Відео

Siblings is weird too. We always knew brethren mean men and women. I don’t see why it has to change. Siblings is more of a biological family word. Brethren are like brothers in Christ

So, I agree with you and disagree at the same time, I think lol…. So I feel like we (me included) say “we don’t need to add this or that” but… I then go back and remember the Bible was not written in English it has to be translated so then I start thinking, if we translate a different language to a person who does not understand the original language wouldn’t we give them the meaning not the word for word? Idk, I’m torn as well but as a youth pastor I keep going back to “what gets the actual point across” so that these kids will understand… thoughts?

@@Deneseanime well said! And very interesting, I haven’t heard of that translation before!

@@jfb3415 if you read the preface that’s how the translators of the 2020 describe the addition of the words “and sisters”, and that’s also why it’s in italics. The NASB has always put in italics words that aren’t backed by the literal Greek words but are justified by context

@@ScienceFaithReasoning So my question to you then is if the original Greek represents a word that is inclusive of both men and women and there is no longer a modern one word equivalent then what is the solution? I know that to YOU brethren or brother or man can be inclusive and probably to a vast majority of people of a certain age that is true for them as well but its just no longer a common usage. Sometimes we need more than one English term to accurately represent the intent of the original word. Again, I see your point but I disagree with their italics and the implication that its not an accurate translation.

​@@jfb3415 I think your perspective makes sense, I just respectfully disagree. I prefer a translation that is as close to the original language as possible while still being readable, and I prefer it to allow the readers to make those types of inferences rather than it being inferred for the reader by the translators. I think one other reason why this topic hits home for me is I recently have learned a lot about the importance of male headship and leadership of the family from Scripture, and also from experience now that I have two kids, and I think its an important part of God's revelation that the text has such an emphasis on men, even when addressing topics that apply to both males and females, the males are emphasized because they will be the ones entrusted to lead their faith communities. Again, this is an extremely small point of difference and I fully understand that this doesn't make the NASB2020 a bad translation, it just means it's focused more on readability at this one point than it is focused on literalness.

​@@ScienceFaithReasoning The hierarchy of males through history is absolutely the most likely reason that language emphasized males over females. But the bottom line is that mankind and brothers is no longer a default word to mean both so if the original Greek is referring to both then an accurate translation is one that conveys that concept properly. This is not an area where people are adding or making choices for the original its a question of how best to convey the actual meaning. If you disagree with it saying brothers and sisters then you also disagree with the word brethren. They mean the same thing in context. It has absolutely nothing to do with male leadership and is not breaking that down its just accurately translating the words. There are plenty of times the Greek or Hebrew doesn't easily one for one over and language changes over time. That is what we are dealing with.

@@ScienceFaithReasoning To better clarify if you feel that brethren is a fair and accurate translation and that word includes both "brothers and sisters" then its an equally good translation to just use "brothers and sisters". And arguably much better because the inclusiveness of the statement is much easier to understand. If you feel that brethren is better because even within a group you feel the men have more importance then I think thats an interpretation that is not in the original text.

@@rcboyd9 haha I totally feel that, I really don’t mean to be such a stickler about this. And really I’m happy if people are using it and it’s not a distraction for them, but for me it is, and so I respectfully am going to stick with the NASB1995

The NKJV is my fav translation but the NASB20 is my preference over the NASB95, ESV and LSB.

@@SoberNSavedByGodsGrace thank you for the thoughtful comment even though you respectfully disagree! Blessings to you!

I agree with you, men can mean people in a given context (because often directions pertain to both men and women). Now in Romans 5:12, I think it is very important for it to be male-specific, because it's talking about the headship of Adam bringing sin into the world on mankind, because all people come from his seed and thus all men succeeding from that Adam have a corrupt seed that perpetuates the sin until a savior could die for them. Now, the NASB 2020 I believe can still be considered to maintain this meaning even though it says sin spread to "all mankind" instead of "all men", even though I believe it cheapens the focus on the depravity of man's seed that leads to the perpetual sin of the human race. This is also why Christ does not inherit sin, even though he is born by a fallen woman, because he did not come from the depraved male seed. The word brethren, however, is not a neutral term in Greek, the Greek word "adelphoi" is grammatically masculine and most literally means "brothers", not "brothers and sisters". One justification I have heard for rendering it as "brothers and sisters" is that it was so uncommon for ancient Greek speakers to address a male and female audiences as brothers and sisters, that they put that in there to show that they are clearly speaking to both. Which, helps you understand the information is for both males and females right as you start reading it, but it's not justified by the actual Greek. Now, if the NASB wants to be like the NIV, and simply try to make everything more understandable and less literal, that's fine, that's what they're doing with this change. But they are losing their reputation as one of the most literal and accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew. But overall, if someone likes this translation I think it's completely fine to continue using it. I just personally have a qualm with it that makes me hesitant to teach out of it. I still use it sparingly for study at work if I want to read from physical pages.

@ hear me out: the word brethren DOES apply to men and women (the whole congregation) in most cases because masculine used to be neutral. It no longer is, English has changed. Literal translation means expressing the English equivalent of the actual words. As English moves away from masculine being neutral so too must the translation be updated to reflect it. And I also disagree that Romans 5 male headship is better represented with man over mankind or people. Which implies more male responsibility: 1) through one man, all men suffer Or 2) through one man, everyone suffers The latter better shows male headship because it more clearly demonstrates that the man is responsible for everyone. That’s my opinion anyway.

@ those are all respectable points, and that’s why I think you need to find a Bible that you’re comfortable with. For me personally, and it may be an unreasonable position, I just don’t like it and it makes me uncomfortable every time I see it lol

😂😅

The Jar Jar binks idol is what I should really be worried about lol

@@sbs8331 amen!!!

@@yolkedbaptist the KJV is a great translation!

@ if the KJV is a “great” translation according to you. What version would be a bad translation? Or are all modern versions acceptable bibles to read?

@ there’s way too many Bible translations for me to say they are all good bibles to read, but the ones I’m familiar with all carry the full scope of Biblical Christian doctrines: NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV. The only Bible I know for sure is purposely mistranslated is the NWT

@ what about words and verses that are omitted from the modern versions? Do you think that’s ok to do? Do you think Jesus was joking when he said this, Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

@@deeman524 what is CT only?

@@deeman524 yes I think the NASB are more literal and therefore closer tot the original writings of the apostles and other Biblical authors, but the new Bibles often include verses that are in the KJV (if there’s remotely any manuscript evidence for them), and simple indicated with brackets what the manuscript evidence is for a particular verse. Which I think is best since they’re just telling you the truth about the evidence for a particular verse.

@@gmcenroe is that a specific type of study Bible?

@@ScienceFaithReasoningit’s a gourmet Bible

But it's the responsibility of the translator to translate what the text says. Determining what it means turns the translator to an interpreter, which is the purview of pastors/teachers and the reader under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

@ every translation is guilty of that

I hope you are right brother lol

@@ScienceFaithReasoning Unfortunately we do not have a more modern term for the word "brethren" and using "brothers" instead is just not accurate to what the original text means.

I more or less agree with you. It's really more of a personal subjective distaste I have with the phrase than it it is an objective dispute. However, I do think its less readable having it the way the NASB2020 phrases it. In some sections, it says it so many times, that its redundant and makes the verses flow much less smoothly.

That's what I was going to say I'm glad you said it but it's really kind of a you thing. For example I've been trying to use the ESV more and I don't like it when they say things like "walk not" we don't talk like that in English anymore. So that's a me thing 3:32 ​@@ScienceFaithReasoning

@@philtheo amen! lol I’ve been interested in the LSB since it came out, seems like a great translation. To me it basically looks like the NASB 1995 with Jehovah in the OT

​@ScienceFaithReasoning actually it has Yawah in the Old Testament. But the good thing about the LSB is that it corrects the little things that used to erk me about the NASB 95. Like the way it handles questions that expect a negative answer. I highly recommend looking into the LSB for yourself.

@@ReformedBaptist.1689 I definitely will. Thank you for reaching out!

Exactly, there some places where the NASB2020 is more literal than the 95 text. All you really need for modern translations is a NKJV, NASB2020 and NLT

@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 I agree! Though I might peek at the BSB a bit more than the NLT. But you can't go wrong with those three!

@ I understand. Although with the NASB2020 there is no need for the BSB for me

@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 Good point

@@dadaalice the CSB also does the and sisters thing? And what is the BSB?

@ScienceFaithReasoning yes CSB does this as well. BSB is the Berean Standard Bible, love this translation, check out out!

@@dadaalice yeah I am looking into the BSB right now, I can't believe I never heard of that translation before

You're being inaccurate then.

@@kevindrake714 the 2020? And did you like the older NASBs?

@@ilovecats9336 I’ve never looked into the 77, is it basically the same as the 1995?

The 77 uses the older sounding language when referring directly to God. Psalms has a lot of Thee, Thou and Thine for example. The point was to add an extra reverence to God. Otherwise they are very similar.

@@ilovecats9336 That's cool, I'm going to start referencing the 77 version along with my 95 version when I study for sermons and write articles. Thanks for the info!

The NASB 1995 is hard to beat! I still love mine and use it for preaching and studying. I use the NASB 2020 sparingly and occasionally the “and sisters” thing pops up and annoys me lol

It does have cross references depending on the Bible you get

That’s awesome! Thank you for sharing your story!

What Christian doctrines are missing in the NASB1995 that are present in the KJV?

@ScienceFaithReasoning the PURE, PRECISE, and PERFECT words of God.

@@timkhan3238 if the message is identical, what’s the difference between the KJV, NASB, and a Spanish translation? A Spanish translation wouldn’t be identical to the KJV, but it would have the same message if translated properly.

because you said so?

@@KlintonSilvey if you can demonstrate that there are doctrines in the KJV that are not found in the high quality modern versions (such as NASB and ESV), I’d be interested to hear it

I was thinking the same thing when I interviewed him.

?

@@ShepMusic absolutely man! I think it’s very edifying for the church to see this!

All these roads lead to low standards and Calvinistic doctrine. Modern Bibles do not produce good fruit but rather carnal Christianity. I agree Steven Anderson is a nut job, but the reason he has so much truth is because he uses the KJV and believes it. He just has the wrong spirit and doesn’t apply the Book properly. Those who worship God must worship Him in Spirit and truth. If you’d like watered-down Christianity, then I highly recommend continuing down this rocky road. You will slowly lose your confidence in Christianity when you lose your confidence in the Word of God. By your own testimony, you didn’t grow before, and now that you have grown, you’re going back? You better examine yourself. Check on 2 verses (2 Tim 3:7) all these guys ever do is cast doubt on the words of God. (2 Cor 2:17) They were corrupting the words of God even in Paul's day. Older manuscripts don't equal better. You need to decide where you are going to place your faith. I pray God shows you the truth and you obey it.