Reading the NET Bible with the Notes

Each year I try to choose a new Bible translation to read. This year I chose the NET Bible which I have been very much appreciating. At the same time I've opened it in multiview to see the accompanying notes. These notes include both study notes and translator notes.

If you are considering reading a new Bible translation, I would highly recommend reading the NET Bible alongside the accompanying notes. https://www.logos.com/product/4468/the-net-bible

If anyone else has read the NET Bible with the notes I'd be interested in hearing your evaluation.

Also, I mention this to say that today I listened to a panel discussion of contributors to the NET Bible that I would highly recommend. Here is the link for those who might be interested - https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/bible-translation/

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Veli Voipio

I haven't read the NET Bible through, but I use it every day as my primary Bible.

I feel the translation is readable and fairly close to the meaning of the original.

The notes seem to be very useful and give reliable information. Often I use it with evangelical scholarly language and background exegesis and NET seems to be in line with them.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077414#Comment_1077414

Just chatting, I use the notes. They work well in small environments (eg iphone, mini, etc) and quickly cut to the chase. Nicely organized.

I've not wanted to use the translation much, though nothing 'wrong' with it. Not sure how one knows a translation is close to 'the meaning'. The original author might struggle as well, when matching languages.

Rich DeRuiter

If anyone else has read the NET Bible with the notes I'd be interested in hearing your evaluation.

I've not read it cover to cover. But I do look at it often, especially when I have translation questions. I can't say that I always agree with their translation choices, or their explanations, but I most often do. I like it most of the time. Sometimes the translation seems a bit "wooden" to me. That is to say, the translation is accurate, but doesn't always read like natural English (IMHO). Other than that, it's a solid translation and, if only for the notes, one I'd recommend to those who want to dig in to their Bibles a little deeper.

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077420#Comment_1077420

They work well in small environments (eg iphone, mini, etc) and quickly cut to the chase.

Thanks for mentioning this. I've not yet used it on my phone but I just tried and linked the NET Bible with the notes and it does work quite well. That's a keeper for me!

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077421#Comment_1077421

But I do look at it often, especially when I have translation questions. I can't say that I always agree with their translation choices, or their explanations, but I most often do. I like it most of the time.

For sure the notes are excellent as they often explain their translation decisions and provide other options which is very helpful.

Simon’s Brother

Thanks Bruce for sharing your experience with NET this year. I will have to do that at some point in time.

The podcast sounds like it would be interesting so I’ll have to make some time for it.

John Connell

I like having the Notes and Highlights (Corresponding) visual filter turned on for my annual read through the Bbile. I hope there will be Corresponding Highlights sometime soon for the NET Bible because it looks like a worthwhile translation to read.

-john

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077505#Comment_1077505

There needs to be a reverse interlinear created for that to happen.

I like having the Notes and Highlights (Corresponding) visual filter turned on for my annual read through the Bbile. I hope there will be Corresponding Highlights sometime soon for the NET Bible because it looks like a worthwhile translation to read.

-john

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077509#Comment_1077509

There needs to be a reverse interlinear created for that to happen.

What do you think the likelihood of that happening might be?

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1077543#Comment_1077543

I would echo what Rich said above. I do not always agree w. their translation or text critical notes (I have discussed this w. Wallace at length), but it is my favorite translation inasmuch as it strikes a healthy balance between formal & dynamic equivalence—which is very necessary IMO (another topic altogether).

I just got the 2nd ed. & actually like it better than the first one (they seemingly cleaned up a lot in the revision). In sum, I absolutely love this translation and have turned many colleague pastors on to it, and they love it as well.