# NASB2020



## JTB.SDG (Mar 25, 2019)

I just found this site which gives some concrete examples of the updated version of NASB in 2020: https://opened-heart.com/2017/12/11/NASB-2018-2019-release-news/#_Summary

Might be just personal preference, but I don't like it....  If you're like me, you may want to stock up for a long winter ahead.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Silas22 (Mar 25, 2019)

_A second example is Micah 6:8. A comparison of the 1995 and 2020 versions shows that “O man” was changed to “a human”:_

_He has told you, O man, what is good… _NASB 1995

_He has told you, a human, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? _NASB 2020

I may be only a year into studying greek, but that second translation is pathetic. Hopefully they reverse that decision.

Reactions: Sad 4


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 25, 2019)

I really don't get that. Wow.


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Mar 25, 2019)

I was so pumped for this and now couldn't care less. Of all translations, why did gender politics have to infect the NASB? It's also surprising considering that Dr. White is involved.


----------



## ZackF (Mar 25, 2019)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> I was so pumped for this and now couldn't care less. Of all translations, why did gender politics have to infect the NASB? It's also surprising considering that Dr. White is involved.


As I understand, constributors usually only have a say in the book(s) assigned to them.


----------



## hammondjones (Mar 25, 2019)

Silas22 said:


> _A second example is Micah 6:8. A comparison of the 1995 and 2020 versions shows that “O man” was changed to “a human”:_
> 
> _He has told you, O man, what is good… _NASB 1995
> 
> _He has told you, a human, what is good;_



For real? That is one of my biggest pet peeves, when "human" is used instead of "person" (or "man"). The (new) ESV did this with Philippians 2:8, but kept Micah 6:8 "o, man".


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 25, 2019)

It's all about market share. Which is just sad. Once these projects cease being about submission to the text, and the publishing house takes over, the product is no longer viewed as making legitimate demands of the reader. Now, the purchaser makes the demands, and the "customer is always right."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Sad 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 25, 2019)

I'm really in shock. I too was so looking forward to this; now I'm going to be stocking up on 95NASB's instead of wondering what kind of editions/formats the 2020 would be coming out with. I don't even understand the Micah 6:8 one. "A human"? Will the editors note clarify: "God speaks to humans, not aliens"??

I was hoping they would go into this with the notion that they wouldn't change anything unless it was making it better. I was really surprised to find out how many changes they are making; saddened to learn what those changes actually are; and shocked to learn what they're replacing the old with in the new.

Will they stick with these no matter what? Is there precedent for if there is enough protest, they could take back some of these changes? Does anyone know any of the people overseeing this important work? Could you write to them? Would it be profitable to try to start a petition about this before it actually happens?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 26, 2019)

It's interesting reading the comments to the new revision here: https://www.facebook.com/TheLockmanFoundation/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 26, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> It's interesting reading the comments to the new revision here: https://www.facebook.com/TheLockmanFoundation/


Actually I thought they would apply 'Gender neutral' principles to their name and talk about the Lockperson foundation. Oops, person includes 'son' so best call it the Lockpeople foundation

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Do y'all know what translation HASN'T been infected with the gender inclusivity nonsense...


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Do y'all know what translation HASN'T been infected with the gender inclusivity nonsense...



Are you asking us or telling us?


----------



## Jake (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Do y'all know what translation HASN'T been infected with the gender inclusivity nonsense...



Interestingly, in many places the NASB95 is less gender inclusive than the KJV. One example is that the NASB tends to use the phrases "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" whereas the KJV tends to prefer "children of Israel" and "children of God." Similar phrases appear throughout the Bible. 

Example:
"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." -Galatians 3:26 (KJV)

"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." -Galatians 3:26 (NASB)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Being gender exclusive where not appropriate is also wrong...


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 26, 2019)

Jake said:


> Interestingly, in many places the NASB95 is less gender inclusive than the KJV. One example is that the NASB tends to use the phrases "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" whereas the KJV tends to prefer "children of Israel" and "children of God." Similar phrases appear throughout the Bible.
> 
> Example:
> "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." -Galatians 3:26 (KJV)
> ...


Thanks for sharing. The NKJV uses “sons” as well.

In the case you’ve pointed out, the word sons is actually better (in my opinion) because it conveys a higher position of honor (as it relates to Christ), which is for all those who are in Christ Jesus both male and female. You lose that fine detail when the word isn’t reflected as ”sons” for this verse, especially for a layman like myself.

@JTB.SDG Sorry to hear about all this as well.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 26, 2019)

One question to ask would be how gender inclusive are we in our preaching? How do you address the gathered community of God's people? Do you say "Brothers" or "Brothers and sisters"? Do you say "through Christ, we are the sons of God"? or "Through Christ, we are the children of God?" Would the latter forms leave us guilty of "gender inclusive nonsense"?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> One question to ask would be how gender inclusive are we in our preaching? How do you address the gathered community of God's people? Do you say "Brothers" or "Brothers and sisters"? Do you say "through Christ, we are the sons of God"? or "Through Christ, we are the children of God?" Would the latter forms leave us guilty of "gender inclusive nonsense"?



There would be a difference when it comes to translating the Scriptures though. It's one thing to be "inclusive" in preaching (though it's perfectly legitimate to refer to men and women as brethren), but changing Scripture to suit that agenda would be wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 26, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Thanks for sharing. The NKJV uses “sons” as well.
> 
> In the case you’ve pointed out, the word sons is actually better (in my opinion) because it conveys a higher position of honor, which is for all those who are in Christ Jesus both male and female. You lose that fine detail when the word isn’t reflected as ”sons”, especially for a layman like myself.
> 
> @JTB.SDG Sorry to hear about all this as well.


Grant, I recommend you read DA Carson's book, _Exegetical Fallacies_. The tendency to draw illegitimate distinctions is very common among people who have only a rudimentary knowledge of the languages. I think you are seeing a "fine detail" that a native speaker wouldn't recognize.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Grant, I recommend you read DA Carson's book, _Exegetical Fallacies_. The tendency to draw illegitimate distinctions is very common among people who have only a rudimentary knowledge of the languages. I think you are seeing a "fine detail" that a native speaker wouldn't recognize.



So, when Scripture talks of believers being made sons of God to me that has a theological meaning. Whereas when it refers to the sons/children of Israel that's descriptive. Would that make sense?


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> There would be a difference when it comes to translating the Scriptures though. It's one thing to be "inclusive" in preaching (though it's perfectly legitimate to refer to men and women as brethren), but changing Scripture to suit that agenda would be wrong.


Translation is rendering one language into another. That's inevitably changing it. There is no alternative, since the structures of one language never perfectly map onto another language. The Hebrew language is "inclusive" in using the same word for sons and children. In English, we differentiate, and so translators have to make choices. Greek is inclusive in using the same word for "brothers" and for "brothers and sisters". In contemporary English we distinguish these. There are many modern contexts where to say "Brethren" to a mixed group of men and women would be understood as excluding the women. Perhaps your church setting is different (though don't forget about unconverted visitors). I would hope that pulpit speech would match the Biblical patterns as far as possible, while also being as comprehensible to as many people as possible. 

And since, as demonstrated above, the KJV uses inclusive language where biblically appropriate, it's hard to rule it out completely as a modern perversion. The challenge for every translator is to know when it is and is not fitting.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Translation is rendering one language into another. That's inevitably changing it. There is no alternative, since the structures of one language never perfectly map onto another language. The Hebrew language is "inclusive" in using the same word for sons and children. In English, we differentiate, and so translators have to make choices. Greek is inclusive in using the same word for "brothers" and for "brothers and sisters". In contemporary English we distinguish these. There are many modern contexts where to say "Brethren" to a mixed group of men and women would be understood as excluding the women. Perhaps your church setting is different (though don't forget about unconverted visitors). I would hope that pulpit speech would match the Biblical patterns as far as possible, while also being as comprehensible to as many people as possible.
> 
> And since, as demonstrated above, the KJV uses inclusive language where biblically appropriate, it's hard to rule it out completely as a modern perversion. The challenge for every translator is to know when it is and is not fitting.



Well the _reason_ why translators would change the old practice is important. It's clearly being done to appease a feminist, anti-Christian agenda. For that reason alone it should not be done.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Would the latter forms leave us guilty of "gender inclusive nonsense"?


Iain,

I think that question does arise. However the Pastor needs to read what the actual Word says. Then he is free to faithfully exegete.



iainduguid said:


> people who have only a rudimentary knowledge of the languages. I think you are seeing a "fine detail" that a native speaker wouldn't recognize.



Well Iain, amidst my own "rudimentary-ness", when I look at that word in the Greek, it can be in translated "sons" or "children". However, I actually think a native speaker back in the times when the bible was written would understand that the designation of "Sons" had a *different* honor than "children" in the family. Christ was not only the child of God, but more specifically the Son of God. Using son further presses the imputed righteousness and place of Christ, which is being alluded to in the context of Galatians 3. That's just my 2 cents. However you land on this Verse, the MODERN trend to be more gender inclusive despite what the Greek/Hebrew mean (granted some cases are more clear than others) is not a step in the right direction considering what is occurring simultaneously with the gender wars in our culture.

*I will just have to disagree that making a small point in Galatians 3:26 as it relates to who we are (as sons) in Christ is in any way fallacious. In context Galatians 3 calls us to associate with Christ who happens to be the Son of God.*

P.S. In my opinion, "sons of God" is the better rendering of Galatians 3:26. I think the HCSB & CSB agree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> So, when Scripture talks of believers being made sons of God to me that has a theological meaning. Whereas when it refers to the sons/children of Israel that's descriptive. Would that make sense?


No, because the Scriptures speak of sons/children of God and sons/children of Israel. You would have to provide a contextual case as to why in a particular usage one or other specifically is in view. In the case of "children of Israel" it is usually describing a mixed group, hence the translation. But you could in specific cases translate "the sons of Israel" (e.g. Gen. 42:5). In the same way, you could just as well make the case that at least in some places "sons of God" should be translated "children of God". In Galatians 3:26, where ironically the KJV has "children of God", I would go with "sons of God" because inheritance is specifically mentioned a couple of verses later. But that's an interpretive choice on the translators part, not something inherent in the phrase. NIV agrees with KJV here.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well the _reason_ why translators would change the old practice is important. It's clearly being done to appease a feminist, anti-Christian agenda. For that reason alone it should not be done.


Have you consulted the translators of the NASB 2020 personally so that you know that? It certainly could be the case. The NIV has been fairly open about its agenda. But there are non-feminist reasons translators might prefer to use that language, as the KJV makes clear.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Whatever the personal agenda of the translators of the NASB2020 may be, the context matters. To make these changes in the midst of what is going on within and outwith the church inevitably embroils it in that conflict. It is not done in a vacuum. And since I was not personally consulted by the translators for my own opinion _before _they went ahead I can only comment after the fact.

One could also ask why yet another translation is being released? I thought the ESV was meant to be the conservative evangelical translation to end them all? But here comes another one. And then another one. Hard to think all these translations have as their goal producing the most accurate, faithful translation of the Bible. And all that happens is that a new translation appears to claim its own wee camp in the church and the splintering and disunity of the church continues apace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> No, because the Scriptures speak of sons/children of God and sons/children of Israel. You would have to provide a contextual case as to why in a particular usage one or other specifically is in view. In the case of "children of Israel" it is usually describing a mixed group, hence the translation. But you could in specific cases translate "the sons of Israel" (e.g. Gen. 42:5). In the same way, you could just as well make the case that at least in some places "sons of God" should be translated "children of God". In Galatians 3:26, where ironically the KJV has "children of God", I would go with "sons of God" because inheritance is specifically mentioned a couple of verses later. But that's an interpretive choice on the translators part, not something inherent in the phrase. NIV agrees with KJV here.



Well I'll stick with the KJV since it is the _authorised _version.


----------



## Jake (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Being gender exclusive where not appropriate is also wrong...



Agreed. I like the KJV approach for the most part. Here is a chart I saved from a now-defunct website:

For each of these, the first is the KJV and the second is the KJV translators' notes on the literal interpretation.
Gen 11:3 "they said to one another" "a man said to his neighbor"
Exo 18:16 "one and another" "a man and his fellow"
Lev 22:12 "a stranger" "a man a stranger"
Num 22:11 "I shall be able to overcome them" "I shall prevail in fighting against him"
Num 26:54 "give the more inheritance" "multiply his inheritance"
Num 26:54 "give the less inheritance" "diminish his inheritance"
Num 33:54 "give the more inheritance" "multiply his inheritance"
Num 33:54 "give the less inheritance" "diminish his inheritance"
Deut 3:18 "all that are meet for the war" "all that are sons of power"
Deut 32:5 "They have corrupted themselves" "He hath corrupted to himself"
1 Sam 10:11 "one to another" "a man to his neighbor"
1 Sam 11:7 "with one consent" "as one man"
1 Sam 26:16 "ye are worthy to die" "ye are the sons of death"
1 Sam 30:22 "those" "men"
1 Sam 31:3 "archers" "shooters, men with bows"
2 Sam 2:7 "be ye valiant" "be ye the sons of valour"
2 Sam 13:28 "valiant" "sons of valour"
2 Sam 22:45 "strangers" "sons of the stranger"
1 Chron 12:29 "kindred" "brethren"
1 Chron 16:19 "few" "men of number"
2 Chron 2:17 "the strangers" "the men the strangers"
Ezra 4:1 "children of the captivity" "sons of the transportation"
Job 19:19 "my inward friends" "the men of my secret"
Psalm 12:7 "them" "him"
Psa 18:44 "the strangers" "the sons of the stranger"
Psa 29:1 "ye mighty" "ye sons of the mighty"
Psa 41:9 "mine own familiar friend" "the man of my peace"
Psa 119:24 "my counsellors" "men of my counsel"
Psa 140:11 "an evil speaker" "a man of tongue"
Prov 3:31 "the oppressor" "a man of violence"
Prov 11:13 "A tale-bearer" "He that walketh being a talebearer"
Prov 22:7 "lender" "man that lendeth"
Prov 28:24 "a destroyer" "a man destroying"
Prov 29:10 "The bloodthirsty" "The men of blood"
Prov 31:5 "any of the afflicted" "all the sons of the afflicted"
Prov 31:8 "such as are appointed to destruction" "such as are the sons of destruction"
Ecc 2:7 "servants born in my house" "sons of my house"
Isa 12:6 "inhabitant" "inhabitress"
Isa 13:8 "one at another" "every man at his neighbor"
Isa 22:17 "mighty captivity" "the captivity of a man"
Isa 44:11 "they" "the men"
Isa 44:12 "they" "the men"
Isa 44:12 "them" "the men"
Jer 10:17 "inhabitant" "inhabitress"
Jer 13:14 "one against another" "a man against his brother"
Jer 20:10 "all my familiars" "every man of my peace"
Jer 21:13 "inhabitant" "inhabitress"
Jer 22:23 "inhabitant" "inhabitress"
Jer 26:23 "common people" "sons of the people"
Jer 38:22 "friends" "men of thy peace"
Jer 48:19 "inhabitant" "inhabitress"
Dan 10:21 "none that holdeth" "none that strengtheneth himself"
Joel 3:6 "Grecians" "sons of the Grecians"
2 Pet 2:14 "adultery" "adulteress"

You can check that many of these, the NASB77/95 sides with the more literal translation (less gender neutral) and the KJV uses the more gender neutral. The KJV also pretty consistently uses "children" instead of "sons" as mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments which is NOT done by the ESV, the NASB77/95, and NIV84.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> One question to ask would be how gender inclusive are we in our preaching? How do you address the gathered community of God's people? Do you say "Brothers" or "Brothers and sisters"? Do you say "through Christ, we are the sons of God"? or "Through Christ, we are the children of God?" Would the latter forms leave us guilty of "gender inclusive nonsense"?


Dr. Duguid,
I'd be interested in your overall take on the overall changes in the NASB. Though I'm sure a lot of this is pretty subjective personal opinion. Are you an NASB user yourself? I was particularly saddened to learn they are opting out of translating the Hebrew chesed as loving kindness; this had served as a helpful marker to me. Would appreciate any thoughts you have.


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well the _reason_ why translators would change the old practice is important. It's clearly being done to appease a feminist, anti-Christian agenda. For that reason alone it should not be done.



How do you know that?



alexandermsmith said:


> Well I'll stick with the KJV since it is the _authorised _version.



Authorized by whom? Why does it matter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> How do you know that?



Why else would they do it? Because it is "more accurate" (if it is so)? As if they have just discovered something which wasn't known before now?



Tom Hart said:


> Authorized by whom? Why does it matter?



By the civil magistrate (King James). As far as I'm aware this hasn't been rescinded.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 26, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Actually I thought they would apply 'Gender neutral' principles to their name and talk about the Lockperson foundation. Oops, person includes 'son' so best call it the Lockpeople foundation



Tell that to the Chairperchild.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Why else would they do it? Because it is "more accurate" (if it is so)? As if they have just discovered something which wasn't known before now?



So you don't know. You're making assumptions.



alexandermsmith said:


> By the civil magistrate (King James). As far as I'm aware this hasn't been rescinded.



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Does every translation require authorization by the civil magistrate? (Tough luck, Wyclif.)


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> So you don't know. You're making assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Does every translation require authorization by the civil magistrate? (Tough luck, Wyclif.)



Well that assumes that other translations are merited. However, as to translations to be used in our churches (which surely is the point of any translation), then the one authorised by the civil magistrate and adopted by the historic presbyterian church (formally or informally) takes precedence over any private translation that appears every few years.

As to the other question I have no reason to believe that this latest in a long line of translations is superior to any that have gone before but good reason to be very suspicious. It is known that in order to get around copyright each new translation needs to meet a threshold of difference to other translations. This alone casts a shadow over any new translation.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well the _reason_ why translators would change the old practice is important. It's clearly being done to appease a feminist, anti-Christian agenda. For that reason alone it should not be done.



I am sorry but it is irresponsible to make such a blanket statement without being on translation committees, talking to the translators, and doing real research on the matter. You are in dialogue with a respected scholar, @iainduguid, that has worked on a Bible translation. He is providing you with reasonings behind decisions. If you are so concerned, write the individuals behind the NASB2020 update and substantiate your claims. I say this as someone that uses the King James as their primary translation. I may not agree with certain update decisions but to make unsubstantiated blanket statements does no one any good.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I am sorry but it is irresponsible to make such a blanket statement without being on translation committees, talking to the translators, and doing real research on the matter. You are in dialogue with a respected scholar, @iainduguid, that has worked on a Bible translation. He is providing you with reasonings behind decisions. If you are so concerned, write the individuals behind the NASB2020 update and substantiate your claims. I say this as someone that uses the King James as their primary translation. I may not agree with certain update decisions but to make unsubstantiated blanket statements does no one any good.



My loyalty is to Scripture, not to men I know nothing of, on some committee somewhere who have taken it upon themselves to publish yet another English translation which only futher breaks down the unity of the church. The AV is the tried and tested English translation. We do not need another one.

And enough with this "write to the men personally" rebuttal. This is just a tactic to silence legitimate criticism of those _public _men who seek to have an influence on the church at large. You do not get to publish a translation of the Bible (especially an update of an established and well-know "brand" such as the NASB), just dropping it on the church, and hide behind a shield of "you need to engage with us privately". Did the Reformers keep their criticisms private? Did the Puritans? Did the Marrow Men? Who are these mighty men in high places to take to themselves this immunity from criticism?


----------



## Jack K (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> It's clearly being done to appease a feminist, anti-Christian agenda.



Are you making this (very serious) accusation based on your personal interaction with the publishers and your knowledge of their motives? Or have you decided to accuse them based on a guess?

I ask because my own interactions with several Christian publishers suggests they do have a difficult struggle with gender-inclusive language, and the reasons are not so simple. Sometimes, some of them may be swayed by feminist appeasement. But most of those I deal with have no interest in appealing to feminists; yet they still struggle with these decisions.

The reason is the fact that English usage is changing (as usage generally does). It may be changing for feminist reasons, so that we don't like the changes, but it is changing nonetheless. Fifty years ago, a reader might read "man of God" and realize it was speaking of both men and women—because more people wrote and spoke that way fifty years ago. Today, it is much more likely that a reader will see that phrase as applying exclusively to men. If a writer (or translator) uses it in the broader sense, readers will misunderstand.

You see, a Christian publisher has more to consider than just what kind of social statement its words suggest. A Christian publisher is first of all not playing politics, but _communicating_. That's what publishers do. The publisher has to consider whether or not its choices will communicate accurately to today's readers.

In my experience as an editor who has had direct conversations with Christian publishers about this issue, this is the main reason we are seeing more gender-inclusive language. If anything, the fact that it may appear to appease feminists is a factor that causes publishers to hold back. The Christian publishers I deal with don't want to appease feminists. They fear it will look like they are doing so. But they realize they have to be clear communicators first of all.

You might still argue that gender-inclusive language is NOT actually more effective communication. I've been in some of those discussions. But be careful not to assign incorrect and unkind motives.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> My loyalty is to Scripture, not to men


You are on a confessional Reformed forum. Everyone here puts their loyalty in the Scriptures above men. If not, they should probably leave this forum.



alexandermsmith said:


> This is just a tactic to silence legitimate criticism



Legitimate criticism has done the leg work to substantiate their claims with real data and facts that can be backed up. Not broad blanket statements.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 26, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Are you making this (very serious) accusation based on your personal interaction with the publishers and your knowledge of their motives? Or have you decided to accuse them based on a guess?
> 
> I ask because my own interactions with several Christian publishers suggests they do have a difficult struggle with gender-inclusive language, and the reasons are not so simple. Sometimes, some of them may be swayed by feminist appeasement. But most of those I deal with have no interest in appealing to feminists; yet they still struggle with these decisions.
> 
> ...



These problems would not arise if new translations weren't undertaken. The use of language has indeed changed in the last fifty years but have any of these changes been for the better? Why should we bring out a new translation to cater to a degraded and (ideologically driven, even if only from outwith the church) change in our language? Why is Scripture always being dumb-downed, following after the culture; it should be attempting to uplift, to buck the trends of society, to stand apart and above the roilings of the present culture.

Also, the last English translation wasn't fifty years ago. The ESV was published in 2001. Why do we need this one? Again, my understanding was that the purpose of the ESV was to provide a standard evangelical translation of the Bible so why do we have another one coming out?

Is there any point when enough is enough? Are we seriously meant to believe in the neverending progress of Bible translations? That every tweak, every update is another (necessary) step up? When will we have the English translation of the Scriptures that we can finally be confident is the true Word of God? We DID have that translation. But these endless re-translations and updates have done away with that. They have not strengthened the church's trust in the Bible it holds in its hands: they have eroded it further and further. When will it stop?


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> My loyalty is to Scripture, not to men I know nothing of, on some committee somewhere who have taken it upon themselves to publish yet another English translation which only futher breaks down the unity of the church. The AV is the tried and tested English translation. We do not need another one.
> 
> And enough with this "write to the men personally" rebuttal. This is just a tactic to silence legitimate criticism of those _public _men who seek to have an influence on the church at large. You do not get to publish a translation of the Bible (especially an update of an established and well-know "brand" such as the NASB), just dropping it on the church, and hide behind a shield of "you need to engage with us privately". Did the Reformers keep their criticisms private? Did the Puritans? Did the Marrow Men? Who are these mighty men in high places to take to themselves this immunity from criticism?


Alexander, you are perfectly free to criticize their translational choices and argue that they should have done differently. There are many here who would agree with you on that. What you did was to assert their motives without evidence and then criticize those. That is slander.

Also, bear in mind that for many on this board, King James is not their civil magistrate, nor do they subscribe to a confession that assigns the civil magistrate the power to assign Bible versions. The American version of the WCF clearly and deliberately removes such powers from the civil magistrate, with good reason. Would you be eager to switch to whatever Bible Prince Charles might want to authorize for the church, when he becomes "Defender of Faith"? You may believe that King James providentially authorized a good (though far from perfect) version, but once you give the state that power, you can't complain if they use it less profitably.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Are we seriously meant to believe in the neverending progress of Bible translations?



Yes, because there will come a day, if the Lord tarries, when seventeenth century English will not be spoken at all, much less understood, just as no one speaks Middle or Old English now.

In the same vein, do you support the work of translators all over the globe who are translating the Scriptures into foreign languages never before seen or heard? I would hope so, because your objection here destroys that endeavor.



alexandermsmith said:


> When will we have the English translation of the Scriptures that we can finally be confident is the true Word of God?



This objection would only be valid if the Bible were originally written in English. Unfortunately for your argument, it was not.



alexandermsmith said:


> We DID have that translation.



Says who, and on what authority?



alexandermsmith said:


> They have not strengthened the church's trust in the Bible it holds in its hands: they have eroded it further and further.



New translations never eroded any believer's faith in the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture. The unbelieving mind, which is enmity against God, does that on its own.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 26, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Says who, and on what authority?



A translation committee that had the same intentions as most Bible translators today.


----------



## Jake (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Have you consulted the translators of the NASB 2020 personally so that you know that? It certainly could be the case. The NIV has been fairly open about its agenda. But there are non-feminist reasons translators might prefer to use that language, as the KJV makes clear.



I sometimes wonder if the KJV were to be made today if many of the translation choices I pointed to would lead some to say that the KJV has a feminist agenda.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 26, 2019)

Once again I recommend 'The Inclusive Language Debate ; A Plea For Realism.' by D.A. Carson. This book changed my viewpoint on inclusive language. Not that I'm crazy about it, but I accept it. His chapter 'Translation And Treason' is worth the few bucks a used copy will cost on Amazon. Here he is answering a question on the NIV 2011. He addresses inclusive language beginning @ 4:48, but the whole vid is worth a listen.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 26, 2019)

Jack K said:


> Are you making this (very serious) accusation based on your personal interaction with the publishers and your knowledge of their motives? Or have you decided to accuse them based on a guess?
> 
> I ask because my own interactions with several Christian publishers suggests they do have a difficult struggle with gender-inclusive language, and the reasons are not so simple. Sometimes, some of them may be swayed by feminist appeasement. But most of those I deal with have no interest in appealing to feminists; yet they still struggle with these decisions.
> 
> ...



This is a good reminder for all of us. Translation is exceedingly difficult, partially because language is constantly changing. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are mostly motivated by a desire to clearly and understandably communicate the Word of God. For those who find such capitulating distasteful (like myself) we can always stick with the classics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I'll stick with the KJV since it is the _authorised _version.



Well, the _sort-of-authorized_ version. As you know, King James I authorized the _making_ of the translation but, by the time it was finally published in 1611, the king had, shall we say, moved on. To the best of my knowledge, he never gave his blessing to the finished product.


----------



## Dachaser (Mar 26, 2019)

NASB version, the one that still kept the Thee and Thou


Silas22 said:


> _A second example is Micah 6:8. A comparison of the 1995 and 2020 versions shows that “O man” was changed to “a human”:_
> 
> _He has told you, O man, what is good… _
> I still use the
> ...


I still have and use the 1977 edition of the Nas, the one with still thee and Thou, and not into Gender Inclusive!


----------



## Tom Hart (Mar 26, 2019)

@alexandermsmith,

King Alfred of the House of Wessex authorized the translation into English of significant portions of the Bible, including the Psalms, the Gospels and passages from the Pentateuch.

Who does this King James think he is to go and authorize a newfangled translation?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 26, 2019)

@Alexandersmith, you sound pretty angry. Can you please tone it down. Can the moderators help at all with this? My intention in starting this thread wasn't to make it a venting place or platform for KJV-only-ists; nor really to limit it to a discussion about the translation of "brethren" etc in particular for that matter.

I think for me, there's just confusion and sadness about the amount of things being changed. I've used the NASB for 20 years now. I didn't expect the amount of changes that were coming in 2020. And I'm just pretty confused about some of the changes, such as the Micah 6:8 example. Another example is on Acts 17:18 where they went from, "What would this idle babbler wish to say", to "What could this scavenger of tidbits want to say?” And again, I'm saddened by the change in the Hebrew chesed (formerly lovingkindness) to just the general English mercy.


----------



## ownash (Mar 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> My loyalty is to Scripture, not to men I know nothing of, on some committee somewhere who have taken it upon themselves to publish yet another English translation which only futher breaks down the unity of the church. The AV is the tried and tested English translation. We do not need another one.
> 
> And enough with this "write to the men personally" rebuttal. This is just a tactic to silence legitimate criticism of those _public _men who seek to have an influence on the church at large. You do not get to publish a translation of the Bible (especially an update of an established and well-know "brand" such as the NASB), just dropping it on the church, and hide behind a shield of "you need to engage with us privately". Did the Reformers keep their criticisms private? Did the Puritans? Did the Marrow Men? Who are these mighty men in high places to take to themselves this immunity from criticism?



Alex, I don't think anyone would begrudge you the criticism should your claims be founded upon some sort of evidentiary foundation.

I use the KJV, and for a number of reasons similar to some you have cited (copyright mostly). Without evidence, brother, one could accuse you of bearing a false witness.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 26, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Grant, I recommend you read DA Carson's book, _Exegetical Fallacies_. The tendency to draw illegitimate distinctions is very common among people who have only a rudimentary knowledge of the languages. I think you are seeing a "fine detail" that a native speaker wouldn't recognize.


Iain,

I may check the book out. My pastor had it in his library. However I am pretty loaded on book reading right now. 

Do you feel it is illegitimate to use “sons” in Gal. 3:26?

The HCSB & CSB render it as “sons”, as I am sure you are aware.

If you favor “sons” then could that expression not be explained to a group of male and females to better understand what place those in Christ occupy before our Lord? Would you see it as fallacious or poor exegesis to draw that out?

P.S. I am grateful for your wisdom and insight, btw.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 27, 2019)

iainduguid said:


> Have you consulted the translators of the NASB 2020 personally so that you know that?


This was a good word for me. My issue is different, but I think it's only fair for me to express the concerns I do have directly to them. Thank you; I wrote them this morning. I would encourage anyone else who is concerned about the new changes to do the same. But if you do, please remember to express your concerns in a gracious way. You can write them at: [email protected]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 27, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Iain,
> 
> I may check the book out. My pastor had it in his library. However I am pretty loaded on book reading right now.
> 
> ...


I'm in favor of translating it "sons" there, given the context. Another example of a similar challenge for the translator is Ps 127 and 128. In Ps 127:4, I'm convinced we should translate "sons" rather than "children" (against ESV and KJV), since the next verse speaks of them backing up the father in the city gate. However, in Ps 128:3, we went with children (against HCSB, with ESV KJV) since daughters around your table are also a blessing.

Context should determine how we translate and how we interpret all texts. As Carson and others have argued (e.g. James Barr), meaning is transmitted in sentences and paragraphs not isolated words. It's up to the preacher to help people see the significance of sonship for inheritance in the ancient world. There's a fine balance in translation between trying to make everything as clear as possible and recognizing that sometimes it's possible to overtranslate and close down legitimate interpretive options. We regularly said to ourselves, "That's one for the preacher to explain."

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 27, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> @Alexandersmith, you sound pretty angry. Can you please tone it down. Can the moderators help at all with this? My intention in starting this thread wasn't to make it a venting place or platform for KJV-only-ists; nor really to limit it to a discussion about the translation of "brethren" etc in particular for that matter.
> 
> I think for me, there's just confusion and sadness about the amount of things being changed. I've used the NASB for 20 years now. I didn't expect the amount of changes that were coming in 2020. And I'm just pretty confused about some of the changes, such as the Micah 6:8 example. Another example is on Acts 17:18 where they went from, "What would this idle babbler wish to say", to "What could this scavenger of tidbits want to say?” And again, I'm saddened by the change in the Hebrew chesed (formerly lovingkindness) to just the general English mercy.


Jon,
I understand your concerns. The revision of Micah 6:8 is not wrong in meaning but it feels really awkward to me in sentence flow. It's a good instinct to try to bring out the "humanness" aspect of _'adam_ rather than the maleness that can easily attach to "man", but I think NIV's "mortal" may do that while preserving a better flow.

_chesed_ is notoriously difficult to translate. It's not a word that really maps onto a single English word and so the tendency is to translate it with several different English words: kindness, faithful love, lovingkindness, steadfast love, etc. I think there is merit, especially for a translation like the NASB which is all about word for word literalism, in choosing an unusual English word or distinctive phrase to flag people that _chesed_ lies behind it, as the old NASB and the ESV do. But I'm sure there were probably times when they departed from that even in the old version because of context.

The challenge for the NASB, in my opinion, is that in pursuit of word for word literalism the old version was sometimes Biblish rather than English. That is, knowledgeable readers could easily see through the "English" to see the Greek or Hebrew vocabulary and syntax that lay behind it. That was its strength: it enabled people with a little Greek and Hebrew confidently to discern and show people things that were there in the original language. However, you could sometimes say of its rendering "No man ever spake like this..." The danger for them in pursuing revision is that they might easily lose their distinctive strength in pursuit of eliminating their distinctive weakness, and thereby lose what their version distinctively brings to our family of English translations.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 27, 2019)

-I'm not angry, text doesn't transmit emotion well. I'm blunt and I'm not going to kowtow to people I do not know who have taken it upon themselves to produce yet another translation. They must justify to _me _why their translation is legitimate and necessary. And I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. No-one here has given anything resembling a justification for this translation. The nearest was "language has changed in fifty years" which may have been an argument if we hadn't had a translation (say, the ESV?) nineteen years ago. Has language changed so dramatically in nineteen years that we need another one? No-one has any argument to jusitify this translation, just the default position in the evangelical church at large that any new translation *must* be a worthy endeavour if carried out by those *with the best of intentions*. When did "best of intentions" become a sufficient ground for something so important as a translation of the Bible? Luke 14:28-30; Proverbs 14:12.

-Is language "constantly" changing? What is meant by this? What has changed in the last fifty years that necessitates these new translations? Was "gender inclusivity" an unknown concept fifty years ago? What gramamtical, translational, hermeneutical breakthroughs have been made in the last fifty years? Nineteen years? Has English really dramatically changed in the last fifty years? Well I can understand things written fifty years ago so, no, I don't think it has.

-And these endless translations _have _led to an erosion in trust of the _English_ Bible we actually use, which is what I said ("the Bible we hold in our hands") *not *Scripture itself (i.e. as originally given). As the church has become untethered from one, _authorised_ translation to be used in churches and homes throughout the land, it has become the norm amongst evangelical ministers to constantly refer back to the original languages to settle disputes, writing their commentaries and even in preaching. This is very harmful to the faith of ordinary Christians. If matters of faith, doctrine and practice can only be settled by a knowledge of the original languages then we have almost reached a form of gnosticism where we must defer to those who have that expert knowledge (and ability to read these languages does not require that the person actually be a godly Christian). And of course I'm not saying that the original languages should be ignored. Yet the Scripture proofs for the Westminster Standards are taken from the KJV. The theological and devotional writings of the church for a long time were grounded in the KJV: the Bible that ordinary Christians read daily in their own homes. We do not have that now and the church has suffered as a result.

-Of course I support the translation of Scripture into many languages, translated from the proper, reliable texts. I don't see how this contradicts my position. We are talking about _English _translations. I wonder why we don't have a new *German *translation every ten years...hmmm.... My point is why produce another English translation when we already have a faithful translation? This argument has only been strengthened over the years as each new translation inevitably fails to even match the KJV, let alone surpass it. The history of English translations (and the methodology and ideology underpinning such projects) since the KJV has, to all and intents and purposes, excluded the possibility of a more faithful translation.

-We needn't wonder what would happen if the KJV were produced today because it was produced in 1611. 

-No translation committee has been on a par with those men who produced the KJV.


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> My point is why produce another English translation when we already have a faithful translation?



Alexander,

While I do not agree with all your claims (further I am an NKJV user), I totally agree with your question above. I think part of the answer, which is disheartening, is sales, profits, and attempts for improvements in market share.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 27, 2019)

Since we already have too many English translations, would it not be better to allow the existing English translations to impact our spoken English instead of letting our cultures English constantly call for "updating" the English of our bibles? I say this as one who enjoys the updated English of NKJV, ESV, and HCSB. I like the idea of updating say every century (or half) maybe, but every decade seems to show (on paper) that motives may be guided by something more than just getting a faithful English translation into the hands of people. I am not trying to slander, just typing out my reflections.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> -I'm not angry, text doesn't transmit emotion well. I'm blunt and I'm not going to kowtow to people I do not know who have taken it upon themselves to produce yet another translation. They must justify to _me _why their translation is legitimate and necessary. And I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. No-one here has given anything resembling a justification for this translation. The nearest was "language has changed in fifty years" which may have been an argument if we hadn't had a translation (say, the ESV?) nineteen years ago. Has language changed so dramatically in nineteen years that we need another one? No-one has any argument to jusitify this translation, just the default position in the evangelical church at large that any new translation *must* be a worthy endeavour if carried out by those *with the best of intentions*. When did "best of intentions" become a sufficient ground for something so important as a translation of the Bible? Luke 14:28-30; Proverbs 14:12.
> 
> -Is language "constantly" changing? What is meant by this? What has changed in the last fifty years that necessitates these new translations? Was "gender inclusivity" an unknown concept fifty years ago? What gramamtical, translational, hermeneutical breakthroughs have been made in the last fifty years? Nineteen years? Has English really dramatically changed in the last fifty years? Well I can understand things written fifty years ago so, no, I don't think it has.
> 
> ...



A few general thoughts:
-I agree the proliferation of English translations has gotten out of hand. Despite their names, the Christian Standard Bible is not the standard for Christians nor the English Standard Version for English-speakers, and we get new translations often. I am glad that we have many skilled Biblical scholars in our day and age, but I tend to think more translations is not the answer. That said, I still don't have my personal perfect translation, so I see why that itch still exists.

-I agree that there are advantages to having a good enough Bible that is commonly used throughout the life of the Christian church. For many decades and even centuries this has been the KJV. Other translations were consulted by men from Edwards to Spurgeon, but the KJV was the standard text in the life of the church.

-I think language does change. The 1611 KJV (primarily on account of its spelling) had to be updated in the next century to get the 1769 we commonly use today. I have a 1611 re-printed with modern typeface, and the modern reader can barely read a sentence after a lot of effort. Today, the 1769 requires a great deal of learning to become familiar with the text, even if the basic meaning can be understood. Different pronouns, verb tenses, grammar, spelling, and vocabulary add to this problem. These differences are not unassailable to the determined, but it's only getting worse generation-by-generation (and perhaps worse here in the US than in Scotland). I agree we should endeavor to keep educating people, but I also agree strongly with the WCF that the Bible should be in "the vulgar language." Many changes in the last 80 years or so have been to get rid of some of these older elements of the English language that are no longer understood (for example, the RV/ASV, RSV, NASB77, etc. still included thees/thous).

-The proliferation of translations in other languages exists as well, even if not quite keeping up with English. I know as I've been trying to standardize on a Spanish translation.

-I respectfully disagree with your last point. I believe biblical scholarship has continued to advance and we have many more capable men today than we did in the early 17th century.

I still think there are many ways in which the KJV is unrivaled and I regularly use it (1900 Cambridge paragraph edition), alongside other translations like the NKJV, NASB95, and NIV84.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> -And these endless translations _have _led to an erosion in trust of the _English_ Bible we actually use, which is what I said ("the Bible we hold in our hands") *not *Scripture itself (i.e. as originally given). As the church has become untethered from one, _authorised_ translation to be used in churches and homes throughout the land, it has become the norm amongst evangelical ministers to constantly refer back to the original languages to settle disputes, writing their commentaries and even in preaching. This is very harmful to the faith of ordinary Christians. If matters of faith, doctrine and practice can only be settled by a knowledge of the original languages then we have almost reached a form of gnosticism where we must defer to those who have that expert knowledge (and ability to read these languages does not require that the person actually be a godly Christian). And of course I'm not saying that the original languages should be ignored. Yet the Scripture proofs for the Westminster Standards are taken from the KJV.



Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.

The proof texts may be referenced in the KJV for easy access by the audience, but if they are to _prove_ the doctrine in the midst of a controversy, the WCF requires you to reference the original languages, not merely the KJV.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> As the church has become untethered from one, _authorised_ translation to be used in churches and homes throughout the land, it has become the norm amongst evangelical ministers to constantly refer back to the original languages to settle disputes, writing their commentaries and even in preaching. This is very harmful to the faith of ordinary Christians.



That was actually the norm among Reformed theologians in the past. I am currently reading the commentaries of John Davenant on Colossians and John Owen on Hebrews and they constantly refer to the Greek text and (especially in Owen's case) to the Hebrew in order to determine what the original scriptures teach. Read works of Reformed dogmatics by the likes of Francis Turretin and Bernardinus de Moor and you will find that they do the same. 

I am no linguist myself, but if ministers are referring to the original scriptures in order to settle theological controversies, then more power to them. As Iain has pointed out, that is the very theological method advocated by the Westminster Assembly. Now that does not mean that you have to know Greek and Hebrew to be proficient in systematic theology, but the usefulness of such knowledge should not be undermined.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.



This is an unfortunate posture to take, brother. The ninth commandment requires that we give the benefit of the doubt until we have actual evidence of wrongdoing—in this case, namely, actual testimony that they seek to pander to some liberal agenda. Until then, all we are doing is “misconstructing intentions, words, and actions” (WLC 145).

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## TooManySystematics (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well that assumes that other translations are merited. However, as to translations to be used in our churches (which surely is the point of any translation), then the one authorised by the civil magistrate and adopted by the historic presbyterian church (formally or informally) takes precedence over any private translation that appears every few years.
> 
> As to the other question I have no reason to believe that this latest in a long line of translations is superior to any that have gone before but good reason to be very suspicious. It is known that in order to get around copyright each new translation needs to meet a threshold of difference to other translations. This alone casts a shadow over any new translation.



Are particular churches allowed to adopt their own translations and authorize them? If my Synod authorizes the ESV for ecclesiastical use, is that not the same as what the AV had hundreds of years ago?


----------



## Edward (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The AV is the tried and tested English translation. We do not need another one.



If it was good enough for John the Baptist, it should be good enough for me.

Reactions: Funny 5


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 27, 2019)

Edward said:


> If it was good enough for John the Baptist, it should be good enough for me.


https://babylonbee.com/news/apostle-pauls-king-james-bible-auction

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> -I'm not angry, text doesn't transmit emotion well. I'm blunt and I'm not going to kowtow to people I do not know who have taken it upon themselves to produce yet another translation. They must justify to _me _why their translation is legitimate and necessary. And I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. No-one here has given anything resembling a justification for this translation. The nearest was "language has changed in fifty years" which may have been an argument if we hadn't had a translation (say, the ESV?) nineteen years ago. Has language changed so dramatically in nineteen years that we need another one? No-one has any argument to jusitify this translation, just the default position in the evangelical church at large that any new translation *must* be a worthy endeavour if carried out by those *with the best of intentions*. When did "best of intentions" become a sufficient ground for something so important as a translation of the Bible? Luke 14:28-30; Proverbs 14:12.
> 
> -Is language "constantly" changing? What is meant by this? What has changed in the last fifty years that necessitates these new translations? Was "gender inclusivity" an unknown concept fifty years ago? What gramamtical, translational, hermeneutical breakthroughs have been made in the last fifty years? Nineteen years? Has English really dramatically changed in the last fifty years? Well I can understand things written fifty years ago so, no, I don't think it has.
> 
> ...


Brother, it's fine that you have convictions about the KJV, but that's not necessarily the purpose of this thread.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 28, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is an unfortunate posture to take, brother. The ninth commandment requires that we give the benefit of the doubt until we have actual evidence of wrongdoing—in this case, namely, actual testimony that they seek to pander to some liberal agenda. Until then, all we are doing is “misconstructing intentions, words, and actions” (WLC 145).



The wrongdoing is the damage and division which has been wrought in the body of Christ by the neverending stream of "new" and "updated" English translations of the Bible, which are either inferior or based on the work of heretics (e.g. Westcott and Hort) and unreliable texts.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 28, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Brother, it's fine that you have convictions about the KJV, but that's not necessarily the purpose of this thread.



Agreed I didn't mean it to become about the KJV but about the wisdom of yet another translation, which I think is relevant to the original post.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 28, 2019)

TooManySystematics said:


> Are particular churches allowed to adopt their own translations and authorize them? If my Synod authorizes the ESV for ecclesiastical use, is that not the same as what the AV had hundreds of years ago?



Fair enough. I would think they are wrong but that would at least give ecclesiastical authority. Is there a denomination willing to do this?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> The wrongdoing is the damage and division which has been wrought in the body of Christ by the neverending stream of "new" and "updated" English translations of the Bible, which are either inferior or based on the work of heretics (e.g. Westcott and Hort) and unreliable texts.



The problem is that your point is entirely unargued; you are just asserting such to be the case without offering a shred of concrete evidence. This is blatantly violating the ninth commandment, brother. How do you not see this?

Regardless, in the end, you are both greatly overestimating the effect of new translations and greatly underestimating the effect of modernistic unbelief upon society. If a succession of new translations alone were the sole reason for moral degradation in society, then one would expect such of the fairly rapid succession of the Tyndale, Bishop’s, Geneva, and then the King James versions of Scripture. But no one would dare make such a claim, because it is obviously ridiculous.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 28, 2019)

I think the constant arguments on this forum over Bible translations suffice as an illustration of the divison which these translations have caused. One could also look at the huge body of literature which has been accumulated, and time spent, defending and opposing this and that translation. It could all have been avoided. And when you can get round to explaining to me why this NASB2020 is necessary I'd greatly appreciate it. Still haven't read that in this discussion. I won't hold my breath though.

Did I say that new translations _alone _were the _sole _reason for moral degradation in society? I don't think I've even mentioned moral degradation in society in this thread at all.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 28, 2019)

@alexandermsmith Brother, let me ask you a question. Do you have formal training or education in Church history, textual criticism, and/or Biblical languages? I ask this with all sincerity and brotherly love.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 28, 2019)

If anyone has anything else to say that actually has to do with the NASB, I'm wanting to listen. Otherwise, it may be time to close this down.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Mar 28, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> If anyone has anything else to say that actually has to do with the NASB, I'm wanting to listen. Otherwise, it may be time to close this down.


I agree, brother. My apologies for adding to the derailment of this thread. It is such a pet-peeve of mine when threads get derailed and here I am doing that very thing. Forgive me.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 28, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> @alexandermsmith Brother, let me ask you a question. Do you have formal training or education in Church history, textual criticism, and/or Biblical languages? I ask this with all sincerity and brotherly love.



Nope.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 28, 2019)

The discussion of the word _man_ and NASB's translation decision is an excellent topic, I think. "Human" feels awkward to me, even if it is accurate in a pure translation sense. The issue is a common translation challenge, I think.

Language scholars can correct me, by my understanding is that in both Hebrew and Greek, _man_ can mean "adult male" or it can stand for any human._ Sons_ can mean "male children" or it can stand for any children. This creates a translation problem because, as is often the case in translation work, modern English has no exact equivalent. We might argue that at one time the English_ man_ was understood to have both possible meanings, but perhaps it never has to the same extant of the Hebrew and Greek, and even if it did, this is becoming less and less the case every day. So translators must look at the context and make a choice as to which English word to use, since there is no perfect equivalent.

If there were an English word that contained more ambivalence—a word that might mean either "adult male" or "any human being,"—that word be highly preferable in many cases. Take Psalm 1, for example: "Blessed is the man who..." On the one hand, it clearly applies to both males and females. But generations of Christians have also recognized that it is ultimately speaking as well of_ the_ Man, Jesus Christ, who alone exemplifies that psalm perfectly. So both Hebrew meanings are in play at the same time. To translate it as "Blessed is the_ one_..." risks missing the way Christ is in the psalm, and to translate it as "Blessed is the_ man_..." risks missing the fact that both males and females are blessed by acting godly. A translator will give up something either way. There is no perfect option, due to the differences between Hebrew and English. We may wish this were not so, but it is so.

I imagine translators struggle greatly with such issues, especially when they add in the need to give the English beauty and a "good ring." My gut reaction is that the new translation of the Micah passage you cited is probably accurate content-wise, but it fails to pass the beauty test for me. Besides, it really is hard for those who have used and loved a particular translation for years to see it changed. It just is. I feel for you.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> ...the divison which these translations have caused.



Yes, the Bible translations _themselves_ cause division. It’s not people! Come on, brother. This is the same argument liberals use against firearms, as if they themselves kill people without human agency. Division is caused by wickedness in the human heart, which, again, you have yet to prove is the intention of any of these translators. Any _actual_ division over translations on this board has been because of arrogance and ego, and nothing more. You know all this, but for some strange reason you are letting your emotional investment, whatever the cause, get the best of your reason.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 28, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> may want to stock up for a long winter ahead.





JTB.SDG said:


> If anyone has anything else to say that actually has to do with the NASB, I'm wanting to listen.


Jon, I also love my NASB but in relation to your comment earlier about the NASB 1977/1995 changing 'lovingkindness' to 'mercy' [2020] I actually prefer the ESV here. I am not a Hebrew scholar by any means but have read a number of Hebrew dictionaries; it seems to me that the Hebrew word Hesed can be helpfully summarised by the words 'strength', 'steadfast ' and 'love'. Hence I like the ESV translation Steadfast love.

For the record I use the ESV as my main translation but my NASB is always close by.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 28, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes, the Bible translations _themselves_ cause division. It’s not people! Come on, brother. This is the same argument liberals use against firearms, as if they themselves kill people without human agency. Division is caused by wickedness in the human heart, which, again, you have yet to prove is the intention of any of these translators. Any _actual_ division over translations on this board has been because of arrogance and ego, and nothing more. You know all this, but for some strange reason you are letting your emotional investment, whatever the cause, get the best of your reason.



For some strange reason you are attributing to me arguments I have not made. Why are you bringing guns into this? This is getting us nowhere.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 28, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> For some strange reason you are attributing to me arguments I have not made.



You have said explicitly that you refuse to give the NASB2020 translators the benefit of the doubt with regard to these gender renderings, which means you are instead assuming they are pandering to some liberal agenda.



alexandermsmith said:


> Why are you bringing guns into this? This is getting us nowhere.



It's just as I said: The argument you used above—i.e., that new Bible translations cause division—is the _exact_ same arguments liberals use against guns—i.e., that they kill people (as opposed to the human beings who use them). I pointed out that, on the contrary, it is not new Bible translations that cause _real _division (I say _real_ because mere disagreement is not division), but arrogance and egotism surrounding discussions about them. If anyone ever genuinely divides from their brothers and sisters in Christ over Bible translation, the issue is solely and squarely in their heart, not in the translation.



alexandermsmith said:


> This is getting us nowhere.



I completely agree. So, how about we start being ethical in this discussion, which would demand two things: 1) a committed adherence to the ninth commandment and all that it commands and forbids; 2) a refusal to stoop to using purely emotional arguments—e.g., appealing to our own speculation about other people, past or present, or to our sensibilities about how _we_ want things—and commit to basing everything we say upon facts, evidence, and sound logic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 28, 2019)

Jack K said:


> The discussion of the word _man_ and NASB's translation decision is an excellent topic, I think. "Human" feels awkward to me, even if it is accurate in a pure translation sense. The issue is a common translation challenge, I think.
> 
> Language scholars can correct me, by my understanding is that in both Hebrew and Greek, _man_ can mean "adult male" or it can stand for any human._ Sons_ can mean "male children" or it can stand for any children. This creates a translation problem because, as is often the case in translation work, modern English has no exact equivalent. We might argue that at one time the English_ man_ was understood to have both possible meanings, but perhaps it never has to the same extant of the Hebrew and Greek, and even if it did, this is becoming less and less the case every day. So translators must look at the context and make a choice as to which English word to use, since there is no perfect equivalent.
> 
> ...


Jack, I agree with you, and that is also my concern. I'm not disputing the accuracy per se, it just feels awkward. Same thing with the Acts passage. For me, it doesn't pass the ackwardness test. According to Lockman's Facebook page, they've released several other passages as well, and there are parts of the Psalms that just had a beautiful poetic ring that they have changed as well. To me, I just don't see the need to change it if it isn't really making it better necessarily and it feels a lot more awkward.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 28, 2019)

I've got the earlier NASB, NIV, and ESV translations. I actually like the 2011 NIV better in many places than the 1984, in spite of the gender inclusive aspect, but I won't be going for updated versions of the NASB, or the ESV. I think they've gone overboard on those.

As far as the rational behind continuing revisions, and new translations relative to the KJV ... there have been advances in the understanding of the Greek and Hebrew in the past 150 years, as well as many additional manuscripts discovered and compared.

There were some scholars in the 19th century who wrote that the koine was 'Holy Ghost' language that God has provided strictly for the Bible. The discovery of papryi in Egypt that was preserved by the dry climate dating back to the first century and beyond, proved that the koine Greek of the NT was the language of commerce and of the common people.

The Dead Sea Scrolls provided even more treasures for scholars to mine to better understand the languages and improve the translations. There is ample reason to improve our translations as the language of the original writers of Scripture is better understood.


----------

