New NASB Update

[Martin Marprelate]

I like the CEB rendering of this verse :

"They pray to God, and God is pleased with them; they behold God's presence with a joyful shout. God rewards a person's righteousness."

I like the NKJV rendering
He shall pray to God, and He shall delight in him. He shall see His face with joy, for He restores to man his righteousness.'
I prefer it, not only because it promotes salvation by grace rather than by works; not only because it translates the important conjunction 'for,' but also because it translates the verse as God the Holy Spirit wrote it: in the singular.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is a quote from the 1611 King James Version translators.
"
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."
The Translators to the Reader

They never claimed for the 1611 that the KJVO have!

 

[Yeshua1]

I like the NKJV rendering
He shall pray to God, and He shall delight in him. He shall see His face with joy, for He restores to man his righteousness.'
I prefer it, not only because it promotes salvation by grace rather than by works; not only because it translates the important conjunction 'for,' but also because it translates the verse as God the Holy Spirit wrote it: in the singular.

I guess some see the need to re translate for Him what He must have missed!

 

[robycop3]

I stick with the 1977 NASV; I was led to JESUS thru its words. Primary version:NKJV; next is NASV. followed by ESV. I only study the other versions,

 

[Van]

His revision is aimed at making the NASB more accurate and more consistent. Great goals.

When the OT has the name of God, it is just four Hebrew letters, transliterated YHWH. Every time in your OT you see LORD (all caps) YHWH would be a more accurate rendering.

Because of the baggage "slave" has I think "bond-servant" is a better rendering because it conveys the idea of willing servant.

Hopefully it will more consistently translate the same word meaning using a consistent word or phrase.

 

[George Antonios]

George, you apparently have never read The Preface To The Reader of the KJV. They wanted to make a good one better.

@davidtaylorjr
I have read it. The principle of seeking to better something is not inherently wrong (Psalm 12:6-7). The idea that that principle, especially when applied to the words of God, is a fundamentally never-ending process, is Satanic.
Modern scholars are prone to imbibe the modern evolutionary mindset, one which was not there in 1611.
You smug little scholars will ever be "bettering" the words of the living God, with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, I must explain to the Muslims I preach to why the scholarship-worshipping, humanistic-naturalists keep dumping Bible versions.
Note that God stops the purification process at 7 (Psalm 12:6-7). He doesn't go on indefinitely. Yes, I realize that this is a sub-intellectual argument for the Scholarship-Only highnesses, but there it is. When it comes to the nature of the words of God, the scholars never did discern things spiritually.
Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. is just as true a Bible verse as John 3:16. How many "scholars'' today do you suppose truly believe Jeremiah 8:8?
I'll tell you what I learned. I learned that we Evangelicals are bunch of hypocrites when it comes to the words of God. We denounce the nominal Christians for naively and unscripturally following their priests, while we similarly follow the scribes - forgetting that Christ condemned the scribes, as a group (with some exceptions) just as much as the priests.

 

[Yeshua1]

I stick with the 1977 NASV; I was led to JESUS thru its words. Primary version:NKJV; next is NASV. followed by ESV. I only study the other versions,

My first bible after getting saved was the Living Bible, but had study notes in it from Harold Lindsell, so that part was very good, then bought a 1977 edition Ryrie, which still have and use!

 

[Yeshua1]

His revision is aimed at making the NASB more accurate and more consistent. Great goals.

When the OT has the name of God, it is just four Hebrew letters, transliterated YHWH. Every time in your OT you see LORD (all caps) YHWH would be a more accurate rendering.

Because of the baggage "slave" has I think "bond-servant" is a better rendering because it conveys the idea of willing servant.

Hopefully it will more consistently translate the same word meaning using a consistent word or phrase.

The best news out of this would be that his group will be keeping the 1995 alive, unlike Zondervan, that killed off 1984 when 2011 arrived!

 

[Yeshua1]

@davidtaylorjr
I have read it. The principle of seeking to better something is not inherently wrong (Psalm 12:6-7). The idea that that principle, especially when applied to the words of God, is a fundamentally never-ending process, is Satanic.
Modern scholars are prone to imbibe the modern evolutionary mindset, one which was not there in 1611.
You smug little scholars will ever be "bettering" the words of the living God, with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, I must explain to the Muslims I preach to why the scholarship-worshipping, humanistic-naturalists keep dumping Bible versions.
Note that God stops the purification process at 7 (Psalm 12:6-7). He doesn't go on indefinitely. Yes, I realize that this is a sub-intellectual argument for the Scholarship-Only highnesses, but there it is. When it comes to the nature of the words of God, the scholars never did discern things spiritually.
Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. is just as true a Bible verse as John 3:16. How many "scholars'' today do you suppose truly believe Jeremiah 8:8?
I'll tell you what I learned. I learned that we Evangelicals are bunch of hypocrites when it comes to the words of God. We denounce the nominal Christians for naively and unscripturally following their priests, while we similarly follow the scribes - forgetting that Christ condemned the scribes, as a group (with some exceptions) just as much as the priests.

Were there Bibles in other languages before 1611? Was the Vulgate? Luther traon? Tysndale, Bishop, Geneva?The Kjv itself was a revision of prior works, as are newer ones since 1611!

 

[37818]

. . . (Psalm 12:6-7) . . .

Psalms 12:6-7, ". . . The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. . . ." Is about the word of God.

". . . Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them* from this generation for ever. . . ." * original KJV footnote: Heb. him, i, every one of them. This verse 7 is about the believer protected by God's promise from the evil generation.
The Geneva Bible 1560, verse 7, "Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer."

 

[Yeshua1]

Psalms 12:6-7, ". . . The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. . . ." Is about the word of God.

". . . Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them* from this generation for ever. . . ." * original KJV footnote: Heb. him, i, every one of them. This verse 7 is about the believer protected by God's promise from the evil generation.
The Geneva Bible 1560, verse 7, "Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him fris pure translation!om this generation for euer."

Nothing to do with the claim by KJVO that God purified the Kjv as His pure translation!

 

[Logos1560]

Note that God stops the purification process at 7 (Psalm 12:6-7). He doesn't go on indefinitely.

Your interpretation suggesting a purification process based on Psalm 12:6 could be considered an example of eisegesis, reading into a verse ideas that were not actually stated in it. The verse does not actually teach any purification process. You seem to ignore the important difference between the statement of fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" and the later earthly illustration or simile that is given to confirm that statement of fact, not to contradict it by some imagined purification process.

The KJV is not even the seventh English Bible translation, and it is a verifiable fact that the KJV was actually a revision of more than six earlier English translations. While one of the rules for the translating mentioned only six, the KJV translators actually made use of more than six as they also made use of the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that is not mentioned in the rule.

The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all. This statement of fact would contradict the incorrect claim that the verse is supposedly teaching any purification process.

After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly does not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV. Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made more pure. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be more pure than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree simply make an assertion about what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of the absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.

 

[McCree79]

The best news out of this would be that his group will be keeping the 1995 alive, unlike Zondervan, that killed off 1984 when 2011 arrived!

Zondervan will have the NASB 1995

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Logos1560]

Note that God stops the purification process at 7 (Psalm 12:6-7). .

Nothing in those two verses states that the words of God need to go through any purification process. It was the silver on earth that went through a purification process before it could even be compared to the already absolutely 100% pure words of the LORD.

 

[Van]

The best news out of this would be that his group will be keeping the 1995 alive, unlike Zondervan, that killed off 1984 when 2011 arrived!

The best news (or rumor) is they are doing away with "only begotten" as a translation of monogenes.

 

[Yeshua1]

The best news (or rumor) is they are doing away with "only begotten" as a translation of monogenes.

Another reason to stay away!

 

[Van]

Another reason to stay away!

I think you are the last man standing on the deck of this sinking ship, only begotten is a well known mistranslation Sir.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think you are the last man standing on the deck of this sinking ship, only begotten is a well known mistranslation Sir.

So no other main translations still use that term?

 

[Van]

So no other main translations still use that term?

The fact pattern Sir is translatiional updates go from "only begotten" to "one and only" or "unique" or "one of a kind." No body goes from "one and only" to "only begotten." Which bibles outside of the KJV family and updated since 2000 still have "only begotten?"

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact pattern Sir is translatiional updates go from "only begotten" to "one and only" or "unique" or "one of a kind." No body goes from "one and only" to "only begotten." Which bibles outside of the KJV family and updated since 2000 still have "only begotten?"

How about formal translations such as Nkjv, Esv, and prior Nas?