NETBible.Com - How is it?

[nomad7674]

A friend just referred me to the site NETBible.Com (http://www.netbible.com) which states that it was created as a project:


...being completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who are working directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD-Rom. Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others.

Is this a reliable translation, or should we stick to the more traditional translations on Bible Gateway? (http://www.biblegateway.com/)

[AVmetro]

This is certainly a question for people like Jaltus, JR, and GP. I used to not be fond of it as too many detractors were appelaing to it's footnotes. However, it's okay by me now. I don't know about some of it's choices (e.g. "the Chosen One" at Jn1:18 {?}).

God bless--AV

[AVmetro]

Of course, I didn't mean to shed any bad light on the footnotes, that's just my former paranoia :-). They're actually pretty handy. You can view a review of the NET Bible here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html).

-AV

[Capt Mercury]

I actually own a hard-copy of the NET Bible - a leather-bound Bible with all of the notes! Cost me $30 plus $7 shipping. If you buy 3 or more, the shipping is not significant (same $7 applies to all 3). And let me tell you, the notes comprise much more space than the actual Bible text, even though they printed the notes in a smaller font than the Bible text.

I also was actively involved in a Bible translation list for 2 or 3 years, though I am more of a lurker there now. The members of this list are mostly Bible translators and members of Wycliffe, New Tribes, Zondervan, etc.. They influenced my view of Bible translation some, I must admit. In case you weren't aware of it, Bibler translation these days is dominated by DE philosophy.

A person's take on the NET Bible will depend some, I suppose, on whether you are a DE or a FE person. I use a FE Bible for Bible study (Well, actually in the NT I use the Greek text), but have developed a good appreciation for DE and meaning-based translations. Anyone who has worked closely with children and/or youth will likely have seen the value of good DE translations, such as the NLT and the CEV, & perhaps the God's Word translation. (Yes, when I translate I find all kinds of issues with those translations, but I also see some well-expressed English phraseology as well.)

I'm somewhat balanced on the ole DE/FE thing, FWIW, though my study Bible is the NASB, about as FE as you can get. I like the NET Bible. However, FYI, it is most definitely a DE translation. The NIV is somewhat middle of the road on the DE/FE spectrum, being considered a DE translaiton, but being very conservative in that aspect. The NET is more DE than the NIV, FYI. It is often quite insightful & impactful, though I find myself always referring to the notes when reading it IOT see where they've been free. Also, IMO, the degree of DE translation style varies much in the NET from passage to passage. In one sentence it will use a very FE style while the next will employ strong DE philosophy. Often I don't knowwhat to expect in a passage until I go there and read it.

One concern with DE translation is that a more free approach to translation allows ones biases to creep into the work more easily than a FE philosophy. The NET team seems to have done fairly well in this regard, IMO. I did send a couple of notes to the editor regarding translation note errors and slants - one of which appeared to be reform-biased (John 15:1-6). They seemed to be slow in making that change, but it was explained to me that they accumulate them for quite some time before making changes to the text or notes.

While many will not like the NET because it does not "sound" like the KJV - like the Bible to them, most everyone will appreciate their set of extensive notes. So they are a good resource when interpreting or trying to understand a passage. They are often written with the Bible translator in mind, so many are TNs (translation notes) with an explanation about why they translated a particular phrase in the manner they did. The notes are excellent. I almost never do exegesis/interpretation of a passage without looking at some point at what the notes say in the NET Bible.

One point about the editor of the NET Bible: Dr. Daniel Wallace. Dr. Wallace wrote what is becoming perhaps the most-used advanced Greek grammar for advanced Greek studies in seminaries. He is one of the foremost recognized upcoming Greek scholars. (His Greek grammar, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, will not be of much help to someone unless they have a Greek background.)

I don't always agree with him, but I sure like to see what he has to say on a passage in his grammar. But if you've never visited www.Bible.org, you really should. They have a lot more there than just the NET Bible. They have one of the most extensive set of studies and commentary on Bible passages & theology on the Inet. And they are quite conservative-based. Most contributors are Dallas Theological Seminary grads, FYI.

Just some rambling thoughts, FWIW.

CM