• 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!

NASB 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RipponRedeaux said:
Get your gray matter working Van. Snip
Click to expand...
The harasser in chief hurls gratuitous insults non-stop. But does not answer the question. How many flaws does it take for you to classify a translation as deeply flawed. 3? 30?

Calvinism claims "through faith" means not through faith. Is that enough for Calvinists to claim a translation is deeply flawed?

Calvinism claims Christ did not die as a ransom for all. Is that enough for Calvinist to claim a translation is deeply flawed.

On the other hand, since scripture cannot be broken, Calvinism must be deeply flawed...
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
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.
Click to expand...
Begotten does NOT imply created, and the truth Van is that either position "Unique/One of kind or .only begotten" can be supported in the Greek text" as its not either or here!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
The harasser in chief hurls gratuitous insults non-stop. But does not answer the question. How many flaws does it take for you to classify a translation as deeply flawed. 3? 30?

Calvinism claims "through faith" means not through faith. Is that enough for Calvinists to claim a translation is deeply flawed?

Calvinism claims Christ did not die as a ransom for all. Is that enough for Calvinist to claim a translation is deeply flawed.

On the other hand, since scripture cannot be broken, Calvinism must be deeply flawed...
Click to expand...
The truth is that ALL save for Universalists limit the atonement Van!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
edition also went the route of being less liertal, for better readability! also went the route of not becom
Yes, but the 1995 edition went the route of less literal for sake of better readability!
Click to expand...
The 2020 seem to have gone ever further into readability, as they ended up with an edition that reads very much like the Csb now!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
The truth is that ALL save for Universalists limit the atonement Van!
Click to expand...
Here the liberal redefines "limited" in the phrase "Limited Atonement" to allow that Christ died as a ransom for all. Just another example of running away for actual Calvinist doctrine.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Here the liberal redefines "limited" in the phrase "Limited Atonement" to allow that Christ died as a ransom for all. Just another example of running away for actual Calvinist doctrine.
Click to expand...
Did God intend to have the death of Jesus pay for, atone for, and purchase all lost sinners then?
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
The harasser in chief hurls gratuitous insults non-stop. But does not answer the question. How many flaws does it take for you to classify a translation as deeply flawed. 3? 30?

Calvinism claims "through faith" means not through faith. Is that enough for Calvinists to claim a translation is deeply flawed?

Calvinism claims Christ did not die as a ransom for all. Is that enough for Calvinist to claim a translation is deeply flawed.

On the other hand, since scripture cannot be broken, Calvinism must be deeply flawed...
Click to expand...
So if all calvinist based versions are deeply flawed,. so what are the "good ones?"
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
So if all calvinist based versions are deeply flawed,. so what are the "good ones?"
Click to expand...
So you admit Calvinists view versions that say "through faith" and "your faith" are deeply flawed in that they should be revised to read according to Calvinism "not through faith" and "not your faith?"
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
It is my understanding that it can be proved the main manuscripts used to support the CT readings are inferior manuscripts.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
So you admit Calvinists view versions that say "through faith" and "your faith" are deeply flawed in that they should be revised to read according to Calvinism "not through faith" and "not your faith?"
Click to expand...
No, rather was asking since YOU equate calvinism bibles as being deeply flawed, what would be
good versions" for you?
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
Two Wings said:
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!
Click to expand...

I get the "Visual Verse of the Day" from Bible Gateway, and that still utilizes the NASB 1995 Edition.

I recommend you sign up for that particular daily email, Brother.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
37818 said:
It is my understanding that it can be proved the main manuscripts used to support the CT readings are inferior manuscripts.
Click to expand...
When they depart from the original text, sure. But when they agree with the original text, then they become excellent manuscripts.
 
T

Two Wings

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
I get the "Visual Verse of the Day" from Bible Gateway, and that still utilizes the NASB 1995 Edition.

I recommend you sign up for that particular daily email, Brother.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I have tried. In fact, I originally had NASB selected .. which was the 95 edition.

When I access the page to select the translation for VOTD ... NASB is NASB2020. So I’ve retro’d To KJV.

I even received a solicited survey for their paid subscription services .... in the “comment” section I asked them to consider removing NASB2020 ... or at least marginalize it rather than feature it.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
When they depart from the original text, sure. But when they agree with the original text, then they become excellent manuscripts.
Click to expand...
That argument is meaningless because:
Two things are true about every handed down hand written copy of Holy Scripture. Every hand written copy have known mistakes. And that said, every copy identified as said Scripture shows they also contain original text.


The 100% agreement text readings are the original. Any unique or limited in number variant most likely not the original reading, given the 100% readings are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top