NET: New English Translation.

Shwagga · Jan 30, 2011

Great new Bible translation available online. Over 25 Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic scholars worked on it and it has 60,000+ footnotes as to why certain text was(were?) translated the way they translated it.

NET Bible : The Biblical Studies Foundation <<< Link! >>> http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

Hope it blesses people!

God bless you!

Shwagga · Jan 30, 2011

This link works too, NETBible: Matthew 1 .. In my opinion it looks a little better on this website

but same exact material on both pages. http://net.bible.org/bible.php

PBUH · Jan 31, 2011

I had a quick look and it looks like they have corrupted the word of God even more in this version. It is an example how over time the message subtly changes.

Now Deutoronomy 18:18 goes from

I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their brethren

to

I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites

Changing the message of God. This change is just in recent history. How much has been changed over the centuries.

Disappointing.

phil36 · Jan 31, 2011

Hi Shwagga,

Ive used it on occasion over the last few years. The notes are good, but you have to bare in mind that they will be from a dispensational stand point. apart from that it is very good, and totally free online.

Blessings

Phil

Cleante · Jan 31, 2011

I went straight to John 1:1 to see what they translated it as. I wish translators would leave Λογος as logos and not Word. Word does not capture the entire essence of the term Λογος. Also, I do not like that they insert fully. I understand the desire to emphasize the divinity of Christ, but it is not necessary to insert the word truly because Christ is identified as the Λογος!

1still_waters · Jan 31, 2011

PBUH said:

Fellow Israelites seems like a better translation to me. The context is about the people of Israel. Brethren seems too generic.

NodMyHeadLikeYeah · Jan 31, 2011

KJV: King james version
NLT: New living testiment
MBIBTEE: My bible is better than everyone elses

phil36 · Jan 31, 2011

NodMyHeadLikeYeah said:

lol can I have a MBIBTEE

PBUH · Jan 31, 2011

1still_waters said:

Hi 1still_waters

But the prophesy concerns the brothers of the Israelites. Not the Israelites themselves. It has corrupted the message.

Shwagga · Jan 31, 2011

PBUH said:

Sorry to tell you but Deuteronomy 18:18 is not speaking about Muhammad.

To quote Sam Shamoun's website's article in summary of his article of how it's impossible to interpret Deuteronomy 18:18 as Muhammad;

Read more: http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/deut1818.htm

PBUH · Jan 31, 2011

Shwagga said:

Hi Shwagga

and this is the rebuttal to Sam

Rebuttal to Silas' "Who is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18" article.

Here is a challenge for you. Since it is a prophecy then these verses need to apply closely to the prophet it applies.

How do these verses apply to Jesus pbuh ?

Is Jesus like Moses pbut ?

Did God put his words in his mouth ?

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him

Shwagga · Feb 1, 2011

PBUH said:

Yes God put words in His mouth, obviously Jesus said over and over again "I do not speak on my own authority but the Father who sent Me"....

Muhammad never spoke to Allah once, at all. Also Muhammad was not a brother within Israel.. So the whole article is flawed.

GraceBeUntoYou · Feb 1, 2011

Cleante said:

And I can give you the exact reason why they rendered John 1:1 the way they did, because I hold to the exact view on this passage, as it brings out the true meaning behind John 1:1c while refuting both Arianism, and Sabellianism.

What must be asked and seriously thought-out, “What is it that John 1:1 is portraying? Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father as Sabellianism portrays? Is the Word a secondary, or lesser god as Arians believe? Or is the Word a Person who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father as Trinitarians have always claimed?”

I am one of many Trinitarians, along with Philip Harner, Julius Mantey, Daniel Wallace, James White, Robert Bowman, et al, that understand John 1:1c to refer to the nature of the Word, a qualitative understanding of John 1:1c.

That simply does not mean that Jesus is "god-like," or "a god." Qualitative nouns signify neither definiteness ("the God"), nor indefiniteness ("a god"), but rather attribute all the qualities or attributes of the noun to the subject of the sentence. If "God" is qualitative in John 1:1c, it means that all the attributes or qualities of God, the same God mentioned in the previous clause, belong to the Son. The passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. The Word is not likened as "a god-like one," "a divine one," or anything of the sort, as the polytheist/henotheist denomination, or in this case, abomination of the Jehovah’s Witnesses would insist. John did not use the adjective, theios, which would describe a divine nature (Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4), or a god-like one. Nor did John use the indefinite pronoun, ‘tis,’ to indicate that the Word was ‘a certain god,’ but not the one he was referring to in John 1:1b (c.f. Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1). Instead of using theios, John used theon (a form of the root word ‘theos&#8217

, the very word John will use consistently for the Father, the "only true God" (John 17:3).

I agree fully with Philip Harner when He said in the Journal of Biblical Literature, “The Word had the same nature as God” —He possesses all the same qualities, all the incommunicable attributes of God the Father. He is nothing less, nothing more—He is everything the Father is, and therefore, equal to the one He is with by nature and essence, not physically the same Person.

Granted, I’m not too fond of paraphrased translations, I believe the following translations capture John 1:1c best:

o NET, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.”

o Barclay New Testament, “When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God.”

o TEV, “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; He was with God, and He was the same as God.”

o Cassirer New Testament, “It was the Word that was in the very beginning; and the Word was by the side of God, and the Word was the very same nature as God.”

o Revised English Bible, “In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was.”

Although I adhere to a qualitative view of John 1:1, I believe the most literal translation is, “and the Word was God.” However, I believe it is better portrayed as in one of two ways, 1.) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was absolute Deity [that which makes God, God; the state of being God; not merely to the attributes of Deity, but to the exact nature of God itself],” or 2.) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was as to His essential nature, God.”

Consider this illustration, “In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Man, and Eve was Man. She was in the beginning with Man.” Just as Man can refer specifically to male to the exclusion of female, so also God can refer to the Father to the exclusion of the Son. However, just as Man can include both male and female as a class of being, (Genesis 5:2, "He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man…"), so too God can include both Father and Son as a class of being, as in John 1:1.

What should be noted is that when the definite article is used, it often stresses the individual, and when it is not present, it refers to the nature of the subject. A verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the Logos was some sort of divine being, “a god,” “god-like." However, the verb does not precede an anarthrous predicate, rather, the anarthrous noun (theos) precedes the verb (ēn, “was&#8221

in John 1:1c – “theos en ho logos,” not, “ho logos en theos,” or “ho logos en theios.”

Had John used the definite article in reference to the Logos, if he had said, “ho logos en ho theos,” that is, "the Word was the God," he would have literally been saying that the Word was/is the same Person whom He is with (John 1:1b), teaching Sabellianism – the Father is the Son, the Son is the Holy Spirit, et al. That is precisely why John 1:1c does not say, “ho logos en ho theos.” The way John 1:1c reads without the article is the only way to make a distinction between the Theos and the Logos, while maintaining that the Logos, by His intrinsic nature is God.

SantoSubito · Feb 2, 2011

Cleante said:

Honestly most people nowadays wouldn't understand what Logos meant if you wrote it on a stick and beat their heads with it, so in light of that Word is probably best. However, I do agree with you that truly shouldn't be inserted. In all my years of reading John 1:1 as a child I never came away from it with a Arian or Sabellian view even though truly was lacking in the verse.

PBUH · Feb 4, 2011

Shwagga said:

Sorry about the delay

Muhammad pbuh spoke directly to Allah. He was actually taken up.

Concerning Deut 18:18

Hope this comes out.

A prophet like unto Moses.
There were hardly any two prophets ,who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad.
both encountered their enemies and were victors in miraculous ways,
both were accepted as prophets/statesmen

Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment. Jesus (pbuh) said,

PBUH · Feb 4, 2011

Jesus (pbuh) said, My kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:36).

Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime but Jesus (pbuh) was rejected by his
people. John chapter 1 verse 11 states, “He came unto his own, but his own received him not.”

Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people. Jesus (pbuh) according to the Bible did not bring any new laws. (Mathew 5:17-18).
and both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them.

Analogies between Moses and Jesus overlooks not only the above similarities but other crucial ones as well (e.g. the natural birth, family life and death of Moses and Muhammad but not of Jesus, who was regarded by His followers as the Son of God and not exclusively a messenger of God, as Moses and Muhammad were and as Muslim belief Jesus was).

Below Extracted from Supporting Prophet Muhammad website __What the Bible Tells about Muhammad PBUH

God will put His words in the mouth of the prophet and he will declare what God commanded him.

God will put his words in his mouth ‘Neither the content of the revelation, nor its form, were of Muhammad’s devising. Both were given by the angel, and Muhammad’s task was only to repeat what he heard.’ (Word Religions from Ancient history to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472).

Scotth1960 · Feb 4, 2011

Cleante said:

Dear Cleante, Have you ever read from or obtained the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible, Copyright 2008, Thomas Nelson Bibles, Nashville, TN, edited by Fr. Jack N. Sparks, Ph.D., Dean of St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodoxy Theology, Elk Grove, CA, and also the ONT (Orthodox New Testament), 2 volumes, Copyright 2000, by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CO. The ONT is an excellent translation of the NT. It is particularly good because it quotes in its notes from the Orthodox Church Fathers. Which would make it better than the dispensationalism of the notes of the NET. Not every Bible produced outside of the Orthodox Church should be trusted very much, they are bound to fall into some doctrinal error of some kind. I fell into error many years ago, because I was not raised in the OC. The OC really has grace from God, as long as people don't neglect that. I need to do more and get to Church soon. So far, my experience with Orthodoxy is mainly reading, I have attended very few divine liturgy services. Every time I do go to church, I learn more about Orthodoxy than anything I am able to read in some Orthodox book. The liturgy is a whole experience of the Holy Spirit that is different from anything in the Christian West. In Erie PA Scott

bgrayz1 · Nov 28, 2011

The problem with any modern translation is the translators religious and personal bias regardless of scholaristic achievement..
Jeff Benner has a Mechanical Translation which almost eliminates any religious or personal bias via a two fold method.
The first process is through the Lexicon. Each translation and definition of each word in the lexicon is chosen based primarily on its etymology (what is the words meaning based on its relationship to other words and roots), context (how is the word used throughout the Bible) and culture (What did the word mean to those who lived within that culture).

The second part of the process simply involves replacing the Hebrew word, prefix or suffix with its corresponding English word from the Lexicon. This method of translation also has the unique quality that if the reader disagrees with the translation of a Hebrew word, he can simply replace that word with his own and as the translation is accompanied with a concordance, finding the location of each occurrence of that word is fairly simple.

Search

NET: New English Translation.

Shwagga

Guest

Shwagga

Guest

PBUH

Banned

phil36

Senior Member

Cleante

Senior Member

1still_waters

Guest

NodMyHeadLikeYeah

Guest

phil36

Senior Member

PBUH

Banned

Shwagga

Guest

PBUH

Banned

Shwagga

Guest

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest

SantoSubito

Guest

PBUH

Banned

PBUH

Banned

Scotth1960

Guest

bgrayz1

Guest