An overview of the Thomas Nelson NET Bible Full Notes Edition. CB www.christianbook.com/Christi... Amazon amzn.to/2M6kdlX Written review biblebuyingguide.com/thomas-n...
I can't wait any longer. I may explode. October 1st seems so far away! Can't WAIT for this. I've been anticipating this since I heard about it, a looooong time ago.
I was just surprised with this Bible in the black artificial leather. It’s amazing, the notes are a great resource to have and I enjoy looking through them.
I really like this translation and the notes are fantastic. I have major issues with the plastic feel of the Large Print thinline in light grey but I think it is a fluke. Perhaps the light grey could only be done in this sub-par cover material. It looks good on the shelf but I don't like picking it up. I use the translation on Logos more than the two bibles I have because of the feel of the grey and the size of the full note version. But really, having both is a great idea. Full note for really in-depth research and the smaller one for day to day reading. Just beware of the cover and do not choose light grey unless they change the covers.
Thank you so much for what you do.I really appreciate it. Out of all the utube bible reviewers your the best you get right to the point and your details are awesome. Some others out in utube land go on and on. Thank you God bless.
Clarification (at 1:34): Paper weight is 36 gsm hi-contrast Bible paper. That's about half as thick as your average printer/copy paper. It's the same weight used in Thomas Nelson's study Bibles.
@@theburlyburrito Yes, on the full notes version, the leathersoft is pretty good. On the light grey of the large print thinline, it feels terrible. It is between a cheap plastic and a cheap rubber. I am happy with the Leathersoft of the full not version but I am distractedly unhappy with the cover of the smaller, handheld version. I don't use it unless I can leave it on the desk. Yep, it is that bad.
I just received (NET BIBLE)mine and I love it, is the Thomas Nelson the same Bible? Or is that who sent to you. I was ordering some for Christmas presents
It's not possible for me to read a Bible and it notes all the way through before reviewing it. My goal is just to tell the types of content and materials it has. For more detail about the NET with notes, you can read the text and notes online for free, see them in photos, and read a sample on Kindle.
The NET is a great translation. I'm an NASB guy myself, but have read most of the NET and love it. Word for word isn't always the best, it's good to supplement with a faithful dynamic and this is definitely one I supplement my NASB with.
@@reecemesser You do not necessarily need to buy this Bible if you only want it as a study tool, the text and notes of the Bible are freely available at netbible.org - there are also apps for iPhone and Android with the same tools and I believe you can also download PDFs/EPUBs of the text and notes online as well.
One of the primary purposes for the abundance of notes within the NET Bible is to provide the reader an opportunity to choose which translation he or she is more comfortable employing, hence the reason for the over-abundance of notes, to begin with.
The net is great. In places such as 1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,” it adds additional information from the original text by using both Greek words that are presented here where typically only one is included in translation. The word μαλακός is specifically talking about passive homosexuals where as the word following it, άρσενοκοίτης, is referring specifically to active homosexuality. And to affirm your statement the notes are a strong point as it mentions this in the translation notes.
The NET Bible- another liberal Westcott/Hort critical text Bible, produced mostly by people connected with the formerly conservative/evangelical Dallas Theological Seminary. This version has more notes than Biblical text, and engages in the endless speculations typical of liberal products. Obviously, those who produced this version think it is much better than the NIV, NLT, NRSV, or some other modern liberal critical text Bible. One of the axioms of this version is that "the harder reading is better than the easy reading" and that, as originally written the Bible was full of errors, contradictions, etc. which later Christian scribes changed to pawn of the Bible as some sort of "inspired" book. Thus, the bizarre reading of Codex D in Mark 1:41 is taken with utmost seriousness in the NET Bible. Mark 16:9-20 is dismissed as a "later addition" to the gospel, (even though all but three Greek manuscripts contain it), arguing (as liberals are want to do) that the "style" of these last 12 verses of Mark are different and thus show non-Markan authorship. Those who are liberals might like this version, but others might just as well prefer the NRSV, or perhaps, the ESV.
Thanks for warning me. I've read too many versions already, and have no problem reading the ancient KJV. Read it at least a hundred times (had to, to think about it in its depths).
@@thomasjefferson6 Reading Tyndale and other bibles before 1800AD has been very beneficial, but newer versions generate doubt and distrust. Changing words aren't so bad, but leaving out words and verses is diabolical. Yes, I prefer my own notes in my own bibles...learning and looking up every word in a verse takes time and thoughtfulness, but causes bursting thankfulness each time. In no time at all, it seems, you've looked up every verse nearly and reached true riches which 'endureth unto eternal life'!
If you disagree that is perfectly fine. However you spend a lot of time spewing hate and division. It is evident with how many times you use the word "liberal". You must agree that your comment is negative and full of dissension. You can disagree with this version in a neutral if not positive way. I have no doubt that you love the Word of God by your passion, just don't allow that passion to cause division and negativity. It is this very thing that causes haters of God great joy and grieves the Spirit of God.
To James Redding- it is not clear for whom your remarks are intended, but for me the use of the word "liberal" is for someone who claims to be "Christian" yet rejects the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture". A liberal is someone who puts human reason at the top and puts the Bible, or God Himself, in the dock. A liberal can thus embrace such things as "dynamic equivalency" or gender-neutral language, because, not believing the text to be inspired, he can do what he likes with it, (e.g. communicate more clearly, or be politically correct ("sensitive"), or for other humanistic reasons. The liberal does not believe that the Bible is actually inspired or inerrant, although it may be "inspiring" in the emotional sense. The liberal rejects the Traditional Text of the Bible for the 19th Century Critical (and, yes, liberal!) Westcott/Hort Text, based as it is on the mindset of secular scientism, and which so dazzled liberal intellectuals in the 1880s. The mainline liberal doesn't believe that the Bible ever was inspired; the evangelical liberal doesn't believe that the Bible we currently have is actually inspired either, but believes that only the autographs were inspired, although they no longer exist. The Bible has thus been changed from something that actually exists into a theoretical concept which might be in the process of becoming- assuming that the modern "scientific" approach to the text can actually achieve such a thing. In the 19th century, mainline denominational liberals were engaged in a hunt for the "original text", but now have largely given up that quest as no longer scientifically possible. However, this hunt is still going on among liberals who are of an evangelical persuasion, and this is exhibited to an outstanding degree in the NET Bible (the full-commentary version). Thus the NET Bible is full of alternate readings and of endless speculations that cannot be verified, very similar to the remarks made by the ex-evangelical text critic Bart Ehrman. They produce in the reader as much doubt and confusion as they provide in the way of actual answers- a curious kind of agnosticism, which, while common enough in the halls of science, is out of place in what should be a Christian context. In many ways, the textual approach to the Bible of mainline liberals and many modern evangelicals are indistinguishable, because their axioms are virtually identical. The NET is another Bible translation project which will (and can never be) finished. This "scientific" approach to the Bible is agnostic at its deepest level; it rejects any such thing as tradition, providential preservation, creeds, the workings of the Holy Spirit in this regard, or anything else except human reason and the tentative conclusion of scholars. A Bible which is really nothing more than an ongoing speculative research project cannot possibly command authority or provide anything really definitive. So, if saying all this is to be regarded as "hate", then so be it. If it is "hateful" to oppose that which is wrong, that which is unChristian, such as the use of gender-neutral language, which is not found in Hebrew or Greek, but is nothing more than the foisting into Scripture of modern feminism which invented the idea of "gender-neutral' language in the first place, then so be it. If it is "hateful" to see these modern versions for what they really are, as profit-making corporate projects that can never be finished, then so be it. For, it was the advocates of all these many, many versions which have caused the "divisiveness"- if they have caused it- in the first place. Further, if "divisiveness" is ipso facto wrong, then logically all evangelicals should first put an end to their own "divisiveness" and become one big church, and then abandon Protestantism and go back to the Church of Rome and end that "divisiveness".
