I have been reading the NAS95 for about 6 years now. Upon hearing the news about an update, though I was not thrilled about it, I was not worried, either. I already own a Lockman NASB and my main Bible is a Schuyler Thinline Quentel NAS95. Just to make sure I would always have one for years and decades to come, I just purchased an RL Allan NAS95. I ought to be set for the foreseeable future. Having served overseas on the mission field, and seeing some Bible options they have in other tongues, we are so, SO blessed to be able to pick "this" translation over "that" or "that" or "that" or "that" English translation. Thank You, Lord, for Your wonderful word!
I just ordered the Schuyler Quintel NASB Bible with the 1995 translation, so at least yesterday it was still available one year after this video was created. I bought it because I did not want the 2020 translation at this time and wanted to make sure I could still get the 1995 translation before it is possibly discontinued.
The NASB95 has been my main translation for quite awhile. I feel that no matter what they say, the timing of all these changes is suspect. Definitely not a fan of the changes. I never found the 95 version to be hard to read or understand, so I don't think an update was really needed. Since this change took place I've found myself drifting back to the NKJV as main translation. I still use my NASB 95 for study, but will not be purchasing any new ones. If I do update my version it will be to the LSB which I feel was trying to focus more on the accuracy of God's word rather than the illiteracy of modern society.
Choice of NASB95 formats will certainly erode as time goes on, but considering you can still purchase freshly printed NASB77s today I don't think access to the NASB95 will be an issue for quite a while.
It wasn't the "brothers and sisters" change that steered me away, but I just found myself cringe at the wording used in some passages. Almost patchy, like an old pair of jeans (1995) with a brand new patch on it (2020). Literal in some areas and very modern sounding in others, so I found it to be a translation with no distinct characteristics to it, trying to please both sides.
The NASB '95 is my favorite translation. It's been close to two years since this video was released, and the NASB '95 is still widely available. I intend on sticking with the NASB '95 for as long as possible.
First, I am a ‘95 fan. It’s been my preferred translation for 25 years. I’m open to a new revision, but feel the 2020 missed it in the wrong places. My issues with the 2020 are the awkward word choices used when an update wasn’t necessary. For example, Ps. 23 with “I will not be in need,” that the Lord “let’s” me lie down in green pastures rather than “makes,” and Is. 1:18 with “debate your case” rather than “reason together,” etc. Also, I wish they would continue to include variants like Acts 8:37 in the text block instead of removing it to a footnote. Lastly, the gender accurate issue does seem suspect with the timing of it. Seems to follow the way the culture is changing more than the way English is changing. Some words might be okay to leave alone and let us learn what is true about them rather than changing to meet demands of the culture, like “church” rather than translating it “assembly” and “propitiation” and “atonement”. Why not let “brethren” be one of those words to denote the group of people in a given church? Seems like this starts down a slippery slope.
@John Reynolds Isaiah 1:18 is actually more literal than 'reason together.' As far as יַרְבִּיצֵנִי in Psalm 23 there is no 'make' or 'let' in Hebrew there. Make does denote a very Calvinistic interpretation of that text whereas let is probably the more accurate depiction of what the Psalmist is putting across... I am all for the removal of texts like Acts 8:37. If anything I'd also like to see more of this including the withdrawal to the margin for several other texts including 1 Jn 5:7-8 and Mat 11:11b.
@@omnitheus5442 1 Jn 5:7-8 was already in the margin in the '95. For Is 1:18, I respectfully disagree that "debate your case" is more literal. If they would have left it "debate," maybe, "decide together" might have been a better choice, but "reason together" is superb as well and did not need updating. And, for Ps 23, agreed that "make" or "let" is not in the original, but in the next line "lead" is. So, "make" or "guide" is a better choice than "lets" because "lets" gives the idea that we can decide what is good or not good, (the pastures we want to graze in and the Lord "lets us"), but one meaning of the passage is that the Lord is our Shepherd who knows what is best for us and gives us the best. To find that, we cannot find it on our own, but we need His guidance and leadership in our lives.
I understand that translations must change over time as language changes but we are a long way off the language of the NASB95 being out of date. Men are fallible so I feel like every time a new translation is made, it is an opportunity to mess it up no matter how pure their motivation. Plus consistency is comforting. There are already enough different translations without having so many unnecessary variations within a translation.
Since hearing about the NASB update back in 2016, my hope was that it would represent the latest frontier of textual scholarship in the OT with BHQ and in the NT with CBGM. But the bigger impact on the translations as been editorial, rather than academic. *Let me acknowledge the massive accomplishment of meticulously italicizing those words and phrases that were overlooked in the ‘77 and grandfathered into the ‘95. Sincerely, well done. The changes in the 2020 are if a different nature than the changes from 77 to 95. The vocabulary has been refocused towards a younger audience. They use the contraction, “Let’s,” which is inappropriate for formal literature (This is not a work of speech but a work of literature, and for the same reason it does not end sentences with prepositions). There is less consistency of translation in the 2020 (see “sojourn” in Genesis), though this was the hallmark of the 77/95 and is now magnified in the LSB. And it remains a matter of opinion whether the English language has really changed so much as is often claimed. After thousands of years, countless languages, and innumerable cultures having the skill of using context clues for discerning the gender of an intended audience, is it only now-coincidently at the same time when culture has intentionally forgotten what a man or a woman is-that we need to have it spelled out for us? Schuyler left the NASB 1995 behind in 2018 when they decided to scrap the “NASB 1995 Single Column” and replace it with what is now the magnificent Stridon. At that point, practically speaking, they decided to never design another new NASB95. You can imagine how we felt when we didn’t receive what seemed to have been promised on those translation production charts they put out in the past. So what now? I already have 1995 Quentels; I have no need for another. Thankfully, Zondervan has produced new editions, and it would make no sense to halt production of such new typesettings within the next several years. Lockman has also promised new typesettings for the ‘95 SCR and the LPC (no LPUT?). So we should be able to get new printings and editions for a good while (10 years?). I prefer the 1995 to every other translation, including the 2020. I don’t want to see production of the NASB 1995 truncated after 7 years or so. That’s the fear.
@@b.a.berean9988 I assure you that I’ve already read the Preface. Where CBGM-Acts has the most noteworthy readings that diverge from UBS/NA, the 2020 makes zero Greek-based changes to correspond. In those cases, any changes from the 1995 were exclusively to make the English easier to read.
Good video that has provoked interesting comments! I'm not a current NASB reader, but I've been looking into the NASB-family of translations as I've heard they're generally accepted as the most literal translation into English. NASB readers will need to vote with their money if they want to see more of a certain version published.
Thank you for your comments regarding the NASB 2020, Tim. I have no reservations about the translation. I already on the NASB 2020 in print and digitally.
I don’t think the 2020 is an attempt in going more towards accurate as some say, they went more modern with readability in mind. I enjoyed the 95s inclusion of controversial passages and it’s likeness to kjv tradition in renderings(not that something like niv is bad, i just don’t find it as interesting in my walk personally), so while 2020 is good for many I’ll go more towards nkjv, esv, and LSB
I get your point, but there is constant talk about making the bible more readable with numerous updates, however I would say that the nasb 77 is still quite understandable, as is the 95 update. I would like to think that the majority of people who are passionate about the bible aren't a bunch of knuckleheads who can't read English. Thanks for the video
Besides the gender issue, the main thing that puts people off to the NASB 2020 is a general dumbing down of the literary quality of the translation. I remember reading some of the initial sample pages of the 2020 that came out and physically wincing at some of the new more streamlined renderings. It is especially noticeable when comparing the 2020 side by side with the 95 and 77. Thus a lot of the backlash comes down to what many see as a stripping away of the soul and eloquence of the NASB. In comparison, the LSB not only has no gender issue, but also maintains the beauty and sound of past NASBs. Finally, I think the core of the bad reaction to the modernization of the way the 2020 handles gender, is a combination of concern about the NASB overall departing from it's mission of being as literal as possible while still being reasonably readable, as well as being once bitten twice shy concerning the so-called "slippery slope fallacy." Regarding the latter, the NIV 2011 is a good example. We were told many times, including by you yourself, that we were being too tightly wound up and that the changes weren't going to be a big deal at all. Yet now, if you go to the official website of the fully revised 2020 edition of the official NIV Study Bible (in other words, the official study bible approved by Zondervan and the translators to represent the NIV 2011,) and you go down the section for endorsements, you will find that the NIV Study Bible is being endorsed by literal female pastors, as well as women who have written disparagingly about Biblical Complementarianism. Looking into the current NIV Study Bible, it's not hard to see why. On page 2124, there is an article in it titled "Women and Authority in the Church," which covers 1 Timothy 2:9-15. The article covers both the orthodox Biblical position on the issue and the unbiblical Modernist position; ultimately taking a limp-wristed neutral stance. The translators said they wanted to attempt to please both parties, and unfortunately they are living up to their word with predictable results. As such, I've got to get this off of my chest: I know you're trying to be gentle in your critique of negative reactions against the gender issue. But to be quite frank, when you try to take on a stance of "The gender issue isn't that big of a deal, you're all being a bunch of old fuddy duddies," and then what happens with the NIV 2011 happens, it can come across as at best, naïve, and at worst, condescending. Whether political or theological, the slippery slope is the number 1 M.O. of liberals. To try to tell us this doesn't happen can be quite frankly irritating.
Any study bible can have bad notes, you better flip through them, especially if they're for kids. I've dumped almost half of what I've bought for my kids because I thought they were theologically soft. I don't see how NIV 2011 is specifically guilty in your case, zondervan yes, but that doesn't compromise the translation.
@@jkdbuck7670 I have yet to get my hands on a copy of the LSB and read it for myself. I am unable to give any truthful thoughts regarding the LSB at this moment. I am hoping to get a physical copy within the next week. I know there’s a digital copy of it but I dislike reading digital copies. I have heard mainly good things about the LSB and I am looking forward to reading it.
The NASB 95 is perfect. There was no need to make things easier for the way we speak English now. People should study to show themselves approved. The scriptures were never supposed to be easy to understand. The scriptures forces the reader to study the context of the stories, the history surrounding the region of the time of the story, the original language the ppl spoke in the story, the literary style the story was written in. All that work must be done to truly understand writings from thousands of years ago originating in the eastern part of the world.
And yet the 95 was the third revision of the NASB. Ever go back to the 77? It’s a wonderful Bible and that exact same argument could be made of the 77. The 95 is one of the most outstanding products of faith, prayer, and scholarship ever, and yet, it got not ONE but TWO updates in the LSB and 2020. As Tim points out, the Lockman Foundation realises there will be preferences across the board so, if the Lord has granted you with the resources, do what I did: get one of each. I will almost interchangeably read from the 77, 95, LSB, and 2020 and I have my preferred verses and sections in each.
To be honest, I only have so much time for so many translations.. I’ve always hung my hat on the ESV but the NASB95 has been my next in line go-to But I will be dropping down the 95 a notch in favor of the LSB
Don't like gender inclusive bibles. I stopped using the niv when they did that. Im not a major fan of the nasb but its still one of the better translations. However I'll go kjv only before adopting liberal translations, and I cannot stand kjv onlyism There was no need for an update, the 77 and 95 editions were perfectly understandable in my opinion. Its sad when I think about it, the RSV was a more liberal approach years ago, and ecumenical. But the RSV at this point is becoming among the more conservative translations.
I MUCH prefer the NASB95 over the 2020. I just ordered an NASB95 Quentel, a beautiful Bible. Thank you, Lockman, for allowing the 1995 to remain, and even the 77 of which I am not familiar. (It's a shame the NIV84 is no longer available. I don't like the newer NIV at all.) I'm a woman but I don't like the gender-inclusive changes. I understand "man" can mean "mankind" and that the masculine can be referring to men and women. Just give me the most literal translation, please! "He or she," etc. can become tedious, and it lessens the impact of the passages that really do say "brothers and sisters." Leave it alone; it's fine as is.
Even if Schuyler discontinues it, there are other publishers who still print it, like Three Sixteen Publishing (Steadfast Bibles). In my opinion, the Legacy Standard Bible is a better update than the NASB 2020
I recently got a large print compact (single column) NASB 95, it's amazing and at $120 for something maybe slightly better than a Schuyler PSQ (and even better it's single column), I'm disgusted I didn't try one years ago. After adding a few things from my wishlist, I'll likely grab a few more large print compact (though I'm not sure if I'll get more NASB 95 or switch to LSB). Steadfast has sharp print and opaque paper that go the next level, in that particular format at least. I asked them last week about ESV, it was a heart-breaking no for any new translations.
I absolutely love the NASB 1995 translation. One of the best translations possible. If that discontinues, then I'll upgrade to the new LSB since I want my translation to be as accurate (aka close to the original language/meaning) as possible.
I had a Lockman NASB 77 that got lost in a move. I wound up buying a Zondervan NASB 95, truth be told I preferred the 77 one. I prefer reading the KJV and the NKJV to the NASB 95. Not going to buy the 2020.
Tim, I appreciate your comments. With all due respect, may I correct one misunderstanding? There are thousands of Anglicans, in whose liturgies, prayer language includes “Thees and Thous”, down to this very day. Many of us pray this way every Sunday, during our services of worship and every day, several times a day, during our private or corporate prayers of Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer. Many of our churches still use either the KJV or the RSV read from the lectern and we pray or chant the psalms from the Coverdale Psalter. So, there are “still people using Thees and Thous”. It’s really not humorous or funny. There is no reason to insult, mock or make fun of the thousands of Christian brethren who pray in these ways. It is NOT obsolete. In fact, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) just published, in June of 2022, a new “Traditional Language” edition of their 2019 Book of Common Prayer. Perhaps someone needs to tell the ACNA that their prayers are obsolete!!
No disrespect intended. Probably those groups using the NASB, in general, no longer use "thees and thous." It's interesting to hear about Anglicans continuing to use this form of speech. Also, various groups that use the KJV still use this style when reading Scripture. I meant that it is no longer a typical way for most English Christians to speak. Great to hear from an Anglican! My first videos on this channel are an overview of John Stott's book Basic Christianity.
Isn't the Anglican church having multiple regional and ideological schisms right now? Isn't much of it about getting woke and gay.... maybe they didn't really read and understand the bible. 🤦♂️ BTDubbs, group prayer is not personal reading and comprehension of biblical concepts, it's repeating words for ritual purpose and identity reinforcement. Also big hats don't contain bigger brains or wizard powers 🤯
I’ve moved to the LSB. It maintains the “Legacy” of the NASB 95 and makes changes for the better. The Tetragrammaton is written as Yahweh, words have been translated consistently, other textual changes have been made regarding accuracy; For example 2 Peter 3:10, etc.
Steadfast Bibles (Three Sixteen Publishing) continues to publish good quality NASB ‘95 Bibles. I also suspect more publishing companies to create their own version of the ‘95 in the future since it still has such a following. Heck, you can still buy new copies of the NASB ‘77 so I don’t foresee the ‘95 disappearing.
Translation updates are primarily “business decisions” by the organizations/publishing houses that own the copyrights - plain and simple. Look at the NKJV. It is still going strong after 40 years with no updates, nor is one needed. Come on guys, these publishing houses know when they create a new “update,” folks will run out and buy one. Having said that, there are instances where an update is of benefit, such as the 1769 update of the 1611 KJV. The english language had changed quite a bit in that 150+ year span. The 10-20 +/- year updates that we get bombarded with as of late are not necessary. These folks all have nice, eloquent stories of “why” they undertook an update. Now, let’s be real, they will never come out and say, “We decided to create an update because we wanted to stimulate sales.” 🙄
I like the 2020, I just don’t understand why the translators chose to translate Psalm 23:2 as “lets me lie down” versus “makes” when the Hebrew is clearly causative.
The 95 should not be discontinued because the 2020 version has not stood the test of time yet. Every new version needs to be tested first, they need to gain traction
Schuyler! Grab on to the LSB for the quintel and the he Treveris! Why not run a poll and see how many would actually buy it? I don't know if 316 publishing would allow you to, but it might be something worth looking into. I'd buy it in a heartbeat, both editions!
Tim, I know this doesn't pertain to your question but I don't know how else to ask you this. Do you know if the new Zondervan Thompson chain that will be coming out hopefully next year will be the NASB 1995 or 2020?
The NASB1995 is way better than the NASB2020. I think they got to loose with some of the changes. I actually say this as someone who didn’t read either until last year. I originally thought I would like the 2020 better because I thought the language would be more current, but after reading both and comparing them the 1995 is far superior. It actually got to the point I had to stop reading the 2020 version. I don’t like it the slightest bit. The NASB 1995 is favorite translation currently now. I think they compromised the accuracy of the text by being too gender inclusive instead of being gender accurate. Mike Winger recently mentioned Galatians 3:26 for one of his Women and Ministry videos this week and he mentions the meaning of sons and why in this passage it would be a mistake to translate it from sons to sons and daughters like the 2020 version does and I agree with him. I find it fitting to some of the issues I have had with the 2020 version. This is because of the meaning the sonship status had at the time. In the body of Christ daughters and sons have been given sonship status in their relationship with God and the inheritance of God which has a cool, deeper meaning I think because at the time of the original text you had more access and privileges being a son vs a daughter. People want to argue that the Bible can be suppressive to women and I find the original translation of sons in this passage does the opposite. I think keeping it as sons, it’s more inclusive to women, because it shows how daughters were “promoted” and elevated through Christ. It demonstrates more of what Christ did apart from dying for our sins. I think it could be helpful for our culture to understand that now as followers there is no difference between sons and daughters in Christ which they will get from the 2020 text, but I think in places like this adding daughters is a mistake because it takes away from the meaning and in a way it takes away some of things Christ did because it doesn’t show how he elevated women.
I say this as someone who would love a translation that would be gender inclusive but it being under the umbrella of being gender accurate. I don’t have any issues with some changes to being gender inclusive if it were appropriate and accurate. I just think they were too lose with that in this update to the NASB translation. To me it has kind of lost some credibility in being the most accurate word for word translation as the 1995 is. Maybe I’m wrong, but those are my thoughts.
@@brittanywhite1318gender accurate versus inclusive versus neutral, all have overlap but not necessarily. Gender accurate is the way to go but that's not really understood AND traditionalists hate it for being progressive, liberals hate it for not being radical. I support not calling women men, it's bothered me since the 80s but now people believe in goofy gender ideals and it actually matters, but the revision has to help not hurt the context - for each rendering - or it just makes it worse. Conforming to current gender idealism trends cannot be a blanket policy [[ and if it gets into woke territory then the activists will be screaming about there is no gender, transition the kids from one gender to another, girl power, I hate men, let men dress like girls and savagely beat them in professional sports while we all scream smash the patriarchy and Jesus was the genderfluid of God that impregnated the birthing person Mary.... simultaneously]] IMO NIV 2011 gets it right, probably because of the huge TNIV and NIVue black eye. I don't know about the NASB, I'm starting on 95 now, will try 2020 in the spring most likely. Honestly I hope they're both good.
I tried switching to NASB 2020 But when I got to a verse in Joshua 8:18, It said that he was holding a sword, But I remember him holding a spear or javelin in the 95 version. I would argue that many people know the difference between the two weapons so if the 2020 version saw this as a readability issue and changed the item, what else did they change? I actually don't mind the gender neutral thing because I don't see it as being part of the agenda that is current in today's culture.
Interesting note about Joshua 8:18 "sword" in the NET Bible: "Traditionally “spear,” but see HALOT 472 s.v. כִּידוֹן, which argues based upon evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls that this term refers to a curved sword of some type; note the definition “scimitar” given there."
@@AFrischPerspective Woah! Thank you for telling me this! I usually use online interlinear tools when I want to dig into the bible. I can't believe I missed this! 😅 Thank you for your response!
Interesting! I saw other commenters complaining that the NASB 2020 was a purely aesthetic update, but this is an example of at least one change based on newer research.
Tim, I have all the premium bible versions I could ever read for the rest of my lifetime so shall not be getting another one. My favourites are the LSB and the ESV. I will also happily read from the KJV, which was all I had for years, and the NKJV. I'd say, being female, that reading all the brethren's and sons etc I know that I am among them as a child of God, yet it can occasionally be off- putting as if females were left out purposely. I don't read Hebrew of Greek but very much apreciate hearing from those who do.
I don’t like how they changed dwelling to rooms like the niv reads in Jn 14.2 also how they changed psalms 23 to sound less like the KJV. Was gonna get a copy until I seen this. Person might as well just read the Niv seems like much of the same language is used
The "Gender Accurate" rewriting is for me the issue at hand, and I don't buy in to the assumption that makes the text more accurate. Why not change all the mentions of sandals to flip-flops to allow for better understanding? What I want in my bible is what the author said, with a footnote if that is hard to understand. Paul did not say "brothers and sisters," he said "brothers", which a woman in the audience would have heard as a message also spoken to her. "brothers and sisters" is a term that pretends that Paul focused on gender equality, which he clearly didn't.
Some would suggest and I would be one that when Paul addressed Brothers if there were women in the audience that they would have heard that as brothers and sisters in the original Greek. We use phrases "you guys" down here in Texas we use the word y'all. This aspect I do not have much of a problem with it all and I realize we can differ on this issue. Where we do agree as I don't think the nasb needed to be updated just yet. Maybe in another 10 or 15 years but not now
@@ThecrosseyedTexan I agree. The women would have heard that phrase to include them as well, but that doesn't mean that Paul went out of his way to change his language to make sure he was including everyone. I would say that using "you guys" is a much closer way to translate what he is actually saying, although guys lack some of the warmth and relational closeness of "brothers", so I understand that they didn't go for that as the official translation! For me, this is an awkward phrasing, and a slippery slope, especially in a time where it seems everyone is bent on changing the word of God into whatever they want it to mean. Personally, I will shift to the LSB rather than to the NASB 2020, but let me concur: This is an issue where we can differ, it's a matter of personal preference (at least for now) and luckily, there are plenty of translations to choose from.
This is where reading the preface in the front of your Bible is useful. It very plainly points out that the "and sisters" is in italics to show that it isn't part of the original text but is there for clarity. You don't have to read any of the italicized words if you choose not to but it does increase the accuracy of the translation.
Ungren L, I so agree, and I'm a woman. I want a literal translation. I have a brain that knows I'm part of "mankind," etc. I don't need additions to what was originally written.
I have a Quentel 1995 engraved with my name, and love it. I wouldn't mind a 2020, the changes are sound. What I really want is a LSB Quentel and LSB Treveris.
The LSB is very very similar to the 2020. Very marginal differences. My problem with the LSB is the use of Yahweh rather than YHWH. Most of the changes heralded as big changes can be found in the 2020. I'd be more interested in adding the CSB over the LSB if you already have the 95 or 2020. If you do not own the NASB at all then the LSB might be a good choice.
The 1995 Quentel is not discontinued. I Just Ordered the 1995 Schuyler Quentel NASB, Full Yapp Black Goatskin Bible from Evangelical Bible. FEDEX is arriving tomorrow. Maybe at the time of this video it was unavailable but not discontinued.
I think it’s like when musicians make music especially interesting for other musicians, lockman turned away from other musicians and are making music for everyone now.
Though I have a 1977 NASB Open Bible and a 1995 NASB New Inductive Study Bible and prefer them. I'm old enough that I know that when the scripture says, you must forgive men that it means mankind or others. I can't say I've ever looked closely at the differences between the two.
I'm a big fan of the 95 which is my fave but now reading the 2020 I am getting into it more than I thought I would. The small textual changes in regards to manuscript updates are always welcome. The gender neutral stuff isn't as bad as I thought but I do own the Stridon version which has good notes anyhow. That might be a big help.
When I walk into a room with both genders in it and say, "Hey guys. What's up?" They look at me all confused because we're all stupid today. The argument that gender exclusive pronouns are confusing to modern English speakers is a falsehood. The amount of pushback that publishers receive is evidence that people are not confused but annoyed for being thought of as being so stupid. Also, in places like Psalm 41 where the passage is truly referring to Christ, the inclusiveness creates separation between the passage and Christ. I also guess Proverbs is only about men since most publishers still have male pronouns used throughout most of the book, but they changed it in other places because it's "confusing" as to when the male pronouns are inclusive to women or not.
Personally, when it comes to the modern church giving in to changes in popular culture, the Bible itself is my UNEQUIVOCAL red line in the sand. I will NOT accept any changes that even REMOTELY seem to cater to the desires of this lost generation. The English language has NOT changed enough to make 1977, or 1995 NASB translations uninteligible. That is a ridiculous, disingenuous line of thought. These changes are unwarranted, unnecessary, and despite all your covering for them, completely suspect in the days we are living in. I am old enough to understand that when a "Liberal" ideologue says: "We are not trying to do X, we are just doing A & B. That's far, far away from X...". The reality is that not 15 years down the line they kept nudging almost imperceptibly until they reached "X" right in front of our faces and in many cases with our indirect approval. No sir. NOT with the word of God. There are only two directions. You can either keep moving in the direction of a total surrender to the will of God, or in the direction the fallen world is going. Too many so called Christians keep playing the devil's "apologist", using arguments of men to excuse these seemingly minute, "innocent" changes toward modern feminism and post-modernistic gender ideology. You are all free to choose to go along with the flow. But as for me and my house, we will not participate. The word of God is PERFECT as it stands and translations are already plentiful for all litterary and stylistic tastes. Of all the changes that could be made to a Bible translation, choosing gender ideology as the place to go in the year 2022 says all I need to know about these modern translation committees.
I am not so sure the “gender accurate” changes are main reason people have turned away from the 2020. It certainly is an issue to many, but the 2020 is a very significant re-write of the 95. Most of the changes are totally unnecessary as our English language has NOT changed that significantly since 95. It really feels like the 2020 is a dumbed-down version and as the NASB 95 is popular for its accuracy and scholarship few people were looking for an update that made it more simple.
Being a 'sister', I consider myself a part of the 'brethren' of Christ. Men can be the Bride of Christ and women can be the brethren of Christ. The Bible is full of gender nouns, pronouns and verbs. Without them, we wouldn't know the heart of our Father God and Holy Spirit. Original Text giving the names of God include masculine, gender neutral and feminine when speaking of the compassionate heart of our Father. When the term 'man' is used, this can be male or female. (In the beginning He created man - both male and female. Remember?) Man can be translated as 'human'. I disagree with adding words or changing the wording of the Bible. If the original author didn't write 'sister', then don't take such liberties with the author's writing. Why change the scripture? The Lockman 1995 NASB version has been known to be the most accurate translation of the original text. (until LSB) The evangelicalbible.com website states the 2020 version is "An excellent bridge to a new generation." We don't need a WOKE Bible! We need true, accurate scripture as it was originally written.
Well said, from another woman. The authors wrote "and sisters" when they were inspired to do so. When they weren't and didn't, neither should we. I would have liked for the NASB to maintain its reputation as the most literal word for word translation. The 2020 is NOT.
The NASB20 has dumbed-down vocabulary choices, not as rich or elegant as the NASB95. The NASB20 also has succumbed to politically-correct gender ideology.
@@AFrischPerspective off the top of my head, it replaced "brood of vipers" with "offspring of vipers." Re: gender ideology, in St. Mark it replaced "fishers of men" with "fishers of people."
@@SaltyPalamite Thanks for the specifics. I personally wouldn't see this as "dumbed-down" vocabulary. But maybe you would be able to show me other examples with more time.
@@SaltyPalamite The word "brood" isn't so archaic as to be out of usage, but it seems to be used nowadays with a tinge of irony (outside of beekeeping, at least) precisely because it is archaic, suggesting that modern readers will interpret the line "brood of vipers" as sarcastic rather than damning.
The NASB should be as accurate as possible to the original Greek and Hebrew. The ‘95 is considered highly accurate AND readable. Changing “men” to “men and women” or “brothers” to “brothers and sisters” is appropriate, however, those weren’t the only changes. They also removed words such as: shall, thus, iniquity, deliver, transgressions, and many others. The average reader can still understand those words and their use keeps that traditional “Holy Bible” feel (that many of us enjoy) intact. They aren’t just making the NASB more gender accurate, they are dumbing it down as a whole. If they keep trying to make it as current as possible, then it will eventually be considered more of a dynamic or “thought-for-thought” translation instead of a literal translation where it should stay.
The original languages could have used the same gender accurate language but they DID NOT. God himself didn't inspire the authors to do so when he could. So this is a horrible thing translators have done. There's a reason for having footnotes and commentary. I can't stand this trend. It's not conservative but rather the opposite, no matter how you want to paint it.
Thank you for posting this because I didn't realize the other words that have been changed. The words iniquity, transgression, and sin all have a different meaning according to the Greek. Very important different meanings. Therefore I will not be getting a 20/20.
@@moisesg.v.1575 But back then, the audience understood when the Bible was referring to ALL humans even when it said “Men”. People today can get confused by this so it hurts more than it helps. Again, if the translators made those explicit occurrences gender accurate and stopped there, then it would be fine. The real problem is all the other critically meaningful words they’re removing and/or changing.
@@Daniel5.14I totally see this too. They believe in 3rd and 4th wave feminism, smashing the patriarchy acts attacking TERFs, gender fluidity, trans the kids.... reinforcing genders ain't such a bad idea, if the source text is ambiguous or meant in broad terms.
Im Greek , and "ανθρωπος" just means person... its not a gendered word in its meaning, its just male in a grammatical sense ... in the same way that "house" is female in spanish, its a gramatical gender , spanish speakers dont think that houses are literaly girls
I wish it was easier to ask someone who knows Greek for help in my quest to find what English translations ( I know it not possible to have EVERYTHING in a single translation) are the CLOSEST and have the MOST in what I am looking for in a great and faithful translation of the New Testament.
I have a paperback 1995 NASB. I will not be getting the 2020 or the LSB unless it gets too worn out. I will not get the LSB period, but the 1995 or the 2020 based on availability. I have no problem with the gender accurate language. Lockman, in my opinion has too many different NASB's on the market with the 1995, 2020 and the LSB. Other Bible companies are having to make hard choices and it will be based on sales I promise you.
I just purchased a NASB Schuyler Bible in the 1995 version because I will not purchase the 2020 NASB. No, Bible translations should stay away from going into gender specifics. Yes: the genders should be specific as we are aware what “men” means. If Bibles continue changing to please the wants of men, then I feel that we are giving in too much. Maybe I didn’t make any sense. And I don’t know what the problem is/was with the word Brethren. Unless one just doesn’t understand English, why is it so difficult to understand this word? 🤷♀️
NKJV is my favorite, perhaps because I grew up with the KJV which I also still love, but NASB95 is a close second with ESV after that. I though ESV would never stop revising!
Maybe the inspired words in the scripture are intended to say what they say. Maybe God intended to convey language and terms that put "women" within "men." Maybe the scriptures were very purposefully conveying the doctrinal concept of order; God-man-woman. Woman is within man, who is within Christ. If you feel the need to change the occurrences of masculine plurals to read inclusively, now, should we then also address the term "bride" as a reference for Christ's church? Maybe "bride" is the wrong term and not inclusive enough because some people will not like or understand that men are included in this feminine term? No. Let's leave the concept as the Holy Spirit inspired it to be written.
I think apart from the gender issues, any of the changes just took away from some of the meaning. I can’t remember exactly which verses because I just hated the 2020 so much, but I think a lot of the changes lost accuracy and meaning.
The original languages could have used the same gender accurate language but they DID NOT. God himself didn't inspire the authors to do so when he could. So this is a horrible thing translators have done. There's a reason for having footnotes and commentary. I can't stand this trend. It's not conservative but rather the opposite, no matter how you want to paint it.
I am inclined to agree at least when a translation posits to be literal as the NASB does. The issue I have had with the NASB is it says in the preface it is literal, formal equivalence, but has many "Literal" renderings in the footnotes.
There are other publishers that are still making the 1995 nasb lockman still making them and so is zonderfin and they're making them at least Donovan and some pretty nice bindings. It's not like all publishers are going to stop making them and most people I know can't afford a $200 Bible anyway. It's just my opinion please be nice LOL
Those very possibly will fade out to 77 status being harder to find good bindings, they lost their unique status except with the LSB which is also not very available(crossway is probably sitting back with a smile watching lockman make these business decisions lol)
@@ThecrosseyedTexan that’s like making it to the nba and getting an injury, that sucks man. I’m in the same boat I don’t play for long and I try to play other instruments and program them. You ever try percussion or keyboard if that bothers?
Nothing is a deal breaker for me in the 2020. I tend to like it more. I do wish they had kept the word begotten in places like John 3:16. The change is a common translational decisions so it's not a huge deal.
This is hard to hear you speak on this matter. Gender inclusive language should have no part in a translation that seeks to glorify God. Most all translations have capitulated to the culture. *Terms like "brethren" and "man" were always gender inclusive terms.* Now instead of “brethren” or “brothers,” egalitarians want “brothers and sisters.” “A translator ought to endeavor not only to say what his author has said, but to say it as he has said it.”- John Conington You know what the Bible says in the original language when it wants to address brothers and sisters? James 2:14f 14 What is the use, my *brothers* (ἀδελφοί), if someone claims to have faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a *brother* (ἀδελφὸς) or *sister* (ἀδελφὴ) is without clothes and lacking food for the day, - parentheses ( ) are mine It says brothers and sisters. In other words, the biblical writers had no qualms saying "brothers and sisters" - WHEN they want to (v. 15). On the other hand, there's a reason why they chose to use "brothers" (ἀδελφοί) when referring to brothers & sisters (v.14). Remember, a synagogue or church was established by men. And men are or were always the head of the household. I realized in this current Sitz im Leben men are often portrayed in an unfavorable manner. However, God and his Word tells us the true importance of man. 1 Cor 11:7ff: 7 For in fact, a man must not to cover his head, since he is the image and reflection of God. But the woman is the reflection of man. 8 For man does not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the sake of woman, but rather, woman for the sake of man. Why is it important to say something as God intended? “Translation is not a matter of words only: it is a matter of making intelligible a whole culture.”- Anthony Burgess See in the way you talk (and NASB 2020) the culture informs the Bible. I am saying that the Bible should inform the thinking of this culture. It is still the best selling Book each year. So don't abandon "man" or "mankind." Don't change "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" because you THINK you know more than God. Because we don't. And what is written is perfect; it is all intentional. As far as other updates. Not just the 2020, but all Bible translations are severely lacking in displaying poetic devices used by the biblical writers. There is another level of artistry present in the Bible that translations haven't displayed. But that is all I want to say on this matter.
The Cambridge Topaz arriving in September will be the 2020 update. If you were a publisher why would you continue to publish an obsolete version of the translation? The smart bet is that even if the 95 stays in print the market will move to the 2020.
@@afterdarkness-light I thought I read they just announced an update to the LSB. So much for "Your Translation for a Lifetime" - maybe eventually they'll get there I guess.
@@RoastBeefSandwich you need to listen to Frisch's take on that newest update. It's not that big of deal and it is not an unusual thing for new translations. So, as I said, listen to what Tim has to say about it.
The NASB 95 is my primary Bible. I am very sensitive to the gender issue. I prefer traditional correct English that doesn't attempt to cater to the modern sensibilities. I believe the Bible reflects gender roles that are rooted in creation and therefore meant to be heeded by Christian's in all generations throughout the Church Age. That being said, I have no problem with the way the NASB 2020 handled the gender issue. I think it actually improves accuracy. The reason I reject the 2020 update is because it moves farther away from the real strength of the NASB which is being transparent to the underlying languages. In the translators' desire to produce an all around Bible they smooth it out and l lose its distinction of being the best English translation to study the underlying Greek and Hebrew. They did this in the 95 update as well so I have gone through the text and marked the issues in it. The NASB is not a great all around translation and should just stop trying to be one. But it's excellent for deep study and should try to be better at that. The 2020 is not that good of an update and is going in the wrong direction. As for the particular changes in the 2020, I like about a third of them, and think they improve the translation. I don't understand why they didn't fix more of the obvious problems from the 95. If they had fixed all those issues and not introduced a host of others, I might have considered moving but it's too much work to keep on top of all if it. Lockman will not produce good quality Bibles for a reasonable price anymore anyway. You can get a good quality NASB made by Zondervan but Lockman won't allow them to include the full set of translation notes. With many translations that's not really a problem, one would barely miss the notes. But with the NASB, so many important renderings are in the notes, it is like losing part of the translation. We cannot get a good quality '77 version, AMG only produces mediocre products. After beginning production of the LSB, Steadfast told me last year that they would not slow down producing the 95 versions but they obviously have. Evangelicalbible said last year that even though they were producing the 2020 version, they would be producing the 95 for the foreseeable future, but apparently that foreseeable future lasted one print run. You can get a good quality Korean made 2020, but you have to pay the price of a Schuyler or a Cambridge to get it. As nice as these Korean Bibles are, they are not Schuyler quality. Lockman is supposed to be producing some of these Korean editions with the 95 text for the same high prices but it remains to be seen whether the formats will be good enough to compensate for the prices. This is how it's been for NASB users for years. Honestly, I have started marking up an ESV text, thinking about getting off this rollercoaster.
The problem is not simply modern culture vs. classic culture, it's God centered thinking vs. Human centered way of thinking. If the Church doesn't teach women about masculine headship and representation, what does the Church teach women then? I don't wanna come off arrogantly but it seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, but we compromise with worldly culture to the point where we take out Adam's headship altogether.
I finally got around to watching this video. You give a fair and balanced perspective about the 2020. I personally love it and I do find it far more readable and less clunky than the 1995. Let’s face it. The 95 is a great study tool. The 2020 is a better preaching tool.
The LSB is no go for me cuz John MacArthur is involved. Changing Interpretations of tongues to translate? Yeah no Thanks. Nasb 2020 dropping only begotten. Modern versions should be putting that back in not removing it. So NASB 95 For the Win
Also, it’s humorous to note the fact that certain archaic words found in the KJV MORE accurately reflect the original terminology than any modern translation is able to! The use of words like “brethren” and “thee” and “thou” are far better translations of their Greek counterparts than is possible in modern English. The comments I’ve read thus far from the 95ers seem to opine the fact that modern English has changed more than anything and then resort to many of the same arguments KJV advocates have been using ever since I can remember!
“Thee” and “thou” aren’t better translations for the singular personal pronoun because no one in 2022 uses “thee” and “ye” to differentiate between singular and plural. If the speakers of the receptor language do not use language that way, it is a poor translation into that language. The KJV was an excellent translation into jacobean English and while it is still a very understandable translation in 2022 English, the nuance doesn’t come through to most modern readers because language has changed due to no fault of the speakers or the translators.
@@cmiddleton9872 Thanks for the English lesson. I know we don’t use those words that way today….that was my point! There is no way (currently) to convey EXACTLY the same sense of those words found in Koine Greek. And I’m not arguing for us to bring them back or to switch over to the KJV. My contention is that it’s okay for us to move on every so often to newer translations that better conform to modern usage. And that’s not dumbing things down as I’ve heard many argue-it’s communicating the original intent to the current reader in the most accurate (though not always perfect) way possible. And as Tim points out, the use of annotations, italics, and other tools serve to more completely render the sense of the original language.
I think many people consider "reading" to be the same as comprehension, it's absolutely not. That's obvious when KJVonlyists go into wild tirades about each and every verse they're stuck on, but don't get the entirety of the chapter and book they're sampling. I think personal Christology should be based on understanding the entire messianic paradigm since Genesis, theme by theme throughout the books. Slight wording changes really shouldn't throw that off, though not reading often and actually understanding what is read DOES retard wisdom. If someone finds a version enjoyable to read, that isn't outright altering the text, it's a legitimate pathway to know God by his own auto-biography.
I suspect that some people will have an issue with the decision to move Acts 8.37 to the footnotes in the 2020 edition. The 1995 edition keeps the verse in the text, albeit in brackets. (I can't speak for myself on this issue, since I consider the 2020 NASB to be the edition that should've come out in 1995. The NRSV--alongside the NJB, REB, CEV and the 1992 edition of the TEV--had already shown that gender-accurate language was the current standard for translation, and the 1995 NASB should've followed suit, as the 1996 NLT did.)
I only have an NRSV because of Harper Collins. It’s a bit clunky to read. I like the old RSV or ESV personally but I’m tending now to try to read in the original languages.
Late to the game on this video. I am sure you meant to say that Schuyler should only be printing the KJV. Right? 🤣🤣🤣 I'm liking the NASB 2020. Very smooth read.
The 1984 NIV was excellent for that style of translation. It was then successfully degraded through to the 2011 version. Sad to see the NASB is going down the same road. I guess its KJV and hoping the ESV will stay as it as for an alternate easier to read version. It appears these publishers are trying to A) Create "new" translations purely for copyright greed and 2) to cater to the rapidly deteriorating society. I personally will not support this. The NASB is now relegated to the growing trash heap of modern bible history.
The NASB-2020 is NOT an improvement of the NASB-95. Some of the verses that the NASB-95 gets WRONG are: Gen. 12:1, Lev. 23:4, Esther 1:1, Ps. 23:1, Ps. 23:6, Ps. 119:97, Ps. 145:9!!!!!!!, Matt. 4:5, Matt. 5:14, Matt. 7:7!!!!!!!!!!!, Matt. 20:20, Mark 7:19, Mark 7:28, Mark 15:13, Luke 2:11, Luke 3:33, Luke 9:57, Luke 16:13, Luke 16:23, John 1:5?, John 3:7, John 5:10, John 10:22-23, John 11:11, John 11:35, John 21:15-17, Acts 7:21, Acts 11:13, Acts 14:13!!!!!!!!!!, Acts 16:37, Acts 16:38, Acts 22:2, Rom. 10:4, Rom. 16:1, Gal. 2:21, Gal. 3:1, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:5?, 1 Tim. 3:1, 2 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 11:1, Heb. 11:24, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:17, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 2:2, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 12:10, Rev. 20:11, and other verses. The translation of the Bible has been an interest and concern of mine for MANY years.
I love what they did with the NASB2020. It has become my main. I still love the 77, 95, and LSB, but, as an English teacher this is something I have to constantly point out to my students (reading Shakespeare and Thoreau with them and, for all of Shakespeare’s wokeness, he obviously used masculine-neutral language, much more so did Thoreau, even when he was as Liberal, Republican, and Universalist as they come). I love the KJV and those older translations but again, I’m an English teacher and this is just not the language of today. Gender accuracy actually makes a Bible MORE accurate and literal when it explains things. One of the main reasons I ended up jumping ship from the ESV to the NASB and then the 2020 was a natural evolution of that.
I don't see any agenda in the NASB 2020. The criterion used by the translators seems to be strictly academic. It is certainly a quite different case to that of the NRSV, which is clearly gender inclusive, not gender accurate. This said, putting the gender issue aside, I really don't think that 25 years justify a new edition of the NASB. I mean, it is not the case that English has changed that much so as to make it difficult for native English speakers to understand the 95 edition. In this sense, I don't think that 25 years justify the 'generational argument' for making a new edition. If it were at least 50 years, maybe (and, of course, if new manuscript discoveries justify it). Nevertheless, just consider that even non native English speakers, like myself, can read and understand without problems older translations like the RSV, and even the KJV with relative ease. At the end, I believe that the continuous editions of the NASB (truly a great translation) make it more difficult for it grow as a preferred translation, which can be reflected in its poor performance in the sales rankings. Anyway, as you mentioned, it is not that the NASB 95 will disappear anytime soon.
Brethren should stay. Brothers is a mistranslation but Brothers and Sisters are too much for what is supposed to be as literal as possible. And brethren reads better. Stick with Brethren. I also disagree with removing There, thou, and ye. These words add appropriate distinction for the singular and the plural. Just explain what they are in the beginning. This does not matter as much in a thought-for-thought translation, but the NASB is not going for that. I'm ok with translating men to others, with a footnote, for clarity. It's reads well and is clear.
John 3:16 is a reason for me. “begotten” is a rich theological term. “One and only” is not (not to say it’s inaccurate, per se, but it doesn’t come with the rich theological context and definitions).
Unfortunately the never-ending assault on gender in postmodern America has caused many of us biblical conservatives to become hypersensitive and overreact to situations like this. Clearly the NASB committee has made an honest effort to be MORE accurate to the original intent of the writer-which is the essence of biblical conservatism regarding translation! I’m interested to see how your 95ers respond to this video in the comments.
I have been reading the NAS95 for about 6 years now. Upon hearing the news about an update, though I was not thrilled about it, I was not worried, either. I already own a Lockman NASB and my main Bible is a Schuyler Thinline Quentel NAS95. Just to make sure I would always have one for years and decades to come, I just purchased an RL Allan NAS95. I ought to be set for the foreseeable future. Having served overseas on the mission field, and seeing some Bible options they have in other tongues, we are so, SO blessed to be able to pick "this" translation over "that" or "that" or "that" or "that" English translation. Thank You, Lord, for Your wonderful word!
I just ordered the Schuyler Quintel NASB Bible with the 1995 translation, so at least yesterday it was still available one year after this video was created. I bought it because I did not want the 2020 translation at this time and wanted to make sure I could still get the 1995 translation before it is possibly discontinued.
The NASB95 has been my main translation for quite awhile. I feel that no matter what they say, the timing of all these changes is suspect. Definitely not a fan of the changes. I never found the 95 version to be hard to read or understand, so I don't think an update was really needed. Since this change took place I've found myself drifting back to the NKJV as main translation. I still use my NASB 95 for study, but will not be purchasing any new ones. If I do update my version it will be to the LSB which I feel was trying to focus more on the accuracy of God's word rather than the illiteracy of modern society.
Choice of NASB95 formats will certainly erode as time goes on, but considering you can still purchase freshly printed NASB77s today I don't think access to the NASB95 will be an issue for quite a while.
That’s my exact position
It wasn't the "brothers and sisters" change that steered me away, but I just found myself cringe at the wording used in some passages. Almost patchy, like an old pair of jeans (1995) with a brand new patch on it (2020). Literal in some areas and very modern sounding in others, so I found it to be a translation with no distinct characteristics to it, trying to please both sides.
Could you give some examples of the patchy passages?
Most complaints I've heard are to do with the gendered language.
I don’t say this often enough when I watch your videos, but I think you’re great! I love how you objectively present most if not all the topics🙏🏻
I appreciate that!
The NASB '95 is my favorite translation. It's been close to two years since this video was released, and the NASB '95 is still widely available. I intend on sticking with the NASB '95 for as long as possible.
First, I am a ‘95 fan. It’s been my preferred translation for 25 years. I’m open to a new revision, but feel the 2020 missed it in the wrong places.
My issues with the 2020 are the awkward word choices used when an update wasn’t necessary. For example, Ps. 23 with “I will not be in need,” that the Lord “let’s” me lie down in green pastures rather than “makes,” and Is. 1:18 with “debate your case” rather than “reason together,” etc.
Also, I wish they would continue to include variants like Acts 8:37 in the text block instead of removing it to a footnote.
Lastly, the gender accurate issue does seem suspect with the timing of it. Seems to follow the way the culture is changing more than the way English is changing. Some words might be okay to leave alone and let us learn what is true about them rather than changing to meet demands of the culture, like “church” rather than translating it “assembly” and “propitiation” and “atonement”. Why not let “brethren” be one of those words to denote the group of people in a given church? Seems like this starts down a slippery slope.
@John Reynolds Isaiah 1:18 is actually more literal than 'reason together.' As far as יַרְבִּיצֵנִי in Psalm 23 there is no 'make' or 'let' in Hebrew there. Make does denote a very Calvinistic interpretation of that text whereas let is probably the more accurate depiction of what the Psalmist is putting across... I am all for the removal of texts like Acts 8:37. If anything I'd also like to see more of this including the withdrawal to the margin for several other texts including 1 Jn 5:7-8 and Mat 11:11b.
@@omnitheus5442 1 Jn 5:7-8 was already in the margin in the '95. For Is 1:18, I respectfully disagree that "debate your case" is more literal. If they would have left it "debate," maybe, "decide together" might have been a better choice, but "reason together" is superb as well and did not need updating. And, for Ps 23, agreed that "make" or "let" is not in the original, but in the next line "lead" is. So, "make" or "guide" is a better choice than "lets" because "lets" gives the idea that we can decide what is good or not good, (the pastures we want to graze in and the Lord "lets us"), but one meaning of the passage is that the Lord is our Shepherd who knows what is best for us and gives us the best. To find that, we cannot find it on our own, but we need His guidance and leadership in our lives.
Propitiation, IMO, is a word that should Not be updated. Let people use a dictionary! 🤷♀️
Did you ever try the LSB?
I understand that translations must change over time as language changes but we are a long way off the language of the NASB95 being out of date. Men are fallible so I feel like every time a new translation is made, it is an opportunity to mess it up no matter how pure their motivation.
Plus consistency is comforting. There are already enough different translations without having so many unnecessary variations within a translation.
Since hearing about the NASB update back in 2016, my hope was that it would represent the latest frontier of textual scholarship in the OT with BHQ and in the NT with CBGM. But the bigger impact on the translations as been editorial, rather than academic.
*Let me acknowledge the massive accomplishment of meticulously italicizing those words and phrases that were overlooked in the ‘77 and grandfathered into the ‘95. Sincerely, well done.
The changes in the 2020 are if a different nature than the changes from 77 to 95. The vocabulary has been refocused towards a younger audience. They use the contraction, “Let’s,” which is inappropriate for formal literature (This is not a work of speech but a work of literature, and for the same reason it does not end sentences with prepositions). There is less consistency of translation in the 2020 (see “sojourn” in Genesis), though this was the hallmark of the 77/95 and is now magnified in the LSB. And it remains a matter of opinion whether the English language has really changed so much as is often claimed. After thousands of years, countless languages, and innumerable cultures having the skill of using context clues for discerning the gender of an intended audience, is it only now-coincidently at the same time when culture has intentionally forgotten what a man or a woman is-that we need to have it spelled out for us?
Schuyler left the NASB 1995 behind in 2018 when they decided to scrap the “NASB 1995 Single Column” and replace it with what is now the magnificent Stridon. At that point, practically speaking, they decided to never design another new NASB95. You can imagine how we felt when we didn’t receive what seemed to have been promised on those translation production charts they put out in the past. So what now? I already have 1995 Quentels; I have no need for another.
Thankfully, Zondervan has produced new editions, and it would make no sense to halt production of such new typesettings within the next several years. Lockman has also promised new typesettings for the ‘95 SCR and the LPC (no LPUT?). So we should be able to get new printings and editions for a good while (10 years?).
I prefer the 1995 to every other translation, including the 2020. I don’t want to see production of the NASB 1995 truncated after 7 years or so. That’s the fear.
Steadfast publishers makes some nice NASBs too I think!
2020 translators did follow BHQ and ECM! Read the preface!
@@b.a.berean9988
I assure you that I’ve already read the Preface. Where CBGM-Acts has the most noteworthy readings that diverge from UBS/NA, the 2020 makes zero Greek-based changes to correspond. In those cases, any changes from the 1995 were exclusively to make the English easier to read.
Good video that has provoked interesting comments!
I'm not a current NASB reader, but I've been looking into the NASB-family of translations as I've heard they're generally accepted as the most literal translation into English.
NASB readers will need to vote with their money if they want to see more of a certain version published.
LSB is the true update
Thank you for the balanced and fair overview Tim. 👍👌
Thank you for your comments regarding the NASB 2020, Tim. I have no reservations about the translation. I already on the NASB 2020 in print and digitally.
I don’t think the 2020 is an attempt in going more towards accurate as some say, they went more modern with readability in mind. I enjoyed the 95s inclusion of controversial passages and it’s likeness to kjv tradition in renderings(not that something like niv is bad, i just don’t find it as interesting in my walk personally), so while 2020 is good for many I’ll go more towards nkjv, esv, and LSB
I get your point, but there is constant talk about making the bible more readable with numerous updates, however I would say that the nasb 77 is still quite understandable, as is the 95 update. I would like to think that the majority of people who are passionate about the bible aren't a bunch of knuckleheads who can't read English. Thanks for the video
Besides the gender issue, the main thing that puts people off to the NASB 2020 is a general dumbing down of the literary quality of the translation. I remember reading some of the initial sample pages of the 2020 that came out and physically wincing at some of the new more streamlined renderings. It is especially noticeable when comparing the 2020 side by side with the 95 and 77. Thus a lot of the backlash comes down to what many see as a stripping away of the soul and eloquence of the NASB. In comparison, the LSB not only has no gender issue, but also maintains the beauty and sound of past NASBs.
Finally, I think the core of the bad reaction to the modernization of the way the 2020 handles gender, is a combination of concern about the NASB overall departing from it's mission of being as literal as possible while still being reasonably readable, as well as being once bitten twice shy concerning the so-called "slippery slope fallacy."
Regarding the latter, the NIV 2011 is a good example. We were told many times, including by you yourself, that we were being too tightly wound up and that the changes weren't going to be a big deal at all. Yet now, if you go to the official website of the fully revised 2020 edition of the official NIV Study Bible (in other words, the official study bible approved by Zondervan and the translators to represent the NIV 2011,) and you go down the section for endorsements, you will find that the NIV Study Bible is being endorsed by literal female pastors, as well as women who have written disparagingly about Biblical Complementarianism.
Looking into the current NIV Study Bible, it's not hard to see why. On page 2124, there is an article in it titled "Women and Authority in the Church," which covers 1 Timothy 2:9-15. The article covers both the orthodox Biblical position on the issue and the unbiblical Modernist position; ultimately taking a limp-wristed neutral stance. The translators said they wanted to attempt to please both parties, and unfortunately they are living up to their word with predictable results.
As such, I've got to get this off of my chest: I know you're trying to be gentle in your critique of negative reactions against the gender issue. But to be quite frank, when you try to take on a stance of "The gender issue isn't that big of a deal, you're all being a bunch of old fuddy duddies," and then what happens with the NIV 2011 happens, it can come across as at best, naïve, and at worst, condescending. Whether political or theological, the slippery slope is the number 1 M.O. of liberals. To try to tell us this doesn't happen can be quite frankly irritating.
Switch to the MEV!
@@petermillist3779 YES! The MEV is a hidden gem that the YT influencers won’t talk about!
@@petermillist3779 - The what? I've never heard of this version. What's the initials stand for?
Any study bible can have bad notes, you better flip through them, especially if they're for kids. I've dumped almost half of what I've bought for my kids because I thought they were theologically soft. I don't see how NIV 2011 is specifically guilty in your case, zondervan yes, but that doesn't compromise the translation.
The MAIN issue with the 2020 update is that it was unnecessary.
That's the case with pretty much every translation update for the past generation. Most of them have been released just to get sales spikes.
@@RoastBeefSandwich 💯
@@RoastBeefSandwich
pretty much
Orlando, do you feel the same way about the LSB? I'm guessing that you do, but I'd appreciate your feedback.
@@jkdbuck7670 I have yet to get my hands on a copy of the LSB and read it for myself. I am unable to give any truthful thoughts regarding the LSB at this moment. I am hoping to get a physical copy within the next week. I know there’s a digital copy of it but I dislike reading digital copies. I have heard mainly good things about the LSB and I am looking forward to reading it.
Thanks for the level headed video. I've been impressed with the tastefulness of the 2020 translation.
The NASB 95 is perfect. There was no need to make things easier for the way we speak English now. People should study to show themselves approved. The scriptures were never supposed to be easy to understand. The scriptures forces the reader to study the context of the stories, the history surrounding the region of the time of the story, the original language the ppl spoke in the story, the literary style the story was written in. All that work must be done to truly understand writings from thousands of years ago originating in the eastern part of the world.
And yet the 95 was the third revision of the NASB. Ever go back to the 77? It’s a wonderful Bible and that exact same argument could be made of the 77. The 95 is one of the most outstanding products of faith, prayer, and scholarship ever, and yet, it got not ONE but TWO updates in the LSB and 2020. As Tim points out, the Lockman Foundation realises there will be preferences across the board so, if the Lord has granted you with the resources, do what I did: get one of each. I will almost interchangeably read from the 77, 95, LSB, and 2020 and I have my preferred verses and sections in each.
I like the 1977 edition of the NASB ..
To be honest, I only have so much time for so many translations.. I’ve always hung my hat on the ESV but the NASB95 has been my next in line go-to
But I will be dropping down the 95 a notch in favor of the LSB
Don't like gender inclusive bibles. I stopped using the niv when they did that. Im not a major fan of the nasb but its still one of the better translations. However I'll go kjv only before adopting liberal translations, and I cannot stand kjv onlyism
There was no need for an update, the 77 and 95 editions were perfectly understandable in my opinion. Its sad when I think about it, the RSV was a more liberal approach years ago, and ecumenical. But the RSV at this point is becoming among the more conservative translations.
Never thought of the RSV becoming conservative relative to the current translation environment. Interesting.
I MUCH prefer the NASB95 over the 2020. I just ordered an NASB95 Quentel, a beautiful Bible. Thank you, Lockman, for allowing the 1995 to remain, and even the 77 of which I am not familiar. (It's a shame the NIV84 is no longer available. I don't like the newer NIV at all.)
I'm a woman but I don't like the gender-inclusive changes. I understand "man" can mean "mankind" and that the masculine can be referring to men and women. Just give me the most literal translation, please! "He or she," etc. can become tedious, and it lessens the impact of the passages that really do say "brothers and sisters." Leave it alone; it's fine as is.
Even if Schuyler discontinues it, there are other publishers who still print it, like Three Sixteen Publishing (Steadfast Bibles). In my opinion, the Legacy Standard Bible is a better update than the NASB 2020
I recently got a large print compact (single column) NASB 95, it's amazing and at $120 for something maybe slightly better than a Schuyler PSQ (and even better it's single column), I'm disgusted I didn't try one years ago. After adding a few things from my wishlist, I'll likely grab a few more large print compact (though I'm not sure if I'll get more NASB 95 or switch to LSB). Steadfast has sharp print and opaque paper that go the next level, in that particular format at least.
I asked them last week about ESV, it was a heart-breaking no for any new translations.
@@nobodyspecial1852LSB is a great update to the 95.
Interesting point that “brethren” is also a gender-accurate term. Appreciate your video and insight. God bless, brother!
I'm sticking with 1977
I just got an NASB Thompson chain reference and I am liking the 77.
For the NASB it is my favorite as well.
Cambridge told me via email that NASB20 will be the NASB version in their print runs starting next year
Unhappy to hear that.
I absolutely love the NASB 1995 translation. One of the best translations possible. If that discontinues, then I'll upgrade to the new LSB since I want my translation to be as accurate (aka close to the original language/meaning) as possible.
LSB is more literal.
I had a Lockman NASB 77 that got lost in a move. I wound up buying a Zondervan NASB 95, truth be told I preferred the 77 one. I prefer reading the KJV and the NKJV to the NASB 95. Not going to buy the 2020.
Tim, I appreciate your comments. With all due respect, may I correct one misunderstanding? There are thousands of Anglicans, in whose liturgies, prayer language includes “Thees and Thous”, down to this very day. Many of us pray this way every Sunday, during our services of worship and every day, several times a day, during our private or corporate prayers of Morning Prayer or Evening Prayer. Many of our churches still use either the KJV or the RSV read from the lectern and we pray or chant the psalms from the Coverdale Psalter. So, there are “still people using Thees and Thous”. It’s really not humorous or funny. There is no reason to insult, mock or make fun of the thousands of Christian brethren who pray in these ways. It is NOT obsolete. In fact, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) just published, in June of 2022, a new “Traditional Language” edition of their 2019 Book of Common Prayer. Perhaps someone needs to tell the ACNA that their prayers are obsolete!!
No disrespect intended. Probably those groups using the NASB, in general, no longer use "thees and thous." It's interesting to hear about Anglicans continuing to use this form of speech. Also, various groups that use the KJV still use this style when reading Scripture. I meant that it is no longer a typical way for most English Christians to speak. Great to hear from an Anglican! My first videos on this channel are an overview of John Stott's book Basic Christianity.
Isn't the Anglican church having multiple regional and ideological schisms right now? Isn't much of it about getting woke and gay.... maybe they didn't really read and understand the bible. 🤦♂️
BTDubbs, group prayer is not personal reading and comprehension of biblical concepts, it's repeating words for ritual purpose and identity reinforcement. Also big hats don't contain bigger brains or wizard powers 🤯
Dropping Only Begotten is the big one for me . Gender accuracy is not a problem at all.
I’ve moved to the LSB. It maintains the “Legacy” of the NASB 95 and makes changes for the better.
The Tetragrammaton is written as Yahweh, words have been translated consistently, other textual changes have been made regarding accuracy; For example 2 Peter 3:10, etc.
Steadfast Bibles (Three Sixteen Publishing) continues to publish good quality NASB ‘95 Bibles. I also suspect more publishing companies to create their own version of the ‘95 in the future since it still has such a following. Heck, you can still buy new copies of the NASB ‘77 so I don’t foresee the ‘95 disappearing.
Translation updates are primarily “business decisions” by the organizations/publishing houses that own the copyrights - plain and simple. Look at the NKJV. It is still going strong after 40 years with no updates, nor is one needed. Come on guys, these publishing houses know when they create a new “update,” folks will run out and buy one.
Having said that, there are instances where an update is of benefit, such as the 1769 update of the 1611 KJV. The english language had changed quite a bit in that 150+ year span. The 10-20 +/- year updates that we get bombarded with as of late are not necessary.
These folks all have nice, eloquent stories of “why” they undertook an update. Now, let’s be real, they will never come out and say, “We decided to create an update because we wanted to stimulate sales.” 🙄
I believe this.
I like the 2020, I just don’t understand why the translators chose to translate Psalm 23:2 as “lets me lie down” versus “makes” when the Hebrew is clearly causative.
Because it's not woke to make anyone do anything any more, don''t cha know???
The 95 should not be discontinued because the 2020 version has not stood the test of time yet. Every new version needs to be tested first, they need to gain traction
Schuyler! Grab on to the LSB for the quintel and the he Treveris! Why not run a poll and see how many would actually buy it? I don't know if 316 publishing would allow you to, but it might be something worth looking into. I'd buy it in a heartbeat, both editions!
That’d be cool, 32 gsm would be nice. Maybe in a few years, it takes a long time for them to get a premium up for sale
Tim, I know this doesn't pertain to your question but I don't know how else to ask you this. Do you know if the new Zondervan Thompson chain that will be coming out hopefully next year will be the NASB 1995 or 2020?
I don't believe that has been decided/announced yet.
The NASB1995 is way better than the NASB2020. I think they got to loose with some of the changes. I actually say this as someone who didn’t read either until last year. I originally thought I would like the 2020 better because I thought the language would be more current, but after reading both and comparing them the 1995 is far superior. It actually got to the point I had to stop reading the 2020 version. I don’t like it the slightest bit. The NASB 1995 is favorite translation currently now. I think they compromised the accuracy of the text by being too gender inclusive instead of being gender accurate. Mike Winger recently mentioned Galatians 3:26 for one of his Women and Ministry videos this week and he mentions the meaning of sons and why in this passage it would be a mistake to translate it from sons to sons and daughters like the 2020 version does and I agree with him. I find it fitting to some of the issues I have had with the 2020 version. This is because of the meaning the sonship status had at the time. In the body of Christ daughters and sons have been given sonship status in their relationship with God and the inheritance of God which has a cool, deeper meaning I think because at the time of the original text you had more access and privileges being a son vs a daughter. People want to argue that the Bible can be suppressive to women and I find the original translation of sons in this passage does the opposite. I think keeping it as sons, it’s more inclusive to women, because it shows how daughters were “promoted” and elevated through Christ. It demonstrates more of what Christ did apart from dying for our sins. I think it could be helpful for our culture to understand that now as followers there is no difference between sons and daughters in Christ which they will get from the 2020 text, but I think in places like this adding daughters is a mistake because it takes away from the meaning and in a way it takes away some of things Christ did because it doesn’t show how he elevated women.
I say this as someone who would love a translation that would be gender inclusive but it being under the umbrella of being gender accurate. I don’t have any issues with some changes to being gender inclusive if it were appropriate and accurate. I just think they were too lose with that in this update to the NASB translation. To me it has kind of lost some credibility in being the most accurate word for word translation as the 1995 is. Maybe I’m wrong, but those are my thoughts.
@@brittanywhite1318gender accurate versus inclusive versus neutral, all have overlap but not necessarily. Gender accurate is the way to go but that's not really understood AND traditionalists hate it for being progressive, liberals hate it for not being radical. I support not calling women men, it's bothered me since the 80s but now people believe in goofy gender ideals and it actually matters, but the revision has to help not hurt the context - for each rendering - or it just makes it worse. Conforming to current gender idealism trends cannot be a blanket policy [[ and if it gets into woke territory then the activists will be screaming about there is no gender, transition the kids from one gender to another, girl power, I hate men, let men dress like girls and savagely beat them in professional sports while we all scream smash the patriarchy and Jesus was the genderfluid of God that impregnated the birthing person Mary.... simultaneously]]
IMO NIV 2011 gets it right, probably because of the huge TNIV and NIVue black eye. I don't know about the NASB, I'm starting on 95 now, will try 2020 in the spring most likely. Honestly I hope they're both good.
Agreed
I tried switching to NASB 2020 But when I got to a verse in Joshua 8:18, It said that he was holding a sword, But I remember him holding a spear or javelin in the 95 version. I would argue that many people know the difference between the two weapons so if the 2020 version saw this as a readability issue and changed the item, what else did they change?
I actually don't mind the gender neutral thing because I don't see it as being part of the agenda that is current in today's culture.
Interesting note about Joshua 8:18 "sword" in the NET Bible: "Traditionally “spear,” but see HALOT 472 s.v. כִּידוֹן, which argues based upon evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls that this term refers to a curved sword of some type; note the definition “scimitar” given there."
@@AFrischPerspective Woah! Thank you for telling me this! I usually use online interlinear tools when I want to dig into the bible. I can't believe I missed this! 😅
Thank you for your response!
@@iamVarcana You're welcome!
Interesting! I saw other commenters complaining that the NASB 2020 was a purely aesthetic update, but this is an example of at least one change based on newer research.
Tim, I have all the premium bible versions I could ever read for the rest of my lifetime so shall not be getting another one. My favourites are the LSB and the ESV. I will also happily read from the KJV, which was all I had for years, and the NKJV. I'd say, being female, that reading all the brethren's and sons etc I know that I am among them as a child of God, yet it can occasionally be off- putting as if females were left out purposely. I don't read Hebrew of Greek but very much apreciate hearing from those who do.
I don’t like how they changed dwelling to rooms like the niv reads in Jn 14.2 also how they changed psalms 23 to sound less like the KJV. Was gonna get a copy until I seen this. Person might as well just read the Niv seems like much of the same language is used
I mean they all seem to be headed that way at least the ones that are CT
The "Gender Accurate" rewriting is for me the issue at hand, and I don't buy in to the assumption that makes the text more accurate. Why not change all the mentions of sandals to flip-flops to allow for better understanding? What I want in my bible is what the author said, with a footnote if that is hard to understand. Paul did not say "brothers and sisters," he said "brothers", which a woman in the audience would have heard as a message also spoken to her. "brothers and sisters" is a term that pretends that Paul focused on gender equality, which he clearly didn't.
Some would suggest and I would be one that when Paul addressed Brothers if there were women in the audience that they would have heard that as brothers and sisters in the original Greek. We use phrases "you guys" down here in Texas we use the word y'all. This aspect I do not have much of a problem with it all and I realize we can differ on this issue. Where we do agree as I don't think the nasb needed to be updated just yet. Maybe in another 10 or 15 years but not now
@@ThecrosseyedTexan I agree. The women would have heard that phrase to include them as well, but that doesn't mean that Paul went out of his way to change his language to make sure he was including everyone. I would say that using "you guys" is a much closer way to translate what he is actually saying, although guys lack some of the warmth and relational closeness of "brothers", so I understand that they didn't go for that as the official translation! For me, this is an awkward phrasing, and a slippery slope, especially in a time where it seems everyone is bent on changing the word of God into whatever they want it to mean. Personally, I will shift to the LSB rather than to the NASB 2020, but let me concur: This is an issue where we can differ, it's a matter of personal preference (at least for now) and luckily, there are plenty of translations to choose from.
This is where reading the preface in the front of your Bible is useful. It very plainly points out that the "and sisters" is in italics to show that it isn't part of the original text but is there for clarity. You don't have to read any of the italicized words if you choose not to but it does increase the accuracy of the translation.
Ungren L, I so agree, and I'm a woman. I want a literal translation. I have a brain that knows I'm part of "mankind," etc. I don't need additions to what was originally written.
Is the NASB 2020 available with cross references?
I have a Quentel 1995 engraved with my name, and love it. I wouldn't mind a 2020, the changes are sound. What I really want is a LSB Quentel and LSB Treveris.
The LSB is very very similar to the 2020. Very marginal differences. My problem with the LSB is the use of Yahweh rather than YHWH. Most of the changes heralded as big changes can be found in the 2020. I'd be more interested in adding the CSB over the LSB if you already have the 95 or 2020. If you do not own the NASB at all then the LSB might be a good choice.
What is the difference between the Treveris and Quentel Bibles?
The 1995 Quentel is not discontinued. I Just Ordered the 1995 Schuyler Quentel NASB, Full Yapp Black Goatskin Bible from Evangelical Bible. FEDEX is arriving tomorrow. Maybe at the time of this video it was unavailable but not discontinued.
Where can I preorder ?
I think it’s like when musicians make music especially interesting for other musicians, lockman turned away from other musicians and are making music for everyone now.
Though I have a 1977 NASB Open Bible and a 1995 NASB New Inductive Study Bible and prefer them. I'm old enough that I know that when the scripture says, you must forgive men that it means mankind or others. I can't say I've ever looked closely at the differences between the two.
I want to see is the 95 Quentel vbv black letter or red isn’t a big deal but I would love to see vbv
I'm a big fan of the 95 which is my fave but now reading the 2020 I am getting into it more than I thought I would. The small textual changes in regards to manuscript updates are always welcome. The gender neutral stuff isn't as bad as I thought but I do own the Stridon version which has good notes anyhow. That might be a big help.
I use the LSB now but will use NASB 1995 if it's handy too.
I love the LSB but was disappointed with large giant print in the quality of paper ,ghosting and print is light . I’m hoping it will improve .
When I walk into a room with both genders in it and say, "Hey guys. What's up?" They look at me all confused because we're all stupid today.
The argument that gender exclusive pronouns are confusing to modern English speakers is a falsehood. The amount of pushback that publishers receive is evidence that people are not confused but annoyed for being thought of as being so stupid. Also, in places like Psalm 41 where the passage is truly referring to Christ, the inclusiveness creates separation between the passage and Christ.
I also guess Proverbs is only about men since most publishers still have male pronouns used throughout most of the book, but they changed it in other places because it's "confusing" as to when the male pronouns are inclusive to women or not.
I don’t like that they changed “transgressions” to “wrongdoings”. It seems like a much softer word and sounds a bit cheesy in comparison.
Personally, when it comes to the modern church giving in to changes in popular culture, the Bible itself is my UNEQUIVOCAL red line in the sand.
I will NOT accept any changes that even REMOTELY seem to cater to the desires of this lost generation.
The English language has NOT changed enough to make 1977, or 1995 NASB translations uninteligible. That is a ridiculous, disingenuous line of thought.
These changes are unwarranted, unnecessary, and despite all your covering for them, completely suspect in the days we are living in.
I am old enough to understand that when a "Liberal" ideologue says: "We are not trying to do X, we are just doing A & B. That's far, far away from X...".
The reality is that not 15 years down the line they kept nudging almost imperceptibly until they reached "X" right in front of our faces and in many cases with our indirect approval.
No sir. NOT with the word of God.
There are only two directions. You can either keep moving in the direction of a total surrender to the will of God, or in the direction the fallen world is going.
Too many so called Christians keep playing the devil's "apologist", using arguments of men to excuse these seemingly minute, "innocent" changes toward modern feminism and post-modernistic gender ideology.
You are all free to choose to go along with the flow.
But as for me and my house, we will not participate. The word of God is PERFECT as it stands and translations are already plentiful for all litterary and stylistic tastes.
Of all the changes that could be made to a Bible translation, choosing gender ideology as the place to go in the year 2022 says all I need to know about these modern translation committees.
Well Tim I think it has a lot to do with timing
That too, but that's not all.
I am not so sure the “gender accurate” changes are main reason people have turned away from the 2020. It certainly is an issue to many, but the 2020 is a very significant re-write of the 95. Most of the changes are totally unnecessary as our English language has NOT changed that significantly since 95. It really feels like the 2020 is a dumbed-down version and as the NASB 95 is popular for its accuracy and scholarship few people were looking for an update that made it more simple.
Being a 'sister', I consider myself a part of the 'brethren' of Christ. Men can be the Bride of Christ and women can be the brethren of Christ. The Bible is full of gender nouns, pronouns and verbs. Without them, we wouldn't know the heart of our Father God and Holy Spirit. Original Text giving the names of God include masculine, gender neutral and feminine when speaking of the compassionate heart of our Father. When the term 'man' is used, this can be male or female. (In the beginning He created man - both male and female. Remember?) Man can be translated as 'human'. I disagree with adding words or changing the wording of the Bible. If the original author didn't write 'sister', then don't take such liberties with the author's writing. Why change the scripture? The Lockman 1995 NASB version has been known to be the most accurate translation of the original text. (until LSB) The evangelicalbible.com website states the 2020 version is "An excellent bridge to a new generation." We don't need a WOKE Bible! We need true, accurate scripture as it was originally written.
Amen sister!
Well said, from another woman. The authors wrote "and sisters" when they were inspired to do so. When they weren't and didn't, neither should we. I would have liked for the NASB to maintain its reputation as the most literal word for word translation. The 2020 is NOT.
As a woman I agree. I am actually going to move to the lsb as my update to the 95.
The NASB20 has dumbed-down vocabulary choices, not as rich or elegant as the NASB95. The NASB20 also has succumbed to politically-correct gender ideology.
Is this an extensive issue? Could you give examples?
@@AFrischPerspective off the top of my head, it replaced "brood of vipers" with "offspring of vipers." Re: gender ideology, in St. Mark it replaced "fishers of men" with "fishers of people."
@@SaltyPalamite Thanks for the specifics. I personally wouldn't see this as "dumbed-down" vocabulary. But maybe you would be able to show me other examples with more time.
@@SaltyPalamite The word "brood" isn't so archaic as to be out of usage, but it seems to be used nowadays with a tinge of irony (outside of beekeeping, at least) precisely because it is archaic, suggesting that modern readers will interpret the line "brood of vipers" as sarcastic rather than damning.
@@MAMoreno Heaven forbid if the contemporary reader needs to look up a word in the dictionary.
The NASB should be as accurate as possible to the original Greek and Hebrew. The ‘95 is considered highly accurate AND readable. Changing “men” to “men and women” or “brothers” to “brothers and sisters” is appropriate, however, those weren’t the only changes. They also removed words such as: shall, thus, iniquity, deliver, transgressions, and many others. The average reader can still understand those words and their use keeps that traditional “Holy Bible” feel (that many of us enjoy) intact. They aren’t just making the NASB more gender accurate, they are dumbing it down as a whole. If they keep trying to make it as current as possible, then it will eventually be considered more of a dynamic or “thought-for-thought” translation instead of a literal translation where it should stay.
The original languages could have used the same gender accurate language but they DID NOT. God himself didn't inspire the authors to do so when he could. So this is a horrible thing translators have done. There's a reason for having footnotes and commentary. I can't stand this trend. It's not conservative but rather the opposite, no matter how you want to paint it.
Thank you for posting this because I didn't realize the other words that have been changed. The words iniquity, transgression, and sin all have a different meaning according to the Greek. Very important different meanings. Therefore I will not be getting a 20/20.
@@moisesg.v.1575 But back then, the audience understood when the Bible was referring to ALL humans even when it said “Men”. People today can get confused by this so it hurts more than it helps. Again, if the translators made those explicit occurrences gender accurate and stopped there, then it would be fine. The real problem is all the other critically meaningful words they’re removing and/or changing.
@@Daniel5.14I totally see this too. They believe in 3rd and 4th wave feminism, smashing the patriarchy acts attacking TERFs, gender fluidity, trans the kids.... reinforcing genders ain't such a bad idea, if the source text is ambiguous or meant in broad terms.
Im Greek , and "ανθρωπος" just means person... its not a gendered word in its meaning, its just male in a grammatical sense ...
in the same way that "house" is female in spanish, its a gramatical gender , spanish speakers dont think that houses are literaly girls
I wish it was easier to ask someone who knows Greek for help in my quest to find what English translations ( I know it not possible to have EVERYTHING in a single translation) are the CLOSEST and have the MOST in what I am looking for in a great and faithful translation of the New Testament.
@@---zc4qt The closest overall ? NRSVUE
@@---zc4qt As a native Greek speaker who can read Koine , the NRSVUE is actually the closest thing in English...
I have a paperback 1995 NASB. I will not be getting the 2020 or the LSB unless it gets too worn out. I will not get the LSB period, but the 1995 or the 2020 based on availability. I have no problem with the gender accurate language. Lockman, in my opinion has too many different NASB's on the market with the 1995, 2020 and the LSB. Other Bible companies are having to make hard choices and it will be based on sales I promise you.
I will not be reading/buying the NASB 2020.
Reasons:
Unnecessary change for profit and pandering.
I just purchased a NASB Schuyler Bible in the 1995 version because I will not purchase the 2020 NASB. No, Bible translations should stay away from going into gender specifics. Yes: the genders should be specific as we are aware what “men” means. If Bibles continue changing to please the wants of men, then I feel that we are giving in too much. Maybe I didn’t make any sense. And I don’t know what the problem is/was with the word Brethren. Unless one just doesn’t understand English, why is it so difficult to understand this word? 🤷♀️
Makes me want to get back into the KJV or NKJV before ESV updates again. 🙄
NKJV is my favorite, perhaps because I grew up with the KJV which I also still love, but NASB95 is a close second with ESV after that. I though ESV would never stop revising!
My go to Bibles are the NKJV and the NASB 71 - yep, the 71. I’ve also got the 95 and am not keen on the 2020. Too much bowing to modern sensibilities.
Maybe the inspired words in the scripture are intended to say what they say. Maybe God intended to convey language and terms that put "women" within "men." Maybe the scriptures were very purposefully conveying the doctrinal concept of order; God-man-woman. Woman is within man, who is within Christ.
If you feel the need to change the occurrences of masculine plurals to read inclusively, now, should we then also address the term "bride" as a reference for Christ's church? Maybe "bride" is the wrong term and not inclusive enough because some people will not like or understand that men are included in this feminine term? No. Let's leave the concept as the Holy Spirit inspired it to be written.
Amen. Seriously thinking of going KJV again
I think apart from the gender issues, any of the changes just took away from some of the meaning. I can’t remember exactly which verses because I just hated the 2020 so much, but I think a lot of the changes lost accuracy and meaning.
Terrible. In my view the 2020 is the worst thing could happen to the NASB.
But why do you not have a problem with situations where the NASB 95 is gender neutral? It just seems the reaction is overstated.
The original languages could have used the same gender accurate language but they DID NOT. God himself didn't inspire the authors to do so when he could. So this is a horrible thing translators have done. There's a reason for having footnotes and commentary. I can't stand this trend. It's not conservative but rather the opposite, no matter how you want to paint it.
I am inclined to agree at least when a translation posits to be literal as the NASB does. The issue I have had with the NASB is it says in the preface it is literal, formal equivalence, but has many "Literal" renderings in the footnotes.
I've used NASB 95 for a long time. I never heard the word "Quentel" and don't know what it means. My 95 does not have that strange word on it.
I like it
CONTRACTIONS!!!
LSB is where it’s at folks. I’ve fully made the jump and I’m not sad about it.
Agreed.
There are other publishers that are still making the 1995 nasb lockman still making them and so is zonderfin and they're making them at least Donovan and some pretty nice bindings. It's not like all publishers are going to stop making them and most people I know can't afford a $200 Bible anyway. It's just my opinion please be nice LOL
Those very possibly will fade out to 77 status being harder to find good bindings, they lost their unique status except with the LSB which is also not very available(crossway is probably sitting back with a smile watching lockman make these business decisions lol)
@@bstring3967 just out of curiosity, you a bass player?
@@ThecrosseyedTexan bass is one of many instruments I play, all of which I do not play particularly well lol
@@bstring3967 the name gave you away I played bass for a very long time due to some nerve damage I can't play any longer
@@ThecrosseyedTexan that’s like making it to the nba and getting an injury, that sucks man. I’m in the same boat I don’t play for long and I try to play other instruments and program them. You ever try percussion or keyboard if that bothers?
Nothing is a deal breaker for me in the 2020. I tend to like it more. I do wish they had kept the word begotten in places like John 3:16. The change is a common translational decisions so it's not a huge deal.
This is hard to hear you speak on this matter. Gender inclusive language should have no part in a translation that seeks to glorify God. Most all translations have capitulated to the culture. *Terms like "brethren" and "man" were always gender inclusive terms.* Now instead of “brethren” or “brothers,” egalitarians want “brothers and sisters.”
“A translator ought to endeavor not only to say what his author has said, but to say it as he has said it.”- John Conington
You know what the Bible says in the original language when it wants to address brothers and sisters? James 2:14f
14 What is the use, my *brothers* (ἀδελφοί), if someone claims to have faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a *brother* (ἀδελφὸς) or *sister* (ἀδελφὴ) is without clothes and lacking food for the day,
- parentheses ( ) are mine
It says brothers and sisters. In other words, the biblical writers had no qualms saying "brothers and sisters" - WHEN they want to (v. 15). On the other hand, there's a reason why they chose to use "brothers" (ἀδελφοί) when referring to brothers & sisters (v.14).
Remember, a synagogue or church was established by men. And men are or were always the head of the household.
I realized in this current Sitz im Leben men are often portrayed in an unfavorable manner. However, God and his Word tells us the true importance of man. 1 Cor 11:7ff:
7 For in fact, a man must not to cover his head, since he is the image and reflection of God. But the woman is the reflection of man.
8 For man does not come from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the sake of woman, but rather, woman for the sake of man.
Why is it important to say something as God intended? “Translation is not a matter of words only: it is a matter of making intelligible a whole culture.”- Anthony Burgess
See in the way you talk (and NASB 2020) the culture informs the Bible. I am saying that the Bible should inform the thinking of this culture. It is still the best selling Book each year.
So don't abandon "man" or "mankind." Don't change "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" because you THINK you know more than God. Because we don't. And what is written is perfect; it is all intentional.
As far as other updates. Not just the 2020, but all Bible translations are severely lacking in displaying poetic devices used by the biblical writers. There is another level of artistry present in the Bible that translations haven't displayed. But that is all I want to say on this matter.
Hell with mash 2020 don’t cover up in exchange for money 💰…
The Cambridge Topaz arriving in September will be the 2020 update. If you were a publisher why would you continue to publish an obsolete version of the translation? The smart bet is that even if the 95 stays in print the market will move to the 2020.
The 77 NASB is still in print. The NASB is different than a lot of other translations, likely due to its use in academia.
Or the market will move to the LSB.
@@afterdarkness-light I thought I read they just announced an update to the LSB. So much for "Your Translation for a Lifetime" - maybe eventually they'll get there I guess.
@@RoastBeefSandwich you need to listen to Frisch's take on that newest update. It's not that big of deal and it is not an unusual thing for new translations. So, as I said, listen to what Tim has to say about it.
@@afterdarkness-light when will it be my translation for a lifetime, after which update is my question.
The NASB 95 is my primary Bible. I am very sensitive to the gender issue. I prefer traditional correct English that doesn't attempt to cater to the modern sensibilities. I believe the Bible reflects gender roles that are rooted in creation and therefore meant to be heeded by Christian's in all generations throughout the Church Age. That being said, I have no problem with the way the NASB 2020 handled the gender issue. I think it actually improves accuracy. The reason I reject the 2020 update is because it moves farther away from the real strength of the NASB which is being transparent to the underlying languages. In the translators' desire to produce an all around Bible they smooth it out and l lose its distinction of being the best English translation to study the underlying Greek and Hebrew. They did this in the 95 update as well so I have gone through the text and marked the issues in it. The NASB is not a great all around translation and should just stop trying to be one. But it's excellent for deep study and should try to be better at that. The 2020 is not that good of an update and is going in the wrong direction. As for the particular changes in the 2020, I like about a third of them, and think they improve the translation. I don't understand why they didn't fix more of the obvious problems from the 95. If they had fixed all those issues and not introduced a host of others, I might have considered moving but it's too much work to keep on top of all if it. Lockman will not produce good quality Bibles for a reasonable price anymore anyway. You can get a good quality NASB made by Zondervan but Lockman won't allow them to include the full set of translation notes. With many translations that's not really a problem, one would barely miss the notes. But with the NASB, so many important renderings are in the notes, it is like losing part of the translation.
We cannot get a good quality '77 version, AMG only produces mediocre products. After beginning production of the LSB, Steadfast told me last year that they would not slow down producing the 95 versions but they obviously have. Evangelicalbible said last year that even though they were producing the 2020 version, they would be producing the 95 for the foreseeable future, but apparently that foreseeable future lasted one print run. You can get a good quality Korean made 2020, but you have to pay the price of a Schuyler or a Cambridge to get it. As nice as these Korean Bibles are, they are not Schuyler quality. Lockman is supposed to be producing some of these Korean editions with the 95 text for the same high prices but it remains to be seen whether the formats will be good enough to compensate for the prices. This is how it's been for NASB users for years. Honestly, I have started marking up an ESV text, thinking about getting off this rollercoaster.
The true NASB95 update is the LSB.
I have no problem with "forgive others" because we should be forgiving to all, even transgenders. That does not mean we excuse their behavior.
I love the NASB 2020. It is my new main translation.
The problem is not simply modern culture vs. classic culture, it's God centered thinking vs. Human centered way of thinking. If the Church doesn't teach women about masculine headship and representation, what does the Church teach women then? I don't wanna come off arrogantly but it seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong, but we compromise with worldly culture to the point where we take out Adam's headship altogether.
I finally got around to watching this video. You give a fair and balanced perspective about the 2020. I personally love it and I do find it far more readable and less clunky than the 1995. Let’s face it. The 95 is a great study tool. The 2020 is a better preaching tool.
The LSB is no go for me cuz John MacArthur is involved.
Changing Interpretations of tongues to translate? Yeah no Thanks.
Nasb 2020 dropping only begotten. Modern versions should be putting that back in not removing it.
So NASB 95 For the Win
Transgressions to wrongdoing is another one🤦♂️
Also, it’s humorous to note the fact that certain archaic words found in the KJV MORE accurately reflect the original terminology than any modern translation is able to! The use of words like “brethren” and “thee” and “thou” are far better translations of their Greek counterparts than is possible in modern English. The comments I’ve read thus far from the 95ers seem to opine the fact that modern English has changed more than anything and then resort to many of the same arguments KJV advocates have been using ever since I can remember!
“Thee” and “thou” aren’t better translations for the singular personal pronoun because no one in 2022 uses “thee” and “ye” to differentiate between singular and plural. If the speakers of the receptor language do not use language that way, it is a poor translation into that language. The KJV was an excellent translation into jacobean English and while it is still a very understandable translation in 2022 English, the nuance doesn’t come through to most modern readers because language has changed due to no fault of the speakers or the translators.
@@cmiddleton9872 Thanks for the English lesson. I know we don’t use those words that way today….that was my point! There is no way (currently) to convey EXACTLY the same sense of those words found in Koine Greek. And I’m not arguing for us to bring them back or to switch over to the KJV. My contention is that it’s okay for us to move on every so often to newer translations that better conform to modern usage. And that’s not dumbing things down as I’ve heard many argue-it’s communicating the original intent to the current reader in the most accurate (though not always perfect) way possible. And as Tim points out, the use of annotations, italics, and other tools serve to more completely render the sense of the original language.
I think many people consider "reading" to be the same as comprehension, it's absolutely not. That's obvious when KJVonlyists go into wild tirades about each and every verse they're stuck on, but don't get the entirety of the chapter and book they're sampling.
I think personal Christology should be based on understanding the entire messianic paradigm since Genesis, theme by theme throughout the books. Slight wording changes really shouldn't throw that off, though not reading often and actually understanding what is read DOES retard wisdom. If someone finds a version enjoyable to read, that isn't outright altering the text, it's a legitimate pathway to know God by his own auto-biography.
@@nobodyspecial1852 I couldn't agree more, brother!
I suspect that some people will have an issue with the decision to move Acts 8.37 to the footnotes in the 2020 edition. The 1995 edition keeps the verse in the text, albeit in brackets.
(I can't speak for myself on this issue, since I consider the 2020 NASB to be the edition that should've come out in 1995. The NRSV--alongside the NJB, REB, CEV and the 1992 edition of the TEV--had already shown that gender-accurate language was the current standard for translation, and the 1995 NASB should've followed suit, as the 1996 NLT did.)
I only have an NRSV because of Harper Collins. It’s a bit clunky to read.
I like the old RSV or ESV personally but I’m tending now to try to read in the original languages.
Late to the game on this video. I am sure you meant to say that Schuyler should only be printing the KJV. Right? 🤣🤣🤣 I'm liking the NASB 2020. Very smooth read.
The 1984 NIV was excellent for that style of translation. It was then successfully degraded through to the 2011 version. Sad to see the NASB is going down the same road. I guess its KJV and hoping the ESV will stay as it as for an alternate easier to read version. It appears these publishers are trying to A) Create "new" translations purely for copyright greed and 2) to cater to the rapidly deteriorating society. I personally will not support this. The NASB is now relegated to the growing trash heap of modern bible history.
The NASB-2020 is NOT an improvement of the NASB-95.
Some of the verses that the NASB-95 gets WRONG are: Gen. 12:1, Lev. 23:4, Esther 1:1, Ps. 23:1, Ps. 23:6, Ps. 119:97, Ps. 145:9!!!!!!!, Matt. 4:5, Matt. 5:14, Matt. 7:7!!!!!!!!!!!, Matt. 20:20, Mark 7:19, Mark 7:28, Mark 15:13, Luke 2:11, Luke 3:33, Luke 9:57, Luke 16:13, Luke 16:23, John 1:5?, John 3:7, John 5:10, John 10:22-23, John 11:11, John 11:35, John 21:15-17, Acts 7:21, Acts 11:13, Acts 14:13!!!!!!!!!!, Acts 16:37, Acts 16:38, Acts 22:2, Rom. 10:4, Rom. 16:1, Gal. 2:21, Gal. 3:1, Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:5?, 1 Tim. 3:1, 2 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 11:1, Heb. 11:24, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:17, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 2:2, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 12:10, Rev. 20:11, and other verses.
The translation of the Bible has been an interest and concern of mine for MANY years.
I’ve switched from NASB to mev
I love what they did with the NASB2020. It has become my main. I still love the 77, 95, and LSB, but, as an English teacher this is something I have to constantly point out to my students (reading Shakespeare and Thoreau with them and, for all of Shakespeare’s wokeness, he obviously used masculine-neutral language, much more so did Thoreau, even when he was as Liberal, Republican, and Universalist as they come). I love the KJV and those older translations but again, I’m an English teacher and this is just not the language of today. Gender accuracy actually makes a Bible MORE accurate and literal when it explains things. One of the main reasons I ended up jumping ship from the ESV to the NASB and then the 2020 was a natural evolution of that.
I don't see any agenda in the NASB 2020. The criterion used by the translators seems to be strictly academic. It is certainly a quite different case to that of the NRSV, which is clearly gender inclusive, not gender accurate. This said, putting the gender issue aside, I really don't think that 25 years justify a new edition of the NASB. I mean, it is not the case that English has changed that much so as to make it difficult for native English speakers to understand the 95 edition. In this sense, I don't think that 25 years justify the 'generational argument' for making a new edition. If it were at least 50 years, maybe (and, of course, if new manuscript discoveries justify it). Nevertheless, just consider that even non native English speakers, like myself, can read and understand without problems older translations like the RSV, and even the KJV with relative ease. At the end, I believe that the continuous editions of the NASB (truly a great translation) make it more difficult for it grow as a preferred translation, which can be reflected in its poor performance in the sales rankings. Anyway, as you mentioned, it is not that the NASB 95 will disappear anytime soon.
Good one, Tim. And what do these menfolk want for their 14 year-old daughters and granddaughters? And great granddaughters? 🤔🌹🌹🌹
Brethren should stay. Brothers is a mistranslation but Brothers and Sisters are too much for what is supposed to be as literal as possible. And brethren reads better. Stick with Brethren.
I also disagree with removing There, thou, and ye. These words add appropriate distinction for the singular and the plural. Just explain what they are in the beginning.
This does not matter as much in a thought-for-thought translation, but the NASB is not going for that.
I'm ok with translating men to others, with a footnote, for clarity. It's reads well and is clear.
John 3:16 is a reason for me. “begotten” is a rich theological term. “One and only” is not (not to say it’s inaccurate, per se, but it doesn’t come with the rich theological context and definitions).
Waaaay late to the game here, Tim, but didn't you ask for comments NOT related to the gender issue? LOL!
Unfortunately the never-ending assault on gender in postmodern America has caused many of us biblical conservatives to become hypersensitive and overreact to situations like this. Clearly the NASB committee has made an honest effort to be MORE accurate to the original intent of the writer-which is the essence of biblical conservatism regarding translation! I’m interested to see how your 95ers respond to this video in the comments.