NASB 2020 Thoughts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The LSB started with the 95 as their base text and made a few tweaks. They may have reverted to a few 77 renderings here and there, but it is a revision of the 95. I haven’t heard that they went back to the 77 method of insisting that you have to have “And” in the text all of those times, for example, which is something that some advocates of formal equivalence used to argue was necessary for a version to be literal and word-for-word, and which may be the main change the 95 made when it comes to allegedly being a little less literal. (If you’re familiar with the 77 you’ll know what I’m referring to.)
I included a YouTube message of a discussion of Ken Ham and a senior translator of the LSB some time ago on the PuritanBoard. This senior translator confirmed that they did indeed revise the NASB95 but frequently went back to the more literal NASB77. The relevant comments start about 6 minutes into this discussion.
Found this on Ken Ham's YouTube page.

For all you LSB skeptics:
John MacArthur said it
Ken Ham believes it
That settles it
 
I included a YouTube message of a discussion of Ken Ham and a senior translator of the LSB some time ago on the PuritanBoard. This senior translator confirmed that they did indeed revise the NASB95 but frequently went back to the more literal NASB77. The relevant comments start about 6 minutes into this discussion.


Thanks.

That does address what I had said about the conjunctions in the 77 and how some of that was reduced in the 95 to increase readability. Some would have preferred for them to have done that kind of thing, put the literal marginal renderings into the text (which the 2020 does at times) and stopped there, either because they think the tradition of rendering the divine name as LORD is correct or because it is not a hill to die on for them and they find it to be too unfamiliar and awkward.

I think AiG adopting it will have some impact because they probably have a broader constituency. But the biggest impact may be what happens with MacArthurworld in the next few years since the LSB is their baby.

Here's Lockman's LSB page, which notes that they did go back to some earlier 77 renderings: https://www.lockman.org/legacy-standard-bible-lsb/

Here's what Lockman says about third-person singular pronouns in the 2020, which I alluded to earlier: https://www.lockman.org/gender-accurate-language-in-the-NASB-2020/

English does not have a universally accepted third-person singular pronoun that refers to both males and females, so the NASB 2020 maintains the practice of using “he” or “him” when referring to a singular, non-gender specific antecedent such as “person”. The alternative would be to use plural pronouns (often called “the singular they“) that would change the subject of the sentence from a singular to a plural. Maintaining the singular pronoun form most accurately represents the original language, which is important to maintaining textual accuracy. We realize this may create a dissonance for some readers who are used to a more modern style of writing. Current writers have the advantage of creating all new material. However, we do not feel that modern strategies, such as using “they” or alternating between “he” and “she”, are available to us as faithful translators. For example, changing the subject of a sentence from “he” to “they” requires an additional change to correct the grammar by making the previously singular verb plural as well. This not only changes the structure of the sentence, but a change from singular to plural also has a dramatic impact on how the verse is read and understood by the reader.

Making these grammatical changes thousands of times across the entire Bible is in direct conflict with the second principle of our longstanding Fourfold Aim and, therefore, is a red line to us. We could have added “or she” in italics as we did with “and sisters”, but while “brothers” may appear several times in one book, masculine pronouns can appear several times in one sentence, for sentence after sentence after sentence. We decided that these repetitive changes would create a bigger distraction, so keeping the text as it is remained the best course.

I suspect that some will find "brothers and sisters" to be patronizing, or unnecessarily pedantic at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top