the translation is, "George went to the post office on Saturday," scoring is easy. One "liberty" taken: the translation replaced "he" with "George." (The translation isn't less *accurate* if, in fact, "George" is the "he" the author had in view, but it is not as literal as it could be.) But how do you score, "George was lucky the post office opened early that day, a Saturday. He raced off to mail his package"? It's hard to decide just how to do it. The loose translations are more interpretive, so they work nicely as commentaries. Sometimes I'll read a passage in a literal translation, then read it again in something more free, like the RNJB. That works well when the free translation interprets an expression in a way that doesn't come naturally to me. For instance, my natural, almost unconscious interpretation of Gal 3.22 (KJV), "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," is that the "faith of Jesus Christ" there is our faith in him. So it's interesting and eye-opening to read the NET, which has "so that the promise could be given -- because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ -- to those who believe." That doesn't mean the looser translation's interpretation is right. But it's something to chew on.
Airik1111 - I looked at a few verses in the NLT, and my impression is that it would likely end up somewhere near the JB and the NEB on the continuum if I were to score it, likely to the right of them. It's very free.
R. Grant Jones Your sub's and views are up big time so I'm guessing I'm not the only geek who digs your vids😉 The Analytics report is hilarious, though I never give them much thought, if I did my videos would only be 3 1/2 minutes long😂 The few who take it the distance are the real geeks ....yep , thats the things we do for our fans😁😂
I'm looking for some advice. I have noticed there is the first edition, the second edition, and now the New Edition from nelson. I recently picked up the New Edition from Nelson in the cloth boards version. I'm also interested in the first or the second edition. Do you think it would be a bad idea for me to buy the first edition, the second edition, or both given that I now have the new Edition from Nelson?
helge evensen bible.org sells them in the bonded leather for about $70. That includes UPS shipping rate to me, could be cheaper or more expensive for you.
19:20 - from my understanding, the use of “young woman” doesn’t undercut the prophesy of Jesus because regardless of the term used in Isaiah, the tense indicates that a young woman is about to give birth. As in, she was a young maiden/virgin, and she’s about the give birth. Originally this prophesy would have been true in its historical context for someone other than Mary and Jesus, but it also applies to Jesus ultimately. Having said that, many pagan religions also had prophesies of “the Virgin about to give birth”, which to them was Isis and Horus etc. I think this is because of alignments of the stars honestly.
I watched both your NET Bible reviews (parts 1 & 2) and just LOVED this second one! The Bible and the depth of its meaning comes alive when you have a person versed in the textual criticisms and variants, as you are, and also lovely when examples are taken from other translations, as you have done! Well done, I say! Helped shed some light on textual criticisms and variants. Somewhat of a personal question: do you have a favorite English translation? I like the RSV and the ESV, but I also love the KJV and DR, along with the other main translations for comparative study. I just bought the 3rd edition of the NET Bible, and so am just barely getting to know the text and notes. Fascinating to learn why one choice was selected over another. I do wonder, however, who has determined that Mss X are “better” and “more reliable.” A matter of opinion. I personally enjoy the KJV text and the Mss it came from. But I am open to all of them. I’m thankful we have so many English translations to read from and work with. I enjoy just about every video you’ve put out, and I thank you for your work. I appreciate what you do and the education and effort it takes to produce these videos. Thank you.
Thanks for the encouraging comment, Winnie! I like the translations in the Tyndale tradition the most: Geneva Bible, KJV, RV, and RSV. I don't have a favorite, but I probably use the KJV more than any other. I frequently use a literal translation like the KJV or NASB alongside a looser translation, like the NRSV, the Jerusalem Bible, or the New English Bible. The NET Bible is an excellent resource, and I have the feeling I may receive a Comfort Print hardback for Christmas. That will be more convenient as a desk reference than the bonded leather edition I reviewed here. I very much agree with your comment about the "better" or "more reliable" manuscripts. It may be that the textual critics mean by those terms that those are the manuscripts that read most like their printed editions. But the content of those printed editions depends to an extent on the choices the editors made in how to weigh the evidence from the ancient manuscripts. So if Codex B's vote is weighed heavily when deciding among readings, it's reasonable to expect that Codex B will often agree with the final printed edition.
Thanks for that idea. I plan to do more translation comparison videos in the coming year. I haven't spent much time in the Christian Standard, but an ESV vs NKJV video is definitely doable. I've also been asked to do NRSV vs ESV and NRSV vs RSV videos.
Thanks for the thorough and informative review, very helpful! Thanks too for your translation scale; it's great to find one with its methodology explained, hopefully you will continue updating it? It would be an invaluable resource! I wonder if you've come across the recently published New Testament by David Bentley Hart, which he claims is pitilessly literal to the Greek text (I think he uses the Patriarchal Text of 1904 as a base and compares it with NA28, but I might be wrong). It would be fascinating to see how you would review it. Many thanks again
I just glanced at Hart's introduction, and he says he used the critical text as a base and added material from other sources, such as Robinson/Pierpont or Hodges/Farstad. I also skimmed part of the translation of Matthew, and my initial reaction is that it is a much more engaging translation than the NET. I've added it to my wish list. Thanks for the kind words about the translation continuum. Most of the similar graphics one sees on the internet appear to be completely subjective, based on the impressions of people (likely) much more skilled in Greek than I. But whatever its faults, my method has the advantage of having an objective scoring scheme. Yours is the second request I've had since the update to add another translation -- the other being the New Living Translation. God willing, I'll augment it from time to time.
Yes, I definitely recommend the NET. For all the weaknesses in this edition, it's definitely worth having as a resource. My favorite translations are the ones that combine a literal translation approach with the more formal style of the Tyndale tradition, like the Geneva, the KJV, the RV, and, to an extent, the RSV. But I also like the NEB and the Jerusalem Bible, toward the dynamic end of the spectrum.
Your very knowledgeable in the area of theology ,have you studied at a seminary or are you self taught .I subscribed to your chanel,i find you very informative .Keep up the great work my friend !!!
I think that those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as young woman are violating one of the key rules of exegesis: Let the Bible interpret the Bible. Mathew writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says virgin. So of the possible translations, inspired writ tells us what the correct translation is.
I really love your videos even though the content may be a bit advanced for me right now. I recently bought 2 NIV bibles but will probably put them aside. I have 2 Esv on the way. An Allan NCR and crossways verse by verse. And I'm now thinking of ordering this NET. I'd like to study more on translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Textual criticism I guess? Other than this volume, what other must have books or bibles would you recommend? The blue hardcover Hebrew Greek and English bible in another of your videos? A lot of this maybe over my head for a while, or it actually may help me understand scripture more so. I've been trying to study the bible for years and have struggled. Bought and sold more bibles and translations than I can count. However I'd still consider myself a "new" bible student.
Thanks for the kind words and the question. I also am a student, and I've not been to seminary. I'm just a layman who's done some reading. With that disclaimer out of the way, I think the NET Bible is a wise investment. An interlinear would also be good, although you might want to find a good single-volume New Testament interlinear, depending on how good your eyes are. The font in the blue hardcover I reviewed is rather small. Have you thought about teaching yourself Greek and/or Hebrew? If you're interested in learning Greek, I can suggest some resources. But I've never tried to learn Hebrew myself, so I'm not much use there.
@@RGrantJones I'm not sure how well teaching myself Greek would go, but I'm very interested in what the ancient texts read, compared to what our English translations read. I like the idea of a new testament interlinear. I'll see what I can find.
And just after a brief search I found an ESV interlinear that will be released this March by crossway. "Greek-English Interlinear ESV New Testament: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) and English Standard Version (ESV)" 9781433530326
@@robcimarolli4510 - I haven't seen Wallace's book, but the one by Mounce is very good. I used a program called Greek Tutor, made by Parsons Technology. I see that it's available on Amazon, but I hesitate to recommend it: it's old, and it might not run on your operating system. Another good resource (that's free) is Daily Dose of Greek (dailydoseofgreek.com/ ). Click on the section labelled "Learn".
The NET seems to be that bible translation that makes odd translation decisions for the main text and because they know that they will have a footnote on it, they can get away with strange renderings like “carnal knowledge” in the 2020 update to Genesis 19:5 referring to what the men of Sodom wanted to do to the two angels in lots house. It’s almost as if they are doing it intentionally to get people engaged in the text itself which I have no issue with.
You mentioned you probably wouldn't read the NET but use this more as a reference I believe. Just wondering if you find anything wrong with the translation or if you simply prefer another. I've been reading the esv recently but was thinking of spending some time using the net also.
Rob - no, nothing particularly wrong with it. I haven't found any blatant inaccuracies. It just struck me as bland, not particularly appealing. But I haven't spent much time with it, so I could be wrong.
It's really neat that you can read Greek & read the Bible in the original languages! Must be nice :) Do you normally have your quiet time in Greek, etc? Thanks for the in-depth review! Makes me appreciate the KJV even more 👍. On your literal chart, I think you show that the KJV & nkjv are both from the textus receptus - but I thought that only the KJV is? Nkjv is from the Alexandrian with westcott & Hort. Thanks again for another great review!👏
My Greek isn't all that good. These days, I usually read from my Westcott & Hort New Testament (NT) every morning, but I have my ASV alongside as a crutch. As I go, I write down the words I don't know so I can try to drill them into my memory later. The NKJV NT is based on the TR. It has the passages the Alexandrian text leaves out: the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, 1 John 5.7-8, the last twelve verses of Mark (without brackets), the woman taken in adultery -- they're all there. It also has notes to show how the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek differs from the TR, and other notes that show how Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad's Majority Text Greek New Testament differs from the TR.
What denomination are you affiliated with Grant .I'm from Canada and 30 years ago i started bible college with the Assemblies of God and just started back now .I'm currently in my second year .Are you in the ministry also ???
8:07 I enjoy your insights, but nowhere do they write or imply that the other versions are "incorrect." It is just giving a reason why they chose the translation they did, which is to make it clearer that a healthy look was the intention of the original. You are reading an intention into their choice that isn't there because you don't agree with their choice.
excellent presentation... but "brothers and sisters" is not a translation,... the translators have given us a meaning beyond the text,... granted, "sisters" are not therefore excluded,... there is however a feminine form of the word Paul could have added if he wanted (adelphe/adelphai) which he in fact has used elsewhere... but the NET is what it is,... overall, it is somewhat interpretative anyway... the notes are nice though,... :)
The NET Bible is so naturally best used online. It’s where it belongs. By all means get the cheap, hardback version and put it in a cupboard somewhere as an ‘emergency NET Bible’ for when your internet service is down. Other than that, why destroy your eyesight with acres of tiny notes? (And this study Bible is ALL about the notes.)
My thing is we dont actually have the “original” anymore. So how can we say thay any new translation is more accurate then the formers? Do you believe our KJV translators were they best at what they did? Being they were far superior than us when it comes to typography? I just feel like they stood against such prosecution and testing during the time of the KJV translation. I think to be text critical is really us just trying to be smarter or better than they were. Idk i have such a hard time thinking we should be trying to rewrite what was written already and finally completed.
Follow up- "Textual criticism is NOT science" 35:50. Exactly. This is a superb analysis of the NET is given here by R. Grant Jones, and it is a much-needed critique of a version which seems to have gotten a free ride up to this point. The word "man" (adam Hebrew, anthropos Greek) does not actually mean quite the same thing as "humankind". The word "man" is a masculine word, requiring the masculine pronoun, and it is a word that is personal. The word "humankind" is neuter, requiring the non-gender pronoun "it", and it is an impersonal word. The move from the personal to the impersonal, and from the singular to the plural, is characteristic of gender-neutral language, and one of the reasons for its sheer ugliness as prose. It is also unbiblical root and branch, having its origins in modern militant American feminism, beginning in the early 1970s. Feminist radicals set for themselves the goal of ridding the English language of the generic masculine, and within one generation self-proclaimed "evangelicals" were eagerly joining in the fray. In Rev. 3:20 the Greek word tis "anyone" is in the Greek masculine; it is not a neuter word, and the pronoun associated with it is in the masculine, and not in the neuter, and the ASV/KJV are not using any so-called masculine bias in using the generic "man". So the ASV/KVJ "man" is quite correct in this verse, not the word "anyone" which is used in the NET, which is all about promoting feminist English devoid wherever doing so is deemed to be at all possible. So, when the Greek word was translated into English, the generic "man" was used (which is quite correct in the context). The generic masculine never excludes women (by definition it cannot do so) but its usage is highly offensive to modern feminists. There is no question, however, that the generic masculine is part of the original Biblical text, which Christians have always (until recently) believed to be inspired. This is no longer the case. That gender-neutral language is now being promoted by various evangelical "leaders" and embraced by so many of their followers only shows the worldliness of many who profess Christ, but who do not confess Christ. The insertion of John 19:34 into Matthew 27:49 in Codices C, B, and Aleph almost certainly originated with Tatian's Diatessaron, and has nothing to do with the autographs. The NET Bible deals with only a fraction of existing manuscripts, and typically those that support the Westcott-Hort hypothesis that the NET scholars believe and support. Thus Codex Glazier, an ancient pre-Vulgate Coptic manuscript which includes Acts 8:37 is not seen fit to be discussed in the notes of the NET Bible, which dismisses the verse as an inauthentic later Christian addition. Again, Dan Wallace claims to believe in Biblical inerrancy, but he restricts this to the autographs (the typical position of modern evangelicals), and yet he then goes on to endorse Alexandrian readings which undermine this very position, such as Mark 1:2 and Luke 23:45. According to liberals for over 100 years, and now according to modern evangelicals, the Traditional Text (TR) is an edited text. According to this theory, the original autographs had nonsensical readings (e.g. I Timothy 3:16), idiocies (e.g. Mark 1:41, 6:22), errors (e.g. see above), and heretical readings (e.g. John 1:18) which later Christians edited in order to pawn off the Bible as some sort of "inspired" and "infallible or inerrant) book. The Alexandrian manuscripts on which modern versions are based, comprise less than 1% of the extant manuscripts, but which modern text critics insist are the "best" (they are actually the worst, and don't even agree with each other in many instances). This whole critical text approach to the Bible is unChristian, and its promoters who produce versions such as the NET are not under the disciplinary authority of any church body. The Bibles that they produce are NOT Christian; they are secular, and the product of secular-minded thinking, not Christian thinking, because their axioms are secular, and not Christian. They and the publishers who hold the copyrights to these modern versions make millions of dollars from selling these versions for profit, and they see the "Christian community" primarily as consumers of their product. The overwhelmingly secularist mindset of modern text critics and their "scientific" and ever-changing New Testament text, is breathtaking.
audio sounds top notch
great review young man.
Another very detailed and informative set of videos! I look forward to seeing all of your videos,
I appreciate your reviews being so in depth. I just got the new 2019 NET by Thomas Nelson and absolutely love it.
Thanks! I saw and clicked the 'thumbs up' on your review. I wish I had the new Comfort Print hardback instead of this bonded leather edition. But I'll likely just keep using this one, since it does the job. By the way, you've gotten me interested in eschatology again -- a topic I haven't looked into much in the past decade or so.
@@RGrantJones What is your top preferred translation?
@@stephengilbreath840 - I tend to prefer translations in the Tyndale family, but I don't have a single favorite. When I'm listening to a sermon, I try to follow along in the speaker's translation. If I'm studying on my own, I often use a literal translation (e.g., KJV, NKJV, RV, ASV) alongside a more interpretive one. For devotional reading, I find myself using the KJV or the RSV most often.
@@RGrantJones I respect that. I preach from the KJV, but at home I also use NKJV, NASB95, and ESV. I mostly use KJV/NKJV though.
@@RGrantJones I do the same thing, basically. For devotion, mostly RSV. For personal study, KJV, RSV, NET parallel. When listening to a sermon, I try to use the speaker's translation, if possible, RSV if not.
Hey, do you know if the new edition of the NET has changed any of the stuff mentioned in this video? I'm looking to get a NET Thinline, but I don't know if I should after watching this. I agree with several of the issues you raise, though not all.
All in all parts one and two were extremely informative in the area of textual criticism. Well done young man. In the end I've subscribed to your channel ☺️
Thank you for subscribing! I'm glad you found them helpful.
I LOVE this video, I spent several hours pouring over the texts and, yes, you are spot on! I am hereby sub'd to your channel and you are now one of my very favorite content providers on YT. As my super long comment reveals, I love examining the texts and translations at this level and you did a great job. [As you will see, I believe God knows what He is doing and He did what He did on purpose so I am very concerned about translators accurately reflecting history's testimony of the primacy of Koine Greek between 280BC and the receipt of the first legible, pointed-text "Hebrew" scriptures, put into common circulation by Jews in roughly the 11th century AD. The implications of revising history to slip in an anachronistic default to Hebrew primacy serves two wicked purposes: impugn the revelation of the Holy Spirit of God via the NT authors by introducing inconsistencies that do NOT exist in the LXX, and deny the deity of Jesus Christ. I do not think God made a mistake by having the 2nd temple Jews outside of Jerusalem exclusively speaking Koine and relying on the LXX... The Greek-speaking synagogues housing a copy of the LXX for all men to read were like God's strategically located McDonalds (Deut 8:3, Luke 4:4 Matt 4:4) among the nations for the gospel to spread into all nations (Gen 18:18, 21) across the Greek-speaking world into which the disciples were sent to bring the Koine Greek gospel (Acts 17:2, John 5:39)]
OK WOW, my head almost popped off @17:55 (I wrote my LXX/ OG comment/rant below @7:45 _before_ I saw this part of the video) the OG/LXX says parthenos and the Christian Church would not even have access to alma or betula via a Hebrew text to introduce this perversion for 11 centuries after Jesus ascended... This was a corruption introduced by Masoretic Jews. Does Wallace imagine God *_forget_* to give us an accurate copy of the OT before the 11th century Jews finally got vowels into their "Hebrew" letters to make it legible and finally fit for circulation among the easily beguiled Reformers ignorantly swapping the Koine OT text Jesus quoted for a Hebrew text for which we have not even a single witness in NT texts??
There is a problem when translators are willing to deny the actual linguistic primacy of Greek and history of Christianity's spread to a Greek-speaking world, where, with the exception of Jerome's inferential edits in the Vulgate, the Christians *_only had Greek texts to work with in either the OT or NT until well after the 11th century_* This matters and believers should beware to not fall vistim to these translators imagination that God made a mistake by choreographing world history to keep His church from the very subjective interpretational flaws of a consonantal Hebrew text that devoured the children of Israel before the LXX was firmly anchored in the acuity of Koine and in world-wide circulation, well- beyond the reach of Pharisaical editions, between 280BC and 1100 AD .. Rev 12 as much as says that is what God would do to protect "the woman" for this time frame from the words of the dragon, the lies of the children of their father the devil (John 8:44)!!
great point @12:16 you really point out something huge!! There are more than 2 degrees of separation for their argument and YES the disregard for the restraints of italics is huge... and aside from that, to someone who trusts that God used every Word, even variants, on purpose...the richness of what is actually there in the Greek is amazing and sadly lost to the unsuspecting reader in the arrogance of overthrowing the translator's boundary standard of italics. This is just outright hubris of a translator to someone who speaks several languages and recognizes the necessity of transparency and honesty and the humility before the original AUTHOR of applying italics to a translation! That's out of bounds!! There is no referee in this game and these guys are CHEATING- big time!!!
The very reason I am so attentive to the details you generously provide in these videos is illustrated by the very point you make at around 7:45...the following rant elaborates: :/
The NETS translators are NOT ignorant of the LXX's exclusive primacy (pre-Jerome's rumors) for the first 4 centuries of Christianity and Greek textual primacy (pre-common circulation of MT) for the first _11 centuries of Christianity._ They are NOT professing _unbelievers_ either, that we should expect them to dismiss the inerrancy of Jesus' assertion in John 17 that He had _already given us both God's name and His word_ by the date of Him praying to God (see John17:8, 17:14, 17:17-26).
Wallace and his crew are NOT ignorant of the FACT that there would not be a single "Hebrew" OT in common circulation until the 11 century AD nor is Wallace ignorant of the FACT that not a single NT reference to God as the tetragrammaton exists anywhere on record from before even the beginning of Christianity!!!
*However,* Wallace and his staff are unashamed of anachronistically defaulting to this "Hebrew" OT as if God Himself somehow _forgot_ to arm His Church with His word and His Name for the first 1000+y _before_ the Masoretic text (or any Hebrew "letters") were put into common circulation _by the Jews about whom Jesus warned us_ (Mark 12:38, Luke 20:46).
I take issue with this bible because of its insidious scholarship that denies Koine primacy; I do not understand modern (post 16th century) scholarship's neglect of the first 11 centuries of Christianity and Koine Greek primacy for BOTH the OG OT and NT (again, as if God somehow made a mistake to have His Koine OT/Old Greek match His Koine NT!! ) Wallace knows that Christianity spread because Koine Greek was the lingua franca from Spain to Ethiopia and that God Himself choreographed history so there would be a diaspora of Greek-speaking Jews with a Greek-speaking synagogue with a copy of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures (LXX) just waiting in ever city outside of Jerusalem, so all a shipwrecked Paul et al had to do was show up, enter a synagogue, and reason from the Scriptures *which were already waiting for them to argue that Jesus was the Christ!* see Acts 17, 18 etc...
Wallace et al neglect to give God this glory of paving His linguistic super hwy for the spread of the gospel, as prophesied in Zeph 3:9 and "glossa" of Dan 7:6 (LXX), so Paul would NOT and did NOT have to lug a copy of "Hebrew letters" around to first teach the Jews themselves and all nations to speak/ read the dead language of Hebrew (John 7:15) before they could read and understand that Scriptures demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ (John 5:39)!! Yes, Wallace neglects to even mention where the LXX departs from the MT *_even when the text of the LXX makes their very point!_* ex: Dan 1:15 ἐφάνη ἡ ὄψις αὐτῶν καλὴ καὶ ἡ ἕξις τοῦ σώματος κρείσσων τῶν ἄλλων νεανίσκων "their appearance and physical condition was shown to be better than that of the other young men . "
I am leery of this fervent push for this revisionist replacement of Koine Greek primacy for a substantially different texts in the Hebrew, especially since Jesus warned us heartily about those γραμματεῖς who would, 11 centuries later, introduce the MT.
(sorry I just had to vent and your observations of this variant were apropos !)
@22:53 you are spot on.. Exodus 3:14 has God calling Himself ἐγώ εἰμι Ego Eimi, John 8 see Jesus likewise refer to Himself with such emphasis that by John 8:24 He is specifically telling _the believing Jews_ that if they did not believe that He is ἐγώ εἰμι , they will die in their sins.
@29:40.. yep! Good point!! ἐάν τις if anyone (that's how I would render it because it does NOT say anthropos!) and there is an undeniable series of 3 "hims" there: πρὸς *αὐτόν* , μετ’ *αὐτοῦ,* and *αὐτὸς* μετ’ ἐμοῦ
@34:40 your observation here is so valid, and I think this points to the arrogance of these translators! Do they attempt to eliminate other verbatims like the ones found in Luke 4:4 or Matt 4:4?? (no..perhaps because they are backed by the improbabilities of the 2 verbatims strangely falling at precisely verse 4 and chapter 4 in both Matt and Luke, some 16 centuries _before_ chapter and verse were introduced ..lol :) Gimme a break, scholars have no fear of God and consequently the miss the supernatural signature of God upon His word across the fullness of time and history....it's just sickening to us theophiloi)
I wanted to get the Apostolic Bible Polygot until I read a debate which brought up the concept of post Christ manipulation of the Septuagint by Christians. There is evidence on both sides saying the Jews manipulated the MT to deny Christ or Christians manipulated the Septuagint to assert Christ. Arguments saying the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the Septuagint but then evidence saying only a small part of the DSS align with the Septuagint and the majority align with the MT. So now I'm kind of stuck. My bias is I would want a Bible with the same language all the way through for ease of understanding so I'm hoping I can find the evidence to support the Septuagint and get off the fence.
Nelson is bringing out new editions at the end of this year (2019) - but with an 8.75 font although there seems to be a complete overhaul of the type setting and paper
Very interesting! Thanks for that update.
Was this bible any use to you for Greek?
@@radical7663 - No, not so far. I haven't used it that way.
And it’s potential? Does it have a substantial linguistic value?
@@radical7663 - it's valuable in spots, I think. Useful information, but only in places the editors find interesting. You'll get information for just about any word in any verse from the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich lexicon, imo.
Thanks again for another comprehensive review. You obviously put a lot of time and work into them.
Hardback net bible with notes is coming to town next month in Thomas Nelson comfort print
Hardback is the way to go with this one, imo. Thanks for letting us know.
That is what I waited for and now own. Much easier than on-screen for me. Although I still find evangelical and certain end time interpretations coming thru in the notes vs strict translational and manuscript notes. Agreed though, overall the notes are interesting and helpful even where I disagree or question.
I feel the same brother. I hear Wallace’s voice while I’m reading the notes sometimes, I remember I read somewhere in the NET notes they gave a possible interpretation of a passage that would be frowned on very heavily amongst evangelical circles(even just saying it is possible to interpret like that), I really like that. But on the other hand like you said it comes through like a “study Bible” more than a “translators notes bible” sometimes. I like it a lot.
Thank you for both of these extremely helpful videos.
Thank you for commenting!
Thanks for the detailed follow up video. I'm happy to hear you feel you'll have a use for it.
I definitely will. I think they had people like me in mind when they conceived the project. The notes are very detailed and useful. The text critical notes might not be compelling, but it's interesting to read the arguments anyway to get a sense for how solid or soft their ultimate choice is. Very worthwhile Bible.
I hear that a NET abide journaling set is coming out this month but have not been able to see any previews of the inner look of the pages like the ESV scripture journal set.
I can send you some pictures of the inside if you like :)
To R. Grant Jones- THANK YOU for a great and informative video. Your remarks about Isaiah 7:14 are spot on; if the reading "young woman" is correct, rather than "virgin" this is hardly in keeping with how this verse is understood and translated by Matthew the apostle in chapter 2 of his gospel. This implies that Matthew made a mistake, that there really was no virgin birth, and from that flows the kind of liberal theology that has been destroying churches and eroding Christian doctrine for over a century.The NET Bible may have a great deal of information about various MSS, but the way it handles and uses those MSS is entirely in line with the thinking of the axioms of modern liberal Biblical text criticism. It should be emphasized that the NET Bible can only deal with extant manuscripts. Most manuscripts that have existed have long since worn out and have perished. The NET translation rejects the use of the generic masculine, which logically means that its translators brazenly reject the inspiration of such words. The generic masculine is NOT "too difficult to understand"; this is just an excuse used by liberals to try stop its continued usage, by claiming that such words are "sexist" or "offensive to the transgender community" or some equally irrelevant reason. (The doctrine of the Trinity is "difficult to understand" but most opponents of the generic masculine do not argue for getting rid of the doctrine of the Trinity on that basis). Any minimizing of the usage of the generic masculine will, of course, be welcomed by the homosexual/feminist/transgender movement, which comes not from the Bible, but from American politics. The NET notes are technical, but they are all based on the axioms of modern text criticism which are not explained by the translator; they are just assumed, and this makes it easy to see why they translate the way they do, as in such verses such as Mark 1:41 and 6:22, where absurd translations are adopted on the flimsiest of grounds. These axioms go back to the writings of Westcott and Hort and their ideas about what Greek MSS should be used as the basis for translating the New Testament. It is not the job of a translator to make things "easier for the reader". That is the job of a commentator. To place comments right into the text is to violate the very function of a translator. Never before in this history of the Christian Church has the translation of the Bible been taken away from the Church and placed into the hands of various groups of scholars, many of whom are not even Christian. What one gets with the NET Bible is not even really "scientific", although this is certainly the aim. Rather, the NET Bible, like other modern translations, is the result of the secular-minded rationalism of modern scholars. All their conclusions are tentative only; there is no finality to them, and there can never be any finality to anything in this approach the the Biblical text. With this mindset, the Biblical text is not a sacred and thus authoritative text but rather a tentative text that has no real certainty whatsoever and can have no real authority. Everything in principle is open to question, revision, rejection, or adoption by the scholars at any time. This approach to the text is thus non-Christian, and it cannot be otherwise, even if Christians are using it. The absurd insistence on the primacy of the Alexandrian MSS over the Byzantine, the insistence that the harder reading is to be preferred to the easier reading, the insistence that the older manuscript must be closer to the original than the later manuscript, the use of feminist English (i.e. the rejection of the generic masculine even when it occurs in every single manuscript in existence), the insistence that the traditional New Testament Text (Received Text) is an EDITED text, where as the Critical text is not (!) are all reasons to reject the NET as a CHRISTIAN Bible. As a SECULAR Bible, the NET is a fascinating work of secular minded scholarship, and it is certainly of interest. As a sacred text for Christians as the "Holy" Bible, the NET Bible is completely without merit.
j was a man; G-d is not a man; end film
Couldn't agree more!
The NLT butchered the text also in Rev 3:20 ....Its almost identical with the NRSV using "YOU" it sounds so weird to my ear. Anyways your videos have really been a great learning tool brother, thanks a ton. I'm just the average Joe so this really helps....
I do like reading from the NLT its sometimes helpful yet many times kinda weird LOL .....It would be neat to see where it falls on your translation scale someday😉 It has blessed me many times but I always stick to the KJV, NKJV and NASB.
The NASB cracks me up now thanks to you, now everytime I see the "more literal" footnotes from the "most literal" translation, I get a chuckle.
LOL. And then you look in the KJV or the NKJV and the literal language from the NASB footnote is in the KJV/NKJV text. It happens often.
Thanks for watching it. With this video, I was moderately confident that it would total less than 10 views. I thought, "I'll watch it once (maybe), and possibly Airik1111 will watch it too, so it could end up with two views if it's lucky!" But I wanted to do it anyway. (The hardest thing was deciding what to leave out.)
I'll have to take a look at the NLT to see if I can score it. I seem to recall that, when I was coming up with my scoring approach, I glanced at the Living Bible and decided against making the attempt. The more literal the translation, the easier it is to score. For instance, if the original reads, "He went to the post office on Saturday," and the translation is, "George went to the post office on Saturday," scoring is easy. One "liberty" taken: the translation replaced "he" with "George." (The translation isn't less *accurate* if, in fact, "George" is the "he" the author had in view, but it is not as literal as it could be.) But how do you score, "George was lucky the post office opened early that day, a Saturday. He raced off to mail his package"? It's hard to decide just how to do it.
The loose translations are more interpretive, so they work nicely as commentaries. Sometimes I'll read a passage in a literal translation, then read it again in something more free, like the RNJB. That works well when the free translation interprets an expression in a way that doesn't come naturally to me. For instance, my natural, almost unconscious interpretation of Gal 3.22 (KJV), "that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," is that the "faith of Jesus Christ" there is our faith in him. So it's interesting and eye-opening to read the NET, which has "so that the promise could be given -- because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ -- to those who believe." That doesn't mean the looser translation's interpretation is right. But it's something to chew on.
Airik1111 - I looked at a few verses in the NLT, and my impression is that it would likely end up somewhere near the JB and the NEB on the continuum if I were to score it, likely to the right of them. It's very free.
R. Grant Jones That's exactly how I use the NLT, its like having a big commentary with commentary of the commentary😂😆😉
R. Grant Jones Your sub's and views are up big time so I'm guessing I'm not the only geek who digs your vids😉 The Analytics report is hilarious, though I never give them much thought, if I did my videos would only be 3 1/2 minutes long😂 The few who take it the distance are the real geeks ....yep , thats the things we do for our fans😁😂
Great explanation, I’m very pleased!!!
I'm looking for some advice. I have noticed there is the first edition, the second edition, and now the New Edition from nelson.
I recently picked up the New Edition from Nelson in the cloth boards version.
I'm also interested in the first or the second edition.
Do you think it would be a bad idea for me to buy the first edition, the second edition, or both given that I now have the new Edition from Nelson?
anybody know from where i can order one copy of The NET Bible exactly like the one in this review...?? (with all the 58.506 translators' notes...)
Amazon sells it, but their price seems a bit high. www.amazon.com/Full-Notes-Net-Bible-Second/dp/0737502126
helge evensen bible.org sells them in the bonded leather for about $70. That includes UPS shipping rate to me, could be cheaper or more expensive for you.
@@ethanlafont5073 thanks for the info...
thanks... @@RGrantJones
19:20 - from my understanding, the use of “young woman” doesn’t undercut the prophesy of Jesus because regardless of the term used in Isaiah, the tense indicates that a young woman is about to give birth. As in, she was a young maiden/virgin, and she’s about the give birth. Originally this prophesy would have been true in its historical context for someone other than Mary and Jesus, but it also applies to Jesus ultimately.
Having said that, many pagan religions also had prophesies of “the Virgin about to give birth”, which to them was Isis and Horus etc.
I think this is because of alignments of the stars honestly.
I watched both your NET Bible reviews (parts 1 & 2) and just LOVED this second one! The Bible and the depth of its meaning comes alive when you have a person versed in the textual criticisms and variants, as you are, and also lovely when examples are taken from other translations, as you have done! Well done, I say! Helped shed some light on textual criticisms and variants. Somewhat of a personal question: do you have a favorite English translation? I like the RSV and the ESV, but I also love the KJV and DR, along with the other main translations for comparative study. I just bought the 3rd edition of the NET Bible, and so am just barely getting to know the text and notes. Fascinating to learn why one choice was selected over another. I do wonder, however, who has determined that Mss X are “better” and “more reliable.” A matter of opinion. I personally enjoy the KJV text and the Mss it came from. But I am open to all of them. I’m thankful we have so many English translations to read from and work with. I enjoy just about every video you’ve put out, and I thank you for your work. I appreciate what you do and the education and effort it takes to produce these videos. Thank you.
Thanks for the encouraging comment, Winnie! I like the translations in the Tyndale tradition the most: Geneva Bible, KJV, RV, and RSV. I don't have a favorite, but I probably use the KJV more than any other. I frequently use a literal translation like the KJV or NASB alongside a looser translation, like the NRSV, the Jerusalem Bible, or the New English Bible. The NET Bible is an excellent resource, and I have the feeling I may receive a Comfort Print hardback for Christmas. That will be more convenient as a desk reference than the bonded leather edition I reviewed here.
I very much agree with your comment about the "better" or "more reliable" manuscripts. It may be that the textual critics mean by those terms that those are the manuscripts that read most like their printed editions. But the content of those printed editions depends to an extent on the choices the editors made in how to weigh the evidence from the ancient manuscripts. So if Codex B's vote is weighed heavily when deciding among readings, it's reasonable to expect that Codex B will often agree with the final printed edition.
More more more thank the Lord for your detailed work do video on Csv vs Esv vs Nkj
Thanks for that idea. I plan to do more translation comparison videos in the coming year. I haven't spent much time in the Christian Standard, but an ESV vs NKJV video is definitely doable. I've also been asked to do NRSV vs ESV and NRSV vs RSV videos.
@Wanda Valverde - Thanks for commenting, Wanda! I hope to post a video comparing the NKJV and the ESV in January.
Thanks for the thorough and informative review, very helpful! Thanks too for your translation scale; it's great to find one with its methodology explained, hopefully you will continue updating it? It would be an invaluable resource! I wonder if you've come across the recently published New Testament by David Bentley Hart, which he claims is pitilessly literal to the Greek text (I think he uses the Patriarchal Text of 1904 as a base and compares it with NA28, but I might be wrong). It would be fascinating to see how you would review it. Many thanks again
I just glanced at Hart's introduction, and he says he used the critical text as a base and added material from other sources, such as Robinson/Pierpont or Hodges/Farstad. I also skimmed part of the translation of Matthew, and my initial reaction is that it is a much more engaging translation than the NET. I've added it to my wish list. Thanks for the kind words about the translation continuum. Most of the similar graphics one sees on the internet appear to be completely subjective, based on the impressions of people (likely) much more skilled in Greek than I. But whatever its faults, my method has the advantage of having an objective scoring scheme. Yours is the second request I've had since the update to add another translation -- the other being the New Living Translation. God willing, I'll augment it from time to time.
Good points and agree with you brother.
Simply cannot hear you, in either part 1 or part 2
I can hear myself fine. What type of device are you using to watch it?
So over all ,you would recommend the "NET" or what is your favorite ??? Or should i say favorites ???
Yes, I definitely recommend the NET. For all the weaknesses in this edition, it's definitely worth having as a resource. My favorite translations are the ones that combine a literal translation approach with the more formal style of the Tyndale tradition, like the Geneva, the KJV, the RV, and, to an extent, the RSV. But I also like the NEB and the Jerusalem Bible, toward the dynamic end of the spectrum.
Your very knowledgeable in the area of theology ,have you studied at a seminary or are you self taught .I subscribed to your chanel,i find you very informative .Keep up the great work my friend !!!
@@davidfl101 - self-taught. I started reading about Christianity about 38 years ago and haven't stopped yet. Thanks for the encouragement!
Looks like an interesting translation with some useful notes/references.
I looked at the net free online version and online uses numbers for the footnotes whereas the printed net bible uses letters for the footnotes.
Cuando en español sería bueno
Now I see why you want to keep the "NET, for the "note.
I think that those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as young woman are violating one of the key rules of exegesis: Let the Bible interpret the Bible. Mathew writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says virgin. So of the possible translations, inspired writ tells us what the correct translation is.
I really love your videos even though the content may be a bit advanced for me right now. I recently bought 2 NIV bibles but will probably put them aside. I have 2 Esv on the way. An Allan NCR and crossways verse by verse. And I'm now thinking of ordering this NET. I'd like to study more on translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Textual criticism I guess? Other than this volume, what other must have books or bibles would you recommend? The blue hardcover Hebrew Greek and English bible in another of your videos? A lot of this maybe over my head for a while, or it actually may help me understand scripture more so. I've been trying to study the bible for years and have struggled. Bought and sold more bibles and translations than I can count. However I'd still consider myself a "new" bible student.
Thanks for the kind words and the question. I also am a student, and I've not been to seminary. I'm just a layman who's done some reading. With that disclaimer out of the way, I think the NET Bible is a wise investment. An interlinear would also be good, although you might want to find a good single-volume New Testament interlinear, depending on how good your eyes are. The font in the blue hardcover I reviewed is rather small. Have you thought about teaching yourself Greek and/or Hebrew? If you're interested in learning Greek, I can suggest some resources. But I've never tried to learn Hebrew myself, so I'm not much use there.
@@RGrantJones I'm not sure how well teaching myself Greek would go, but I'm very interested in what the ancient texts read, compared to what our English translations read. I like the idea of a new testament interlinear. I'll see what I can find.
And just after a brief search I found an ESV interlinear that will be released this March by crossway.
"Greek-English Interlinear ESV New Testament: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA28) and English Standard Version (ESV)"
9781433530326
@@RGrantJones what would be your suggestions for resources to learn Greek? I see Wallace and Mounce have Books that look decent. Thank you sir
@@robcimarolli4510 - I haven't seen Wallace's book, but the one by Mounce is very good. I used a program called Greek Tutor, made by Parsons Technology. I see that it's available on Amazon, but I hesitate to recommend it: it's old, and it might not run on your operating system. Another good resource (that's free) is Daily Dose of Greek (dailydoseofgreek.com/ ). Click on the section labelled "Learn".
The NET seems to be that bible translation that makes odd translation decisions for the main text and because they know that they will have a footnote on it, they can get away with strange renderings like “carnal knowledge” in the 2020 update to Genesis 19:5 referring to what the men of Sodom wanted to do to the two angels in lots house. It’s almost as if they are doing it intentionally to get people engaged in the text itself which I have no issue with.
You mentioned you probably wouldn't read the NET but use this more as a reference I believe. Just wondering if you find anything wrong with the translation or if you simply prefer another. I've been reading the esv recently but was thinking of spending some time using the net also.
Rob - no, nothing particularly wrong with it. I haven't found any blatant inaccuracies. It just struck me as bland, not particularly appealing. But I haven't spent much time with it, so I could be wrong.
It's really neat that you can read Greek & read the Bible in the original languages! Must be nice :) Do you normally have your quiet time in Greek, etc?
Thanks for the in-depth review! Makes me appreciate the KJV even more 👍. On your literal chart, I think you show that the KJV & nkjv are both from the textus receptus - but I thought that only the KJV is? Nkjv is from the Alexandrian with westcott & Hort. Thanks again for another great review!👏
My Greek isn't all that good. These days, I usually read from my Westcott & Hort New Testament (NT) every morning, but I have my ASV alongside as a crutch. As I go, I write down the words I don't know so I can try to drill them into my memory later. The NKJV NT is based on the TR. It has the passages the Alexandrian text leaves out: the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, 1 John 5.7-8, the last twelve verses of Mark (without brackets), the woman taken in adultery -- they're all there. It also has notes to show how the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek differs from the TR, and other notes that show how Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad's Majority Text Greek New Testament differs from the TR.
For more serious bible commentary, can probably read the multiple volume Anchor Bible.
I heard the NET is mainly done by teachers and students in the Dallas Theological Seminary.
very informative, thanks,
Thanks for watching, gypsy!
What denomination are you affiliated with Grant .I'm from Canada and 30 years ago i started bible college with the Assemblies of God and just started back now .I'm currently in my second year .Are you in the ministry also ???
8:07 I enjoy your insights, but nowhere do they write or imply that the other versions are "incorrect." It is just giving a reason why they chose the translation they did, which is to make it clearer that a healthy look was the intention of the original. You are reading an intention into their choice that isn't there because you don't agree with their choice.
Yes, of course.
excellent presentation... but "brothers and sisters" is not a translation,... the translators have given us a meaning beyond the text,... granted, "sisters" are not therefore excluded,... there is however a feminine form of the word Paul could have added if he wanted (adelphe/adelphai) which he in fact has used elsewhere... but the NET is what it is,... overall, it is somewhat interpretative anyway... the notes are nice though,... :)
The NET Bible is so naturally best used online. It’s where it belongs. By all means get the cheap, hardback version and put it in a cupboard somewhere as an ‘emergency NET Bible’ for when your internet service is down. Other than that, why destroy your eyesight with acres of tiny notes? (And this study Bible is ALL about the notes.)
My thing is we dont actually have the “original” anymore. So how can we say thay any new translation is more accurate then the formers? Do you believe our KJV translators were they best at what they did? Being they were far superior than us when it comes to typography? I just feel like they stood against such prosecution and testing during the time of the KJV translation. I think to be text critical is really us just trying to be smarter or better than they were. Idk i have such a hard time thinking we should be trying to rewrite what was written already and finally completed.
Follow up- "Textual criticism is NOT science" 35:50. Exactly. This is a superb analysis of the NET is given here by R. Grant Jones, and it is a much-needed critique of a version which seems to have gotten a free ride up to this point. The word "man" (adam Hebrew, anthropos Greek) does not actually mean quite the same thing as "humankind". The word "man" is a masculine word, requiring the masculine pronoun, and it is a word that is personal. The word "humankind" is neuter, requiring the non-gender pronoun "it", and it is an impersonal word. The move from the personal to the impersonal, and from the singular to the plural, is characteristic of gender-neutral language, and one of the reasons for its sheer ugliness as prose. It is also unbiblical root and branch, having its origins in modern militant American feminism, beginning in the early 1970s. Feminist radicals set for themselves the goal of ridding the English language of the generic masculine, and within one generation self-proclaimed "evangelicals" were eagerly joining in the fray. In Rev. 3:20 the Greek word tis "anyone" is in the Greek masculine; it is not a neuter word, and the pronoun associated with it is in the masculine, and not in the neuter, and the ASV/KJV are not using any so-called masculine bias in using the generic "man". So the ASV/KVJ "man" is quite correct in this verse, not the word "anyone" which is used in the NET, which is all about promoting feminist English devoid wherever doing so is deemed to be at all possible. So, when the Greek word was translated into English, the generic "man" was used (which is quite correct in the context). The generic masculine never excludes women (by definition it cannot do so) but its usage is highly offensive to modern feminists. There is no question, however, that the generic masculine is part of the original Biblical text, which Christians have always (until recently) believed to be inspired. This is no longer the case. That gender-neutral language is now being promoted by various evangelical "leaders" and embraced by so many of their followers only shows the worldliness of many who profess Christ, but who do not confess Christ. The insertion of John 19:34 into Matthew 27:49 in Codices C, B, and Aleph almost certainly originated with Tatian's Diatessaron, and has nothing to do with the autographs. The NET Bible deals with only a fraction of existing manuscripts, and typically those that support the Westcott-Hort hypothesis that the NET scholars believe and support. Thus Codex Glazier, an ancient pre-Vulgate Coptic manuscript which includes Acts 8:37 is not seen fit to be discussed in the notes of the NET Bible, which dismisses the verse as an inauthentic later Christian addition. Again, Dan Wallace claims to believe in Biblical inerrancy, but he restricts this to the autographs (the typical position of modern evangelicals), and yet he then goes on to endorse Alexandrian readings which undermine this very position, such as Mark 1:2 and Luke 23:45. According to liberals for over 100 years, and now according to modern evangelicals, the Traditional Text (TR) is an edited text. According to this theory, the original autographs had nonsensical readings (e.g. I Timothy 3:16), idiocies (e.g. Mark 1:41, 6:22), errors (e.g. see above), and heretical readings (e.g. John 1:18) which later Christians edited in order to pawn off the Bible as some sort of "inspired" and "infallible or inerrant) book. The Alexandrian manuscripts on which modern versions are based, comprise less than 1% of the extant manuscripts, but which modern text critics insist are the "best" (they are actually the worst, and don't even agree with each other in many instances). This whole critical text approach to the Bible is unChristian, and its promoters who produce versions such as the NET are not under the disciplinary authority of any church body. The Bibles that they produce are NOT Christian; they are secular, and the product of secular-minded thinking, not Christian thinking, because their axioms are secular, and not Christian. They and the publishers who hold the copyrights to these modern versions make millions of dollars from selling these versions for profit, and they see the "Christian community" primarily as consumers of their product. The overwhelmingly secularist mindset of modern text critics and their "scientific" and ever-changing New Testament text, is breathtaking.
the nt is not from the Eternal
the nt is not scripture
Tell it to Satan when he see him.
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat" The nt is not Scripture " You do NOT believe the word of your god-man??
@@mihailgae-draghici4864
Enjoy hell.