NASB 2020

[Yeshua1]

with all due respect ... I addressed no new topic. My topic is the NASB2020's need to exist. I find it not only doesn't need to exist but fails to accurately handle God's Word. Blue Letter Bible in the very passages I references, and there are hundreds of others ... clearly show the NASB2020 changes the meaning of the original Hebrew/Greek (as appropriate)

PERHAPS I was too subtle in my initial reply, but your allowing for a different interpretation of meaning in the replaced words is problematic. Those you cite, and I offered, are precisely the /problem with NASB2020

chasenting is punishment, but punishment is not chastening. Ditto for the others.

There was no real need for the new Nas, as both the 1977/1995 were still very fine!

 

[Yeshua1]

The above is an illogical mess.

Does thought fit his theology!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But after all this, I am still at a loss for the reason for changing "child" to "son." I put that change on the made worse side of the ledger.

Is it "deeply flawed" Van?

 

[Van]

There was no real need for the new Nas, as both the 1977/1995 were still very fine!

The NASB95 was deeply flawed by its usage of "begotten" to mistranslate monogenes.

 

[Two Wings]

some of y'all get into the real grit.

I'm like that klingon doctor in Star Trek movie where McCoy and Kirk are kidnapped ... to treat a sick klingon. The klingon physician is demanding information to take to the general. McCoy starts down a long diatribe with 9 syllable words ...

"details I can bring to the general" LOL

Y'all get over my noggin really fast, but I appreciate the attention to detail. We all need to keep focus on what's the primary ... a personal relationship with Jesus Christ!

... 3 fingers pointing at me for the one pointing outward.

Carry on!

 

[Conan]

There was no real need for the new Nas, as both the 1977/1995 were still very fine!

There was a better need to make better textual decisions. The 1977 edition was based on what, Nestle 23 edition or so. And its 95 edition Nestle/Aland 26th Edition?

 

[Yeshua1]

edition also went the route of being less liertal, for better readability! also went the route of not becom

There was a better need to make better textual decisions. The 1977 edition was based on what, Nestle 23 edition or so. And its 95 edition Nestle/Aland 26th Edition?

Yes, but the 1995 edition went the route of less literal for sake of better readability!

 

[Yeshua1]

The NASB95 was deeply flawed by its usage of "begotten" to mistranslate monogenes.

No, that was what the creeds reflect!

 

[Van]

No, that was what the creeds reflect!

On and on, falsehood after falsehood. Why did the NASB20 remove "begotten" and replace it with "only?"
Two entirely different meanings. Either "only" is a mistranslation or "begotten" was a mistranslation.
Folks, look for Y1 to not address this truth and change the subject to some other false belief.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The NASB95 was deeply flawed by its usage of "begotten" to mistranslate monogenes.

But I asked if the 2020 NASB is "deeply flawed" by changing the word child to son in 1 Timothy 1:2.

 

[37818]

But I asked if the 2020 NASB is "deeply flawed" by changing the word child to son in 1 Timothy 1:2.

γνησιω is in the neuter. But since Timothy's name is masuline in the Greek to translate that in the Greek phrase τιμοθεω γνησιω τεκνω, child is translated son. Or that maculine meaning is lost to the two neuter words γνησιω τεκνω.

 

[Van]

But I asked if the 2020 NASB is "deeply flawed" by changing the word child to son in 1 Timothy 1:2.

What do you think? What is your position. Does my view matter to you? Or are yet again being allowed to harass me with endless questions?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But after all this, I am still at a loss for the reason for changing "child" to "son." I put that change on the made worse side of the ledger.

The above is why I asked you if that change makes the 2020NASB "deeply flawed." You said the change put it on the worst side of the ledger.

 

[Van]

The above is why I asked you if that change makes the 2020NASB "deeply flawed." You said the change put in on the worst side of the ledger.

The removal of the mistranslation of monogenes reduced the number of flaws in the NASB20, but other changes, such as changing child to son in 1 Timothy 1:2 adds to its list of flaws.

 

[37818]

γνησιω is in the neuter. But since Timothy's name is masuline in the Greek to translate that in the Greek phrase τιμοθεω γνησιω τεκνω, child is translated son. Or that maculine meaning is lost to the two neuter words γνησιω τεκνω.

Noting the issue between NASB95 and NASB20 in 1 Timothy 1:2, "child" versus "son" the NASB20 has the better translation because of the Greek phrase, not just the one word.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The removal of the mistranslation of monogenes reduced the number of flaws in the NASB20, but other changes, such as changing child to son in 1 Timothy 1:2 adds to its list of flaws.

But does it qualify as a "deeply flawed translation" in your eyes?

 

[Van]

But does it qualify as a "deeply flawed translation" in your eyes?

How many flaws do you claim are required to constitute "deeply flawed?"

 

[RipponRedeaux]

How many flaws do you claim are required to constitute "deeply flawed?"

That's what I would like you to explain. I have never called the 2020NASB, NIV, ESV, CSB and others "deeply flawed." You are the one who goes around issuing that edict wantonly. No one else on the BB does it but you Van.

 

[Van]

That's what I would like you to explain. I have never called the 2020NASB, NIV, ESV, CSB and others "deeply flawed." You are the one who goes around issuing that edict wantonly. No one else on the BB does it but you Van.

Somehow, folks, this harasser once again did not answer the question. Pay no attention to those who claim our English translations cannot be improved by revising flawed translation choices. The NASB20 made some improvements, but also introduced flaws. The use of "begotten" for monogenes made all those translations (but not the NASB20) deeply flawed.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Somehow, folks, this harasser once again did not answer the question.

Get your gray matter working Van. I had asked you the original question if the changes in the 2020NASB over the 95NASB warrant you calling the former "deeply flawed." I'm not the one who has a history of making that edict hundreds of times, it is you and you alone.
Now please answer my original question from my post #83. Is the 2020 "deeply flawed" or not?