Original NASB & Updated NASB

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by CoJoJax, Jan 18, 2010.

  1. CoJoJax

    CoJoJax
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey everybody,

    Quick question here.

    What are the big differences between the original NASB and the updated NASB?

    Through reading a lot of topics on here and other places, it seems a lot of people say the updated NASB became more "liberal" (whatever that means).. I guess not as literal as the original. And then some people say that it just took the thee's and thou's out of it. What are the big differences?

    I don't know a whole lot about the NASB but I was hoping to get some insight here.

    Also-- if you had to choose, which version is better for Bible Study, the original or the update? Or does it make any difference?

    Just some curious questions from a novice, once again. :laugh:
     
  2. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    There is a brief comparison between the NAS77 and NAS95 on the Lockman Foundation website. You'll find it at the bottom of the page.
     
  3. sdonahue1

    sdonahue1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 1995 Update (NASBU), while still a literal translation, has moved in the direction of dynamic equivalence mainly by omitting a lot of conjunctions (and, but, etc). It has also inttroduced gender inclusive language in about 85 places. Of course, all the 'thee' and 'thou' language is gone, as well.
    The NASB(1977) is still available in the Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, the Thompson Chain, the New Open Bible, and maybe one or two more editions which elude me for the moment.
     
    #3 sdonahue1, Jan 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 18, 2010
  4. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I think the older NASB is still available in the Master Study Bible as well, at least I hope it is.
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give some examples of the gender inclusive language of the NASBU?
     
  6. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, cause I haven't noticed any. Please show some examples.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Even if it does introduce gender-accurate language in 85 places compared to the 77 version --that doesn't mean that a more dynamic-equivalence method is being employed. Whether it's 85 places in the New Testament alone, or in the whole canon -- that's no big deal.
     
  8. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I still want examples.
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well?

    If no one can give examples, I must consider the statement to be wrong.
     
  10. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, this is the 2nd thread where no one is responding to original accusations or statements after I've asked a question or posted info. <sigh>

    Therefore, I assume there is no gender neutral language in the NASBU. It's one thing to say so and another to give an example.
     
  11. padredurand

    padredurand
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    20
    Reminds me of the current TV ads about high fructose corn syrup...

    You know what they say.

    No, what do they say?

    Umm, err, ah....
    There are a lot of buzz words out there that take someone's emotions from zero to one hundred in half a second or less. Inclusive language is one of those. For two years I took summer school at a mainline denominational seminary in Marcia's neighborhood (on the campus of AU). Under that roof, inclusive language meant no male pronouns for God, no use of Father or any other uses of a word presumed to support a male dominated patriarchal society especially the one found in the the Hebrew bible. I know their rhetoric. I lost half a letter grade per paper for using non-inclusive language.

    That is not what is by inclusive language in the NASBU.

    Strauss was responsible for one of two essays found at the link above. An opposing viewpoint by David Wegener is found on the latter half of the page.

     
  12. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, padredurand! That is what I was thinking - translation of terms that can refer to both men and women, not changing specific male terms into non-male terms, which is what gender neutral/inclusive language really is.
     
  13. Tater77

    Tater77
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well one Greek word I can think of that can be translated gender inclusive and be accurate is "anthropos" ἄνθρωπος which can be a generic term for human being unless the context is specific.

    Also "teknon" τέκνον which is typically translated as son but means "child" so it could go either way depending. As compared to "uihos" υἱός which means "son" specifically.


    When using the above words, is the NASBU gender inclusive or more accurate?
     
  14. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You see, this is what most people have become confused about due to the extensive disinformation campaign of Grudem, L.Ryken,Dobson & Co.

    The TNIV and NLTse etc. employ gender-accurate language. These kind of translations do not try to obscure male and female distinctions.
     
  15. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    In the men’s study this morning we were looking over Daniel 10 and discussed who touched Daniel (And behold a hand touched me, vs. 10).

    I've begun using a large print ESV bible recently and one phrase caught my eye.

    Daniel 10:16 ESV one in the likeness of the children of man

    I guessed the phrase in Hebrew would have been “sons of man” and eagerly rushed home to look it up.

    Literally it reads: And look, [one] in the likeness of the sons of man…

    It's interesting how the NASB renders the phrase.


    And behold, one who resembled a human being was touching my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, “O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength.
    Daniel 10:16, NASB95

    Various versions render it differently.

    And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips. Then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, “O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength.
    Daniel 10:16, ESV

    Rob
     
    #15 Deacon, Jan 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2010
  16. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    This verse in unchanged from my copy of the NASB (circa 1973).

    Most versions have been a bit schizophrenic on this point; for example, the KJV translates ben/banim as child or children about one-third of the time.
     
    #16 rsr, Jan 23, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 23, 2010
  17. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess the context should determine how these are translated. But I know it's a tricky issue.
     
  18. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the example. I looked at the NIV, KJV, NKJV, and NLT and they all have something along the lines of looked like a man or like the sons of men.

    I looked up the words for this too. In light of the fact that it seems angels are always referred to as male, and this is probably Gabriel, I think having it translated as a man or son of man is preferable to human being.
     
  19. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I re-examined the verse and reconsidered, the problem is I was looking at a single phrase, I missed the forest for the trees.

    When the whole verse is looked at a whole the NASB can't really be accused using gender inclusive language.

    And behold, one who resembled a human being was touching my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke and said to him who was standing before me, “O my lord, as a result of the vision anguish has come upon me, and I have retained no strength.
    Daniel 10:16, NASB95

    Rob
     
  20. JTornado1

    JTornado1
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have both the 1977 and the 1995 update, and the only real difference I noticed is that the 1995 update omits a lot of conjunctions and "thee" and "thou." I prefer the earlier edition over the update.
     

Share This Page

Loading...