Yes, as it was based upon a later edition of the critical greek text also, but some have stated though that is was not quite as formal/literal in the revision as before...
-
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!
Question about bible translation?
- Thread starter "Lil" Possum Preacher man
- Start date
Yes, as it was based upon a later edition of the critical greek text also, but some have stated though that is was not quite as formal/literal in the revision as before...
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The critical text fact is true, but essentially irrelevant. If I'm not mistaken, there is was no substantial changes in the Greek text (between 23 - 26) but mainly changes in the apparatus (footnotes).
Last edited by a moderator:
That would indeed be true, but the revision in 1995 did seem to loose some of its literalness from before though...
The NASB95 doesn't use thee, thine, thou,and thy. Yep, it really went downhill at that point.
Oh come on! No you are going to pick on the NASB95. 1st the ESV and now the NASB95???? Well, at least I won't have to worry about you going after the remaining translation of my 3 favorites. The NIV [emoji2]
I'm just kidding. I know the ESV and NASB95 aren't perfect, nor the NIV either. I do however like these 3 the best personally.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Please post some examples where the '95 is shown to be less literal than the '77 version. Thanks
So it seems the removal of needless conjunctions in the OT is why the 1995 Update is "less literal" than the 1977.
Most attacks on the NASB95 are either provincial (the person likes the Thees and Thous) or distinctions without significant difference. And note that when idioms were updated, the literal reading is footnoted.
Here is an example, Amos 3:2:
77 said:
95 said:
The footnote (*) says "lit. known"
Thus in this example, the 95 is more literal in light of the footnote than the 77.
Last edited by a moderator:
www.bible-researcher.com/nasb.html
NOT saying that the 1995 revision was/is a bad version, as it is still probablt the best to use for serious studies, die to its formal/;iteral structure, its just that it became a small less literally in revision, which allowed for it to be understand more clearly...
Please try to proofread your posts. Whatever points you think you are making are negated by your carelessness. Allow your posts to be understood more clearly by the rest of us.
I was attempting to be funny in post 44. I didn't add a smiley-face because I thought it was self-evident that I wasn't being serious.
Its OK.....I was just kidding too.
I used the original NASB (1971) in seminary for Old Testament Survey and Divided Monarchy.
The NASB was much more literal (to the point of being "wooden" according to my professor) but did result in better understanding than the KJV which was the most common bible used at that time.
Now that I am retired and do some pulpit supply and teach adult sunday school classes as a fill-in teacher, choosing a version has been a similar problem to me.
Our church has the NKJV as pew bible, but the pastor preaches from the ESV and my adult sunday school teacher teaches from the NIV but most of the people in the class (it is a senior adult class) carry the KJV.
So, when I teach/preach I generally use the NKJV as that is available in the pew. That way if there is some confusion the people can use the pew bible to follow along.
Also it is an unfortunate decision made by the (original) NASB committee to include the statement that the "Thee" and "Thou" pronouns were retained to maintain the majesty of language when referring to deity.
I'm sorry but that is simply idiot! In the older English bibles the older pronouns were not used to reference deity! They were used to differentiate between the singular and plural, and nominative and objective, use of pronouns, as the original languages do.
The same is true of the verb forms such as "have," "hast," and "hath." Those forms were used to differentiate between the first person "have" second person "hast" and third person "hath."
That differentiation between the verb forms is not really necessary as context can usually identify the person of the verb. But English (especially written English) needs a mechanism to identify whether pronouns are singular or plural, nominative or objective. That is much more difficult to determine from context and can have a significant effect on the meaning of the passage.
Of course we could adopt the Texan method: You = singular, You all (or y'all) = plural. But that wouldn't help with the nominative - objective dilemma.
I get what he's trying to do at bible-researcher but I find his reviews biased and not that thorough. Sadly when you Google "bible review" or any other review of a translation, this site comes up.
A sample of Michael Marlowe's mentality is exemplified in this example:"The really astonishing thing is that a version printed four hundred million times would prove to be such a dubious representation of the Word of God."
Does that mean that he has no creditials then to express views on bible versions?
Why do you see him as not being thorough though, as he seems to be able to really explore and explain versions as compared to original languages?
What did you think of the article?