# Anyone familiar with the NET version?



## shackleton (Sep 26, 2007)

I have been familiar with this version for some time and just came across the first official addition. 
I was wondering if anyone knew who is responsible for the notes? 
I read that the version came into being from input from people through the internet and various verus were chosen based on how clear it was to a majority of people. 
I was wondering if anyone knew who originally translated it from Greek and Hebrew. 
Also any thoughts on it as a legitimate version.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 26, 2007)

It's a legitimate version. I know scholars and pastors that use it and endorse it, and I've found the translator notes invaluable for my own bible studies. It is the first major translation that solicited input from users via the Internet, but it's certainly not a majority-rules translation.


----------



## westminken (Sep 26, 2007)

You may not want to hold me to this but I will tell you what I have heard. I know that one of my professors at WTS Dallas, Elliott Greene, translated some of it. He won't tell me which part because that is the way he is. I think for the most part people affiliated with DTS worked on it. I wouldn't let that scare you off. There are some really great professors there so it is not all bad. There may be some dispie leanings in it but as far as a translation it should be solid. Hope this helps.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 26, 2007)

If I remember correctly it was a more gender neutral translation due to the fact that the manuscripts were suppose to be. It is primarily done by the Dallas Theological Seminary crowd, if I am not mistaken. We had a representative for the translation come to our Church many moons ago when I attended a GARBC Church in the 90's. 

It was done by those who like the critical text or eclectic text. I had no use for it so I never got one. Nor did I support it. Here is their web page. bible.org: Home


----------



## DMcFadden (Sep 26, 2007)

As a translation, I find it irritating to use. My preference of the ESV or HCSB may prejudice me a bit. THE value of the NET Bible comes from the 60,000+ notes dealing with the Greek and Hebrew. DTS has always been strong in languages and this effort is no different. Unlike theology where the oldies are often the goodies, linguistic rersearch has advanced significantly since the days of BDB or Thayers. You will find that the notes discuss the text in great detail, and often quite helpfully. And, it is FREE to view on the Internet. For $20 or so you can download a version for Libonix or e-Sword with all of the notes.

The notes do not reflect a "fundy" or a "dispi" point of view necessarily. For example, here is ONE of several notes on Is 7:14:

"Traditionally, "virgin." Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Mat_1:23 in connection with Jesus' birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ's virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one's view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, 'almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen_24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם ('elem, "young man"; cf. 1Sa_17:56; 1Sa_20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated "young woman." The Septuagint (LXX) translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century B.C., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which does mean "virgin" in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa_7:14 n Mat_1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew's usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place."

If a person does not have access to a wide variety of lexical resources, this free and almost free material is a goldmine even if you don't buy the theology at all points.


----------



## elnwood (Sep 26, 2007)

The translators, editors and consultants are listed here:
bible.org: The NET Bible Team


----------



## shackleton (Sep 26, 2007)

I remember listening to "Focus on the Family" when they were discussing the gender issue as it pertains to bible translations. Wayne Grudem (who is on the translation oversight committee for the ESV), said that they referred to the notes in the NET bible so I figured it would be worth checking out.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 26, 2007)

I would add a note that I do appreciate Dr. Kenneth Boa. He is heavily active with Bible.org. Plus he wrote a biography on Kerry Livgren called 'Seed's of Change'. Who couldn't like him for that. I just have more respect for the Majority text. I do read the ESV ever so once in a while but prefer the KJV, NKJV line of manuscripts.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 26, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Plus he wrote a biography on Kerry Livgren called 'Seed's of Change'. Who couldn't like him for that.



Well, since you've mentioned *that*, I guess I have to check it out. Kansas was one of my favorite bands back in the day (like, yesterday).


----------

