audio sounds top notch great review young man.

Another very detailed and informative set of videos! I look forward to seeing all of your videos,

Thanks again for another comprehensive review. You obviously put a lot of time and work into them.

I appreciate your reviews being so in depth. I just got the new 2019 NET by Thomas Nelson and absolutely love it.

Thanks for the detailed follow up video. I'm happy to hear you feel you'll have a use for it.

Great explanation, I’m very pleased!!!

Thank you for both of these extremely helpful videos.

All in all parts one and two were extremely informative in the area of textual criticism. Well done young man. In the end I've subscribed to your channel ☺️

Good points and agree with you brother.

very informative, thanks,

Looks like an interesting translation with some useful notes/references.

More more more thank the Lord for your detailed work do video on Csv vs Esv vs Nkj

I LOVE this video, I spent several hours pouring over the texts and, yes, you are spot on! I am hereby sub'd to your channel and you are now one of my very favorite content providers on YT. As my super long comment reveals, I love examining the texts and translations at this level and you did a great job. [As you will see, I believe God knows what He is doing and He did what He did on purpose so I am very concerned about translators accurately reflecting history's testimony of the primacy of Koine Greek between 280BC and the receipt of the first legible, pointed-text "Hebrew" scriptures, put into common circulation by Jews in roughly the 11th century AD. The implications of revising history to slip in an anachronistic default to Hebrew primacy serves two wicked purposes: impugn the revelation of the Holy Spirit of God via the NT authors by introducing inconsistencies that do NOT exist in the LXX, and deny the deity of Jesus Christ. I do not think God made a mistake by having the 2nd temple Jews outside of Jerusalem exclusively speaking Koine and relying on the LXX... The Greek-speaking synagogues housing a copy of the LXX for all men to read were like God's strategically located McDonalds (Deut 8:3, Luke 4:4 Matt 4:4) among the nations for the gospel to spread into all nations (Gen 18:18, 21) across the Greek-speaking world into which the disciples were sent to bring the Koine Greek gospel (Acts 17:2, John 5:39)] OK WOW, my head almost popped off @17:55 (I wrote my LXX/ OG comment/rant below @7:45 _before_ I saw this part of the video) the OG/LXX says parthenos and the Christian Church would not even have access to alma or betula via a Hebrew text to introduce this perversion for 11 centuries after Jesus ascended... This was a corruption introduced by Masoretic Jews. Does Wallace imagine God *_forget_* to give us an accurate copy of the OT before the 11th century Jews finally got vowels into their "Hebrew" letters to make it legible and finally fit for circulation among the easily beguiled Reformers ignorantly swapping the Koine OT text Jesus quoted for a Hebrew text for which we have not even a single witness in NT texts?? There is a problem when translators are willing to deny the actual linguistic primacy of Greek and history of Christianity's spread to a Greek-speaking world, where, with the exception of Jerome's inferential edits in the Vulgate, the Christians *_only had Greek texts to work with in either the OT or NT until well after the 11th century_* This matters and believers should beware to not fall vistim to these translators imagination that God made a mistake by choreographing world history to keep His church from the very subjective interpretational flaws of a consonantal Hebrew text that devoured the children of Israel before the LXX was firmly anchored in the acuity of Koine and in world-wide circulation, well- beyond the reach of Pharisaical editions, between 280BC and 1100 AD .. Rev 12 as much as says that is what God would do to protect "the woman" for this time frame from the words of the dragon, the lies of the children of their father the devil (John 8:44)!! great point @12:16 you really point out something huge!! There are more than 2 degrees of separation for their argument and YES the disregard for the restraints of italics is huge... and aside from that, to someone who trusts that God used every Word, even variants, on purpose...the richness of what is actually there in the Greek is amazing and sadly lost to the unsuspecting reader in the arrogance of overthrowing the translator's boundary standard of italics. This is just outright hubris of a translator to someone who speaks several languages and recognizes the necessity of transparency and honesty and the humility before the original AUTHOR of applying italics to a translation! That's out of bounds!! There is no referee in this game and these guys are CHEATING- big time!!! The very reason I am so attentive to the details you generously provide in these videos is illustrated by the very point you make at around 7:45...the following rant elaborates: :/ The NETS translators are NOT ignorant of the LXX's exclusive primacy (pre-Jerome's rumors) for the first 4 centuries of Christianity and Greek textual primacy (pre-common circulation of MT) for the first _11 centuries of Christianity._ They are NOT professing _unbelievers_ either, that we should expect them to dismiss the inerrancy of Jesus' assertion in John 17 that He had _already given us both God's name and His word_ by the date of Him praying to God (see John17:8, 17:14, 17:17-26). Wallace and his crew are NOT ignorant of the FACT that there would not be a single "Hebrew" OT in common circulation until the 11 century AD nor is Wallace ignorant of the FACT that not a single NT reference to God as the tetragrammaton exists anywhere on record from before even the beginning of Christianity!!! *However,* Wallace and his staff are unashamed of anachronistically defaulting to this "Hebrew" OT as if God Himself somehow _forgot_ to arm His Church with His word and His Name for the first 1000+y _before_ the Masoretic text (or any Hebrew "letters") were put into common circulation _by the Jews about whom Jesus warned us_ (Mark 12:38, Luke 20:46). I take issue with this bible because of its insidious scholarship that denies Koine primacy; I do not understand modern (post 16th century) scholarship's neglect of the first 11 centuries of Christianity and Koine Greek primacy for BOTH the OG OT and NT (again, as if God somehow made a mistake to have His Koine OT/Old Greek match His Koine NT!! ) Wallace knows that Christianity spread because Koine Greek was the lingua franca from Spain to Ethiopia and that God Himself choreographed history so there would be a diaspora of Greek-speaking Jews with a Greek-speaking synagogue with a copy of the Greek Old Testament Scriptures (LXX) just waiting in ever city outside of Jerusalem, so all a shipwrecked Paul et al had to do was show up, enter a synagogue, and reason from the Scriptures *which were already waiting for them to argue that Jesus was the Christ!* see Acts 17, 18 etc... Wallace et al neglect to give God this glory of paving His linguistic super hwy for the spread of the gospel, as prophesied in Zeph 3:9 and "glossa" of Dan 7:6 (LXX), so Paul would NOT and did NOT have to lug a copy of "Hebrew letters" around to first teach the Jews themselves and all nations to speak/ read the dead language of Hebrew (John 7:15) before they could read and understand that Scriptures demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ (John 5:39)!! Yes, Wallace neglects to even mention where the LXX departs from the MT *_even when the text of the LXX makes their very point!_* ex: Dan 1:15 ἐφάνη ἡ ὄψις αὐτῶν καλὴ καὶ ἡ ἕξις τοῦ σώματος κρείσσων τῶν ἄλλων νεανίσκων "their appearance and physical condition was shown to be better than that of the other young men . " I am leery of this fervent push for this revisionist replacement of Koine Greek primacy for a substantially different texts in the Hebrew, especially since Jesus warned us heartily about those γραμματεῖς who would, 11 centuries later, introduce the MT. (sorry I just had to vent and your observations of this variant were apropos !) @22:53 you are spot on.. Exodus 3:14 has God calling Himself ἐγώ εἰμι Ego Eimi, John 8 see Jesus likewise refer to Himself with such emphasis that by John 8:24 He is specifically telling _the believing Jews_ that if they did not believe that He is ἐγώ εἰμι , they will die in their sins. @29:40.. yep! Good point!! ἐάν τις if anyone (that's how I would render it because it does NOT say anthropos!) and there is an undeniable series of 3 "hims" there: πρὸς *αὐτόν* , μετ’ *αὐτοῦ,* and *αὐτὸς* μετ’ ἐμοῦ @34:40 your observation here is so valid, and I think this points to the arrogance of these translators! Do they attempt to eliminate other verbatims like the ones found in Luke 4:4 or Matt 4:4?? (no..perhaps because they are backed by the improbabilities of the 2 verbatims strangely falling at precisely verse 4 and chapter 4 in both Matt and Luke, some 16 centuries _before_ chapter and verse were introduced ..lol :) Gimme a break, scholars have no fear of God and consequently the miss the supernatural signature of God upon His word across the fullness of time and history....it's just sickening to us theophiloi)

Thanks for the thorough and informative review, very helpful! Thanks too for your translation scale; it's great to find one with its methodology explained, hopefully you will continue updating it? It would be an invaluable resource! I wonder if you've come across the recently published New Testament by David Bentley Hart, which he claims is pitilessly literal to the Greek text (I think he uses the Patriarchal Text of 1904 as a base and compares it with NA28, but I might be wrong). It would be fascinating to see how you would review it. Many thanks again

Nelson is bringing out new editions at the end of this year (2019) - but with an 8.75 font although there seems to be a complete overhaul of the type setting and paper

I hear that a NET abide journaling set is coming out this month but have not been able to see any previews of the inner look of the pages like the ESV scripture journal set.

What denomination are you affiliated with Grant .I'm from Canada and 30 years ago i started bible college with the Assemblies of God and just started back now .I'm currently in my second year .Are you in the ministry also ???

Hardback net bible with notes is coming to town next month in Thomas Nelson comfort print

I watched both your NET Bible reviews (parts 1 & 2) and just LOVED this second one! The Bible and the depth of its meaning comes alive when you have a person versed in the textual criticisms and variants, as you are, and also lovely when examples are taken from other translations, as you have done! Well done, I say! Helped shed some light on textual criticisms and variants. Somewhat of a personal question: do you have a favorite English translation? I like the RSV and the ESV, but I also love the KJV and DR, along with the other main translations for comparative study. I just bought the 3rd edition of the NET Bible, and so am just barely getting to know the text and notes. Fascinating to learn why one choice was selected over another. I do wonder, however, who has determined that Mss X are “better” and “more reliable.” A matter of opinion. I personally enjoy the KJV text and the Mss it came from. But I am open to all of them. I’m thankful we have so many English translations to read from and work with. I enjoy just about every video you’ve put out, and I thank you for your work. I appreciate what you do and the education and effort it takes to produce these videos. Thank you.

I looked at the net free online version and online uses numbers for the footnotes whereas the printed net bible uses letters for the footnotes.

The NLT butchered the text also in Rev 3:20 ....Its almost identical with the NRSV using "YOU" it sounds so weird to my ear. Anyways your videos have really been a great learning tool brother, thanks a ton. I'm just the average Joe so this really helps.... I do like reading from the NLT its sometimes helpful yet many times kinda weird LOL .....It would be neat to see where it falls on your translation scale someday😉 It has blessed me many times but I always stick to the KJV, NKJV and NASB. The NASB cracks me up now thanks to you, now everytime I see the "more literal" footnotes from the "most literal" translation, I get a chuckle.

I heard the NET is mainly done by teachers and students in the Dallas Theological Seminary.

You mentioned you probably wouldn't read the NET but use this more as a reference I believe. Just wondering if you find anything wrong with the translation or if you simply prefer another. I've been reading the esv recently but was thinking of spending some time using the net also.

It's really neat that you can read Greek & read the Bible in the original languages! Must be nice :) Do you normally have your quiet time in Greek, etc? Thanks for the in-depth review! Makes me appreciate the KJV even more 👍. On your literal chart, I think you show that the KJV & nkjv are both from the textus receptus - but I thought that only the KJV is? Nkjv is from the Alexandrian with westcott & Hort. Thanks again for another great review!👏

To R. Grant Jones- THANK YOU for a great and informative video. Your remarks about Isaiah 7:14 are spot on; if the reading "young woman" is correct, rather than "virgin" this is hardly in keeping with how this verse is understood and translated by Matthew the apostle in chapter 2 of his gospel. This implies that Matthew made a mistake, that there really was no virgin birth, and from that flows the kind of liberal theology that has been destroying churches and eroding Christian doctrine for over a century.The NET Bible may have a great deal of information about various MSS, but the way it handles and uses those MSS is entirely in line with the thinking of the axioms of modern liberal Biblical text criticism. It should be emphasized that the NET Bible can only deal with extant manuscripts. Most manuscripts that have existed have long since worn out and have perished. The NET translation rejects the use of the generic masculine, which logically means that its translators brazenly reject the inspiration of such words. The generic masculine is NOT "too difficult to understand"; this is just an excuse used by liberals to try stop its continued usage, by claiming that such words are "sexist" or "offensive to the transgender community" or some equally irrelevant reason. (The doctrine of the Trinity is "difficult to understand" but most opponents of the generic masculine do not argue for getting rid of the doctrine of the Trinity on that basis). Any minimizing of the usage of the generic masculine will, of course, be welcomed by the homosexual/feminist/transgender movement, which comes not from the Bible, but from American politics. The NET notes are technical, but they are all based on the axioms of modern text criticism which are not explained by the translator; they are just assumed, and this makes it easy to see why they translate the way they do, as in such verses such as Mark 1:41 and 6:22, where absurd translations are adopted on the flimsiest of grounds. These axioms go back to the writings of Westcott and Hort and their ideas about what Greek MSS should be used as the basis for translating the New Testament. It is not the job of a translator to make things "easier for the reader". That is the job of a commentator. To place comments right into the text is to violate the very function of a translator. Never before in this history of the Christian Church has the translation of the Bible been taken away from the Church and placed into the hands of various groups of scholars, many of whom are not even Christian. What one gets with the NET Bible is not even really "scientific", although this is certainly the aim. Rather, the NET Bible, like other modern translations, is the result of the secular-minded rationalism of modern scholars. All their conclusions are tentative only; there is no finality to them, and there can never be any finality to anything in this approach the the Biblical text. With this mindset, the Biblical text is not a sacred and thus authoritative text but rather a tentative text that has no real certainty whatsoever and can have no real authority. Everything in principle is open to question, revision, rejection, or adoption by the scholars at any time. This approach to the text is thus non-Christian, and it cannot be otherwise, even if Christians are using it. The absurd insistence on the primacy of the Alexandrian MSS over the Byzantine, the insistence that the harder reading is to be preferred to the easier reading, the insistence that the older manuscript must be closer to the original than the later manuscript, the use of feminist English (i.e. the rejection of the generic masculine even when it occurs in every single manuscript in existence), the insistence that the traditional New Testament Text (Received Text) is an EDITED text, where as the Critical text is not (!) are all reasons to reject the NET as a CHRISTIAN Bible. As a SECULAR Bible, the NET is a fascinating work of secular minded scholarship, and it is certainly of interest. As a sacred text for Christians as the "Holy" Bible, the NET Bible is completely without merit.

For more serious bible commentary, can probably read the multiple volume Anchor Bible.

Now I see why you want to keep the "NET, for the "note.

The NET seems to be that bible translation that makes odd translation decisions for the main text and because they know that they will have a footnote on it, they can get away with strange renderings like “carnal knowledge” in the 2020 update to Genesis 19:5 referring to what the men of Sodom wanted to do to the two angels in lots house. It’s almost as if they are doing it intentionally to get people engaged in the text itself which I have no issue with.

19:20 - from my understanding, the use of “young woman” doesn’t undercut the prophesy of Jesus because regardless of the term used in Isaiah, the tense indicates that a young woman is about to give birth. As in, she was a young maiden/virgin, and she’s about the give birth. Originally this prophesy would have been true in its historical context for someone other than Mary and Jesus, but it also applies to Jesus ultimately. Having said that, many pagan religions also had prophesies of “the Virgin about to give birth”, which to them was Isis and Horus etc. I think this is because of alignments of the stars honestly.

I think that those who translate Isaiah 7:14 as young woman are violating one of the key rules of exegesis: Let the Bible interpret the Bible. Mathew writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says virgin. So of the possible translations, inspired writ tells us what the correct translation is.

I really love your videos even though the content may be a bit advanced for me right now. I recently bought 2 NIV bibles but will probably put them aside. I have 2 Esv on the way. An Allan NCR and crossways verse by verse. And I'm now thinking of ordering this NET. I'd like to study more on translation from the Hebrew and Greek. Textual criticism I guess? Other than this volume, what other must have books or bibles would you recommend? The blue hardcover Hebrew Greek and English bible in another of your videos? A lot of this maybe over my head for a while, or it actually may help me understand scripture more so. I've been trying to study the bible for years and have struggled. Bought and sold more bibles and translations than I can count. However I'd still consider myself a "new" bible student.

So over all ,you would recommend the "NET" or what is your favorite ??? Or should i say favorites ???

anybody know from where i can order one copy of The NET Bible exactly like the one in this review...?? (with all the 58.506 translators' notes...)

Simply cannot hear you, in either part 1 or part 2

Cuando en español sería bueno

excellent presentation... but "brothers and sisters" is not a translation,... the translators have given us a meaning beyond the text,... granted, "sisters" are not therefore excluded,... there is however a feminine form of the word Paul could have added if he wanted (adelphe/adelphai) which he in fact has used elsewhere... but the NET is what it is,... overall, it is somewhat interpretative anyway... the notes are nice though,... :)

The NET Bible is so naturally best used online. It’s where it belongs. By all means get the cheap, hardback version and put it in a cupboard somewhere as an ‘emergency NET Bible’ for when your internet service is down. Other than that, why destroy your eyesight with acres of tiny notes? (And this study Bible is ALL about the notes.)

8:07 I enjoy your insights, but nowhere do they write or imply that the other versions are "incorrect." It is just giving a reason why they chose the translation they did, which is to make it clearer that a healthy look was the intention of the original. You are reading an intention into their choice that isn't there because you don't agree with their choice.

My thing is we dont actually have the “original” anymore. So how can we say thay any new translation is more accurate then the formers? Do you believe our KJV translators were they best at what they did? Being they were far superior than us when it comes to typography? I just feel like they stood against such prosecution and testing during the time of the KJV translation. I think to be text critical is really us just trying to be smarter or better than they were. Idk i have such a hard time thinking we should be trying to rewrite what was written already and finally completed.

Follow up- "Textual criticism is NOT science" 35:50. Exactly. This is a superb analysis of the NET is given here by R. Grant Jones, and it is a much-needed critique of a version which seems to have gotten a free ride up to this point. The word "man" (adam Hebrew, anthropos Greek) does not actually mean quite the same thing as "humankind". The word "man" is a masculine word, requiring the masculine pronoun, and it is a word that is personal. The word "humankind" is neuter, requiring the non-gender pronoun "it", and it is an impersonal word. The move from the personal to the impersonal, and from the singular to the plural, is characteristic of gender-neutral language, and one of the reasons for its sheer ugliness as prose. It is also unbiblical root and branch, having its origins in modern militant American feminism, beginning in the early 1970s. Feminist radicals set for themselves the goal of ridding the English language of the generic masculine, and within one generation self-proclaimed "evangelicals" were eagerly joining in the fray. In Rev. 3:20 the Greek word tis "anyone" is in the Greek masculine; it is not a neuter word, and the pronoun associated with it is in the masculine, and not in the neuter, and the ASV/KJV are not using any so-called masculine bias in using the generic "man". So the ASV/KVJ "man" is quite correct in this verse, not the word "anyone" which is used in the NET, which is all about promoting feminist English devoid wherever doing so is deemed to be at all possible. So, when the Greek word was translated into English, the generic "man" was used (which is quite correct in the context). The generic masculine never excludes women (by definition it cannot do so) but its usage is highly offensive to modern feminists. There is no question, however, that the generic masculine is part of the original Biblical text, which Christians have always (until recently) believed to be inspired. This is no longer the case. That gender-neutral language is now being promoted by various evangelical "leaders" and embraced by so many of their followers only shows the worldliness of many who profess Christ, but who do not confess Christ. The insertion of John 19:34 into Matthew 27:49 in Codices C, B, and Aleph almost certainly originated with Tatian's Diatessaron, and has nothing to do with the autographs. The NET Bible deals with only a fraction of existing manuscripts, and typically those that support the Westcott-Hort hypothesis that the NET scholars believe and support. Thus Codex Glazier, an ancient pre-Vulgate Coptic manuscript which includes Acts 8:37 is not seen fit to be discussed in the notes of the NET Bible, which dismisses the verse as an inauthentic later Christian addition. Again, Dan Wallace claims to believe in Biblical inerrancy, but he restricts this to the autographs (the typical position of modern evangelicals), and yet he then goes on to endorse Alexandrian readings which undermine this very position, such as Mark 1:2 and Luke 23:45. According to liberals for over 100 years, and now according to modern evangelicals, the Traditional Text (TR) is an edited text. According to this theory, the original autographs had nonsensical readings (e.g. I Timothy 3:16), idiocies (e.g. Mark 1:41, 6:22), errors (e.g. see above), and heretical readings (e.g. John 1:18) which later Christians edited in order to pawn off the Bible as some sort of "inspired" and "infallible or inerrant) book. The Alexandrian manuscripts on which modern versions are based, comprise less than 1% of the extant manuscripts, but which modern text critics insist are the "best" (they are actually the worst, and don't even agree with each other in many instances). This whole critical text approach to the Bible is unChristian, and its promoters who produce versions such as the NET are not under the disciplinary authority of any church body. The Bibles that they produce are NOT Christian; they are secular, and the product of secular-minded thinking, not Christian thinking, because their axioms are secular, and not Christian. They and the publishers who hold the copyrights to these modern versions make millions of dollars from selling these versions for profit, and they see the "Christian community" primarily as consumers of their product. The overwhelmingly secularist mindset of modern text critics and their "scientific" and ever-changing New Testament text, is breathtaking.

the nt is not scripture