New American Standard Bible 2020 Update

When I study, I not only have a hard copy NASB95 with footnotes, but also computer presentations of others versions with footnotes such as the NET.

When the Greek word refers to our "brothers" in Christ, it refers both to male and female folks. Thus "siblings" includes the intended group, and avoids drawing a distinction not found in the text.

You have ascribed the motives of the NASB publishers, but did not provide a quote to support your charge. Adam Schiff presented what he claimed Trump meant in the phone call, but it was a fabrication.

Here is what they claimed were the motivations:

"The whole text is being reviewed with more emphasis in the Old Testament.
The primary goal is to maintain accuracy and modernize English.
As our base texts are the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) for the books available and the NA28 for the NT. We don't always agree with the editors of those texts and choose alternate or variant readings when we feel they are more accurate." ​

 

You like paraphrases and alterations that support your views. I don't want, nor need, any changes to lean the text of the Bible toward my views.

Every translation is prefixed with something like "Our primary goal is accuracy blah blah blah". The NASB 2020 makes lots of changes. So, it and the NASB95 both can't be highly accurate. Which one belongs in the trash?

 

Unless you believe Paul's audience was literally only speaking to men here, "siblings" or "brothers and sisters" would be more accurate. This letter would have been read outloud to men and women alike. There is no reason contextually to restrict the noun to only men. The BDAG, EDNT and Louw & Nida all show that αδελφοί can mean "siblings". This usage is even found outside of the NT Greek.

The NASB 2020 using "siblings" or "brothers and sisters" here is acceptable. If they did so...I have not read this verse personally. There is a couple times when I believe the CSB went to fair with αδελφοί being rendered "brothers and Sisters" (context suggests brothers should have been used)...slightly more the NIV. I have yet to see the NASB 2020 go to far. Then again, I have only read 20-25 or so posts online of it.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Every Bible translation has defenders that make the same argument for whatever is in their favorite translations. The New World Translation refers to the [Jesus] as "a god". Perfectly legitimate, right? English nouns often are preceded with articles, of which "a" is. The Greek text uses the same case for "g" as it does the rest of the quotes. That is "god", not "God." All nonsense, but no more nonsense than your rationalization.

I have the same thing to say to you as the last guy, "You like paraphrases and alterations that support your views. I don't want, nor need, any changes to lean the text of the Bible toward my views."

You've disqualified yourself from over objecting to any paraphrase choice in any translation. Your objections would be nothing but hypocrisy. Everyone who produces a translation or paraphrase believes as you do, that their changes reflect the intent of the original author, even if it's not what the author actually said.

Regarding specifically brothers to "brothers and sisters" if Paul meant that in Romans, could have said "brothers and sisters". Are you accusing Paul of ignorance, not knowing that churches had women in them, so he just said brothers? Are you accusing Paul of paganism, falling the customs of presumed misogynists who talked passed women, straight to men? As long as you're second guessing Paul, what do you fantasize is his reason for saying "brothers" rather than "brothers and sisters"?

 

Your first argument...and everything else you posted is ignorant and slanderous. The "a" god argument is a 100% impossibility. Greek grammar does not allow for it. There is a two nominatives one being a predicate nominative. "A" has no place in the sentence. Has far as αδελφοί goes you are ignoring historic usage of the word where we see brother and sister identified and then they are called αδελφοί( Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, ed. WDittenberger).

If you wanted to say siblings in greek, how would you do it? What word would be used?
What is your argument that αδελφοί can only mean brothers? Because it is masculine? If so, will you argue that only women can sin since it is a feminine word?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Now you are a mind reader, telling me I want to alter scripture, whereas you like it straight up. Twaddle
You made up ulterior motives for the NASB publisher, I didn't.

It remains to be seen if the 2020 revision of the NASB improves it, or makes is worse. All these premature castigations simply betray bias.

 

My favorite translation still remains the 1977 edition of the Nas, as that one was very faithful to the original languages, and did not bow down to gender inclusiveness as many more modern revisions have!

 

I will withhold judgement until we have their completed work published, as one can be more gender inclusive to some degree, as in the Csb, with out going all in as in the 2011 Niv.

 

There is no legit way from the Bilbical greek to get to the JW take on Jesus being "a god"

 

We've seen enough to know the character of the NASB2020. "Brothers" is changed to "brothers and sisters". "O man" is changed (and, moved from a footnote) to "you foolish person" (not that it matters, but I don't think "o man" figuratively means foolish). You will no longer be able to defend the NASB as relatively literal.

 

No there is not

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Yes, it might show that I have no respect for the act of people changing scripture, especially while judging others for doing the same. You think that your interpretation gives you justification to change the Bible, so does everyone else who changes the Bible.

If Paul wanted to say Brother and Sister, he could easily have said it: ἀδελφός καί ἀδελφή.

Even if I agreed with you that Paul absolutely meant both male and female when he says Brother, he still says Brother and I respect, and will not presume to second guess, the divinely inspired language this great Apostle.

It's just gravy, and unnecessary, to point out that your interpretation is wrong, which is why Paul didn't say Brother than Sister.

 

That is not what I asked. How does one say siblings? What word do you think was used in greek when refering to siblings?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

The KJVO advocates imagine that modern translations leave out verses. But, most likely, scribes added the extra words found in the Received Text used by the KJV. Scribes might have added margin notes or parenthetical comments to explain the passage they're copying. And then, future scribes seeing those notes and comments thought they belonged in the text itself.

Or, maybe some self-righteous dolt of a scribe thought he was doing the world a favor changing words and adding words directly into the text because this is "what Paul really meant."

Fortunately, for 2000 years of church history, before the 21st century, most Christians stood strongly against anyone changing scripture. So, damage to the manuscripts was minor. Unfortunately, in our no-longer-Christian society, people who think themselves followers of God have little hesitation changing scripture to have God follow them, and their equally irreverent peers applaud them for bringing out "what Paul really meant."

 

If you compare it, when it comes out, to an existing version like the NKJV, or the LEB, you might make valid points.

 

Are any changes effecting doctrine - minor or major points of which the validity of the teaching is in some manner removed?

 

The Bible teaches patriarchy, the man is the head of the woman. This is watered down to so-called complimentarianism by modern Baptists, and rejected by most non-Baptist (and non-Catholic) churches in favor of unbiblical so-called egalitarianism. Changing "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" is done to inject "egalitarianism" into verses. It's done precisely to remove male headship (e.g. promote women as pastors).

While we were a Christian country, the Bible led our culture. Now that we are no longer a Christian country, nominal Christians feel free to change the Bible to have the culture lead the Bible. (A silver lining of not living in a Christian country is that the nominal Christians are exposed. When the culture is Christian, they're concealed in the culture. In a Christian culture, they don't support same-sex marriage, women pastors, and "gender-neutral" alterations, because the culture doesn't support these things. But, when the culture changes and supports these things, they support these things because belong to the world, not to God.)

Even if I agreed that it doesn't change any doctrine, it's arrogant and contemptible for people to inject their opinions into the text of scripture through paraphrases and other alternations beyond what is necessary for a translation. Doing so is not only an attempt to improve upon God's word, it also locks out other interpretations.

Most of the changes in the 21st-century Bible versions is done to change doctrine in a way reflecting the doctrines of those who belong to the world. The ESV is the only significant 21st century translation that has shown resistance to following the world. (The NKJV is great 20th century version, may they not meddle with it.)

 

1) That's been a problem for quite awhile now, since paraphrases like "Good News for Modern Man" were introduced about, what...50 years ago?
2) Where does one get "Christian values"? The word of God.
3) The love of money does that.

I agree.
See item 3.

The phrase, "make merchandise of you" ( 2 Peter 2:3 ) also comes to my mind.

 

In modern Greek, it's, " αδέλφια ", transliterated as, " adélfia".
I'm not sure such a word exists in Koine Greek.

 

I disagree.

What many "KJVO" people see, especially those that have done the research, is that most modern translations leave out words and even whole passages, because of the manuscripts being used to perform the translations.
The significant differences are in the Textus Receptus ( basically Stephanus' and Beza's texts from the 1500's ) versus the Critical Text ( Westcott and Hort's collated text from 1881 ) while the MT ( Hodges and Farstad's collation of some 100 manuscripts ) hardly gets used to perform any translations, today.

Most modern English translations makes use of USB / NA apparatuses ( collated Greek texts ) that lean heavily on only two major manuscripts...Sinaiticus ( found in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the mid-1800's ), and Vaticanus ( housed in Rome for over 1,000 years. ).

Or, it could be the other way around, as the "KJV" advocates say that it probably happened.

But, unfortunately, there's no real proof.