NASB 2020

[Two Wings]

Shalom, brethren!

My first post here. Thanks for having me. I found y'all doing a search on the Daniel Project (highly recommend, by the way, released by an Irish film production company in 2011 IIRC, they need to produce another. much has happened since 2011). Raised Southern Baptist in a little one-traffic light Central Texas town.

I'm writing about my experience with this NASB2020 Lockman has now had released about a year. For many years, I've been taking "Biblegateway.com" "verse of the day" ... in NASB. In October last year, BGW sent Romans 12:1-2.

This passage was the basis for my first "devotional" given as a youth to my youth group. I still have/use my 1984 copy of the NASB 77 Ryrie Study Bible ... and from this translation, I learned Romans 12:1-2. So my heart was warmed when I saw the scripture reference. As I reviewed it from memory and started to read the text ... it wasn't as I had learned it.

"perhaps my settings were changed on BGW?" No. BGW took NASB2020 and made it "NASB" ... and designated the previous edition as "NASB95." I was unaware there was a subsequent edition to the NASB ... the changes so slight, I never recognized it despite years of these emails.

A couple of weeks later, BGW sent Isaiah 53:5. This one also is dear to me as it's the foundational verse for one of my favorite rock bands: Stryper.

Do a comparison of the NASB 77/95 to the 2020. It's RADICALLY different. it "soft shoes" my sin and worse, it diminishes the sacrifice my Lord made to redeem me.

I have opposed NASB2020 and will continue to do so. I find with the >20 english translations, we do not need another. The world needs The Word translated into all its LANGUAGES.

MARANATHA!

 

[37818]

I came to oppose the NASB early on.
Passages of note.
John 1:18.
John 6:47.
To list two.

 

[Two Wings]

I came to oppose the NASB early on.
Passages of note.
John 1:18.
John 6:47.
To list two.

greetings .... thanks for your reply.

What are the offenses herein to the KJV?

the former interchanges God and Son ... but is very similar. Given The Son IS God.

The latter is even closer exchanging Truly for verily ... and omits the specific "on me" ... but is certainly in context.

I've found the NASB 77 to be the most accurate English translation not commissioned by an english king. 400 years between the KJV and the Revised. Language DID markedly change in that period (Verily & Truly)

Our (proper) language has NOT changed since '77 ... only the world view and in THIS is the NASB2020. Such was my voiced objection to Lockman.

 

[37818]

greetings .... thanks for your reply.

What are the offenses herein to the KJV?

the former interchanges God and Son ... but is very similar. Given The Son IS God.

The latter is even closer exchanging Truly for verily ... and omits the specific "on me" ... but is certainly in context.

I've found the NASB 77 to be the most accurate English translation not commissioned by an english king. 400 years between the KJV and the Revised. Language DID markedly change in that period (Verily & Truly)

Our (proper) language has NOT changed since '77 ... only the world view and in THIS is the NASB2020. Such was my voiced objection to Lockman.

It is an underlying text issue.
John 1:18 ". . . Son . . ." versus ". . . God . . . ."
John 6:47 " . . . in Me . . . " versus an omission without so much as a footnote.

There are many more.

 

[Yeshua1]

I came to oppose the NASB early on.
Passages of note.
John 1:18.
John 6:47.
To list two.

I prefer the 1977/1995 editions, as 2020 reads to me pretty same as say Csb, not bad, but not nearly as formal and literal!

 

[Jerome]

I prefer the 1977/1995 editions

Matt. 21:16

NASB1995:
‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’

NASB2020:
‘FROM THE MOUTHS OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’

Which is right: mouth or mouths? And please explain why.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

John 6:47 " . . . in Me . . . " versus an omission without so much as a footnote.

Maybe a footnote would have been helpful. In the NET Notes, it says that the earlier "in me" found in most witnesses, and the "in God" found in some are not valid. "These clarifying readings are predictable variants, being motivated by the scribal tendency toward greater explicitness." It goes on to state that the shorter text is authentic because it lacks an object. P66, P75 along with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and other early witnesses substantiate the shorter reading.

 

[37818]

Matt. 21:16

NASB1995:
‘OUT OF THE MOUTH OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’

NASB2020:
‘FROM THE MOUTHS OF INFANTS AND NURSING BABIES YOU HAVE PREPARED PRAISE FOR YOURSELF’

Which is right: mouth or mouths? And please explain why.

Mouth. Both the Greek and quoted Hebrew are in the singular.

 

[Reynolds]

Shalom, brethren!

My first post here. Thanks for having me. I found y'all doing a search on the Daniel Project (highly recommend, by the way, released by an Irish film production company in 2011 IIRC, they need to produce another. much has happened since 2011). Raised Southern Baptist in a little one-traffic light Central Texas town.

I'm writing about my experience with this NASB2020 Lockman has now had released about a year. For many years, I've been taking "Biblegateway.com" "verse of the day" ... in NASB. In October last year, BGW sent Romans 12:1-2.

This passage was the basis for my first "devotional" given as a youth to my youth group. I still have/use my 1984 copy of the NASB 77 Ryrie Study Bible ... and from this translation, I learned Romans 12:1-2. So my heart was warmed when I saw the scripture reference. As I reviewed it from memory and started to read the text ... it wasn't as I had learned it.

"perhaps my settings were changed on BGW?" No. BGW took NASB2020 and made it "NASB" ... and designated the previous edition as "NASB95." I was unaware there was a subsequent edition to the NASB ... the changes so slight, I never recognized it despite years of these emails.

A couple of weeks later, BGW sent Isaiah 53:5. This one also is dear to me as it's the foundational verse for one of my favorite rock bands: Stryper.

Do a comparison of the NASB 77/95 to the 2020. It's RADICALLY different. it "soft shoes" my sin and worse, it diminishes the sacrifice my Lord made to redeem me.

I have opposed NASB2020 and will continue to do so. I find with the >20 english translations, we do not need another. The world needs The Word translated into all its LANGUAGES.

MARANATHA!

I agree fully.

 

[37818]

Maybe a footnote would have been helpful. In the NET Notes, it says that the earlier "in me" found in most witnesses, and the "in God" found in some are not valid. "These clarifying readings are predictable variants, being motivated by the scribal tendency toward greater explicitness." It goes on to state that the shorter text is authentic because it lacks an object. P66, P75 along with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and other early witnesses substantiate the shorter reading.

The correct reading is "in Me" in John 6:47.

Maybe a footnote would have been helpful. In the NET Notes, it says that the earlier "in me" found in most witnesses, and the "in God" found in some are not valid. "These clarifying readings are predictable variants, being motivated by the scribal tendency toward greater explicitness." It goes on to state that the shorter text is authentic because it lacks an object. P66, P75 along with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and other early witnesses substantiate the shorter reading.

So you believe 0.5% of the manuscript evidence is more authentic than the other some 99.5% of the thousands of manuscripts.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

So you believe 0.5% of the manuscript evidence is more authentic than the other some 99.5% of the thousands of manuscripts.

Yes, I do, based on the reasoning I cited.

 

[37818]

Yes, I do, based on the reasoning I cited.

Were the New Testament Manuscripts Copied Accurately?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Were the New Testament Manuscripts Copied Accurately?

I reviewed most of the article and I agreed with the authors. I found nothing that supports your ideas though. Though about 80% of extant minuscules are of the Byzantine text-type most of those are from the 11th to 17th centuries --particularly the 11th and 12th centuries.
The authors deal exclusively with manuscripts dated before 350 A.D.

 

[37818]

Were the New Testament Manuscripts Copied Accurately?

The writer cites "Ignatius (AD 70–110).". From my study and so understanding really date around about 250 AD being forgeries attributed to Ignatius for the Catholic church to support their claims to the mass and church authority. If anyone who honestly accepts the authenticity of those letters ascribed to Ignatius, then I suggest joining the Catholic Church.

 

[John of Japan]

I find with the >20 english translations, we do not need another. The world needs The Word translated into all its LANGUAGES.

MARANATHA!

Welcome to the BB. I hope you are blessed here.

I don't bother too much with all of the version comparing that goes on here, but I agree with all of my heart with this last statement of yours, except that the number of English translations is far more than that.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The writer cites "Ignatius (AD 70–110).". From my study and so understanding really date around about 250 AD being forgeries attributed to Ignatius for the Catholic church to support their claims to the mass and church authority. If anyone who honestly accepts the authenticity of those letters ascribed to Ignatius, then I suggest joining the Catholic Church.

Some say he was martyred as late as 117. He and Polycarp were good friends and both were instructed by the disciple Jesus loved.
There are seven authentic epistles attributed to Ignatius. The rest (maybe six more?) are forgeries.

 

[37818]

Some say he was martyred as late as 117. He and Polycarp were good friends and both were instructed by the disciple Jesus loved.
There are seven authentic epistles attributed to Ignatius. The rest (maybe six more?) are forgeries.

I am of the opinion as a Baptist those 7 are forgeries.

I found the following Presbyterian article:
https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/KillenIgnatius.pdf

 

[Two Wings]

Welcome to the BB. I hope you are blessed here.

I don't bother too much with all of the version comparing that goes on here, but I agree with all of my heart with this last statement of yours, except that the number of English translations is far more than that.

thank you sir ... and my prayer is that God will use me to edify you as well.

As far as the number of english translations ... you are probably right, I simply counted those listed on BibleGateway.com

that was more than enough.

 

[Van]

Shalom, brethren! SNIP
In October last year, BGW sent Romans 12:1-2. SNIP

As I reviewed it from memory and started to read the text ... it wasn't as I had learned it. SNIP

Do a comparison of the NASB 77/95 to the 2020. It's RADICALLY different. it "soft shoes" my sin and worse, it diminishes the sacrifice my Lord made to redeem me. SNIP

I have opposed NASB2020 and will continue to do so. SNIP

MARANATHA!

Rom 12:1-2 (NASB95)
Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Rom 12:1 (NASB20)
Therefore I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

So it appears this passage does not:
1) Diminish the sacrifice of my Lord
2) Soft shoe my sin and worse
3) Present a "Radically different" text

My own reaction to the NASB20 is mixed, with some of the changes seeming to be improvements and others not so much. In the example above, if a change was needed, which is highly debatable, I would go with siblings as an improvement over brethren.

 

[Yeshua1]

Shalom, brethren!

My first post here. Thanks for having me. I found y'all doing a search on the Daniel Project (highly recommend, by the way, released by an Irish film production company in 2011 IIRC, they need to produce another. much has happened since 2011). Raised Southern Baptist in a little one-traffic light Central Texas town.

I'm writing about my experience with this NASB2020 Lockman has now had released about a year. For many years, I've been taking "Biblegateway.com" "verse of the day" ... in NASB. In October last year, BGW sent Romans 12:1-2.

This passage was the basis for my first "devotional" given as a youth to my youth group. I still have/use my 1984 copy of the NASB 77 Ryrie Study Bible ... and from this translation, I learned Romans 12:1-2. So my heart was warmed when I saw the scripture reference. As I reviewed it from memory and started to read the text ... it wasn't as I had learned it.

"perhaps my settings were changed on BGW?" No. BGW took NASB2020 and made it "NASB" ... and designated the previous edition as "NASB95." I was unaware there was a subsequent edition to the NASB ... the changes so slight, I never recognized it despite years of these emails.

A couple of weeks later, BGW sent Isaiah 53:5. This one also is dear to me as it's the foundational verse for one of my favorite rock bands: Stryper.

Do a comparison of the NASB 77/95 to the 2020. It's RADICALLY different. it "soft shoes" my sin and worse, it diminishes the sacrifice my Lord made to redeem me.

I have opposed NASB2020 and will continue to do so. I find with the >20 english translations, we do not need another. The world needs The Word translated into all its LANGUAGES.

MARANATHA!

It is not bad, but to me seems to be the Lockman equivalent of when the Niv 2011 revised the 1984 edition. and made it worse!
Now reads pretty much the same as the Csb edition