# NASB 2020 changes?



## Polanus1561 (Oct 29, 2018)

https://opened-heart.com/2017/12/11/NASB-2018-2019-release-news/

if this is indeed true, it would be sad to see such a literal translation sail into the sea - NASB1995 editions will cease being printed in due time I would guess.


----------



## Jake (Oct 30, 2018)

The example I saw on Facebook showed changing brothers to "brothers _and sisters_." I think this is a cleaner way to show that generally this refers to the body collectively, but that _and sisters_ is inferred from the text than putting a long footnote frequently as the ESV does.

I personally wish they *would* drop the capitalized pronouns for references to God, as they're often ambiguous and it adds a level of interpretation not in the original text.

I also like that they're retaining the italics for added words for clarity, though I think the way the NIV does it, with small square brackets, is superior and less prone to confusion than the use of italics. It's easy even as a frequent reader of translations that employ this technique to occasionally get tripped up and think of italics as a matter of adding emphasis because that's their more common use. Many more people are not as familiar.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 30, 2018)

I don’t mind adding the word “sisters”, although I think it’s an unnecessary capitulation to a world that is growing ever dumber. That being said, I think the Micah 6:8 translation is awful. It reminds me of the George Carlin bit from 25 years ago where he talked about how feminists always take it too far. They want us to call that thing in the middle of the street a person hole cover, and they want us to all look up at the person in the moon, and for kids to all be scared of the boogeyperson, while we turn on our TVs and watch Late Night with David Letterperson.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 30, 2018)

The translation of Micah 6:8 is lamentable.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 30, 2018)

Jake said:


> I also like that they're retaining the italics for added words for clarity, though I think the way the NIV does it, with small square brackets, is superior and less prone to confusion than the use of italics.



Just to clarify, he NIV only uses brackets for larger portions to indicate it is not included in the Critical Text, although it is in the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. The NIV does not indicate when they add words for readability or clarity.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 30, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> They want us to call that thing in the middle of the street a person hole cover, and they want us to all look up at the person in the moon, and for kids to all be scared of the boogeyperson, while we turn on our TVs and watch Late Night with David Letterperson.



I think I just woke up from a coma from laughing so hard at “David Letterperson.”


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 30, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Majortiy Text





Taylor Sexton said:


> I think I just woke up from a coma from laughing so hard at “David Letterperson


I had a chuckle at your "majortiy text". Was this word "Taylor" made for this forum?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 30, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I had a chuckle at your "majortiy text". Was this word "Taylor" made for this forum?



Whoops!


----------



## Jake (Oct 30, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Just to clarify, he NIV only uses brackets for larger portions to indicate it is not included in the Critical Text, although it is in the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. The NIV does not indicate when they add words for readability or clarity.



That wasn't what I was referring to. I can't find an example of this, though sections like the end of Mark are marked off in my edition and the information note is in double square brackets ([[]]).

Here is an example in Job 21:19 in an NIV pew Bible (I read Job in it recently and its used often there). This is what I would like to see in the NASB and other translations. Unfortunately, not all editions of the NIV have this (even though this is a simple, text only edition).


----------



## Taylor (Oct 30, 2018)

Jake said:


> That wasn't what I was referring to. I can't find an example of this, though sections like the end of Mark are marked off in my edition and the information note is in double square brackets ([[]]).
> 
> Here is an example in Job 21:19 in an NIV pew Bible (I read Job in it recently and its used often there). This is what I would like to see in the NASB and other translations. Unfortunately, not all editions of the NIV have this (even though this is a simple, text only edition).



Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

This is still a case of apples and oranges. Whereas the NASB (and KJV and NKJV) has _all_ words I italics which are added for readability or clarity, the original NIV (1984) added a few brackets around words and phrases only "if there was _uncertainty_ about such material" (quoted from the "Preface"; emphasis mine). In the case of the verse you cited above, there is uncertainty about the legitimacy of the "It is said" (some translations have "You say"). In the NASB's case, the italics indicate words that are added for clarity or readability, but in the NIV's case, the brackets are added not to show where they've made the text more readable or clearer, but to show where they are uncertain about certain words added for clarity or readability.

If you compare the NASB with the original NIV, you will find it to be the case that the NASB still has a lot more italics, and that the original NIV does not indicate everything (or even most things) they have "added" to the text to promote clarity or readability (e.g., look at "his" in Job 21:32).


----------



## Polanus1561 (Oct 31, 2018)

from a business perspective, I do not see where NASB 2020 fits into the saturated market - Being less literal and trying to squeeze into the market where ESV/NIV/CSB has a foothold already. Lockman also isn't the best publisher of Bibles with good qualities

Thoughts?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 31, 2018)

John Yap said:


> Lockman also isn't the best publisher of Bibles with good qualities...



This is very true. The best thing Lockman ever did was let Allan, Cambridge, and Schuyler typeset and publish their translation.


----------



## Hamalas (Oct 31, 2018)

I once heard Michael Haykin argue that the last thing we need is _another_ English translation of the Bible when there are so many people groups who still don't have _any _of God's Word in their mother tongue. I tend to agree.


----------



## Jake (Oct 31, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> This is still a case of apples and oranges. Whereas the NASB (and KJV and NKJV) has _all_ words I italics which are added for readability or clarity, the original NIV (1984) added a few brackets around words and phrases only "if there was _uncertainty_ about such material" (quoted from the "Preface"; emphasis mine). In the case of the verse you cited above, there is uncertainty about the legitimacy of the "It is said" (some translations have "You say"). In the NASB's case, the italics indicate words that are added for clarity or readability, but in the NIV's case, the brackets are added not to show where they've made the text more readable or clearer, but to show where they are uncertain about certain words added for clarity or readability.
> 
> If you compare the NASB with the original NIV, you will find it to be the case that the NASB still has a lot more italics, and that the original NIV does not indicate everything (or even most things) they have "added" to the text to promote clarity or readability (e.g., look at "his" in Job 21:32).



Thanks Taylor. I couldn't find a lot on why/when the NIV uses these brackets, I just know I had seen them a lot in some OT books I read in it recently. I know the NASB uses italics more frequently. The NIV seems to use these brackets only a little more frequently than the ESV nnotes added words for clarity in the footnotes, which is not often and only in certain circumstances. I was saying I like the formatting better than the methodology.


----------



## Jonathan R (Oct 31, 2018)

I guess this means that its time to buy every NASB 95 I can get my hands on.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 31, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> I guess this means that its time to buy every NASB 95 I can get my hands on.



If gender neutrality bothers you, you might want to switch to the KJV because my suspicion is that, eventually, all modern versions will be updated to be more gender neutral.


----------



## Jake (Oct 31, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> If gender neutrality bothers you, you might want to switch to the KJV because my suspicion is that, eventually, all modern versions will be updated to be more gender neutral.



NASB77/95 is actually less gender neutral than the KJV in several places. Examples: Matthew 5:9 (NASB, "sons of God"; KJV, "children of God"); Psalm 12:7 (NASB, "preserve him"; KJV, "preserve them"); Psalm 291:1 (NASB, "O sons of the mighty"; KJV, "O ye mighty"); Proverbs 11:13 (NASB, "He who goes about as a talebearer"; KJV, "A talebearer"); etc.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 31, 2018)

Jake said:


> NASB77/95 is actually less gender neutral than the KJV in several places. Examples: Matthew 5:9 (NASB, "sons of God"; KJV, "children of God"); Psalm 12:7 (NASB, "preserve him"; KJV, "preserve them"); Psalm 291:1 (NASB, "O sons of the mighty"; KJV, "O ye mighty"); Proverbs 11:13 (NASB, "He who goes about as a talebearer"; KJV, "A talebearer"); etc.



Perhaps, but the 95 version will soon join the NIV 84 in the bargain bin at the Christian book store.


----------



## Jonathan R (Oct 31, 2018)

Bill The Baptist said:


> If gender neutrality bothers you, you might want to switch to the KJV because my suspicion is that, eventually, all modern versions will be updated to be more gender neutral.



The gender neutrality is one thing, but also a move to a more dynamic translation. Regardless of the gender implications of the translation move, I can't stand dynamic interpretations under the guise of translation. I know it has to occur to one degree or another for clarity in the target language, but not when we all know what it means. Only people with modern feminist blinders on don't get that "brethren" means both men and women - its just common english. It is this useless move towards dynamicism that would make me concerned for other passages.


----------

