Your Preference...NASB-77 or 95

1995.

Smoother reading with some minor updates.

 

While I liked some of the updates, the NASB-95 omits more conjunctions than the NASB-77. Seems to be a philosophy change. Don't think a translator has that much freedom.

 

Can you list some examples.

Thanks

 

Sure. Take, for instance, the book of 1st John. Compare the Greek text with the English translation of the NASB-95. How many times do they translate the conjunction "kai"/"and".? Too often it is omitted.

 

All the instances of this I can find are at the beginning of sentences in the NASB. The passages don't appear to mean anything different without the conjunction, and it would be ungrammatical for the English to retain them at the beginning of sentences.

 

Except the omissions at times obscure John's flow of thought. If the Spirit moved John to say "... and ..." we need to reproduce that in translation, don't we?

 

Except the omissions at times obscure John's flow of thought.

I disagree. The flow of thought is maintained by the order of the sentences.

If the Spirit moved John to say "... and ..." we need to reproduce that in translation, don't we?

My understanding is that the initial connective kai is the carryover of a Hebrew grammatical feature into the Greek New Testament which, in turn, influenced the English of the KJV. Whatever the Spirit influenced John to write, that does not mean we need to imitate the grammar of the source language unnecessarily.

Here's a counterexample. Contemporary English uses a structure involving the verb to do to indicate negatives; we say "do not steal" instead of "steal not." This is unusual for a language. If we were to translate an English book into French, we would properly write ne volez pas, not ne faites pas voler. Seemingly this eliminates an entire verb from the original, does it not? Yet it would be inappropriate to retain it in French.

 

I would agree with you on the French and English if they are the original source languages in question, but they are now target languages. At the same time I have to recognize that God did not reveal His Word in either of the those languages. Koine Greek is Koine Greek, even with idiosyncratic Hebraisms.

I also agree with you that the kai's are indeed Hebraisms, but I think we veil the original flavor of the text by eliminating them.

I also appreciate the spirit in which you write. Thanks for reflecting Christ in this. These issues are not "hills to die on."

 

NASB 1995 wins by far.

 

Do you ever read anything in context?

Why are you bringing your strange views to this thread about the NASB?

Can we not have a discussion without KJVO deceptions creeping into it?

 

I like 95 much better. Have been using it for almost 10 years now. It flows much easier, got rid of the Thees and Thous. All around a better translation.

 

1995

More readable, not as "stiff" in some places...