for me it isn't a question of "traditional use of words" and my preferences For me it's a matter of being in the world but not of the world There are many cultural influences And in some ways our culture is shaped by the spirit of the power of the air The whole question of gender is coming from where ? universities the left the woke and I simply do not conform to the worldview they are advocating "thy kingdom come, thy will be done" we can communicate just fine without making a public show of our conformity to the standard erected by the left (aka "virtue signaling") nasb2020 won't get a dime from me I have the nasb95 as for my "preference" I prefer the nkjv it seems to just flow better, I simply "like" it more nasb95 is OK too, I just like the nkjv a little bit better good job, keep up the good work, I'm glad I found your channel - looking forward to your next installment
@@SDsc0rch although I would disagree with some of the things you said in there, I do agree that we should influence the world and not the other way around. I'm glad you like the NKJV as well, I also feel like it gets an undeserved amount of hate.
Another informative video. Thank you. Appreciate the laidback style of presentation and the straightforward way you stitch it all together so even I can understand it. Blessings!
Great video on the NASB 2020. I "cut my teeth" on the 95NASB and did quite a bit of memory work out of it, so I'll have to stick mostly to those passages for memorization, but the 2020 is my go-to daily reader. It is actually much better than the 95 in many ways and is much more readable than the 95 or the LSB. I never really listened to the hype coming mostly from the MacArthur crowd about how the 2020 had gone "gender neutral" because I can read NT Greek and understand the issues re: the entire gender-neutral vs. general accurate language debate. Thanks for your cool-headed and calm presentation. It's a breath of fresh air!
Amen, very well said! Thank you so much. There's no coincidence that the people that are the most gracious in the comments about translation also happen to be those who have at least some background in studying the original languages. My theory is that those of us who have studied the original languages at least at some level understand that translation is not an exact science. Thank you for the very kind comment I appreciate it a lot.
Thank you for your honesty and straight through on the 2020 NASB I admit I have been carried away with the wind of popular option and as such for the pass 9months as using LSB for teaching and devotional reading. Without giving the 2020 a second thought so today I took out my Striden by Schuyler NASB2020 and I have got my church suing the 95, as the samuels time some still hold to the Venerable KJV THIS WEEK I as reverting to my 77 and 2020 church biblical teaching. Thank you again
John, thanks for the video. You've convinced me to give it a 2nd shot. BTW, I would appreciate it very much if you could discuss the Berean Standard Bible. I listen to that version being read, and really appreciate how understandable it is.
I was one of those who was critical of the NASB2020 when it first came out. However after actually using it and spending time in it, I have changed my mind. I feel that Lockman took a very balanced approach and I appreciate their transparency with the use of italics. I also think they smoothed out the English while remaining a formal equivalence translation. In fact, R. Grant Jones has it further on the formal spectrum than the '95 or '77 text.
the main thing that keeps me with the 1995 and not wanting to use the 2020 version at all is the changes they made in Psalm 23... to me the 2020 reads more like the NIV/NLT (dynamic rather than formal)
I just discovered your channel and was very pleased with your presentation. So I have subscribed to your channel. I love the NASB 2020. While I prefer the LSB rendering of Yahweh in the OT, the NASB 20 is significantly more accurate in the book of Daniel. I'm a retired pastor, by the way. And I look forward to your future videos. Congratulations on your voice of reason re: the gender usage controversy surrounding the NASB 20!
@@alexandersmith9385 alex, thank you so much! I'm so glad that this helped you out! I love talking about this stuff so for me it's just a good time! Also I'll be making that Young's intermediate grammar video for you soon
Excellent video that certainly gives this viewer a lot to think about. I have liked some of what I've seen from the NASB 20 though as a fan of the 95 version I have also had some reservations. I will say that I have never had any problems with the literary style of the NASB and generally consider it a very readable Bible. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
@@Paladin12572 I definitely agree with you, I've never had a hard time reading The New American standard, although I will admit that the nasb 2020 reads smoother
I was a young man when the NASB 95 came out. A lot of my study was done with the NASB 77. The NASB 95 was almost 100% dismissed in my circles, even the local Christian bookstore guy didn't like it, because it was "too different" than the NASB 77. I honestly never gave the NASB 95 any consideration until after the NASB 2020 came out. I've since picked up a copy of the 95 and the 2020 to add to my collection. I heard a lot, from what I can remember, of the same arguments against the NASB 2020 that I heard about the NASB 95. I have certain verses I check for to see how they handle gender. If it handles them properly, then I'll give it a try. One verse I like to check is Malachi 4:6 to see how it handles gender. Mal 4:6 "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers..." NASB 95... The 2020 uses "fathers", as does the BSB, NLT, LSB, NASB 77, NIV 84 and ESV... as well as many other translation. Instead of "fathers" the NRSVUE and the NIV 2011 use "parents." The Hebrew word there for "fathers" is "av" which means father(s) and not parents.
I like how the NASB 95 handles some of the bigger textual variants. The 2020 moved them into the footnotes instead of keeping them in the main text in [square brackets].
@@Dwayne_Green I would agree with you on that, in that video I was primarily talking about the translation philosophy, however I would agree with you that I wish that their footnotes were more transparent especially regarding textual variants. Also not a big fan of several of the passages that they relegated to the footnotes. In fact the NASB 77 includes all of the common disputed verses in the text in [brackets] with the exception of 1 John 5:7.
@@J-Mac2215 hmmmmm. That's tough. If I could only have one forever it would probably be the NASB, however I really really like the BSB. One big drawback to the BSB is that they don't really have any good printed editions. If they had a compact BSB it would probably be my daily. I think it really is that good.
@@JohnMiles117 Bro ! exactly I have been torn between the NKJV and ESV for years which is why the BSB hot a sweet spot for me. However, after growing in a preaching and teaching ministry, the NASB is super helpful and I consult it a lot. Plus I have A NASB '95 Cambridge Clarion that is a joy to hold and read
@J-Mac2215 dude the clarions are so sweet! Yeah I only wish the BSB had better editions, if they did I would probably be pushing it on people a lot more lol 😂
Absent the “gender neutral” language in NASB2020, what other updates in this version do readers of NASB95 miss out on by NOT upgrading to the 2020 version, assuming we can get over the “brothers and sisters” issue? Comparatively, what are your thoughts on NKJV vs. NASB95 or NASB2020 and finally the ESV?
@@globalrevival great question! I think that the definite plus of upgrading to the 2020 is how much smoother and (in my opinion) more elegant it reads. I do not however dislike the 95 or think it is "unreadable" like some do, I do think however that the 2020 is a better reading translation as a whole. The NKJV is one of my favorites, when compared to the NASB95 the translation philosophy is very close, I would say that the NASB is more "formal" then the NKJV, however this in no way means the NKJV is not accurate. I like the NKJV especially for its extensive footnotes as well as its elegance in style (both things I think the NASB95 lacks). Last but not least the ESV is great however, in my humble opinion, I find that if I compared it to the NASB95 and the NKJV I would pick either of those over it. This is simply due to the fact that the NASB is more "formal" than the ESV and has better in text features, and the NKJV has much better footnotes. This however has all been just my humble opinion.
@@JohnMiles117 One good answer begs another question… what are your thoughts from the Greek language perspective on John 3:36, specifically how NKJV translates this verse compared to your favorite? it is perhaps verses like these which one can see inherent bias by translators to introduce (or adhere) to their readers their particular brand of theology. Is it all about believing faith or is “obey” justified in this verse? Sure we have other verses to look at, but this one seems to stick out since the English is not consistent across all translations. What are your thoughts? John 3:36 (NASB95): 36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36 (ESV): 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. John 3:36 (NET): 3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who REJECTS the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him. John 3:36 (NKJV): 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not BELIEVE the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 3:36 (NLT): 36 And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn’t OBEY the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.” John 3:36 (KJV): 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
@@globalrevival absolutely! That's actually a very good question. One would think that this is a textual issue, such as a manuscript variation, however regardless of the text used (TR, Byz, maj, CT) the word is the same. It really boils down to translator interpretation. The KJV and NKJV choose to translate the verb apeithov (verb, participle, present, active, nominative, singular, masculine of apeitheo) as "not believe" whereas by contrast most other modern translations choose to render this word as "disobey". According to "The Greek English lexicon based on semantic Domains" by loew and Nida that verb can be translated as either "disobey" or "rejecting belief". In my opinion since both could be correct, I would suggest translating it as "reflecting belief", the reason is for the potential for inserting works into salvation. Most Greek words have various meanings and there are good scholars on both sides, it is important to research their reasons. I hope this helped you out
@@ZachBurnham thanks for the comment Zach! As of right now I'm only on RUclips, but that might change shortly. If it does I'll make a video about it lol!
John, I think this was an excellent video on the NASB 2020! I've always loved the NASB and have really appreciated the changes made in the 2020. I think the NASB 2020 does the best job of modern translations of being gender accurate. I really enjoy reading it and I think it needs more love and appreciation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Great video. I wonder though if the CSB has cornered the market in what I see as the 3 'formal but readable' translations: CSB, NASB2020 and Berean Standard Bible.
@@jakersni9499 I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually does. I say probably the most popular conservative translation at the moment is the ESV, but the csb is rising extremely fast. Honestly the csb is an excellent translation. I wish there was more available for the berean standard Bible, truth be told the Bernie Sanders Bible is probably one of my favorites
The latest NASB the 2020 has begun on this slippery slope. I agree with your comment, like you said, that is why the LSB came about. John MacArthur loved his older NASB. When he and others saw this coming they formed their translation committee and “tweaked” the NASB, making it more literal in some places. 5:42 On the contrary, it is exegetically significant every place where the translation is not faithful. Why? Because when Paul etc. address the church, they address the men (for the most part). Why? Because they are the leaders; not only at church, but at home and abroad. Our culture is opposite the biblical paradigm, so some of these things will be hard to accept. The Hebrew word for husband is baal (בַּעַל). It means master, lord, husband, etc. So every man is the master of his household. Again, this is hard to accept, since we live in a backwards society. Peter says the same when he says that Sarah called Abraham lord (1 Peter 3:6). So this idea of headship has continued from Old Testament times to now. When Paul says “brothers” he said what he meant; and meant what he said. The Bible is exact and perfect in all its wording. The biblical writers address the men because they are the leaders of the household, everything starts and ends with the men. There are other places where writers said: brothers and sisters (1 Cor 9:5, James 2:15). Let the attacks begin…
Thank you for this super in depth comment, no attacks from me 😉. I appreciate you sharing those examples. I agree that it is exegetically significant, however I think that if the footnotes gives the correct reading anyway it is a little bit dramatic to be this worried about it, however I do agree with you that I can be a slippery slope. What's your name? (If you aren't comfortable with sharing that it's ok) I just really appreciate your in depth comments (even if I don't 100% agree) and would like to put a name to the commentator.
@@JohnMiles117 We deny the Scriptures. Just like we deny these words. They are not boldly proclaimed in the church, because our leaders are weak: 1 Cor 11:3 - But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Messiah, and the head of woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is God... 7 For in fact, a man must not cover his head, since he is the image and reflection of God. But the woman is the reflection of man. All these passages are based in creation. Just like when Adam was created first. He named all the animals, later he also named Chavah (Eve). And this is why Paul does not allow a woman to preach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12ff). However, our perverse society says, "Go ahead women preachers"
@@JohnMiles117 We are brothers John. But just like your videos, my comments are on social media, and you and I are in the minority. The more we trust in and uphold the Bible, the more we are attacked. That's why I quote the Bible when it's relevant.
@mrtdiver I agree, what's your name? I'd like to put a name to the commentator. I really do appreciate the time that you put into these comments by the way, it shows how much you care and I really appreciate and respect that.
Being British I don't really vibe with the NASB. If I need a more liiteral translation I would go to the King James, New King James or Revised Version (for the most part online - it never really caught on). Anyway, great introduction to the topic. I notice the NRSV is becoming quite dominant in the market. I tend to use the Revised English Bible if using a translation. In places it's quite close to the NRSV but isn't as consistent in its gender policy. I think the Bible should be gender neutral wherever meaning isn't lost. As an example - Blessed is the man who -> blessed is he who -> blessed are they who etc.
@@cpnlsn88 interesting! I'm not super familiar with the REB, I have heard that the NASB isnt super popular over the pond 😂, I guess that makes sense when you consider that it's the new "American" standard.
@@JohnMiles117 Most English Bibles are in the Bible tradition of the King James via the Revised Version. In spite of the outdated language the King James itself is still quite popular. The New King James is a very good effort (really helpful for difficult passages in Greek due to literalness and maybe the NASB is similar). The ASB/NASB has always been seen as a more literalistic translaton. Sorry, I just find it clunky. Sometimes there's just an emotional reaction. The REB is in the tradition of the New English Bible. I like it a lot but I think the NRSV is taking over in popularity, leaving the REB behind (sadly). Most of the time I use the Martin Luther translation (German) but for English I think I'll stay witjh the REB (an emotional bond...). My local church uses the NRSV for readings and by and large they're very similar. They have a similar rhythm.
Hey John future vid idea, please explain the difference between the "Dictionary" found in the back of NA or UBS and a separate "Lexicon". Are these essentially the same thing? Thanks brother
@@jefficiency absolutely! I'm planning on making another video about lexicons (dictionary of old words) in general, but to answer your question for now, yes they will essentially be the same in their basic definitions, however what changes is not the basic definition but rather the amount of information that the lexicon can provide. The description of the word in the back of a concise dictionary, such as the ones in the back of the UBS or Nestle will provide you with the bare minimum needed to translate the word, whereas by contrast to more exhaustive dictionary such as BDAG will give you much more information
@@JohnMiles117 you did a great job on explaining the apparatus in a previous vid, so looking forward to your tour of a lexicon! My sem uses BDAG3 if you'd please walk us through that one which I understand is the gold standard lexicon, thanks again! Peace in Christ
@jefficiency I'll try my best!, I do have a video on bdag and how to use it, however my copy is a little bit older. Feel free to check it out it might help you. ruclips.net/video/Q9shLMYabNY/видео.htmlsi=jMdXxfLBqtcC1VYF
Man - mankind - human - humanity - people ... what's the problem? Bretheren - brotherhood - believers - community - assembly ... maybe more of a stretch, but all the same thing. My father made me take Spanish because we lived in the Southwest. When i transferred to a High School that had a broader curriculum I chose Russian and Chinese instead of Hebrew and Arabic (not realizing my passion would lean to Biblical studies). In college I added Hindi to my language studies. Not knowing Greek or Hebrew, I am still acutely aware of the difficulties in translating across cultures, let alone across time (have you ever tried to read Olde English?) We need to be gracious and appreciative of our translators, and humble in our own righteousness. I DO, however, always read the preface. It is important to understand the position, expertise, and background of the translators. Then - use multiple translations if possible ... we are truly blessed to have so many.
I agree with you what about the LSB claims that the Masters group used more consistency in words I guess and A different word LORD ????? Is that true.?? My church went to NASB 95 many years ago. My wife and I stayed with NKJV. Ha I also read the NIV....which I find very understandable???
Yes, you are right. The LSB translated the word Yahweh in the old testament instead of Lord like the NASB. I love the NKJV as well! Great Bible! Also, don't listen to the haters, the NIV is a great Bible!
Excellent video! Thanks so much for making it. It really clarified things for me. And I guess I should read translation prefaces more often too. 😅 But you're so right, we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Bible translations in the English language! I come from an immigrant family, and my parents' home country, I "think" they only have two main Bible translations - one is super old from like the 1800s (when the missionaries first came) and the other is more modern but starting to show its age now. What they wouldn't give to have a more contemporary readable and accurate Bible translation! Whereas we have (off the top of my head) at least like 10+ Bible translations all of which are good translations. I have used the NASB95 and also recently got the NASB 2020. I agree with the NASB 2020 seems so much more readable, though I haven't read a lot of it, but the little I've read does seem a lot smoother and less clunky and less wooden than the NASB95 (although I never really minded the "woodenness" of the NASB95).
@@philtheo that's awesome! I agree with you about the NASB95, I've never found it hard to read, but the 2020 is definitely smoother. Only two translations? We are so spoiled!
I'm totally on board with Bible translations doing an update periodically to adjust to language change. However when publishers feel the need to put out a "new-improved version" every five years or so, it's hard for me not to suspect that it is nothing more than a marketing scheme (this is a general statement, not directly aimed at the NASB 2020). As far as the specific issues you addressed, I have no problem with ἄνθροποι being rendered as "people" where it is clearly a generic reference, but I CRINGE when I read "brothers and sisters" when the text says "brothers"! Do the translators seriously think I am too stupid to understand that the passage refers to me as well as my male fellow-believers? When I do my own translation I retain the old-fashioned "brethren" when the word is generic, and use "brothers" when it is specific. This is a matter of personal preference, and I know I am not going to win this battle against the tide of English usage. Alas! Thank you for the work you are doing to promote Bible reading--whatever the translation!
@@annagaiser5186 thank you for this comment! I really appreciate it, I have no problem with anything you said, I agree that we should not update translations so often (I'm looking at you ESV 😉) I also prefer the rendering of adelphoi as "brethren" however i was simply saying that "brothers and sisters" is not a bad translation, it just isn't my favorite.
@@JohnMiles117 Great point! "Not favorite" does not make a whole translation "BAD". We can benefit from reading any (and hopefully many) of the good English translations out there. I absolutely detest the use of "they", "their", "them" as generic singular pronouns, but this is the way English is going, and I am not going to win that battle either. 😆
If anything they handled it in the foreword and said they strived for gender accuracy. I mean, that's a pitfall anytime one translates...even in modern languages.
I'm responding based only on the title. When I bought a new NASB and started reading it, something didn't sit right. I pulled out my carry Bible and compared a few verses, I realized the changes. I didn't know about the 2020 version. I returned it and ordered a large print 1995 version. It's nice to have my notions affirmed. Thank you.
12:40 Curious… the assumption that the churches had both men and women jointly in the services… could this be something we think of as being “obvious”… or is there something inherent in Jewish culture, and Paul, where the men and the women are separated, and if women are present, they must ask their husbands about anything they may not understand? Not trying to be sexist, but are we bringing our own assumptions about the composition of the “churches” in practice, perhaps at least in the Jewish congregations? Of course there are women believers in the churches… but in terms of cultural practice was there a separation between men and women as depicted even in the film “Jesus of Nazareth” where the women stood in the back listening from the doorway, not in the midst of the Jewish service where Jesus read from the scroll in Isaiah (Luke 4:18) (of course, not a “church” service at that moment)? This is something the language itself cannot reveal, and what or how early Jewish believers in Messiah practiced, at least while the temple was still standing. Of course, we have other insights from Paul but they seem to vary, on the one hand, “no Jew, no Greek, no man, no women” but rather “all one in Christ” and on the other hand not permitting women to teach or have authority over men. It seems that introduction of “gender-neutral” language would confuse these already controversial passages and their interpretation. What are your thoughts?
@@globalrevival good question. I would say that although I was referring to mixed groups such as a church, I would agree that there is no way of knowing how the exactly conducted church, or whether women were included in the services at the beginning. However I would say their are many examples of the word ANTHROPOI being used in a clearly gender neutral use, such as matt 4:19 were the disciples only to save men, or people? Or also Matt 5:16 are we only to shine our light before men or people? What I'm getting at is that yes, although "men" is an accurate rendering of the word ANTHROPOI, I think that in certain contexts "people" is also a perfectly acceptable translation. The NASB2020 does not translate the word ANTHROPOI as gender-neutral Everytime it's used, rather it is translated as people when the context seems it necessary
I do inductive study with my 95NASB,including an exhaustive Concordance. However... I love memorizing in KJV. 😂😂😂 I'm a 61 year old American and a pseudo-Anglophile. 😂😂😂😂
Thank you for this video. For being level headed. You are right about many people not having even one bible let alone a choice of different ones. We are spoiled in he West... But I think the people (is that gender neutral? Well if it is it's ok cos in Christ there's no male or female, rich or poor, slave or free, for we are all One in Christ) of God divide over the stupidest of things. In a closed country I know of missionaries who don't even have a whole bible, and in another that their bible is falling apart and you can't just buy another one. So we are blessed but maybe don't value that so much these days...
Interesting! It was the trying to better understand the word "ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos)" that first led to my inspiration for learning Greek. From the way I see it thus far; ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is generally used in a generic context of "person, people, mankind, men, or a hypothetical or nonspecific man - often used in parables, or a class/category of people". ie. what man would do this, a/the rich man, a/the poor man, a/the good man, a/the righteous man, a/the lawless man. To translate these as "person or people" would add better clarity. Whenever it refers to a specific person there will be some kind of qualifying statement included within the sentence or phrase, ie. the man Jesus, the man that was healed, a man with a withered hand was there. Which using the word "person" could be acceptable ... if it was indeed a man (a male person). "ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos)" is a noun, (I am not aware of anyplace where it is ever used as a pronoun).
I have the zondervan artisan nasb, and while watching this I checked my bible, phew! It's 1995! I did stop using it or a bit, nothing to do with the actual bible, just personal, but now I am using it again, and I like it as much as I like my nkjv,niv, esv, nlt and amp ... ... Cos I like to see the scriptures sing different words and doing studies on that. For a horrible moment I thought you were going to trash my bible... Everyone gets so upset over translations, and attack each other... These days it's so easy to study online, but I don't prefer to, but if you're bothered by any bible just use a bible study app, and then you even have the Greek and Hebrew if you can read it...
The 2020 also now follows Critical Text and moves verses to the footers. This wasn’t the case with the ‘95. Couple that with the gender neutral language is why their is a strain on then 2020 edition.
@@josephraimondo102 The New American standard has always followed the critical text, however you are correct that they only recently removed some verses to the footnotes. Personally I prefer them to stay in text with brackets
@ I’m smart enough to understand the gender neutral stance, but lave the text alone. Outside of the NKJV (TR) I like the ‘95 NASB because they left the rest alone. Now, the ‘20 does make the NASB even easier to read.
Not a fan of interpreting anthropos (άνθρωπος) as “people” for the reader. Let the reader figure out when it refers to humans in general or it refers to a man. The Greek also uses andre (ἀνήρ) to refer specifically to a male or a husband. If you wanted to make sure anthropos didn’t indicate just males you could render it “mankind”.
The NASB is one of the only modern dupes that actually impresses me, and maybe the CSB, thanks for defending your favorite against others, most CT supporters think all modern bibles are perfect
Probably should have watched the video before making a comment and being a jerk in the first five seconds out of reflex. Please take my comment down when you find it. I apologize. That was sinful and rude, please forgive me.
John Mills, forget the ASB, NASB LSB and other modern translations of the Bible, because they come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were anti Christian, Hence all the errors in them.
@@alanhales6369 I'm not trying to pick a fight but I would like to ask you a question. If for example you are right that the Alexandria text is erroneous and corrupt, does that mean that the Christians who lived in Alexandria didn't have the word of God simply because they didn't live in the Byzantine portion of the Roman empire?
@JohnMiles117 Christians all over the world can have Bible's from the Byzantine, majority or TR Greek texts. Including those in Alexandria. They don't have to have a Bible with the Alexandrian texts, just because they live in Egypt. The Byzantine didn't come from the Roman empire. It's all the places that Paul went to, they are Christian texts, whereas the Alexandrian of Egypt texts are anti Christians. Stop trying and defend your erroneous NASB.
@alanhales6369 okay, then I have another question for you. I would agree with you that I believe that the majority text is probably the correct text, however if this is the case do you like the new King James? Or do you believe that the King James is the only authorized Bible? The reason I'm asking this is because I believe that it's one thing to prefer the TR or majority text, but it's entirely another thing to be King James only. In my opinion King James only ism is not the same thing as preferring the TR.
@JohnMiles117 I have the Byzantine texts, the Majority texts, the TR texts and the erroneous Alexandrian texts, and the NKJV is the most accurate translation of the Bible. The Byzantine, majority and TR are all very similar with just a few minor differences.
for me it isn't a question of "traditional use of words"
and my preferences
For me it's a matter of being in the world but not of the world
There are many cultural influences
And in some ways our culture is shaped by the spirit of the power of the air
The whole question of gender is coming from where ?
universities
the left
the woke
and I simply do not conform to the worldview they are advocating
"thy kingdom come, thy will be done"
we can communicate just fine without making a public show of our conformity to the standard erected by the left (aka "virtue signaling")
nasb2020 won't get a dime from me
I have the nasb95
as for my "preference" I prefer the nkjv
it seems to just flow better, I simply "like" it more
nasb95 is OK too, I just like the nkjv a little bit better
good job, keep up the good work, I'm glad I found your channel - looking forward to your next installment
@@SDsc0rch although I would disagree with some of the things you said in there, I do agree that we should influence the world and not the other way around. I'm glad you like the NKJV as well, I also feel like it gets an undeserved amount of hate.
Another informative video. Thank you. Appreciate the laidback style of presentation and the straightforward way you stitch it all together so even I can understand it. Blessings!
@@brothermike434thank you so much Mike!
Great video on the NASB 2020. I "cut my teeth" on the 95NASB and did quite a bit of memory work out of it, so I'll have to stick mostly to those passages for memorization, but the 2020 is my go-to daily reader. It is actually much better than the 95 in many ways and is much more readable than the 95 or the LSB. I never really listened to the hype coming mostly from the MacArthur crowd about how the 2020 had gone "gender neutral" because I can read NT Greek and understand the issues re: the entire gender-neutral vs. general accurate language debate. Thanks for your cool-headed and calm presentation. It's a breath of fresh air!
Amen, very well said! Thank you so much. There's no coincidence that the people that are the most gracious in the comments about translation also happen to be those who have at least some background in studying the original languages. My theory is that those of us who have studied the original languages at least at some level understand that translation is not an exact science. Thank you for the very kind comment I appreciate it a lot.
Thank you for your honesty and straight through on the 2020 NASB I admit I have been carried away with the wind of popular option and as such for the pass 9months as using LSB for teaching and devotional reading. Without giving the 2020 a second thought so today I took out my Striden by Schuyler NASB2020 and I have got my church suing the 95, as the samuels time some still hold to the Venerable KJV THIS WEEK I as reverting to my 77 and 2020 church biblical teaching. Thank you again
@@paigesamuels8555 no problem! I'm so glad this helped you out! A schuyler huh? Those are super nice Bibles!
@ expensive but nice smile
John, thanks for the video. You've convinced me to give it a 2nd shot.
BTW, I would appreciate it very much if you could discuss the Berean Standard Bible. I listen to that version being read, and really appreciate how understandable it is.
@@michaelwood5185 absolutely! I'd love to, I actually really really like the berean standard Bible
I was one of those who was critical of the NASB2020 when it first came out. However after actually using it and spending time in it, I have changed my mind. I feel that Lockman took a very balanced approach and I appreciate their transparency with the use of italics. I also think they smoothed out the English while remaining a formal equivalence translation. In fact, R. Grant Jones has it further on the formal spectrum than the '95 or '77 text.
I agree! R Grant Jones has EXCELLENT content, he goes super in depth!
the main thing that keeps me with the 1995 and not wanting to use the 2020 version at all is the changes they made in Psalm 23... to me the 2020 reads more like the NIV/NLT (dynamic rather than formal)
@@Taimugen I would agree with that.
I just discovered your channel and was very pleased with your presentation. So I have subscribed to your channel. I love the NASB 2020. While I prefer the LSB rendering of Yahweh in the OT, the NASB 20 is significantly more accurate in the book of Daniel. I'm a retired pastor, by the way. And I look forward to your future videos. Congratulations on your voice of reason re: the gender usage controversy surrounding the NASB 20!
@@dougbaker2755 Thank you so much Doug! I really appreciate your comment! Thanks!
Hi John. Great content. I had to watch this twice. This is your best video yet. You give me much to think about.
@@alexandersmith9385 alex, thank you so much! I'm so glad that this helped you out! I love talking about this stuff so for me it's just a good time! Also I'll be making that Young's intermediate grammar video for you soon
Thank you very much for this video. God Bless
@@davecrawford4377 My pleasure! Thank you for commenting!
Excellent video that certainly gives this viewer a lot to think about. I have liked some of what I've seen from the NASB 20 though as a fan of the 95 version I have also had some reservations. I will say that I have never had any problems with the literary style of the NASB and generally consider it a very readable Bible. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
@@Paladin12572 I definitely agree with you, I've never had a hard time reading The New American standard, although I will admit that the nasb 2020 reads smoother
I was a young man when the NASB 95 came out. A lot of my study was done with the NASB 77. The NASB 95 was almost 100% dismissed in my circles, even the local Christian bookstore guy didn't like it, because it was "too different" than the NASB 77. I honestly never gave the NASB 95 any consideration until after the NASB 2020 came out. I've since picked up a copy of the 95 and the 2020 to add to my collection.
I heard a lot, from what I can remember, of the same arguments against the NASB 2020 that I heard about the NASB 95. I have certain verses I check for to see how they handle gender. If it handles them properly, then I'll give it a try.
One verse I like to check is Malachi 4:6 to see how it handles gender. Mal 4:6 "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers..." NASB 95...
The 2020 uses "fathers", as does the BSB, NLT, LSB, NASB 77, NIV 84 and ESV... as well as many other translation. Instead of "fathers" the NRSVUE and the NIV 2011 use "parents." The Hebrew word there for "fathers" is "av" which means father(s) and not parents.
@@red58impala excellent comment! I think there's something in our DNA that just doesn't like change.
I like how the NASB 95 handles some of the bigger textual variants. The 2020 moved them into the footnotes instead of keeping them in the main text in [square brackets].
@@Dwayne_Green I would agree with you on that, in that video I was primarily talking about the translation philosophy, however I would agree with you that I wish that their footnotes were more transparent especially regarding textual variants. Also not a big fan of several of the passages that they relegated to the footnotes. In fact the NASB 77 includes all of the common disputed verses in the text in [brackets] with the exception of 1 John 5:7.
This makes total sense to me. Thanks for the explanation!
@@srice6231 no problem!! I'm so glad I could help!
The 2020 is my daily driver love the layout
@@sdhute me too! It's nice to have a fresh take on an older classic
Hey John I appreciate the video. If you had to choose a daily driver would you choose the NASB or Berean Standard Bible?
@@J-Mac2215 hmmmmm. That's tough. If I could only have one forever it would probably be the NASB, however I really really like the BSB. One big drawback to the BSB is that they don't really have any good printed editions. If they had a compact BSB it would probably be my daily. I think it really is that good.
@@JohnMiles117 Bro ! exactly I have been torn between the NKJV and ESV for years which is why the BSB hot a sweet spot for me. However, after growing in a preaching and teaching ministry, the NASB is super helpful and I consult it a lot. Plus I have A NASB '95 Cambridge Clarion that is a joy to hold and read
@J-Mac2215 dude the clarions are so sweet! Yeah I only wish the BSB had better editions, if they did I would probably be pushing it on people a lot more lol 😂
Absent the “gender neutral” language in NASB2020, what other updates in this version do readers of NASB95 miss out on by NOT upgrading to the 2020 version, assuming we can get over the “brothers and sisters” issue? Comparatively, what are your thoughts on NKJV vs. NASB95 or NASB2020 and finally the ESV?
@@globalrevival great question! I think that the definite plus of upgrading to the 2020 is how much smoother and (in my opinion) more elegant it reads. I do not however dislike the 95 or think it is "unreadable" like some do, I do think however that the 2020 is a better reading translation as a whole.
The NKJV is one of my favorites, when compared to the NASB95 the translation philosophy is very close, I would say that the NASB is more "formal" then the NKJV, however this in no way means the NKJV is not accurate. I like the NKJV especially for its extensive footnotes as well as its elegance in style (both things I think the NASB95 lacks). Last but not least the ESV is great however, in my humble opinion, I find that if I compared it to the NASB95 and the NKJV I would pick either of those over it. This is simply due to the fact that the NASB is more "formal" than the ESV and has better in text features, and the NKJV has much better footnotes. This however has all been just my humble opinion.
@@JohnMiles117 One good answer begs another question… what are your thoughts from the Greek language perspective on John 3:36, specifically how NKJV translates this verse compared to your favorite? it is perhaps verses like these which one can see inherent bias by translators to introduce (or adhere) to their readers their particular brand of theology. Is it all about believing faith or is “obey” justified in this verse? Sure we have other verses to look at, but this one seems to stick out since the English is not consistent across all translations. What are your thoughts?
John 3:36 (NASB95): 36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not OBEY the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 3:36 (ESV): 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not OBEY the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
John 3:36 (NET): 3:36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who REJECTS the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.
John 3:36 (NKJV): 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not BELIEVE the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 3:36 (NLT): 36 And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn’t OBEY the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.”
John 3:36 (KJV): 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that BELIEVETH NOT the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
@@globalrevival absolutely! That's actually a very good question.
One would think that this is a textual issue, such as a manuscript variation, however regardless of the text used (TR, Byz, maj, CT) the word is the same.
It really boils down to translator interpretation. The KJV and NKJV choose to translate the verb apeithov (verb, participle, present, active, nominative, singular, masculine of apeitheo) as "not believe" whereas by contrast most other modern translations choose to render this word as "disobey". According to "The Greek English lexicon based on semantic Domains" by loew and Nida that verb can be translated as either "disobey" or "rejecting belief".
In my opinion since both could be correct, I would suggest translating it as "reflecting belief", the reason is for the potential for inserting works into salvation.
Most Greek words have various meanings and there are good scholars on both sides, it is important to research their reasons. I hope this helped you out
Hey, this randomly popped up for me today. Well said! Where can I follow you on all the things aside from RUclips?
@@ZachBurnham thanks for the comment Zach! As of right now I'm only on RUclips, but that might change shortly. If it does I'll make a video about it lol!
Great video! I had similar questions about the 2011 NIV.
@@bonniepearce5151 no problem bonnie! I'm so glad I could help you out
John, I think this was an excellent video on the NASB 2020! I've always loved the NASB and have really appreciated the changes made in the 2020. I think the NASB 2020 does the best job of modern translations of being gender accurate. I really enjoy reading it and I think it needs more love and appreciation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
@@bhsher I couldn't agree more! Thank you so much!
Great video. I wonder though if the CSB has cornered the market in what I see as the 3 'formal but readable' translations: CSB, NASB2020 and Berean Standard Bible.
@@jakersni9499 I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually does. I say probably the most popular conservative translation at the moment is the ESV, but the csb is rising extremely fast. Honestly the csb is an excellent translation. I wish there was more available for the berean standard Bible, truth be told the Bernie Sanders Bible is probably one of my favorites
As far as marketing goes, you may be correct. But I much prefer the BSB over the CSB.
@tjmaverick1765 I would agree, I really really like the BSB
@@JohnMiles117I assume Bernie Sanders Bible is a typo and you meant Berean Standard Bible?
(I also am a huge fan of the Berean Standard Bible.)
@@kchristman9534 yes lol, the berean standard Bible. 😂 I actually really do like that translation
The latest NASB the 2020 has begun on this slippery slope. I agree with your comment, like you said, that is why the LSB came about. John MacArthur loved his older NASB. When he and others saw this coming they formed their translation committee and “tweaked” the NASB, making it more literal in some places.
5:42 On the contrary, it is exegetically significant every place where the translation is not faithful. Why? Because when Paul etc. address the church, they address the men (for the most part). Why? Because they are the leaders; not only at church, but at home and abroad. Our culture is opposite the biblical paradigm, so some of these things will be hard to accept.
The Hebrew word for husband is baal (בַּעַל). It means master, lord, husband, etc. So every man is the master of his household. Again, this is hard to accept, since we live in a backwards society. Peter says the same when he says that Sarah called Abraham lord (1 Peter 3:6). So this idea of headship has continued from Old Testament times to now.
When Paul says “brothers” he said what he meant; and meant what he said. The Bible is exact and perfect in all its wording. The biblical writers address the men because they are the leaders of the household, everything starts and ends with the men. There are other places where writers said: brothers and sisters (1 Cor 9:5, James 2:15).
Let the attacks begin…
Thank you for this super in depth comment, no attacks from me 😉.
I appreciate you sharing those examples. I agree that it is exegetically significant, however I think that if the footnotes gives the correct reading anyway it is a little bit dramatic to be this worried about it, however I do agree with you that I can be a slippery slope. What's your name? (If you aren't comfortable with sharing that it's ok) I just really appreciate your in depth comments (even if I don't 100% agree) and would like to put a name to the commentator.
@@JohnMiles117
We deny the Scriptures. Just like we deny these words. They are not boldly proclaimed in the church, because our leaders are weak:
1 Cor 11:3 - But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Messiah, and the head of woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is God...
7 For in fact, a man must not cover his head, since he is the image and reflection of God. But the woman is the reflection of man.
All these passages are based in creation. Just like when Adam was created first. He named all the animals, later he also named Chavah (Eve). And this is why Paul does not allow a woman to preach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:12ff).
However, our perverse society says, "Go ahead women preachers"
@@mrtdiver again, I agree with you. I was simply saying that the NASB is not woke, that was all. Thanks again for commenting 👍
@@JohnMiles117 We are brothers John. But just like your videos, my comments are on social media, and you and I are in the minority. The more we trust in and uphold the Bible, the more we are attacked. That's why I quote the Bible when it's relevant.
@mrtdiver I agree, what's your name? I'd like to put a name to the commentator. I really do appreciate the time that you put into these comments by the way, it shows how much you care and I really appreciate and respect that.
Being British I don't really vibe with the NASB. If I need a more liiteral translation I would go to the King James, New King James or Revised Version (for the most part online - it never really caught on). Anyway, great introduction to the topic. I notice the NRSV is becoming quite dominant in the market. I tend to use the Revised English Bible if using a translation. In places it's quite close to the NRSV but isn't as consistent in its gender policy. I think the Bible should be gender neutral wherever meaning isn't lost. As an example - Blessed is the man who -> blessed is he who -> blessed are they who etc.
@@cpnlsn88 interesting! I'm not super familiar with the REB, I have heard that the NASB isnt super popular over the pond 😂, I guess that makes sense when you consider that it's the new "American" standard.
@@JohnMiles117 Most English Bibles are in the Bible tradition of the King James via the Revised Version. In spite of the outdated language the King James itself is still quite popular. The New King James is a very good effort (really helpful for difficult passages in Greek due to literalness and maybe the NASB is similar). The ASB/NASB has always been seen as a more literalistic translaton. Sorry, I just find it clunky. Sometimes there's just an emotional reaction.
The REB is in the tradition of the New English Bible. I like it a lot but I think the NRSV is taking over in popularity, leaving the REB behind (sadly).
Most of the time I use the Martin Luther translation (German) but for English I think I'll stay witjh the REB (an emotional bond...). My local church uses the NRSV for readings and by and large they're very similar. They have a similar rhythm.
@cpnlsn88 that's awesome! Ain't nothing wrong with sticking with the translation that you know and trust
Hey John future vid idea, please explain the difference between the "Dictionary" found in the back of NA or UBS and a separate "Lexicon". Are these essentially the same thing? Thanks brother
@@jefficiency absolutely! I'm planning on making another video about lexicons (dictionary of old words) in general, but to answer your question for now, yes they will essentially be the same in their basic definitions, however what changes is not the basic definition but rather the amount of information that the lexicon can provide. The description of the word in the back of a concise dictionary, such as the ones in the back of the UBS or Nestle will provide you with the bare minimum needed to translate the word, whereas by contrast to more exhaustive dictionary such as BDAG will give you much more information
@@JohnMiles117 you did a great job on explaining the apparatus in a previous vid, so looking forward to your tour of a lexicon! My sem uses BDAG3 if you'd please walk us through that one which I understand is the gold standard lexicon, thanks again! Peace in Christ
@jefficiency I'll try my best!, I do have a video on bdag and how to use it, however my copy is a little bit older. Feel free to check it out it might help you.
ruclips.net/video/Q9shLMYabNY/видео.htmlsi=jMdXxfLBqtcC1VYF
Man - mankind - human - humanity - people ... what's the problem?
Bretheren - brotherhood - believers - community - assembly ... maybe more of a stretch, but all the same thing.
My father made me take Spanish because we lived in the Southwest. When i transferred to a High School that had a broader curriculum I chose Russian and Chinese instead of Hebrew and Arabic (not realizing my passion would lean to Biblical studies). In college I added Hindi to my language studies. Not knowing Greek or Hebrew, I am still acutely aware of the difficulties in translating across cultures, let alone across time (have you ever tried to read Olde English?) We need to be gracious and appreciative of our translators, and humble in our own righteousness. I DO, however, always read the preface. It is important to understand the position, expertise, and background of the translators. Then - use multiple translations if possible ... we are truly blessed to have so many.
@@lindalovejoy6360 Excellent comment! Very well said, I couldn't agree more!
I agree with you what about the LSB claims that the Masters group used more consistency in words I guess and A different word LORD ????? Is that true.?? My church went to NASB 95 many years ago. My wife and I stayed with NKJV. Ha I also read the NIV....which I find very understandable???
Yes, you are right. The LSB translated the word Yahweh in the old testament instead of Lord like the NASB. I love the NKJV as well! Great Bible! Also, don't listen to the haters, the NIV is a great Bible!
oh boy.. you did it
@@SDsc0rch yup 😂
Excellent video! Thanks so much for making it. It really clarified things for me. And I guess I should read translation prefaces more often too. 😅
But you're so right, we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Bible translations in the English language! I come from an immigrant family, and my parents' home country, I "think" they only have two main Bible translations - one is super old from like the 1800s (when the missionaries first came) and the other is more modern but starting to show its age now. What they wouldn't give to have a more contemporary readable and accurate Bible translation! Whereas we have (off the top of my head) at least like 10+ Bible translations all of which are good translations.
I have used the NASB95 and also recently got the NASB 2020. I agree with the NASB 2020 seems so much more readable, though I haven't read a lot of it, but the little I've read does seem a lot smoother and less clunky and less wooden than the NASB95 (although I never really minded the "woodenness" of the NASB95).
@@philtheo that's awesome! I agree with you about the NASB95, I've never found it hard to read, but the 2020 is definitely smoother. Only two translations? We are so spoiled!
I'm totally on board with Bible translations doing an update periodically to adjust to language change. However when publishers feel the need to put out a "new-improved version" every five years or so, it's hard for me not to suspect that it is nothing more than a marketing scheme (this is a general statement, not directly aimed at the NASB 2020).
As far as the specific issues you addressed, I have no problem with ἄνθροποι being rendered as "people" where it is clearly a generic reference, but I CRINGE when I read "brothers and sisters" when the text says "brothers"! Do the translators seriously think I am too stupid to understand that the passage refers to me as well as my male fellow-believers? When I do my own translation I retain the old-fashioned "brethren" when the word is generic, and use "brothers" when it is specific. This is a matter of personal preference, and I know I am not going to win this battle against the tide of English usage. Alas!
Thank you for the work you are doing to promote Bible reading--whatever the translation!
@@annagaiser5186 thank you for this comment! I really appreciate it, I have no problem with anything you said, I agree that we should not update translations so often (I'm looking at you ESV 😉) I also prefer the rendering of adelphoi as "brethren" however i was simply saying that "brothers and sisters" is not a bad translation, it just isn't my favorite.
@@JohnMiles117 Great point! "Not favorite" does not make a whole translation "BAD". We can benefit from reading any (and hopefully many) of the good English translations out there. I absolutely detest the use of "they", "their", "them" as generic singular pronouns, but this is the way English is going, and I am not going to win that battle either. 😆
@annagaiser5186 well said! Thank you for having such a gracious spirit about this! So rare these days (I also hate the way English is going 😂)
If anything they handled it in the foreword and said they strived for gender accuracy. I mean, that's a pitfall anytime one translates...even in modern languages.
@@jkdbuck7670 exactly!
I'm responding based only on the title. When I bought a new NASB and started reading it, something didn't sit right. I pulled out my carry Bible and compared a few verses, I realized the changes. I didn't know about the 2020 version. I returned it and ordered a large print 1995 version. It's nice to have my notions affirmed. Thank you.
12:40 Curious… the assumption that the churches had both men and women jointly in the services… could this be something we think of as being “obvious”… or is there something inherent in Jewish culture, and Paul, where the men and the women are separated, and if women are present, they must ask their husbands about anything they may not understand? Not trying to be sexist, but are we bringing our own assumptions about the composition of the “churches” in practice, perhaps at least in the Jewish congregations? Of course there are women believers in the churches… but in terms of cultural practice was there a separation between men and women as depicted even in the film “Jesus of Nazareth” where the women stood in the back listening from the doorway, not in the midst of the Jewish service where Jesus read from the scroll in Isaiah (Luke 4:18) (of course, not a “church” service at that moment)? This is something the language itself cannot reveal, and what or how early Jewish believers in Messiah practiced, at least while the temple was still standing. Of course, we have other insights from Paul but they seem to vary, on the one hand, “no Jew, no Greek, no man, no women” but rather “all one in Christ” and on the other hand not permitting women to teach or have authority over men. It seems that introduction of “gender-neutral” language would confuse these already controversial passages and their interpretation. What are your thoughts?
@@globalrevival good question. I would say that although I was referring to mixed groups such as a church, I would agree that there is no way of knowing how the exactly conducted church, or whether women were included in the services at the beginning. However I would say their are many examples of the word ANTHROPOI being used in a clearly gender neutral use, such as matt 4:19 were the disciples only to save men, or people? Or also Matt 5:16 are we only to shine our light before men or people? What I'm getting at is that yes, although "men" is an accurate rendering of the word ANTHROPOI, I think that in certain contexts "people" is also a perfectly acceptable translation. The NASB2020 does not translate the word ANTHROPOI as gender-neutral Everytime it's used, rather it is translated as people when the context seems it necessary
I do inductive study with my 95NASB,including an exhaustive Concordance. However... I love memorizing in KJV. 😂😂😂 I'm a 61 year old American and a pseudo-Anglophile. 😂😂😂😂
@@AMETHYSTANGEL216 😂 I love it!
Thank you for this video. For being level headed. You are right about many people not having even one bible let alone a choice of different ones. We are spoiled in he West... But I think the people (is that gender neutral? Well if it is it's ok cos in Christ there's no male or female, rich or poor, slave or free, for we are all One in Christ) of God divide over the stupidest of things.
In a closed country I know of missionaries who don't even have a whole bible, and in another that their bible is falling apart and you can't just buy another one. So we are blessed but maybe don't value that so much these days...
@@vanessaboman8143 thank you! Amen, I agree that we are so spoiled!
Interesting! It was the trying to better understand the word "ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos)" that first led to my inspiration for learning Greek. From the way I see it thus far; ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) is generally used in a generic context of "person, people, mankind, men, or a hypothetical or nonspecific man - often used in parables, or a class/category of people". ie. what man would do this, a/the rich man, a/the poor man, a/the good man, a/the righteous man, a/the lawless man. To translate these as "person or people" would add better clarity.
Whenever it refers to a specific person there will be some kind of qualifying statement included within the sentence or phrase, ie. the man Jesus, the man that was healed, a man with a withered hand was there. Which using the word "person" could be acceptable ... if it was indeed a man (a male person).
"ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos)" is a noun, (I am not aware of anyplace where it is ever used as a pronoun).
@@ZerubbabelsCapstone-ci9te you are 100% correct! Well done!
All true believers read the ASV😮
@@CaribouDataScience why the ASV?
I have the zondervan artisan nasb, and while watching this I checked my bible, phew! It's 1995! I did stop using it or a bit, nothing to do with the actual bible, just personal, but now I am using it again, and I like it as much as I like my nkjv,niv, esv, nlt and amp ... ... Cos I like to see the scriptures sing different words and doing studies on that. For a horrible moment I thought you were going to trash my bible... Everyone gets so upset over translations, and attack each other...
These days it's so easy to study online, but I don't prefer to, but if you're bothered by any bible just use a bible study app, and then you even have the Greek and Hebrew if you can read it...
@@vanessaboman8143 yay! Yes no worries I'll never trash on a translation lol. So glad you love your Bibles!!
The 2020 also now follows Critical Text and moves verses to the footers. This wasn’t the case with the ‘95. Couple that with the gender neutral language is why their is a strain on then 2020 edition.
@@josephraimondo102 The New American standard has always followed the critical text, however you are correct that they only recently removed some verses to the footnotes. Personally I prefer them to stay in text with brackets
@ I’m smart enough to understand the gender neutral stance, but lave the text alone. Outside of the NKJV (TR) I like the ‘95 NASB because they left the rest alone. Now, the ‘20 does make the NASB even easier to read.
wait.. "anthropology" is the study of what??
hmm...
lol
Not a KJV only but Love my KJV &NKJV for this reason.
@@revcanada2147 amen! There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! I'm planning on making a video about the new King James version soon.
I like that the NKJV hasn’t been revised .
@revcanada2147 I agree with that, I definitely think that's one of its strengths. It's a very stable text.
You look like the Christian version of Grand Thumb. Except you talk about the Bible and not guns😂😅
@@toomuchfunproductions2057 thanks dude! Lol
Not a fan of interpreting anthropos (άνθρωπος) as “people” for the reader. Let the reader figure out when it refers to humans in general or it refers to a man. The Greek also uses andre (ἀνήρ) to refer specifically to a male or a husband. If you wanted to make sure anthropos didn’t indicate just males you could render it “mankind”.
@@KildaltonBTS I would agree, however I was simply saying that rendering it as people in some contexts is not technically a bad translation. 👍
@@JohnMiles117of course Vulcans would be offended by either translation 🖖
@KildaltonBTS 😂
The NASB is one of the only modern dupes that actually impresses me, and maybe the CSB, thanks for defending your favorite against others, most CT supporters think all modern bibles are perfect
What does "woke" even mean in that context? We should really stop using that word as an umbrella term. It has an exact meaning.
@@MrSeedi76 I agree. I simply used it because I've heard people use it so much to refer to the NASB 2020.
Probably should have watched the video before making a comment and being a jerk in the first five seconds out of reflex. Please take my comment down when you find it. I apologize. That was sinful and rude, please forgive me.
@@isatq2133 hey, no hard feelings here! 👍😁
@ thank you! I deleted my comment! God bless!
@ does that bible translation you speak about here still have the part on female and male? Thanks 🙏
@isatq2133 yes, it does. It does use gender accurate language
@ thank you.
John Mills, forget the ASB, NASB LSB and other modern translations of the Bible, because they come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were anti Christian, Hence all the errors in them.
@@alanhales6369 I'm not trying to pick a fight but I would like to ask you a question. If for example you are right that the Alexandria text is erroneous and corrupt, does that mean that the Christians who lived in Alexandria didn't have the word of God simply because they didn't live in the Byzantine portion of the Roman empire?
@JohnMiles117 Christians all over the world can have Bible's from the Byzantine, majority or TR Greek texts. Including those in Alexandria. They don't have to have a Bible with the Alexandrian texts, just because they live in Egypt.
The Byzantine didn't come from the Roman empire. It's all the places that Paul went to, they are Christian texts, whereas the Alexandrian of Egypt texts are anti Christians.
Stop trying and defend your erroneous NASB.
@alanhales6369 okay, then I have another question for you. I would agree with you that I believe that the majority text is probably the correct text, however if this is the case do you like the new King James? Or do you believe that the King James is the only authorized Bible? The reason I'm asking this is because I believe that it's one thing to prefer the TR or majority text, but it's entirely another thing to be King James only. In my opinion King James only ism is not the same thing as preferring the TR.
@JohnMiles117 I have the Byzantine texts, the Majority texts, the TR texts and the erroneous Alexandrian texts, and the NKJV is the most accurate translation of the Bible.
The Byzantine, majority and TR are all very similar with just a few minor differences.
@alanhales6369 that good! I agree that the NKJV is an excellent translation. Let's agree to disagree on the rest? How's that sound?