NASB 2020 Review
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ก.ย. 2024
- Support Rev Reads now at www.buymeacoff...
Shawn gives his thought on the 2020 update of the New American Standard Bible. He has read the entire Bible from cover to cover - here is what he thinks!
Purchase the NASB 2020 at amzn.to/3S3vs1E
Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an unbiased review.
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | ( Bacon Time Vs PSG )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM25REvnJW4/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this reasonable, honest review of the NASB 2020. The Bible instructs Christians to speak the truth and to not lie (Ephesians 4:15, 20-25; Colossians 3:9; Exodus 20:16; Psalm 15:2), and yet I see people online condemning it on the basis of hype and falsehoods. Its startling and sad. I've been reading it for about a year now, and its a great revision of the NASB.
EDIT: I have the Lockman NASB 2020 Wide Margin Reference and I highly recommend it. Its a great typesetting, and it has some nice features. They give you a lot for the price, I think.
Thank you for your compelling review of the NASB 2020. I just received my printed copy after having the electronic version for a few months. I'm fond of the text and thank you for making reference to the exceptions you have regarding certain passages.
After a few years you'll appreciate large print.
Love the NASB 2020. Smooth read sorta reminds me of rolling through the NLT but more literal !
Yes!! I totally agree with you on the NKJV and the CSB. in my personal opinion the NKJV is a grossly underrated translation by many today.
I really like the Christian Standard Bible it's actually very good.
isaiah 14:12 sucks in csb.. i do like the translation the rest but thats a shitty verse.
shining morning star .. thats jesus.. not lucifer
@@dabiededoo it'll be interesting to see the rational of the CSB translators behind that particular rendering. I don't want to make a rash judgement as I'm sure there is a reason for the way it's rendered.
@@mwj9080 yes i think your right..
also my english is not my first language. so maybe its me that doesnt say it right..
but i did read shining morningstar..
and before. i learned that morning star could be also lucifer. and shining morningstar is jesus
. so thats why i thought so..
but i think csb has revelation different name for jesus? as shining..
or else it would be another explaination. but for me its a weird wordchoice
Can somebody help me figure out how in 1 Corinthians 13:7, they went from “bears all things” in the 1995 to “keeps every confidence” in the 2020. The footnotes write “Lit covers all things.”
Honestly, I’ve never heard anyone say “keeps every confidence.” Have I been living under a rock, or is this a pretty common saying?
How is “keeps every confidence” the same as “covers all things.”
I like how the NASB2020 reads. It is smoother than the 1995. As for Yahweh, most people, including me, prefer LORD because we are not really 100% sure how the Tetragramaton should be pronounced. It also follows rabbinic and scribal tradition. Moreover, you can always read the LSB or the HCSB if you want “Yahweh.”
Superb review of a magnificent translation! Well Done, Sir!
I like NASB 2020 cause as far as I know it's the only literal translation in 21st century English. But I like the LSB cause ot translates God's name as Yahweh and the Greek work slave as slave. I wish there was a translation that did both.
I always preferred the old King James, growing up. i felt the translations from old English to modern English lacking somehow. Like they'd just translated from English to English, they felt off, like they where missing the meanings, or context. But these newer versions are finally starting to have the right feel to them. So far I'll give this NASB a thumbs up.
Subscribed! Brother, I love your channel. I now have a great resource for book reviews!
Thanks for the great word of encouragement!
I appreciate your opinion of the 2020 NASB translation.
We are disappointed in the direction of the 2020 since Lockman decided to appease the crowd and make those changes like gender neutral language. It's not like the NIV going south. We already knew they had liberal tendencies. But the NASB was supposed to hold the line; stay faithful.
Early on in my Christian life I came to love the NASB because their main Aim was to be the most accurate translation.
Sadly they have progressed; in the wrong direction. And this is why we have the LSB, which is also under Lockman.
I suppose the good that came from all this is that I came to learn the biblical languages. They are the crème de la crème.
I forgot to say... good review! I think you covered the main points.
@MRTdiver.... forgive me for saying this... but the first few lines of your comment sounds as if it was quoted from a site I was on regarding the NASB about a month ago.. where one of the initial people involved with the NASB translation had decided to distance himself from the Lockman foundation due to the liberal stance he was seeing them taking... did you by chance read this as well?..
Haha, faked me out with the thumbnail. I thought this was going to be a book-burning. :) But I appreciated the gracious and informative take.
Haha, I didn't even intend for it to be taken that way. I was just listing the questions I was covering in the review. But maybe others will see it that way too and give me more views!
Brethren is gender inclusive. I would prefer this explanation be in the margin notes than adding in sisters to the text. Brethren is also a great word we should not push aside due to ignorance.
The same goes for Man. It is gender inclusive. Some feminists may not understand this but means both men and women.
Human or humankind just doesn't read as well to me with the extra syllables. Or are we going to go full Trudeau and use “peoplekind” in the next edition?
I do like to preserve tradition and original meaning as much as possible. Most people just need to be told what these terms actually mean and they will be fine with it.
Brethren is not gender inclusive in 21st century English. If I scheduled a brethren prayer meeting at my church, none of the women in my church would attend. They would assume that it is for men.
@@RevReads You should try it as a test. I hate to just give up on words. The next update may be full of TikTok emojis
Your Gospel intro was powerful.
I just orderd the leather Lockman NASB 2020 widemargin.
I was a KIng Jame's onlyist for a month or so..lol But, I had to drop all that hate. And, thats what it is. I love the KJV and many others, but I wont judge others
I will stick with the 1995 Version along with my NKJV and recently CSB. I agree with the statement on Yahweh and hesed.
That's a nice trio of Bibles, those might be my 3 favorite English translations.
If God wants to be represented by Yahweh in the Bible, why has he allowed the vast majority of Bibles to not include it? Also, do you want Yeshua and Adonai too?
😐 God explicitly says my name is Yahweh. So yeah based on God's own words He does. It's sad that Bible translators and ancient Jews didn't follow His explicit words. Jesus used I am again and again in John's Gospel driving us towards God's name.
@RevReads No, he didn't. Firstly Yahweh is only an educated guesd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, including yourself, can say with 100% certainty the Yahweh is the correct pronunciation of God's name. Another thing is, Jesus and the apostles used Lord in the New Testament, were they wrong or superstitious as some say for doing that and not using Yahweh?This is the part I often get peaved with, moden Christians thinking they know better than the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the New Testament, and he inspired them to write Lord. Based on what I'm understanding, inspiration means nothing to some modern Christians, and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 means nothing to many of them because if it did, then there wouldn't have been this desire to see a supposed name for God in a Bible translation and that is what Yahweh is, a guess and until someone can prove to me 100% that YHWH is pronounced Yahweh, then LORD as the New Testament writers and Jesus himself used, is the way to go.
i Love the Nasb..
and my languagr isnt english. but i read english bibles.
and i dont understand why they say nasb is difficult.. because the sentences of nkjv ate more difficult then nasb..
i understand tge words. but dont catch up with the meaning then
anf nasb i really feel gods word
i buyed w big leather nasb2020 and arrives next tuesday. hope thwts great one to because i have only esv study bible nkjv study bible anf nasb from john macarthurs commentarys. but no only bible text. so thats why nasb2020.. a good one.. for long time use. so hope that text is just as good as the 1960 to 1995 nasb's
8:47 - What's interesting about Acts 8:37 is that the majority of Greek manuscripts actually lack that verse, so it's not just a critical text thing going on here.
Which is why I prefer the shorter reading
Thanks!! In preferring the Majority text which English translation would you recommend? The NKJV or EHV?
NKJV. I'm reading the Modern English Version now and I plan on reviewing that soon, Lord willing, also a very good English translation. EHV would be third.
Many thanks!!
Pastor, fo you know when someone will publish the LSB with references, full translation notes, and in a study Bible?
No, but I wish I did know. I am reading the LSB right now and wish I had the full translation notes.
Now. They’ve published multiple editions.
316 Publishing.
@@Matthew-307 Yeah, the Inside Column Reference is a large print full reference edition, and the LSB MacArthur Study Bible is announced and coming out soon.
@@grantkruger3689 Yup. My portable paragraph reference should be here any week now.
I just rediscovered a 1973 copy of this I found years ago.
Subscribed keep the videos coming
GOD Bless
Thank you!
I started reading the NASB 2020 about a month ago. Going thru several books in the OT as of now, and to my surprise I actually really like how it reads. Except, for some reason I don’t like the translation of Lord of Armies in place of Lord of Host. I haven’t touched the NT yet.
I had the same feeling. I liked it more than I expected and I can't stand Lord of Armies. I much prefer Lord of Hosts as well.
I'm with you on that they should have used Yahweh as God's name in the 2020 NASB update . Right now I think the LSB is the only one that does . This review was helpful. Do you have one on the 2020 ESV . I have the 2020 NASB AND THE 2020 ESV in my shopping cart. So anyone jump in and ANSWER this QUESTION if you know. I am trying to avoid the gender neutral changes.
But the NKJV will say “omit” are you equally uncomfortable with that choice?
But no one knows for sure how to translate God's name, Yahweh is just a good guess.
Besides that it's not the name itself that has significant but the meaning behind the name. So if rhe translation still shows the meaning behind the name then what's the big deal ?
But they translate God's Name, Yahweh, as LORD and Yahweh doesn't mean LORD. We can debate the pronunciation but I don't believe they have the meaning correct.
@@RevReads it does in the oringal Hebrew
Good stuff. My nlt for Ezekiel 18:2-4 says “Why do you quote this proverb concerning the land of Israel: ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, but their children’s mouths pucker at the taste’? Then another message came to me from the Lord: As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, you will not quote this proverb anymore in Israel. For all people are mine to judge-both parents and children alike. And this is my rule: The person who sins is the one who will die.
2:46 tell me you’re a southern Baptist without telling me you’re a southern Baptist. 😂
your reviews are perfect.
call out personal oppinions just as that. not like others say the other is false or wrong.. thats good
thanks for this
i god the same tuesday. only black
Not gender neutral. Gender specific.
Good point
It is most decent and respectful to the Most High that we do not attempt to pronounce His name, especially with no concrete proof of pronunciation in the native Hebrew tongue. The English translation is literally ‘YHWH’
I don’t hate the NASB20, but I feel like the Masters Seminar made better decisions with the LSB both in regards to rendering the Tetragrammaton and refining what people already liked about the NASB95 by making the text more of a window into the original languages which is how I’ve always viewed the NASB95 compared to other more literally translations. When I read the LSB, I feel more invited to search the original languages, but when I read the NASB20, I feel like I’m just hit with gender inclusion and nothing more than what other translations are already bringing to the table.
Also, I disagree that removing “begotten” is a good choice. Not only is it a historical connection to the many creeds and confessions on the Son, but it also echos Psalm 2, a critical passage on the person of the Son in the trinity. I also get the concept that Isaac wasn’t Abrahams only born son, but Isaac does act as a shadow/type of the Son of God that was sacrificed by the father to atone for sin. “One and only” misses these points, something I hope other modern translations return to.
It seems like the only bibles that don't follow the "gender neutral" language are the KJV and the NKJV. Are there any others that do not follow the the current gender neutral language?
So that's why there's footnotes to explain what the translators may think the context may make a word mean. They should NEVER insert words in the sacred text to explain what they believe it's a modern explanation for today's audience. That's what commentary and footnotes are meant to do. The original authors knew well the different between brothers and sisters and they could very well have added the words "and sisters" when the Holy Spirit inspired them. But guess what, God DIDN'T inspire them to "clarify" that the audience also included females. It's perfectly clear by simply reading the context so why fixing something that wasn't broken to begin with. The ESV does a great job by adding a footnote where they think females were among the males in the audience. As it should be. Leaving the sacred text alone.
Also Yahweh IS NOT God's name. It's actually impossible when we understand the Name is an acronym. Yehovah is HASHEM. (Y)IHYEH (HOV)EH HAY(AH) Y'HOVAH (He who will be, He who is, He who was). And from Yehovah we get, Yeho-natan, Yeho-shaphat, Yeho-shua which became Yeshua (Jesus). To be able to read Yahweh you have to add two Aleph letters in Hebrew יאהואה which is not YHVH then.
2,000 plus Hebrew manuscripts read Yehovah with the full vowels, guess how many read Yahweh... ZERO. Facts are important.
So the 2020 is the “ woke “ version of NASB. Great 😂😂. I like it but I don’t like changing text to what “ we think it should mean “ due the changing the text because the times have changed , I don’t agree with one bit …. I’m pretty sure I learned in seminary , we are not allowed to add too the text or change it. So saying “ brothers and sisters “ is factually incorrect my friend !!
The Bible is also clear that women cannot be pastors and deacons of a church. They can teach and play all kinds of roles but not leadership. Why , because God punished us for for eternity and the end result due to Eve being NIEVE and eating the fruit. We all are now punished with death because of Eve. This is also why women are not aloud to lead churches. Although I have seen way to many churches allowing women as pastors - soley to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy rather than abiding by Gods RULES. So many churches have went “ WOKE “ Very sad that all these pastors and churches are rebelling against Gods literal word !!! Kinda mind blowing to me …..
What would be your preference then? LSB?
I prefer the NKJV, 95 NASB, and the HCSB.
@@RevReads I’m into the more literal so I’ve been thinking it’s time I get familiar with the NKJV
So when you say "gender" changes you don't mean like "woke" type gender changes do you?
I don't believe they are woke changes. They are taking male plurals, when the audience is clearly referring to men and women, and making them gender accurate in modern usage. We don't say, "There is a meeting for the brothers tonight" when it is intended for all the church. We would say, "There is a meeting for the brothers and sisters." That is the update made in this Bible.
wich bible does name yahweh elohim and so?. or at least yahweh.
only the lsb?
HCSB
@@RevReads would you prefer the nasb2020 or the lsb? i got both of them tomorrow..
but 1 of the 2 i send back.. bit yet know what one.. i thought i keep the Lsb.. what would you do?
@@dabiededoo I would pick the LSB over the NASB 2020.
The original text in John 3:16 says should not perish, while this one translates it to will not. Which is two different messages. Since the rest of the bible makes it clear that belief alone won't be enough and faith without works is dead, I'll pass. It is deceiving people into thinking all they have to do is believe. Which is a lie.
Thanks for your review. Not a translation that interests me. Seems to have some agenda and seems to add little to the '95 translation. But appreciate your viewpoints.
What agenda would that be?
*peoplekind
pffff
Sounds more like a LGTB version!
A 'Lost in Gender Translation Bible version!
Seems to me that gender accuracy would be the last thing an "lgbt bible" would be.
4:40 The problem with the change is it is not what Paul said. you say the same phrase one way, but it is likely that Paul is reinforcing church order that he talks about elsewhere and he means what he says the way he actually said it. Do you really think the Apostles need help with their use of pronouns? i would be very annoyed if someone changed what i said to suit themselves. NASB2020 is smooth as oil.
Men and brothers no longer means a mixed audience in standard American usage. If I announced a men's breakfast for my church for Saturday morning, no women would attend. Therefore, when Paul says men, and we know he is referring to the entire church, the proper translation into modern American English is people. We make those kind of translation changes ALL the time in the Bible.
@@RevReads I would have agreed in the past, but it is more accurate to say man in its pluralized form (i.e. like mankind) because the original text uses 'Adam'. Moreover this pluralization is not present in the aforementioned epistle. When he says 'Brethren' or 'Brothers' he is saying it the way he wants to. Just as with the use of 'Adam', he is preserving structure, order, in his choice of wording. The NASB2020 should not be thought as a good formal equivalence, but is more like the NIV. Thought translation are presumptive in their approach, details are sanded away to improve elegance of reading, the translators don't catch the mistakes, being limited in their method by their own intelligence, trusting themselves. People should stick with their 95 edition.
Do you have specific examples for what you are referring to?
@@RevReads Genesis 1 and Thessalonians 5:14
Brothers and sisters is a preferable transition of I Thess 5:14. Paul is writing to the whole church and not just elders and not just the men. Since Paul is writing to the brothers and the sisters, the NASB2020 is preferable for 21st century English. I
When you change every man to everyone you change doctrine. Read Hebrews 2, modern bibles say everyone which misleads readers into .thinking Jesus died for every single person who ever lived instead of the truth that he died for every man which means the white, black, brown, red and yellow man which means his sheep that he died for are of all men.
I only mentioned the KJV.. because I felt you slighted this.. by the not mentioning of it. alongside the other translations...... I believe the KJV is worthy of equal mention alongside any of the translations you mentioned.. regardless of any biases that are associated with it... the fact is.. there are indeed thousands of KJV onlyists out there that is true.. but.. because .. maybe people do not agree with the KJV only view does Not mean tthe KJV does Not deserved to be mentioned alongside other translations... I am sorry if many of us seem brash.... I would call it being zealous.. for things of God.. and whether Non KJV onlyists people view it that way or Not... what you may consider rude or brash on their part... is in fact a Zealous desire for the word of God... I agree many KJV onlyists are close minded to anything anyone else says about other translations.. but Not all are.... I for one.... have and still am going thru various translations and their updates.. and can see the good in many of the modern translations... I've grown to love the NASB 1995...for example... I tried the NASB 1977 for a while.. but I figured.. that if I was going to appreciate the 1977 NASB.. I may as well read the text from the KJV.... the 1995 stands out to me as being a good updated version... even though I am a KJV onlyist... In fact.... I wish the KJV was the only bible everyone owned.. but since it is beyond my power to correct this,.. I have learned to live with other views... I just do not wish to feel like the KJV is being dismissed... again I am sorry if my first comment to you seemed harsh or brash...
I do have a strong feelings against the gender neutrality.. issue however.... I will never fully embrace the idea... as I also am opposed to other sensitive issues in this country.. I believe many issues are brought on by people themselves... ones who feel they are Not included in the bible under the word Man.. or Brothers... in my opinion are too sensitive.. ... for instance.. the Black Lives Matter issue... I can understand the logic towards this... but those today.. cannot continue to hold the misgivings of our country's ancestors over our heads... it's time to move on!.. should I as one who loves this country.. Not be offended by those who would refuse.. to sing the National anthem?..just as the voice of those who are speaking out stating gender is unfair in God's word need to be heard.. or Black Lives need to be heard.. should Not the ones who believe it's time to move on be heard?... or about loyalty to this country...?.. should we not be heard?...In my opinion... and this may not matter in the big picture of things... those who read God's word and feel they are excluded because of the Language Not being gender inclusive... do Not know God that well...or have come to God's word with their own biases.... how can they say that others who come to God's word with their biases are wrong.. then?....
gender inclusive? I will stay with the 1984 NIV.
AND we also have to remember "One and Only Son"... does NOT have the same connotation that "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON".. has. .the word "begotten ".. has a certain...connotation to it's use.. that "one and only".. does Not have....for example Isaac was Not Sarah's "only" son.. as she also had Ishmael.. thru Hagar... but Isaac WAS her ONLY "Begotten"..".. son.. since she bore Isaac herself.. the same with God and Jesus. .Jesus is the "begotten".. of God..
the word "begotten".. implies.. a Son with a purpose...
They meant brethren as brothers and sisters then as well. I don’t see the need to put the brothers and sisters in there.
Keep that woke crap out of God's Word. I will stick with my 1995 version.
If you held a men's Bible study at your church would it be considered for men and women or just men?
@@RevReads Just Men, period!
@@user-kp8wp6lv5h so is your church woke? You are using men with the same meaning as the NASB 2020. They use men for passages for where it is about men only and they use men and women or brothers and sisters for passages talking about the entire church. We don't use men in 21st century English to refer to a mixed assembly.
@@RevReads Woke is a cancer that has no place in any true church. I would never be a member of any "woke" church. The Lockman foundation has lost it's way if you ask me!
@@RevReads And Man inhabited the earth. The Men have a Bible study weekly.