# NASB Question



## Username3000 (May 17, 2018)

For those of you who have read both, how does the original NASB compare with the updated NASB (95)?


----------



## JTB.SDG (May 17, 2018)

Can't speak to this question, but they are planning to come out with a another updated NASB in 2019.


----------



## Username3000 (May 18, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Can't speak to this question, but they are planning to come out with a another updated NASB in 2019.


Thanks, yes I am aware of that. 

I just discovered that when God is addressed, it is using Thee's and Thou's.


----------



## Dachaser (May 18, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Thanks, yes I am aware of that.
> 
> I just discovered that when God is addressed, it is using Thee's and Thou's.


Biggest difference would be that the 1977 edition keeps all of the Thees and Thous, and that the 1995 revision used a later form of the Nestle Aland Greek text.
My understanding is that the 1995 revision was mainly involved in updating the NT, while the upcoming one will focus on the OT itself.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2018)

JTB.SDG said:


> Can't speak to this question, but they are planning to come out with a another updated NASB in 2019.



I think that may have been pushed back to 2020 at this point, after originally saying it would be out in 2017 back around 2015, if memory serves. 

I see here that the 1995 update was commissioned in 1992. So this revision appears to be taking longer than the 1995. If it is true that it was mainly the NT that was updated in 1995 and that it is mainly the OT being focused on this time, that could be the reason. Or perhaps it will be a more thorough revision than the one seen in 1995. 

Although a lot of people have switched to something else since about 2002, the NASB does retain an ardent "fanbase" that was ultimately unhappy with the ESV (or whatever) compared to the NASB.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Biggest difference would be that the 1977 edition keeps all of the Thees and Thous, and that the 1995 revision used a later form of the Nestle Aland Greek text.



That, plus a stated goal of making it less "wooden" and more readable, while retaining the title of "most literal." The promotional slogan was something like "The most literal is now more readable."

That it is the most literal (especially if one is to argue that no other version is close) is debatable, unless one wants to say that the KJV or NKJV is "less literal" because they use "defective" manuscripts. Otherwise, I think one might be hard pressed to demonstrate that overall the NASB 95 is "more literal" than the NKJV or KJV. In some places it is, in some places it isn't. Regardless, it is much closer than many NASB (or ESV) fans recognize. For example, the NKJV retains more hebraisms and idioms from the original languages whereas the NASB often renders them into more idiomatic English. Years ago I was comparing the NKJV and the NASB. Over and over again, I'd see a footnote in the NASB giving the literal rendering, only to find that rendering in the NKJV text. In some of these cases, the more literal rendering may have been in the 1977 text. If "literal" in this sense is what you're looking for, I'd go with the 1977, which is still in print and which is also available on Kindle, although I don't have it in that format and don't know how good the formatting there is. (Some Kindle Bibles are well formatted and user-friendly, others are not.)

I think there was also a slight move toward gender neutral renderings in the NASB95 in passages where it is obvious that both sexes are being addressed, but much less than you'll find in the ESV, HCSB, and CSB and certainly much less compared to the NRSV, NLT and NIV11, which are arguably of a different kind. In response to questions, it has been stated on the NASB Facebook page that they won't be going the NIV route on gender pronouns.


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> That, plus a stated goal of making it less "wooden" and more readable, while retaining the title of "most literal." The promotional slogan was something like "The most literal is now more readable."
> 
> That it is the most literal (especially if one is to argue that no other version is close) is debatable, unless one wants to say that the KJV or NKJV is "less literal" because they use "defective" manuscripts. Otherwise, I think one might be hard pressed to demonstrate that overall the NASB 95 is "more literal" than the NKJV or KJV. In some places it is, in some places it isn't. Regardless, it is much closer than many NASB (or ESV) fans recognize. For example, the NKJV retains more hebraisms and idioms from the original languages whereas the NASB often renders them into more idiomatic English. Years ago I was comparing the NKJV and the NASB. Over and over again, I'd see a footnote in the NASB giving the literal rendering, only to find that rendering in the NKJV text. In some of these cases, the more literal rendering may have been in the 1977 text. If "literal" in this sense is what you're looking for, I'd go with the 1977, which is still in print and which is also available on Kindle, although I don't have it in that format and don't know how good the formatting there is. (Some Kindle Bibles are well formatted and user-friendly, others are not.)
> 
> I think there was also a slight move toward gender neutral renderings in the NASB95 in passages where it is obvious that both sexes are being addressed, but much less than you'll find in the ESV, HCSB, and CSB and certainly much less compared to the NRSV, NLT and NIV11, which are arguably of a different kind. In response to questions, it has been stated on the NASB Facebook page that they won't be going the NIV route on gender pronouns.


I use the 1977 edition ofthe Nasv, and do think thatit is somewhat more literal than the 1995 revision, but would also add that the NASB and the NKJV would be the 2 translations to me closest in being formal and literal versions.
There are not that many SB still available in the 1977 version, as the Thompson Chain is one that I know still is offered in that version of the Nas.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I use the 1977 edition ofthe Nasv, and do think thatit is somewhat more literal than the 1995 revision, but would also add that the NASB and the NKJV would be the 2 translations to me closest in being formal and literal versions.
> There are not that many SB still available in the 1977 version, as the Thompson Chain is one that I know still is offered in that version of the Nas.



The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible is another one, and it may be more widely available than the NASB Thompson at this point. AMG (publisher of the Key Word Study Bible) also publishes a text edition of the NASB 77.


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible is another one, and it may be more widely available than the NASB Thompson at this point. AMG (publisher of the Key Word Study Bible) also publishes a text edition of the NASB 77.


I forgot about the key Bible, as I once had one in the Nas version. Dies the Lockman Foundation still publish both Nas editions?


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I forgot about the key Bible, as I once had one in the Nas version. Dies the Lockman Foundation still publish both Nas editions?



Lockman appears to be the publisher for the ebook version of the 1977. So in that sense they still publish both.

As for print copies, According to Lockman, the Key Word and the "Hand Size NAS," both published by AMG, are the only 1977 editions currently in print. They used to list the Thompson, so maybe it finally went out of print in the NASB. The ones I had seen in recent years appeared to be a far cry from Kirkbride's formerly excellent quality, regardless.

As for Lockman (Foundation Press) being a publisher, I'm not sure if they were much into publishing before the 1995 update. Anything before about 1999 is before my time as far as publishing goes, meaning that I wouldn't have been looking at Christian books in stores before then. But I'm pretty familiar with what's on the used market. I don't think I've ever seen a NASB77 (or prior) published by Foundation Press/Lockman. Instead, it is Nelson, Holman, Moody, and others.

Fairly often I'll see someone blame Lockman for poor marketing, with the idea being that if the edition were better marketed or "turned over" to someone else, it would be much more popular. I for one think that the idea that there aren't enough editions of the NASB available or whatever is misguided. (That they've been stingy or whatever with the licensing for other purposes is somewhat different issue, although related.)

Whatever Lockman's missteps may be, the reason why the NASB has fallen out of favor has a lot more to do with the fact that most people simply don't like it well enough to use it as their primary version. At various times there have probably been as many varieties of the NASB available as there have been of the NKJV, and maybe even the NIV before there was a Study Bible for every conceivable niche.

Bookstore shelves are almost bereft of the NASB now, but that has a lot to do with people defecting to the ESV, it seems to me. And most of them didn't defect because of bad marketing or whatever. They thought the ESV was accurate enough and had superior literary style. 

The whole reason for the NASB in the first place was conservative rejection of the RSV, which for most boiled down to a few passages like Isa 7:14. Now that we basically have a conservative RSV, (the ESV) the place for the NASB is somewhat questionable, especially when considering something to be one's primary Bible. The NASB translators had to strain for synonyms to differentiate it from the RSV in places, which does make it read differently, but is it better? Not for those who prefer the more familiar cadences of the KJV.

Lockman or whoever could promote it as much as Holman has been promoting the CSB of late and I'm not sure how much lasting headway they'd really make given the character of the translation itself. (It's not clear how much lasting impact the CSB will have, either.)

Maybe they should just reverse course and go the ultra-literal route (a la the ASV) since the NASB may never be more than a niche translation at this point.


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> Lockman appears to be the publisher for the ebook version of the 1977. So in that sense they still publish both.
> 
> As for print copies, According to Lockman, the Key Word and the "Hand Size NAS," both published by AMG, are the only 1977 editions currently in print. They used to list the Thompson, so maybe it finally went out of print in the NASB. The ones I had seen in recent years appeared to be a far cry from Kirkbride's formerly excellent quality, regardless.
> 
> ...


The Lockman Foundation should get another publisher to get behind the new revision with them, as they can have teaching curriculum materials for churches, and even more importantly, would love to see the Nas be able to come out with their take on the Esv SB.
Both the Nas/NKJV are niche versions, as they will always have those who want the most formal/literal translation available for use.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 19, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Lockman Foundation should get another publisher to get behind the new revision with them, as they can have teaching curriculum materials for churches, and even more importantly, would love to see the Nas be able to come out with their take on the ESV SB.
> Both the Nas/NKJV are niche versions, as they will always have those who want the most formal/literal translation available for use.


What would be the doctrinal position of the material? Who would buy it? The ship probably sailed on that when Lockman wouldn't let the SBC use it (or buy it outright, I can't remember which it was) which led to the development of the HCSB as the SBC didn't want to use the NIV after the gender neutral controversy started. 

Plus, what publisher would want to get behind it in that way? Those with the resources would sort of be competing with themselves. Harper Collins already has the NIV and NKJV and some others. Most other evangelical publishers of any size have their own translation. 

The NKJV is consistently in the top 5 in Bible sales. The NASB isn't in the Top 10 much of the time, particularly when counting units instead of dollars. That's what I mean by niche. Some of it has to do with the plethora of Study Bibles available in the NKJV, but that's not the only reason. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (May 19, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> What would be the doctrinal position of the material? Who would buy it? The ship probably sailed on that when Lockman wouldn't let the SBC use it (or buy it outright, I can't remember which it was) which led to the development of the HCSB as the SBC didn't want to use the NIV after the gender neutral controversy started.
> 
> Plus, what publisher would want to get behind it in that way? Those with the resources would sort of be competing with themselves. Harper Collins already has the NIV and NKJV and some others. Most other evangelical publishers of any size have their own translation.
> 
> ...


Yes, it does seem that the Lockman Foundation really missed the boat on this, as the Nas is the go to version for many scholars and those who want a real formal version, so should have be broader minded in getting it out to the Evangelicals.


----------



## bookslover (May 20, 2018)

As I understand it, when John MacArthur was first publishing his study Bible, he originally wanted to put it out with the NASB as its text (since he'd been preaching from it virtually from the beginning of his ministry in 1969). But the Lockman Foundation wanted an extraordinarily large amount of money as a license fee to do that. MacArthur (I'm sure politely) told them where they could put their licensing fee - and the study Bible was released using the NKJV instead.

Considering how huge MacArthur's audience is, it's another great example of the Lockman Foundation shooting itself in the foot yet again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (May 22, 2018)

Can anyone point me to a place online to buy an *old* copy of the NASB77?

I've looked around a bit, but can't find anything other than what's currently in print.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 22, 2018)

Try:
https://www.christianbook.com/NASB-size-bible-burgundy-bonded-leather/9780899579450/pd/579450

http://www.amgpublishers.com/main/index.cfm?do=view&subdo=detail&isbn13=9780899577548&id=205


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2018)

bookslover said:


> As I understand it, when John MacArthur was first publishing his study Bible, he originally wanted to put it out with the NASB as its text (since he'd been preaching from it virtually from the beginning of his ministry in 1969). But the Lockman Foundation wanted an extraordinarily large amount of money as a license fee to do that. MacArthur (I'm sure politely) told them where they could put their licensing fee - and the study Bible was released using the NKJV instead.
> 
> Considering how huge MacArthur's audience is, it's another great example of the Lockman Foundation shooting itself in the foot yet again.


They should have allowed him to do that, as he has one of the largest base of readers/followers in Christian circles, and they would have also the built in base to bring out any revisions also.


----------



## JTB.SDG (May 22, 2018)

bookslover said:


> As I understand it, when John MacArthur was first publishing his study Bible, he originally wanted to put it out with the NASB as its text (since he'd been preaching from it virtually from the beginning of his ministry in 1969). But the Lockman Foundation wanted an extraordinarily large amount of money as a license fee to do that. MacArthur (I'm sure politely) told them where they could put their licensing fee - and the study Bible was released using the NKJV instead.
> 
> Considering how huge MacArthur's audience is, it's another great example of the Lockman Foundation shooting itself in the foot yet again.



I'd be careful with "heresay" stuff. I've heard nothing but wonderful things about Lockman.


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Can anyone point me to a place online to buy an *old* copy of the NASB77?
> 
> I've looked around a bit, but can't find anything other than what's currently in print.


Thompson Chain Bibles used to be a good source for the 1977 Nas, but looks like they have ceased production, as maybe they decided to switch out to the Esv now instead?


----------



## JimmyH (May 22, 2018)

Thompson is still publishing the NAS
http://thompsonbible.net/thompson-nas-bibles
The MacArthur SB is also available in the NASB
https://www.gty.org/store/bibles/44NASHC/nas-macarthur-study-bible


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> Thompson is still publishing the NAS
> http://thompsonbible.net/thompson-nas-bibles
> The MacArthur SB is also available in the NASB
> https://www.gty.org/store/bibles/44NASHC/nas-macarthur-study-bible


Good to read, as Kirkbride themselves seems to have ceased producing it, so maybe the last remaining bibles on hand to sell now?


----------



## JimmyH (May 22, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Good to read, as Kirkbride themselves seems to have ceased producing it, so maybe the last remaining bibles on hand to sell now?


The way I understood the page they have some indexed bonded leather in stock, and new stock due in the fall of 2018


----------



## Dachaser (May 22, 2018)

Good to hear that, just hope that they can manage to get their former bible quality back.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 22, 2018)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Can anyone point me to a place online to buy an *old* copy of the NASB77?
> 
> I've looked around a bit, but can't find anything other than what's currently in print.



There are a good many Facebook groups dedicated to selling Bibles, including at least one NASB group. You can also keep your eye on eBay, but you may be looking for a while to get what you want. Or it could show up in a half hour. You just never know.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 22, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, it does seem that the Lockman Foundation really missed the boat on this, as the Nas is the go to version for many scholars and those who want a real formal version, so should have be broader minded in getting it out to the Evangelicals.



Anyone who was really interested in reading the Bible 15-20 years ago knows about it. "Bad marketing" and "stingy licensing" don't account for all of the people who switched from the NASB to the ESV. There really was a fairly sizeable constituency that wanted something more literal than the NIV and more readable (or "literary") than the NASB. But those who seem to want to put all of the blame on Lockman's marketing don't acknowledge it. It probably has at least as much to do with the product. 

It's also on Bible Gateway and other popular websites. So it's not like it's some kind of super secret today, either. 

To be sure, if the story about the MacArthur is true, (I've heard it before, or some variation) they missed the boat since most MacArthur "fans" were NASB fans at the time. By the time the NASB MacArthur came out ca 2006, the ESV had already gained a wide following. If it hadn't been for the MacArthur in the NKJV, I may have not made it my main version for all those years because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bought one when I did. After all, it doesn't use the "best" manuscripts. 

In a similar vein, the New Geneva Study Bible (later reissued as the Reformation Study Bible) was supposed to come out in the NIV, but they couldn't come to terms. So it too was first published in the NKJV ca 1995. (The NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible which was published in 2003 had different editors, although many of the notes are the same.)


----------



## Dachaser (May 23, 2018)

Pilgrim said:


> Anyone who was really interested in reading the Bible 15-20 years ago knows about it. "Bad marketing" and "stingy licensing" don't account for all of the people who switched from the NASB to the ESV. There really was a fairly sizeable constituency that wanted something more literal than the NIV and more readable (or "literary") than the NASB. But those who seem to want to put all of the blame on Lockman's marketing don't acknowledge it. It probably has at least as much to do with the product.
> 
> It's also on Bible Gateway and other popular websites. So it's not like it's some kind of super secret today, either.
> 
> ...


The NASB would have been really good in the reformation study bible, as well as the MacArthur edition, as both of them would have appealed to those desiring a more literal translation choice.
I also think that the Esv, just like the Niv, received a biog boost from their publishers, and from endorsements, as the Esv became tagged as being the Calvinist one, while the Niv the Evangelical one.
I like and use the Esv a lot, but the main problem for me is that it does not read as smoothly as the Niv, nor as accurately as the Nas, so like a compromise translation between those two.
Maybe the Csb is a smoother reading version of the Esv?


----------

