Comments on: What will an NIV revision have that the NET Bible hasn’t already got?

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:38:37 +0000

The NIV is dropping the ball big time by not including the textual footnotes like the ISV, NET and HCSB have. That will doom it to never being used as a primary translation for serious study.

By: CD-Host

CD-Host — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:37:35 +0000

David –

One problem with your whole theory is that the NET is not quire free in the sense I believe you think it is. The licensing fee for the NET is 10% of invoice or $1 per copy whichever is greater. It is free for free use but for commercial use there are restrictions. Even for non commercial usage is bound on 50% of the derived work; cross redistribution rights….

That being said the NET is an excellent bible and the study notes are quite good. I suspect though that if it were to move into a serious contender some of the notes would become a subject of controversy. Things like “the author of the fourth gospel” in place of “John”, would become issues of controversy.

By: Dru

Dru — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:27:37 +0000

I like the NET Bible and I like the notes, but it doesn’t read very well. It’s a bit cloth eared. Also at the moment as far as I know, there’s no anglicised version and the printed books aren’t available outside the US.

By: Tim Worley

Tim Worley — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:02:13 +0000

Right on, Kevin. I would certainly be interested in picking up a physical copy if I could actually view it and touch it in a local bookstore. I’ve also read some so-so reviews of the physical quality of the NET offerings. Now, if they would offer something in the range of the Zondervan Renaissance line of Bibles, I’d be all over it.

By: Kevin Sam

Kevin Sam — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:35:14 +0000

The problem with the NET is that it’s too attached to the internet and not accessible on the bookshelves in the stores. If that can happen, maybe then…

By: Curt Parton

Curt Parton — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000

Tim, your perspective is interesting, and very different from what mine has been. I found the nontraditional readings in the NLT to be refreshing and quite helpful in teaching. It communicated more clearly to the newer believers, and challenged the veterans to think through the passage again in a fresh way (which they have been enjoying). But I understand your viewpoint as well. It’s intriguing how we can see the same translation qualities in very different ways.

By: David Ker

David Ker — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:15:13 +0000

I really appreciate everyone’s comments. I’ve used NIV for 20 years now as my primary Bible and am not in a hurry to change. I wonder about non-traditional and international distribution where NET might be able to fill a niche that NIV isn’t targeting. Living in Africa, it’s wonderful to be able to give someone an electronic copy of the NET Bible which I can’t do with the NIV.

By: Tim Worley

Tim Worley — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:27:03 +0000

While I love and use the NET quite often, I don’t see myself (or many churches) switching over to it as a primary Bible anytime soon, partly because of its tendency for less traditional renderings. I don’t think that’s a bad thing in itself – it often sheds considerable light on a passage. My main reason is that, despite how it is perceived by many FE advocates, the NIV family of translations actually use a fair bit of traditional language, much more so than NET. This is appealing to me mainly for the pragmatic reason that the NIV/TNIV is more concordant in my mind with the language and renderings I grew up with (NKJV/NIV). That’s also the reason why, though I love the freshness and accuracy of the HCSB and NLT, I don’t anticipate using them as my primary translations – the renderings are just too different in places.

So the issue for me in selecting a primary Bible is not only one of accuracy – were that the case, I might go with NET or HCSB. I also appreciate a text that allows for some carry-over and concordance with language I grew up with (and I’m only 25). When I “think Bible”, I tend to think NKJV (with some NIV thrown in), and the NIV family is sufficiently close as to enable me to connect quickly. I find consistency also helps with memorization – sometimes, I find that after comparing ten translations, I have a better overall grasp of the passage but a weaker grasp of the specific wording.

By: Sue

Sue — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:08:24 +0000

Junia as an apostle, perhaps. Alhough I do despair of the NIV on that one as well. It is perhaps the most unusual piece of exegesis yet that proposes the transiation "known to the apostles." I am afraid that with the demise of the TNIV women will never regain the status they had in the Greek manuscripts. Perhaps the Common English Bible will do better.

By: Wayne Leman

Wayne Leman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:08:28 +0000

T.C.R., I have responded to your blog post on translation of sarx as “flesh.”