NASB 2020

[Alive]

For those of you who enjoy the NASB translation, a brand new update has been published.

I eagerly purchased it to add to my Accordance Bible Software.

This stuff gets me excited.

:-)

[other one]

they still messed up John 3:16

 

[Marathoner]

From what I've gathered on the Lockman Foundation's website, the 2020 NASB is pretty much a revision of grammar and the style of English involved in translation. I haven't reviewed it since I'm quite satisfied with the 1995 edition of the NASB. I might get around to that later.  

[Logostician]

I don't know too much about the NASB.  I'm just happy to hear anyone say that they are excited by the Bible.  God bless you in your journey with Him!

[David1701]

6 hours ago, Alive said:

For those of you who enjoy the NASB translation, a brand new update has been published.

I eagerly purchased it to add to my Accordance Bible Software.

This stuff gets me excited.

:-)

If it were based on the TR, or even the Majority Text, I would be excited; but, being based on the doubting, minority text - no thanks!

[Marathoner]

I'm neither a scholar nor translator but the history of various translations of the scriptures are more nuanced than some might suspect. For example, the King James Version relies upon the Masoretic Text for the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament), the earliest known codex of which is dated to the 9th century. This codex was the product of the Masoretes (Jewish scribes and scholars) who were active in Palestine between the 5th and 10th centuries. 

Textual analysis of the New Testament letters reveals over 300 instances where the authors quoted the Law and Prophets in a manner identical to passages found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as The Septuagint. The Septuagint has been reliably dated to a period approximately 300 years before the Lord walked the earth in this flesh, widely known and used during the Second Temple era. The Lord Himself and the apostles were familiar with it and they quoted from The Septuagint as evidence indicates. 

By comparison, 33 quotes of the Old Testament written in the New Testament agree with the Masoretic Text so in this case, the Masoretic Text can be considered as the "minority text." 

A nice feature of the NASB are the footnotes... the translators mark words and phrases which differ from the Majority Text, and furnish the word and or phrase from the Majority Text for the reader's benefit. That's a high standard of scholarship. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by Marathoner

[David1701]

26 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I'm neither a scholar nor translator but the history of various translations of the scriptures are more nuanced than some might suspect. For example, the King James Version relies upon the Masoretic Text for the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament), the earliest known codex of which is dated to the 9th century. This codex was the product of the Masoretes (Jewish scribes and scholars) who were active in Palestine between the 5th and 10th centuries. 

Textual analysis of the New Testament letters reveals over 300 instances where the authors quoted the Law and Prophets in a manner identical to passages found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as The Septuagint. The Septuagint has been reliably dated to a period approximately 300 years before the Lord walked the earth in this flesh, widely known and used during the Second Temple era. The Lord Himself and the apostles were familiar with it and they quoted from The Septuagint as evidence indicates. 

By comparison, 33 quotes of the Old Testament written in the New Testament agree with the Masoretic Text so in this case, the Masoretic Text can be considered as the "minority text." 

A nice feature of the NASB are the footnotes... the translators mark words and phrases which differ from the Majority Text, and furnish the word and or phrase from the Majority Text for the reader's benefit. That's a high standard of scholarship. 

I was primarily referring to the New Testament.  Having said that, there is debate about the dating of the Septuagint and whether or not the Septuagint was, in places, later altered, to agree with NT paraphrases (not necessarily literal quotes) of the OT Hebrew.

The Septuagint is present in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but it contains several non-canonical books and there are some absolutely dreadful copyists errors (e.g. skipping from the middle of one OT book, to part of a completely different OT book, then carrying on, as if nothing had happened).

[Marathoner]

I don't think this is a topic for textual criticism, just pointed out some of the history of translations. You point out how much is up for debate among scholars and this is also true. As for myself, I trust in the Lord and what has been given to me.  

[David1701]

2 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I don't think this is a topic for textual criticism, just pointed out some of the history of translations. You point out how much is up for debate among scholars and this is also true. As for myself, I trust in the Lord and what has been given to me.  

Textual Criticism is a hobby of mine; but I'm not an expert, just an enthusiastic amateur. 

The thing is that, every time Bible translations are brought up as a subject, textual criticism is implicitly part of that subject.  The NASB, for example, supports the NU text, which is based on a tiny minority of Greek manuscripts, in the NT, from one geographical location and one time period, and there are significant problems with that minority text (making Jesus out to be a liar, is one very serious example, from many).

John 7:8-10 (WEB - based on the Majority Text)

8 You go up to the feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled.” 
9 Having said these things to them, he stayed in Galilee.
10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.

No problem here.  Jesus tells the truth and goes later, incognito.

John 7:8-10 (NASB)

8 Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."

9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
10    But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

Oh dear, this makes Jesus out to be a liar.  Omitting that little word "yet" makes such a large difference to the meaning...

[TheBlade]

41 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Textual Criticism is a hobby of mine; but I'm not an expert, just an enthusiastic amateur. 

The thing is that, every time Bible translations are brought up as a subject, textual criticism is implicitly part of that subject.  The NASB, for example, supports the NU text, which is based on a tiny minority of Greek manuscripts, in the NT, from one geographical location and one time period, and there are significant problems with that minority text (making Jesus out to be a liar, is one very serious example, from many).

John 7:8-10 (WEB - based on the Majority Text)

8 You go up to the feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, because my time is not yet fulfilled.” 
9 Having said these things to them, he stayed in Galilee.
10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly, but as it were in secret.

No problem here.  Jesus tells the truth and goes later, incognito.

John 7:8-10 (NASB)

8 Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."

9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
10    But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

Oh dear, this makes Jesus out to be a liar.  Omitting that little word "yet" makes such a large difference to the meaning...

This thread was about "For those of you who enjoy the NASB translation, a brand new update has been published." This is great! 

......as for what you posted.. there's a reason why some used "yet" others left it out. I know 9 and there are more that left "yet" out.