1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Question about bible translation?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by "Lil" Possum Preacher man, May 4, 2015.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, as it was based upon a later edition of the critical greek text also, but some have stated though that is was not quite as formal/literal in the revision as before...
     
    #41 Yeshua1, May 11, 2015
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    The critical text fact is true, but essentially irrelevant. If I'm not mistaken, there is was no substantial changes in the Greek text (between 23 - 26) but mainly changes in the apparatus (footnotes).
     
    #42 franklinmonroe, May 12, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2015
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That would indeed be true, but the revision in 1995 did seem to loose some of its literalness from before though...
     
    #43 Yeshua1, May 16, 2015
  4. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The NASB95 doesn't use thee, thine, thou,and thy. Yep, it really went downhill at that point.
     
    #44 Rippon, May 16, 2015
  5. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh come on! No you are going to pick on the NASB95. 1st the ESV and now the NASB95???? Well, at least I won't have to worry about you going after the remaining translation of my 3 favorites. The NIV

    I'm just kidding. I know the ESV and NASB95 aren't perfect, nor the NIV either. I do however like these 3 the best personally.
     
    #45 McCree79, May 16, 2015
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Please post some examples where the '95 is shown to be less literal than the '77 version. Thanks
     
    #46 franklinmonroe, May 16, 2015
  7. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So it seems the removal of needless conjunctions in the OT is why the 1995 Update is "less literal" than the 1977.

    Most attacks on the NASB95 are either provincial (the person likes the Thees and Thous) or distinctions without significant difference. And note that when idioms were updated, the literal reading is footnoted.

    Here is an example, Amos 3:2:
    The footnote (*) says "lit. known"

    Thus in this example, the 95 is more literal in light of the footnote than the 77.
     
    #47 Van, May 16, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2015
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html

    NOT saying that the 1995 revision was/is a bad version, as it is still probablt the best to use for serious studies, die to its formal/;iteral structure, its just that it became a small less literally in revision, which allowed for it to be understand more clearly...
     
    #48 Yeshua1, May 16, 2015
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please try to proofread your posts. Whatever points you think you are making are negated by your carelessness. Allow your posts to be understood more clearly by the rest of us.
     
    #49 Rippon, May 16, 2015
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was attempting to be funny in post 44. I didn't add a smiley-face because I thought it was self-evident that I wasn't being serious.
     
    #50 Rippon, May 16, 2015
  11. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Its OK.....I was just kidding too.
     
    #51 McCree79, May 16, 2015
  12. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,742
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    Faith:
    Baptist
    provides no support for the assertion that the NASB 95 is less literal than the NASB 77. If anyone bothers to read the link, it points out areas where the 1901 ASV is supposedly more literal.
     
    #52 Van, May 18, 2015
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I used the original NASB (1971) in seminary for Old Testament Survey and Divided Monarchy.

    The NASB was much more literal (to the point of being "wooden" according to my professor) but did result in better understanding than the KJV which was the most common bible used at that time.

    Now that I am retired and do some pulpit supply and teach adult sunday school classes as a fill-in teacher, choosing a version has been a similar problem to me.

    Our church has the NKJV as pew bible, but the pastor preaches from the ESV and my adult sunday school teacher teaches from the NIV but most of the people in the class (it is a senior adult class) carry the KJV.

    So, when I teach/preach I generally use the NKJV as that is available in the pew. That way if there is some confusion the people can use the pew bible to follow along.

    Also it is an unfortunate decision made by the (original) NASB committee to include the statement that the "Thee" and "Thou" pronouns were retained to maintain the majesty of language when referring to deity.

    I'm sorry but that is simply idiot! In the older English bibles the older pronouns were not used to reference deity! They were used to differentiate between the singular and plural, and nominative and objective, use of pronouns, as the original languages do.

    The same is true of the verb forms such as "have," "hast," and "hath." Those forms were used to differentiate between the first person "have" second person "hast" and third person "hath."

    That differentiation between the verb forms is not really necessary as context can usually identify the person of the verb. But English (especially written English) needs a mechanism to identify whether pronouns are singular or plural, nominative or objective. That is much more difficult to determine from context and can have a significant effect on the meaning of the passage.

    Of course we could adopt the Texan method: You = singular, You all (or y'all) = plural. But that wouldn't help with the nominative - objective dilemma. :D
     
    #53 TCassidy, May 19, 2015
  14. robustheologian

    robustheologian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I get what he's trying to do at bible-researcher but I find his reviews biased and not that thorough. Sadly when you Google "bible review" or any other review of a translation, this site comes up.
     
    #54 robustheologian, May 19, 2015
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A sample of Michael Marlowe's mentality is exemplified in this example:"The really astonishing thing is that a version printed four hundred million times would prove to be such a dubious representation of the Word of God."
     
    #55 Rippon, May 19, 2015
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Does that mean that he has no creditials then to express views on bible versions?
     
    #56 Yeshua1, May 24, 2015
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Why do you see him as not being thorough though, as he seems to be able to really explore and explain versions as compared to original languages?
     
    #57 Yeshua1, May 24, 2015
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    He view is that the revision of 1995 in some ways actually made it worse then the 1977 edition....

    But that it is still the best one to use for serious biblical studies...
     
    #58 Yeshua1, May 24, 2015
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What did you think of the article?
     
    #59 Yeshua1, May 24, 2015
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...