# Any updates on the new NASB translation?



## JTB.SDG (Jan 12, 2018)

Does anyone know how it's coming along and when they are thinking it will be released? Also, what kinds of changes they are expected to make?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 13, 2018)

I emailed them a while back, and, if I remember correctly, the date has been pushed back to mid 2019. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that is what I was told. 

I dont know what changes will be made; I remember reading that there will be an emphasis on the OT though. 

And finally, they said they would be offering it in more formats than their current offerings. Hopefully something akin to a reader's edition, or at least single column? We will see.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> I emailed them a while back, and, if I remember correctly, the date has been pushed back to mid 2019. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that is what I was told.
> 
> I dont know what changes will be made; I remember reading that there will be an emphasis on the OT though.
> 
> And finally, they said they would be offering it in more formats than their current offerings. Hopefully something akin to a reader's edition, or at least single column? We will see.


My understanding is that the 1995 revision concentrated on updating NT mainly, and the new revision will be focused on the OT, using the latest NA 28 Greek text.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 13, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> My understanding is that the 1995 revision concentrated on updating NT mainly, and the new revision will be focused on the OT, using the latest NA 28 Greek text.



The way you wrote that sounds like they’ll use the NA28 to revise the OT. I’m assuming the idea is the OT will be the primary focus and they’ll use the NA28 for an NT revisions?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 13, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> The way you wrote that sounds like they’ll use the NA28 to revise the OT. I’m assuming the idea is the OT will be the primary focus and they’ll use the NA28 for an NT revisions?


Yes, there may be some minor revisions on the NT side, but the main emphasis will be on the OT, and they are conservative, so doubt will have much noticeable changes, other than smoothing out some of their extreme literal renderings.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 13, 2018)

I love the reliability of how literal it is. Hope they don't "smooth it out" too much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 15, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> I love the reliability of how literal it is. Hope they don't "smooth it out" too much.


That is why I have still the 1977 Nas edition, as that one seemed to be more literal in some ways than the smoothed out 1995 revision.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 15, 2018)

I have the '77 and the '95. The fact that G.K. Beale uses the NASB impresses me, for whatever that is worth. I once did a google search for _most accurate_, as opposed to most literal, and the NRSV seemed to be what came out on top. At least academia thought so. I do have an RSV, and a RV, but I'm _not_ going for the NRSV.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> That is why I have still the 1977 Nas edition, as that one seemed to be more literal in some ways than the smoothed out 1995 revision.



Does that have the "thee"s and "thou"s? If not which NASB version is that?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Does that have the "thee"s and "thou"s? If not which NASB version is that?


Yes it does, as that is the 1977 version, one that I use.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 16, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> I have the '77 and the '95. The fact that G.K. Beale uses the NASB impresses me, for whatever that is worth. I once did a google search for _most accurate_, as opposed to most literal, and the NRSV seemed to be what came out on top. At least academia thought so. I do have an RSV, and a RV, but I'm _not_ going for the NRSV.


The NRSV would be the one favored by mainline churches, as my pastor had to use that version while completing his PhD in NT theology for them to see his research as being legit. It is way too much into inclusive gender language for my taste, better to use the Esv.


----------



## NoutheticCounselor (Jan 16, 2018)

I really hope that they still capitalize the pronouns for God!


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 16, 2018)

NoutheticCounselor said:


> I really hope that they still capitalize the pronouns for God!


Indeed they do, and they also still use italics for English words not in the Hebrew or the Greek, that have been added to clarify the meaning. The NKJV does likewise.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 16, 2018)

I was actually kind of hoping they would bring back the "thee"s and "thou"s. I know that's a massive longshot. But maybe at least they can add a kind of marker for them (like italics or small caps or something). This is the one element that makes me feel like I still need a KJV handy.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Jan 17, 2018)

The RSV has long been the darling of the secular academy.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 17, 2018)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> The RSV has long been the darling of the secular academy.


Especially when they mistranslated Virgin shall conceive as a young woman.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Especially when they mistranslated Virgin shall conceive as a young woman.


David, I’m not sure about calling it a mistranslation. Have you looked at the NASB margin?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 19, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> David, I’m not sure about calling it a mistranslation. Have you looked at the NASB margin?


Perhaps mistranslated was the improper term to use, would still see them as choosing to render the Hebrew into English in a way that would deny the truth that the Holy Spirit intended it to refer to a Virgin, as was made clear in the Gospel account.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Perhaps mistranslated was the improper term to use, would still see them as choosing to render the Hebrew into English in a way that would deny the truth that the Holy Spirit intended it to refer to a Virgin, as was made clear in the Gospel account.



I wanted to point that out because while obviously we know how Matthew used it and being God-breathed we’d agree with that text, and also we know the Septuagint used a word that means _virgin_, it’s worth noting the NASB never translates _alma_ as _virgin_ any other time other than Isaiah 7:14.

See Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Songs 1:3 & 6:8 for the other uses. 

If anything, the RSV translators were more consistent. And again, I’m not liberal in my theology. I have always believed in the virgin birth since I was a young child. I think we simply need to be careful not to overstate our case and make our credibility questionable.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 19, 2018)

Here it is in the current NASB;
14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
I once heard John MacArthur preach on this, on the radio, and he pointed out that _the Lord Himself will give you a sign_ proves the correct translation is virgin. The alternative, a 'young women' giving birth to a son, would hardly be 'a sign.' Rather, an everyday occurrence.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 19, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> I wanted to point that out because while obviously we know how Matthew used it and being God-breathed we’d agree with that text, and also we know the Septuagint used a word that means _virgin_, it’s worth noting the NASB never translates _alma_ as _virgin_ any other time other than Isaiah 7:14.
> 
> See Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; and Song of Songs 1:3 & 6:8 for the other uses.
> 
> If anything, the RSV translators were more consistent. And again, I’m not liberal in my theology. I have always believed in the virgin birth since I was a young child. I think we simply need to be careful not to overstate our case and make our credibility questionable.



A "literal" and consistent translation should not necessarily use the same English word or phrase to translate every instance of a Hebrew or Greek word as the semantic ranges may be different. The context requires a particular understanding of alma that does not belong to the English equivalent "young woman." There's good reason that every translation of the OT until very recently maintained "virgin."

As an aside, I really do wish you would yield to Rev. Winzer's request to change your user name. He and I may be weaker brothers in this case but it is like fingernails on a chalkboard every time I read it. I know it's not your intent in the least to imply any dishonor or levity but I'm not sure that the name above all names should be subjected to internet shorthand slang.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 19, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> And finally, they said they would be offering it in more formats than their current offerings. Hopefully something akin to a reader's edition, or at least single column? We will see.



E.R, can you expand on that? Is that what they told you when you emailed them? What do you mean a reader's edition? Lockman are the ones who translate, Foundation are the ones who publish. Are you saying when they come out with the new translation, Foundation has plans to publish other kinds of versions they haven't done yet?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 19, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> E.R, can you expand on that? Is that what they told you when you emailed them? What do you mean a reader's edition? Lockman are the ones who translate, Foundation are the ones who publish. Are you saying when they come out with the new translation, Foundation has plans to publish other kinds of versions they haven't done yet?



From the email I received from the Lockman Foundation, which I believe is one entity:

"Based on our current schedule, it does look like a mid-2019 release is likely. Bible translation work is complex and time consuming, so estimating the schedule has been difficult. With this update, I do believe there will be many more formats to choose from."

The 'many more formats' was in regard to me asking if they will offer more than past formats, and I used Crossway as an example of a company who has published many formats.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 20, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> From the email I received from the Lockman Foundation, which I believe is one entity:
> 
> "Based on our current schedule, it does look like a mid-2019 release is likely. Bible translation work is complex and time consuming, so estimating the schedule has been difficult. With this update, I do believe there will be many more formats to choose from."
> 
> The 'many more formats' was in regard to me asking if they will offer more than past formats, and I used Crossway as an example of a company who has published many formats.


Would be nice to have them produce their own Study Bible, in the same way the Esv as the Study Bible, or the Niv 2011 has its own Study Bible. Maybe have the new Nas in the MacArthur one?


----------



## ZackF (Jan 21, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would be nice to have them produce their own Study Bible, in the same way the Esv as the Study Bible, or the Niv 2011 has its own Study Bible. Maybe have the new Nas in the MacArthur one?



Well...the Lockman foundation would do well to take a page from Crossway. As much as I despise the flavor of the day bibles of the ESV and NIV, I find the NASB a great translation with poor opportunities to get into more hands.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 22, 2018)

ZackF said:


> Well...the Lockman foundation would do well to take a page from Crossway. As much as I despise the flavor of the day bibles of the ESV and NIV, I find the NASB a great translation with poor opportunities to get into more hands.


I would love to see the Nas in the Esv study bible, keeping their notes and just use that new translation now.


----------



## Beezer (Jan 26, 2018)

I stumbled upon this article on the NASB over at the Christian Post this morning. It was written last week. I've never used the NASB, so the subject discussed in the article is new to me.

For those who use the NASB has the use of the word "Palestine" in section headings ever given you cause for pause as it has done for the author?

Why would the NASB introduce the word "Palestine" when "Palestine" did not exist at that time? Those responsible for the NASB need to fix the error.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

