When I study, I not only have a hard copy NASB95 with footnotes, but also computer presentations of others versions with footnotes such as the NET.
When the Greek word refers to our "brothers" in Christ, it refers both to male and female folks. Thus "siblings" includes the intended group, and avoids drawing a distinction not found in the text.
You have ascribed the motives of the NASB publishers, but did not provide a quote to support your charge. Adam Schiff presented what he claimed Trump meant in the phone call, but it was a fabrication.
Here is what they claimed were the motivations:
"The whole text is being reviewed with more emphasis in the Old Testament.
The primary goal is to maintain accuracy and modernize English.
As our base texts are the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) and Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) for the books available and the NA28 for the NT. We don't always agree with the editors of those texts and choose alternate or variant readings when we feel they are more accurate."
New American Standard Bible 2020 Update
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Deacon, Nov 17, 2018.
Page 2 of 8
-
-
-
The NASB 2020 using "siblings" or "brothers and sisters" here is acceptable. If they did so...I have not read this verse personally. There is a couple times when I believe the CSB went to fair with αδελφοί being rendered "brothers and Sisters" (context suggests brothers should have been used)...slightly more the NIV. I have yet to see the NASB 2020 go to far. Then again, I have only read 20-25 or so posts online of it.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
I have the same thing to say to you as the last guy, "You like paraphrases and alterations that support your views. I don't want, nor need, any changes to lean the text of the Bible toward my views."
You've disqualified yourself from over objecting to any paraphrase choice in any translation. Your objections would be nothing but hypocrisy. Everyone who produces a translation or paraphrase believes as you do, that their changes reflect the intent of the original author, even if it's not what the author actually said.
Regarding specifically brothers to "brothers and sisters" if Paul meant that in Romans, could have said "brothers and sisters". Are you accusing Paul of ignorance, not knowing that churches had women in them, so he just said brothers? Are you accusing Paul of paganism, falling the customs of presumed misogynists who talked passed women, straight to men? As long as you're second guessing Paul, what do you fantasize is his reason for saying "brothers" rather than "brothers and sisters"? -
If you wanted to say siblings in greek, how would you do it? What word would be used?
What is your argument that αδελφοί can only mean brothers? Because it is masculine? If so, will you argue that only women can sin since it is a feminine word?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
You made up ulterior motives for the NASB publisher, I didn't.
It remains to be seen if the 2020 revision of the NASB improves it, or makes is worse. All these premature castigations simply betray bias. -
-
-
-
-
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
If Paul wanted to say Brother and Sister, he could easily have said it: ἀδελφός καί ἀδελφή.
Even if I agreed with you that Paul absolutely meant both male and female when he says Brother, he still says Brother and I respect, and will not presume to second guess, the divinely inspired language this great Apostle.
It's just gravy, and unnecessary, to point out that your interpretation is wrong, which is why Paul didn't say Brother than Sister. -
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk -
The KJVO advocates imagine that modern translations leave out verses. But, most likely, scribes added the extra words found in the Received Text used by the KJV. Scribes might have added margin notes or parenthetical comments to explain the passage they're copying. And then, future scribes seeing those notes and comments thought they belonged in the text itself.
Or, maybe some self-righteous dolt of a scribe thought he was doing the world a favor changing words and adding words directly into the text because this is "what Paul really meant."
Fortunately, for 2000 years of church history, before the 21st century, most Christians stood strongly against anyone changing scripture. So, damage to the manuscripts was minor. Unfortunately, in our no-longer-Christian society, people who think themselves followers of God have little hesitation changing scripture to have God follow them, and their equally irreverent peers applaud them for bringing out "what Paul really meant." -
-
Are any changes effecting doctrine - minor or major points of which the validity of the teaching is in some manner removed?
-
While we were a Christian country, the Bible led our culture. Now that we are no longer a Christian country, nominal Christians feel free to change the Bible to have the culture lead the Bible. (A silver lining of not living in a Christian country is that the nominal Christians are exposed. When the culture is Christian, they're concealed in the culture. In a Christian culture, they don't support same-sex marriage, women pastors, and "gender-neutral" alterations, because the culture doesn't support these things. But, when the culture changes and supports these things, they support these things because belong to the world, not to God.)
Even if I agreed that it doesn't change any doctrine, it's arrogant and contemptible for people to inject their opinions into the text of scripture through paraphrases and other alternations beyond what is necessary for a translation. Doing so is not only an attempt to improve upon God's word, it also locks out other interpretations.
Most of the changes in the 21st-century Bible versions is done to change doctrine in a way reflecting the doctrines of those who belong to the world. The ESV is the only significant 21st century translation that has shown resistance to following the world. (The NKJV is great 20th century version, may they not meddle with it.) -
2) Where does one get "Christian values"? The word of God.:)
3) The love of money does that.:(
See item 3.
The phrase, "make merchandise of you" ( 2 Peter 2:3 ) also comes to my mind. -
I'm not sure such a word exists in Koine Greek. -
What many "KJVO" people see, especially those that have done the research, is that most modern translations leave out words and even whole passages, because of the manuscripts being used to perform the translations.
The significant differences are in the Textus Receptus ( basically Stephanus' and Beza's texts from the 1500's ) versus the Critical Text ( Westcott and Hort's collated text from 1881 ) while the MT ( Hodges and Farstad's collation of some 100 manuscripts ) hardly gets used to perform any translations, today.
Most modern English translations makes use of USB / NA apparatuses ( collated Greek texts ) that lean heavily on only two major manuscripts...Sinaiticus ( found in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in the mid-1800's ), and Vaticanus ( housed in Rome for over 1,000 years. ).
But, unfortunately, there's no real proof.:(
Page 2 of 8