Donations for the month of July


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Meta4
Meta4
Canada
Posts: 95
Joined: May 2016
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,531
Posts53,974
Members970
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,224
Tom 4,222
chestnutmare 3,211
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,838
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 15
Tom 12
jta 10
John_C 3
Meta4 3
Recent Posts
Coach Wins Case
by Tom - Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:01 PM
There is a Fountain ~ William Cowper
by Rick Bates - Tue Jun 28, 2022 6:35 PM
First Work, Sins—Second Work, Sin!
by NetChaplain - Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:09 AM
Nicene Creed Question
by jta - Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:28 AM
Preachers of old
by jta - Mon Jun 27, 2022 7:50 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
#57724 Fri May 06, 2022 12:33 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,838
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,838
I recently discovered that the NASB that I am familiar with is now called the NASB - 1995 version, while there is also a NASB version. Apparently the NASB has been re-edited, but I was not aware of it. What is the general consensus with the new edits?


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #57726 Sat May 07, 2022 7:06 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Admittedly, I have not purchased a copy of the new NASB (2020), nor have it read it through completely. But I have read several reviews, both positive and negative and on the basis of what I have read I would not recommend it. The NASB from the very beginning was in the same 'boat'; positive and negative reviews. Taking into account the source of the review often is sufficient enough, e.g., does the author condone the "Dynamic Equivalence" method of translation? or the "Formal Equivalence" method of translation? Personally, I reject any version of the Bible that is translated from the original using the "Dynamic Equivalent" method either consistently or when convenient. The source text is another consideration; TR vs. Majority vs. Westcott-Hort, etc. There is one consistent criticism I ran into which in itself tells me enough to reject the NASB (2020) version which I have included below. The quoted statement is from the Lockman Foundation and not from a reviewer so it is certainly indicative of what the translators' methods were and the translation's goals are:

Originally Posted by Lockman
The NASB 2020 is gender-accurate, meaning the reader will no longer have to try to intuit which genders the biblical authors have in mind. Now the text will clearly communicate gender in modern English, while still remaining true to the context and original languages of the ancient manuscripts. It should not be assumed that everyone will “just know” if both genders are intended when reading gender specific English, and for that reason clarification is critical. The NASB 2020 is not gender-neutral because when the original context calls for a specific masculine or feminine term, it does not use a gender-neutral term instead. Likewise, changes such as the addition of italic “and sisters” following “brothers” are made only when it is accurate to the way both the language and context would have been naturally understood by the original audiences. The NASB uses italics all throughout the Bible to alert the reader to words and ideas added to the translation in order to be helpful for English. These words in italics are implied or understood in the text in original languages.
The translation of the Bible MUST be faithful to the original text, first and foremost. If those who read it find certain difficulties in understanding a text/passage, that is where the ministry of the Word, aka: the Church comes into play... according to the Bible's own teaching. Far too often 'readability' has taken precedence over 'accuracy' in modern versions. And in doing so, the truth which God the Spirit had recorded through chosen men (not women or persons) is obscured at best and even denied at worse.

My [Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
John_C #57732 Sat May 07, 2022 11:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,838
John_C Offline OP
Permanent Resident
OP Offline
Permanent Resident
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,838
Thanks for the info. However, why call the old version 1995 as I first bought a NASB back in 1977?


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
John_C #57733 Sun May 08, 2022 6:55 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,224
Likes: 43
From a Wikipedia article:

Quote
The Lockman Foundation published NASB text, modifications, and revisions in the following order:

Gospel of John (1960)
The Gospels (1962)
New Testament (1963)
Psalms (1968)
Complete Bible (Old Testament and New Testament; 1971)
Minor text modifications (1972, 1973, 1975)
Major text revisions (1977, 1995, 2020)

1995 revision
In 1992, the Lockman Foundation commissioned a limited revision of the NASB. In 1995, the Lockman Foundation reissued the NASB text as the NASB Updated Edition (more commonly, the Updated NASB or NASB95). Since then, it has become widely known as simply the "NASB", supplanting the 1977 text in current printings, save for a few (Thompson Chain Reference Bibles, Open Bibles, Key Word Study Bibles, et al.).

In the updated NASB, consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with an emphasis on determining the best Greek text. Primarily, the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece is closely followed. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is also employed together with the most recent information from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.[14]

The updated NASB represents recommended revisions and refinements, and states that it incorporates thorough research based on current English usage.[15] Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure were meticulously revised for greater understanding and smoother reading, hence increasing clarity and readability.[15] Terms found in Elizabethan English such as "thy" and "thou" have been modernized, while verses with difficult word ordering are restructured. Punctuation and paragraphing have been formatted for modernization, and verbs with multiple meanings have been updated to better account for their contextual usage.[15]


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 88 guests, and 25 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Nana Dadzie Jr., Cliniql, John E, ManassehAmerican, jta
970 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
July
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,350,157 Gospel truth