New American Standard Bible 2020 Update

[agedman]

...
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."

For over 1000 of those years, there was no translation given to “most Christians.”

The Latin Vulgate was steeped in heracy. See
The Latin Vulgate Unmasked At Last!!

What a wondrous work God performed to bring the Scriptures to our hands.

But what frights me is not so much the version translation. But, given all that is at the touch of a few buttons, that familiarity is breeding contempt, and do not forget that Scripture statement, “to whom much is given...”.

That given to the world in the last 50 years surpasses what the KJ.v translators had available, the Geneva folks would drool over, and Luther and Tyndall could never imagine.

How much more will we be held responsible for treating as casual the Scriptures.

 

[Dave G]

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.

Read some early ( 19th century ) reports on Codex Sinaiticus, sometime.

That thing is a mess...and most modern translations in the English capitalize on using readings from both it and Codex Vaticanus, as I understand the situation.

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."

I agree.
But I also believe in something called "Preservation", and to me, that extends to the "good manuscripts".

Fortunately, for 2000 years of church history, before the 21st century, most Christians stood strongly against anyone changing scripture.

As I see it, that began to fall apart in 1881.
It's only now become very bad to the point of being quite noticeable.

But it started out quietly, and gathered steam.
What we're seeing now is a much bigger "snowball".

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."

I agree.

"Relevancy" is the new constant, with "diversity" and "inclusion" following hot on its heels.

 

[Shoostie]

For over 1000 of those years, there was no translation given to “most Christians.”

I said, "damage to the manuscripts was minor". I was talking about the original language copies, not translations. As for the Latin Vulgate, the Catholic Church's justification for persecuting translators was to protect the integrity of scripture from alterations.

But what frights me is not so much the version translation. But, given all that is at the touch of a few buttons, that familiarity is breeding contempt, and do not forget that Scripture statement, “to whom much is given...”.

Familiarity may breed contempt. But, it's a real blessing to be able to do so much deep Bible study easily.

 

[Shoostie]

Read some early ( 19th century ) reports on Codex Sinaiticus, sometime.

That thing is a mess...and most modern translations in the English capitalize on using readings from both it and Codex Vaticanus, as I understand the situation.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a real treasure. I'm familiar with a lot of issues around it, but those issues don't have anything to do with anyone deliberately changing it because someone thought he knew "what Paul really meant", unless you want to argue that someone deliberate changed Galatia to Gaul, in one place, thinking that's what Paul really meant.

Every manuscript ever produced introduced hundreds of errors, hence the need for corrections. No matter how careful a copiest is, mistakes will be made. Mistakes are usually of an obvious different nature from deliberate alterations.

 

[Dave G]

The Codex Sinaiticus is a real treasure.

As far as I understand it, Codex Sinaiticus is a real disaster.
It has more erasures, corrections and other mistakes than any other existing manuscript in the Greek.

Every manuscript ever produced introduced hundreds of errors, hence the need for corrections.

Not every one.
That's where "preservation" comes in.

I don't believe that God leaves the preservation of His word up to men.
While He uses men to do things, His word is holy.

Therefore, according to His promise to preserve His words ( Psalms 12:6-7 ), I also believe that that extends to manuscripts and translations.
I also believe that Satan is doing his level best to corrupt all of it.

No matter how careful a copiest is, mistakes will be made.

If the transmission of His words was left up to men, and men alone, I could agree with that.

Mistakes are usually of an obvious different nature from deliberate alterations.

You may wish to read about how the Jews would scrap entire pages if one "jot" or one "tittle" were out of place.

Thousands of years ago, the scribes in Israel were very careful to replicate God's every word, with no mistakes.
Today?
I don't know of very many, Jew or Gentile, who treats His every word seriously.

 

[Shoostie]

You may wish to read about how the Jews would scrap entire pages if one "jot" or one "tittle" were out of place.

Thousands of years ago, the scribes in Israel were very careful to replicate God's every word, with no mistakes.
Today?

I could prove that's a myth, if we had any ancient Hebrew manuscripts to examine.

 

[HeLives4me]

In honesty, I have to say that I am not the least interested in the 2020 update to NASB, I am done with new translations, most seem to just get more watered down over time to be more PC...

VW

 

[Salty]

I could prove that's a myth, if we had any ancient Hebrew manuscripts to examine.

Now that makes a lot of sense

 

[alexander284]

I'm all for updating the NASB for the sake of making it more readable!

 

[agedman]

I'm all for updating the NASB for the sake of making it more readable!

I agree.

Who or what committee establish the acceptable reading level?

Especially when the vast majority of folks who have a Bible don’t read the Bible.

Typically, the lower the reading level the less precise the presentations.

“Run, Spot! Run” by Gray was far inferior to what McGuffey had developed a century previous. Not only were they weaker in learning skills, but presented false impressions in which McGuffey wasn’t tainted.

Folks would rather not have to “diligently seek Him” but be desirous of ease and comfort.

 

[Reformed1689]

Especially when the vast majority of folks who have a Bible don’t read the Bible.

I don't think this has to do with the readability of the Bible, just saying.

 

[agedman]

I don't think this has to do with the readability of the Bible, just saying.

But is that not a often heard excuse?

 

[Reformed1689]

But is that not a often heard excuse?

Often heard? Yes, do I think it is the real underlying reason? Absolutely not.

 

[alexander284]

Often heard? Yes, do I think it is the real underlying reason? Absolutely not.

What's the underlying reason?

 

[Van]

I'm all for updating the NASB for the sake of making it more readable!

I assume you are not talking font size, or column width. The NIV is said to be more readable than the NASB95, but often at the expense of editing the text.

I think a great many improvements can be made in the NASB95, such as translating monogenes as "one of a kind." Changing "begotten" to "fathered" if the action is by God or masculine and born if by a female. But, alas, the updates seem superficial and somewhat unnecessary.

 

[alexander284]

I assume you are not talking font size, or column width. The NIV is said to be more readable than the NASB95, but often at the expense of editing the text.

I think a great many improvements can be made in the NASB95, such as translating monogenes as "one of a kind." Changing "begotten" to "fathered" if the action is by God or masculine and born if by a female. But, alas, the updates seem superficial and somewhat unnecessary.

 

[alexander284]

Basically, they must respond to the marketplace (and sell more Bibles).

 

[Reformed1689]

What's the underlying reason?

No desire.

 

[Van]

Basically, they must respond to the marketplace (and sell more Bibles).

Often, people do things based on a verity of reasons. The market says if you make a better mousetrap, people will buy it.

For me, the English version of the mousetrap needs work, lots of work.

 

[Deacon]

New American Standard Bible 2020 update will be available in February 2020.

Rob