# NASB?



## cwjudyjr (Apr 23, 2021)

What are the differences between NASB1977 and Updated NASB versions 1995 & 2020?

Recommendations on each?

Thank you!


----------



## Taylor (Apr 23, 2021)

With regard to the differences between the 1977 and the 1995, I don't think there is a huge difference. I have used the "compare" feature in Accordance, and it's almost identical. I know they took all the older pronouns (e.g., thee, thy, etc.) out in the Psalms and elsewhere. Other than that, I don't think it's all that different.

With regard to a evaluation of the NASB 2020, I made small comments here and here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 23, 2021)

cwjudyjr said:


> Recommendations on each?


You might be interested in the Legacy Standard Bible. It combines the strengths of the NASB 77 and 95, and is written in modern English. From what I can see the standard of translation is very high. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are now available, the rest of the Bible should be completed by the end of the year. 
https://lsbible.org/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 23, 2021)

They changed a lot of things in the 2020; I'm not a fan personally. I'll keep using the 95.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 23, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> You might be interested in the Legacy Standard Bible. It combines the strengths of the NASB 77 and 95, and is written in modern English. From what I can see the standard of translation is very high. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are now available, the rest of the Bible should be completed by the end of the year.
> https://lsbible.org/


This is interesting, I didn't know about it. Did they not necessarily like the changes coming in the NASB 2020 so they put together their own version of an update? Kind of sounds like that. I only read through a few passages but I still prefer the 95, both to the NASB 20 and the Legacy Standard. I'm going to keep stocking up


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Apr 23, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> You might be interested in the Legacy Standard Bible. It combines the strengths of the NASB 77 and 95, and is written in modern English. From what I can see the standard of translation is very high. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are now available, the rest of the Bible should be completed by the end of the year.
> https://lsbible.org/


I am looking forward to ordering the LSB once the whole bible is done.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 23, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> Did they not necessarily like the changes coming in the NASB 2020 so they put together their own version of an update?


The project started when John MacArthur read the NASB 2020 and did not like it. He got permission from the Lockman foundation to update the NASB 95, and selected a group of translators to work on the project. You will find a lot of helpful details at https://lsbible.org/


JTB.SDG said:


> Kind of sounds like that. I only read through a few passages but I still prefer the 95, both to the NASB 20 and the Legacy Standard.


I am curious. Why do you prefer the NASB 95 over the LSB? I use the ESV so the 95 is no major advantage to me, because it seems to me the 95 is less literal than the 77.

Here is a classic example. In 1 Pet 1:13 both the NASB 95 and the ESV read "Therefore, prepare your minds for action". The LSB follows the NASB 77 and is more literal. It reads "Therefore, having girded your minds for action". It seems to me the NASB 77 and the LSB preserve an important Hebraism. 

You can read significant portions of the LSB here https://read.lsbible.org/


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 23, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am curious. Why do you prefer the NASB 95 over the LSB? I use the ESV so the 95 is no major advantage to me, because it seems to me the 95 is less literal than the 77.


I'm not sure; I just like 95 better than the LSB. I read through Psalm 62, parts of 119 and some other passages. In LSB 62:9 says:

"Surely men of low degree are _merely _vanity and men of rank are a lie;
In the balances they go up;
They are together lighter than _a breath _of vanity." 

The last part just sounds a bit awkward to my ears; I prefer the 95:

"They are together lighter than breath." If it's not broken, don't fix it. That was my problem with all the changes to the 2020.

Psalm 119:4-5 in LSB says:

"You have commanded _us_, To keep Your precepts diligently.
Oh may my ways be established To keep Your statutes!"

I just prefer the beauty and rawness of the 95:

"You have ordained Your precepts, That we should keep them diligently.
Oh that my ways may be established To keep Your statutes."

Just my preference. Part of it may be I've been using NASB 95 for 20 years so I'm just so familiar with it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 23, 2021)

JTB.SDG said:


> If it's not broken, don't fix it.


The idea of the LSB was to make the NASB 95 more literal to the original languages where needed. That is why I said earlier they tried to use the best of both the NASB 95 and the more literal 77.


JTB.SDG said:


> Just my preference.


Agreed. I use the ESV which is about as literal as the NASB 95 so I don't see any point in using the 95 edition. My philosophy for using the LSB is that I will get the benefit of the fairly literal ESV and the very literal LSB.

I am glad the LSB changed the NASB 95 "All Scripture is inspired by God" to "All scripture is God-breathed". 2 Tim 3:16. The point of the passage is that all scripture is breathed *out *by God [ESV], not *in*spired. 

But I must emphasise all the translations we are talking about are very good translations.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 24, 2021)

For those interested there is a Legacy Standard Bible Facebook group. Some of the Bible translators are members of the group so you can ask a Bible translator a question if you want to.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 24, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The idea of the LSB was to make the NASB 95 more literal to the original languages where needed. That is why I said earlier they tried to use the best of both the NASB 95 and the more literal 77.
> 
> Agreed. I use the ESV which is about as literal as the NASB 95 so I don't see any point in using the 95 edition. My philosophy for using the LSB is that I will get the benefit of the fairly literal ESV and the very literal LSB.
> 
> ...


Good stuff Stephen. Again, I just read a few passages and you're talking to a dude who has used NASB 95 for basically my whole Christian life. I'd like to look more into the LSB trying to be a bit less biased from the outset

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cwjudyjr (Apr 25, 2021)

Thank you all for your input. I am grateful!

Of the NASB Study Bibles, which do you recommend???


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 25, 2021)

cwjudyjr said:


> Of the NASB Study Bibles, which do you recommend???


I don't think there are confessional Reformed study Bibles in the NASB. You could use the Reformation Heritage Study Bible and/or the Reformation Study Bible and use the NASB (ideally the LSB  ) alongside it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 26, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I use the ESV which is about as literal as the NASB 95


Brother, as someone who consults both of these translations on a weekly basis, I cannot agree with this statement. The ESV is much less literal than the NASB 95 and only slightly more literal than the NIV. Just my .


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 26, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Brother, as someone who consults both of these translations on a weekly basis, I cannot agree with this statement. The ESV is much less literal than the NASB 95 and only slightly more literal than the NIV. Just my .


Christopher, I will revise my statement slightly. The ESV is almost as literal as the NASB 95.  Let me list my reasons:

The CSB claims to be midway between the ESV and NIV. See their literal vs readable chart. They put the ESV and NASB close together in terms of literalness https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
When the ESV was translated J.I. Packer said the ESV will essentially do everything you need in terms of a literal translation. In terms of market share the ESV has taken most of the NASB's market share.
Like the NASB, the ESV states it is an 'essentially literal' translation. It is a long way from a dynamic equivalent translation.
A close friend of mine uses the NIV. I wanted him to use the ESV but he complains it has 'greekified' English - the same criticism he makes of the NASB. Here are a couple of examples of 'greekified' English in the ESV. Eph 6:10 "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might." "strength of his might is not natural English. 1 Cor 2:4 "but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" Again this is very literal English. The NIV and CSB are somewhat more readable.
Personally I think the NASB 95 is slightly less literal than the NASB 77. The LSB has moved closer to the NASB 77 in terms of being a literal translation. That is why I also added in an earlier post:


Stephen L Smith said:


> My philosophy for using the LSB is that I will get the benefit of the fairly literal ESV and the very literal LSB.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 26, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Christopher, I will revise my statement slightly. The ESV is almost as literal as the NASB 95.  Let me list my reasons:
> 
> The CSB claims to be midway between the ESV and NIV. See their literal vs readable chart. They put the ESV and NASB close together in terms of literalness https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
> When the ESV was translated J.I. Packer said the ESV will essentially do everything you need in terms of a literal translation. In terms of market share the ESV has taken most of the NASB's market share.
> ...


Brother, Your first three points consist of little more than ESV talking points for advertising. And it can't be doubted, this is their strong suit! Your last point is merely anecdotal. What you've said here consists of little more than bare assertions.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 27, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Brother, Your first three points consist of little more than ESV talking points for advertising. And it can't be doubted, this is their strong suit! Your last point is merely anecdotal. What you've said here consists of little more than bare assertions.


Brother, your argument was also a bare assertion.


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist (Apr 27, 2021)

I would avoid the 2020 update, and the LSB has definitely made improvements to the NASB and I would recommend reading the NT for now and wait for the full bible to release.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 27, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Brother, as someone who consults both of these translations on a weekly basis, I cannot agree with this statement. The ESV is much less literal than the NASB 95 and only slightly more literal than the NIV. Just my .





Stephen L Smith said:


> Christopher, I will revise my statement slightly. The ESV is almost as literal as the NASB 95.  Let me list my reasons:
> 
> The CSB claims to be midway between the ESV and NIV. See their literal vs readable chart. They put the ESV and NASB close together in terms of literalness https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/
> When the ESV was translated J.I. Packer said the ESV will essentially do everything you need in terms of a literal translation. In terms of market share the ESV has taken most of the NASB's market share.
> ...


With all due respect to both of you, this conversation about "most literal" has been had so many times on this forum that I’m surprised you are deciding to hash it out again in this thread.

First, even defining "literal" is a difficult and highly debated enterprise. By "literal," some people mean "literalistic," while others mean "translating the meaning." Both are valid. But even then, if I learned one thing in seminary Greek and Hebrew, it’s that the word "literal" is more often than not unhelpful. I am hesitant of even use the term in what follows.

Second, with the NASB and ESV, it is difficult to say whether or not one translation is "more literal" than the other; both are more literal in some places, and less literal in others.

Third, and along the same lines as the previous point, as someone who has used and compared these two translations extensively, I can say confidently that there are many places where the NASB is more literal than the ESV, and there are about as many places where the ESV is more literal than the NASB.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 27, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Third, and along the same lines as the previous point, as someone who has used and compared these two translations extensively, I can say confidently that there are many places where the NASB is more literal than the ESV, and there are about as many places where the ESV is more literal than the NASB.


Taylor, I honestly was going to put a stop to this; I was not going to let our original conversation drag on. I am aware of the problem of definition. Your last comment is basically my view.


----------



## Boreal (Apr 27, 2021)

I’ve been using the LSB NT & Psalms for about a week now, and I am a fan thus far. 

My children (4, 4) also seem to be able to understand it well as we read through Luke, for what it’s worth.

I’m looking forward to the full Bible release in the autumn, assuming I’m not in a gulag by then. 

I’ve been using the ESV for about 7 years, and the last year jumping between ESV and NASB

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## cwjudyjr (Apr 29, 2021)

Thank you all for the valuable input!

God Bless,
Conrad


----------

