NASB (1995 Edition) versus NASB (Current Edition)

[alexander284]

Of the two, which do you prefer (and why)?

 

[agedman]

I prefer the 1995.

It (imo) is less politically correct, and next to translations such as the KJV and ESV is as reliable, readable, and less questionable.

Note, this is purely my own opinion in which I am unanimous.

 

[alexander284]

I prefer the 1995.

It (imo) is less politically correct, and next to translations such as the KJV and ESV is as reliable, readable, and less questionable.



Note, this is purely my own opinion in which I am unanimous.

I am in complete agreement with you on this.

My two favorite Bible translations are the ESV and the NASB95.

And, of course, I will always have a place in my heart for the KJV, as well.

 

[alexander284]

RipponRedeaux, through his numerous posts, has finally persuaded me to avoid, for the most part, gender inclusive Bible translations.

In addition, he has managed to convince me to avoid functional equivalence Bible translations, as well.

I was "on the fence," so to speak to, but his comments have helped me to decide to use, primarily, only translations like the KJV, NKJV, NASB95, and the ESV.

Congratulations on your successful arguments, sir!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

My two favorite Bible translations are the ESV and the NASB95.

What happened to the CSB? Did you suddenly drop it after posting praise for it very recently? What's up with that?

 

[alexander284]

What happened to the CSB? Did you suddenly drop it after posting praise for it very recently? What's up with that?

You've persuaded me to abandon it.

 

[alexander284]

Well, it seems as if you will be continually inconsistent Alex. It's a matter of Alex vs. Alex. You are all over the place.

Do you wish to rescind your posts of appreciation for the way the NLT handled a number of passages?

Sure. Why not.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Sure. Why not.

You have said that you're an indecisive person. Kinda' fickle. But you know what the KJV says :
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Of the two, which do you prefer (and why)?

It's funny. You have made five posts on this topic but have not provided specific examples comparing the two. If you are so gung ho about the 1995 edition one would think you would offer some supporting data to confirm that it was superior. In the absence of that material, you haven't made a case for your cause.

 

[alexander284]

You have said that you're an indecisive person. Kinda' fickle. But you know what the KJV says :
A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

You're so right.

 

[alexander284]

It's funny. You have made five posts on this topic but have not provided specific examples comparing the two. If you are so gung ho about the 1995 edition one would think you would offer some supporting data to confirm that it was superior. In the absence of that material, you haven't made a case for your cause.

Right, again.

 

[JesusFan]

Of the two, which do you prefer (and why)?

1995, as more literal and formal, not as much into being inclusive language!

 

[JesusFan]

RipponRedeaux, through his numerous posts, has finally persuaded me to avoid, for the most part, gender inclusive Bible translations.

In addition, he has managed to convince me to avoid functional equivalence Bible translations, as well.

I was "on the fence," so to speak to, but his comments have helped me to decide to use, primarily, only translations like the KJV, NKJV, NASB95, and the ESV.

Congratulations on your successful arguments, sir!

Those would be the best ones to use for doing serious studies in the biblical texts!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Right, again.

So then, make your point by doing a comparison wherein you can demonstrate that the 95 is better than the 2020 edition. Otherwise you are not establishing anything.

 

[alexander284]

So then, make your point by doing a comparison wherein you can demonstrate that the 95 is better than the 2020 edition. Otherwise you are not establishing anything.

I'm not establishing anything.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I'm not establishing anything.

You got that right. You are advocating for the unsubstantiated.

 

[alexander284]

You got that right. You are advocating for the unsubstantiated.

Indeed, I am.

 

[alexander284]

Due to its lack of gender inclusive language, I think I'll be looking into the NKJV, next.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Due to its lack of gender inclusive language, I think I'll be looking into the NKJV, next.

Man.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Instead of comparing a 17th century version with a 20th century version it would make better sense to upgrade a bit. How about pairing a 19th century version with a 21st century version?