NASB2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
-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.
Brother, it's fine that you have convictions about the KJV, but that's not necessarily the purpose of this thread.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
@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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
...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.
 
may want to stock up for a long winter ahead.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top