23ffdf No.839169
Family tree:
>1611 KJV -> 1769 KJV -> 1885 RV -> 1901 ASV -> 1977 NASB -> 1995 NASB
NASB is the patrician scholar's choice.
Since 2018 the Lockman foundation has been putting out snippets of a 2020 update they planned, no news about a release date. Maybe covid is causing delays.
There's trouble with some 2020 decisions, like the gender neutral stuff with adelphoi.
Qrd https://opened-heart.com/nasb-2020-update-news-and-review/
John MacArthur and Master's University has announced their own update called legacy standard Bible
https://disrn.com/news/john-macarthurs-masters-university-to-release-updated-version-of-nasb-called-legacy-standard-bible
Has anyone been following this? What are your thoughts?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1d4cc9 No.839171
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
23ffdf No.839172
>>839171
Hmmm interesting point
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
1e9570 No.839221
I see the NASB as sometimes having more emphasized renditions which is why it could be taken as being "literal".
If it were up to me the tetragrammaton would be rendered as YHWH with Lord in parenthesis next to it. I might not look as nice but it would be more faithful to what's on the source text. I'd rather keep "servant" also.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92dc9d No.839239
>>839169
>1885 RV
It doesn't even have Matthew 18:11 and it changed Mark 1:2 to say "Isaiah" instead of "the prophets" thus creating a contradiction as the quotation is taken from Malachi and is not written in Isaiah.
>1977 NASB
It further removed "for them that trust in riches" from Mark 10:24, and added the words "up into salvation" to 1 Peter 2:2 and added the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3. It also removes "Christ is come in the flesh" from 1 John 4:3.
These aren't equivalent translations.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
23ffdf No.839242
>>839239
The timeline is the textual basis for each translation. The asv is based on the RV, and so on.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92dc9d No.839245
>>839242
>The asv is based on the RV, and so on.
What changed so that the RV and ASV keep Mark 10:24 the same, but the NASB removes part of it? Furthermore, why is it that the RV removes Matthew 18:11, the ASV 1901 places it back, but then the NASB 1977 removes it again? So, what do you even mean by textual basis? They're just doing whatever they want. Nowadays they can do whatever changes they want because previous verses have messed around enough so that nobody who uses modern versions really cares. Who are you kidding?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5c8a72 No.839267
>>839169
i haz catth0lic edition which makes it even better :p
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
92dc9d No.839439
>>839267
No not really but I won't steal your book from you and burn it like some others did in the past to try to prove their side right.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.