ANY Differences Between 1977 1995 Nasv?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    other then updating English terminology?
    Asking, as I have read that the 1977 version considered to be a bit "more literal" than the revision?
     
  2. sdonahue1

    sdonahue1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are correct. There are some 17,000 changes in the Updated edition of 1995, moving it in the direction of Dynamic Equivalence. Conjunctives are removed. Gender inclusive language is used in about 85 places. Thee and Thou are completely gone. I believe there is a book available on this very subject, the author is Laurence Vanore.
    But, yes, the 1977 is more literal. The Thompson Chain, Hebrew-Greek Study Bible and NAS Open Bible still print the 1977 text. Also there is a new edition out from the publishers of the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, a Giant Print(not really) Bible.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Now that's funny. How in the world have you come up with such nonsense.

    Now that is absurd. Are you saying that it is a liberal translation because it has used inclusive language on 85 occasions?
     
  4. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    It did NOT move towards dynamic equivalence. But the changes made for more fluid English. But its still very "rigid" compared to others.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is a book that lists the differences, but its conclusions or assertions concerning the differences are not objective. Laurence Vance is a KJV-only author, and thus he writes from the bias of his own preconceived KJV-only opinions.

    His 1998 book is entitled: Double Jeopardy: The New American Standard Update.
     
  6. sdonahue1

    sdonahue1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    Being literal has its faults.

    Many modern translators identify Hebrew and Greek idioms and translate their meaning when the idiom doesn't make sense to the intended reader.
    Since the Tyndale and KJV bibles (and others) were translated earlier in the development of the English language, the literalness of their translation process introduced many biblical idioms into the English language heritage. Translators today don't have this advantage.

    The NASB77 had a tendency to translate idioms with word-for-word accuracy, making it read "woodenly", and awkward, almost unintelligible at times.
    The NASB95 attempted to identify these areas and clean up its language.
    In doing so it lost the "thee's and thou's" as well and other quaint but difficult readings.

    Therefore while the NASB95 is less literal; IMO, it is a better translation.

    Rob
     
    #7 Deacon, Nov 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2011
  8. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I agree with you Rob. More folks out to see the logic of this.
     
  9. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I definitely like the 95 over the 77 because it uses less archaic language, i.e. no thees and thous. I understand they also substituted the name of the object of pronouns in several cases, making it "less literal" but not as much as you might think because in the Greek, the pronouns point to their object by inflection which is lost in translation. So changing He said to Jesus said for clarity does not give up as much literalness it might seem.
     
  10. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,497
    Likes Received:
    454
    The NASB is very little used in Britain, probably because it has the word American in its title. I like the '95 version and don't find it particularly wooden. It handles the Greek tenses very well, I certainly haven't noticed any gender-inclusiveness and it doesn't omit conjunctions like the NIV does.

    It is the one I use if I want to compare something with my favourite NKJV, and in the unlikely event of my becoming persuaded of the merits of the Critical Text, it is the one I would use.

    Steve
     
  11. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    think that the NASV 1977/1995 are both excellent trans for study purposes, its just when I go to try to use 1995 version, tend to keep seeing the 1977 version as better "touch" better, as that was one used when making studies of greek text with!

    As it seems to "lose" a bit when smoothing over the rough edges into English from Greek to English in 1977, but just seemed to lose a hair in following Greek verbs/tenses structure in 1995 revision!

    Still think either version good to use, as would be the Niv 2011and HCSB!
     

Share This Page

Loading...