I don’t understand why it’s bad that they are trying to be accurate with the intent of the use of the original word. On top of that they are being transparent about their choice. Seems by letting it distract you is making a mountain out of a mole hill. It’s no different than me walking in a room and saying “hey guys” and someone later realizing that I was referring to everyone in the room in a generic phrase and translating it in a way that indicates it was a mixed crowd.
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
So initially I was critical of the 2020 edition. But I've come to appreciate the transparency with the use of italics. Also, R. Grant Jones scores it further on the formal equivalence than the '95 text. I probably use the NKJV and BSB more though.
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
Back when I studied Greek, they wanted us to translate "Gender Accurately." So I used to translate adelphoi "Siblings." I stand by that reading. 3 words for 1 is clunky. If brethren isn't sufficiently gender "accurate," use "siblings."
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
I actually really love the NASB 2020, I've read it through twice this year, oddly enough the "and sisters" doesn't really bother me, I usually read it without distraction. I don't recall seeing it being used it places it doesn't belong. Personally my main problem is the removal of the word "begotten" throughout the new testament, in all instances referring to the only begotten Son. Also Psalm 1 reading "Blessed is the 'person'..." makes me chuckle.
@@jamesmarmer9193 thank you for your comment, I didn’t know about the removal of the word begotten, but that also seems to be an issue. Was begotten replaced with something similar or was it simply removed? And it’s not a terrible translation, it’s very good, just that one issue for me is very distracting. I think a large part of Bible translation preferences is we like to use what we grew up with, at least that’s the case for me
@@ScienceFaithReasoning They did not replace begotten with anything, all it's instances are simply just removed. NASB2020 John 3:16 reads "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son...". But I agree with you that some of these changes were completely unnecessary. I'm especially fond of the NASB 1995 myself too. I bought the NASB2020 and LSB a little over a year ago and thought the 2020 was such a pleasure to read. I've bought a few copies for friends and family members that I've been trying to bring to Christ. I think the readability should be more palatable to a new reader of the Bible.
@@jamesmarmer9193 that’s awesome, I have also purchased a lot of NASB 2020’s to give to people, and I think it’s a good translation, and if you’re not familiar with the 1995, it probably won’t bother you at all. It’s just so hard for me to change at this point in my life lol
I’ve felt this. However, the message is the same and many souls are being nourished and brought to Christ on the nasb2020. Finally a word for word translation in a common tongue. Don’t let the LSB marketing turn us all into translation snobs. Even the Esv makes note that adelphoi is inclusive allllllllllll over the NT. Lets not become a new version of KJV onlyist
@@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
I recently bought the Schuyler NASB 1995 Bible because I wanted a quality production Bible without these new changes in the event that Schuyler adopted the 2020
I don’t like the changes they made (it is distracting and unnecessary). Brethren/brothers (can infer sisters). Men (can infer women). We don’t need the additional words to be there!
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?
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.
I know in the eyes of jesus there is no man or woman. But at the same time, we are human, and we are limited to human thinking.And some people need the specification that we're talking about both men and women. I like nasb for clear english but i manly use the jewish complete study bible. I like seeing the traditional Hebrew and Greek names. And it explains cultural differences as well as biblical holidays and traditions.
To attempt gender "accuracy" will often breed inconsistency, inaccuracy, or awkwardness. For example, in Psalm 1:1 the 2020 changes "man" to "person". Fair enough, but then in v. 2 it uses the masculine pronoun "his". Uh-oh. That's no more gender accurate than is the use of "brothers" or "brethren" in the NT. It's also inconsistent with the previous verse. A worse approach is dynamic equivalent translations' changing from singular to plural (NLT, CEV, NIV with "they" in v. 3, etc.), thus losing the accurate picture of one person standing against the ungodly. If the 2020 wanted to really be consistent with "brothers and sisters" shouldn't it change "his" to "his or her"? It would be very awkward, but perhaps not much more than how it handles "brothers and sisters". At the end of the day, manipulating the text for purposes like this will sometimes create more issues than it resolves. My preference would have been to retain the literal rendering in the text in accordance with its translation philosophy to adhere to the form of the original and include a footnote denoting the interpretation, similar to the ESV. It's interesting to note that James 2:15 has "brother or sister" in the Greek (ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ), so maybe there's a reason the Spirit inspired the rendering in the original here and not elsewhere.
@@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.
You falsely say it was "added" but it was not. The original text used a word that meant both men and women. If its translated to a term that could be misunderstood to be only men then THAT is the improper translation (although it would not have been at the original translation time when that was better understood). I understand the thought behind the argument but its still not valid to say it was added. You are doing a disservice to anyone that might misunderstand bretheren or "man" to not be inclusive.
@@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.
I love the 2020 and the 1995 , I got a tony evans study bible in the 2020 and surprised it has the bracketed omited verses like the 1995 does and keeps that in the text which makes me happy. Ive seen that most versions of the 2020 dont do that but in fact they footnote them....but this version I use in company with a KJV side by side or back n forth and I enjoy them both and comparing verses I appreciate your points I just disagree with most of this but appreciate the information.
My standard was always the NASB '95 but it's since been replaced by the LSB. But I do own a copy of the NASB 2020. I knew about the changes before it was released and I did have my concerns. But since reading it I found that the changes are not at all anything to be convicted about. This is legalism at its best. The Holy Spirit is the one that translates the Bible for you anyway. Just enjoy the various translations for what they are. If you really want an accurate bible then go learn the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Every single translation adds words, or deletes them, to make the text more intelligible to it's audience. Even the KJV was updated several times between 1611 and 1769. If you are that much of a stickler, use an interlinear.
I would love to get my hands on a good pastor version of the LSB, it looks like a great translation, but I don't know much about it other than McArthur's early promo videos about it.
@ScienceFaithReasoning I got one and I like it, they used the NASB for the translation of the LSB. You can get it free online till you find a physical copy. Definitely worth looking at.
But it has "Yahweh." Since Hebrew vowels weren't introduced until the middle ages Masoretic Text, we don't know how it was pronounced. That is an LSB translation choice. More literal would be YHWH.
If brethren means brothers and sisters within the context then why is sisters an issue? The problem here is the translation philosphy. Literal does not always mean accurate. Brothers and Sisters is an accurate translation. Literal texts are not importnat unless youre using it to help you study the greek and hebrew. The NASB is cool but its not that serious. It seems like youre allowing it to upset you a little. The italics is only useful for students. For regular reading understanding and comprehension its just not necessary. It shouldnt be used as a main translation in my opinion. I like the NRSV and RSV for reading and study, and the KJV just because its awesome. My favorite bible of all time is the 2005 edition of the KJV New Cambridge Paragraph bible. I would recommend the NET full notes edition for you if you havent already checked it out. Take it easy out there man.
@@BufoZilla haha I appreciate the comment! And I agree with you 100%. I think it’s really mainly an issue for me personally more than an objective issue with the translation. But I do like the KJV, it’s just harder for me to read it cause the old language in some areas
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
@@Imsaved777 it’s a difficult situation with translations into English because you have to add words to help it make sense, but I don’t appreciate it when words are added unnecessarily and cause more confusion rather than clarity
That change definitely annoyed me in the 2020, I actually used the NASB 77 before. The 2020 definitely reads more smoothly than the 77, but at the end of the day I prefer the 77.
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!
@@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.
Sometimes your spirit knows the intent, and it doesn't sit right with you. I have no problem with women in office or using of gifts, but this inclusivity stuff going on in the world has put a bad taste on us, and any changes that insinuate such is going to turn us off.
One of my favorite translations.
@@kevindrake714 the 2020? And did you like the older NASBs?
I don’t understand why it’s bad that they are trying to be accurate with the intent of the use of the original word. On top of that they are being transparent about their choice. Seems by letting it distract you is making a mountain out of a mole hill. It’s no different than me walking in a room and saying “hey guys” and someone later realizing that I was referring to everyone in the room in a generic phrase and translating it in a way that indicates it was a mixed crowd.
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
So initially I was critical of the 2020 edition. But I've come to appreciate the transparency with the use of italics. Also, R. Grant Jones scores it further on the formal equivalence than the '95 text. I probably use the NKJV and BSB more though.
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
Back when I studied Greek, they wanted us to translate "Gender Accurately." So I used to translate adelphoi "Siblings."
I stand by that reading. 3 words for 1 is clunky. If brethren isn't sufficiently gender "accurate," use "siblings."
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
I’m glad I read the comments before I responded knowing most people are thinking what I’m thinking. It’s not a big deal bro it’s a fine translation
I actually really love the NASB 2020, I've read it through twice this year, oddly enough the "and sisters" doesn't really bother me, I usually read it without distraction. I don't recall seeing it being used it places it doesn't belong. Personally my main problem is the removal of the word "begotten" throughout the new testament, in all instances referring to the only begotten Son. Also Psalm 1 reading "Blessed is the 'person'..." makes me chuckle.
@@jamesmarmer9193 thank you for your comment, I didn’t know about the removal of the word begotten, but that also seems to be an issue. Was begotten replaced with something similar or was it simply removed? And it’s not a terrible translation, it’s very good, just that one issue for me is very distracting. I think a large part of Bible translation preferences is we like to use what we grew up with, at least that’s the case for me
@@ScienceFaithReasoning They did not replace begotten with anything, all it's instances are simply just removed. NASB2020 John 3:16 reads "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son...". But I agree with you that some of these changes were completely unnecessary. I'm especially fond of the NASB 1995 myself too. I bought the NASB2020 and LSB a little over a year ago and thought the 2020 was such a pleasure to read. I've bought a few copies for friends and family members that I've been trying to bring to Christ. I think the readability should be more palatable to a new reader of the Bible.
@@jamesmarmer9193 that’s awesome, I have also purchased a lot of NASB 2020’s to give to people, and I think it’s a good translation, and if you’re not familiar with the 1995, it probably won’t bother you at all. It’s just so hard for me to change at this point in my life lol
@@jamesmarmer9193 is the word begotten in the Greek?
I have both the 1995 and 2020 versions. I prefer the 2020. I don’t see why it should draw you away. The “and sisters” is just stating the obvious…
I’ve felt this. However, the message is the same and many souls are being nourished and brought to Christ on the nasb2020. Finally a word for word translation in a common tongue. Don’t let the LSB marketing turn us all into translation snobs. Even the Esv makes note that adelphoi is inclusive allllllllllll over the NT. Lets not become a new version of KJV onlyist
@@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
I recently bought the Schuyler NASB 1995 Bible because I wanted a quality production Bible without these new changes in the event that Schuyler adopted the 2020
@@gmcenroe is that a specific type of study Bible?
@@ScienceFaithReasoningit’s a gourmet Bible
I don’t like the changes they made (it is distracting and unnecessary). Brethren/brothers (can infer sisters). Men (can infer women). We don’t need the additional words to be there!
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?
I like the NASB 2020 as well as the 1995.
I like the BSB a little bit more, though.
Thank you so much for your review. I have a NKJV and I want to get another translation. I really appreciate your take and I agree with you 100%
The NKJV is my fav translation but the NASB20 is my preference over the NASB95, ESV and LSB.
But the meaning is more exact right?
I also like the distinction between women and men .
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 know in the eyes of jesus there is no man or woman. But at the same time, we are human, and we are limited to human thinking.And some people need the specification that we're talking about both men and women. I like nasb for clear english but i manly use the jewish complete study bible. I like seeing the traditional Hebrew and Greek names. And it explains cultural differences as well as biblical holidays and traditions.
@@Deneseanime well said! And very interesting, I haven’t heard of that translation before!
To attempt gender "accuracy" will often breed inconsistency, inaccuracy, or awkwardness. For example, in Psalm 1:1 the 2020 changes "man" to "person". Fair enough, but then in v. 2 it uses the masculine pronoun "his". Uh-oh. That's no more gender accurate than is the use of "brothers" or "brethren" in the NT. It's also inconsistent with the previous verse. A worse approach is dynamic equivalent translations' changing from singular to plural (NLT, CEV, NIV with "they" in v. 3, etc.), thus losing the accurate picture of one person standing against the ungodly. If the 2020 wanted to really be consistent with "brothers and sisters" shouldn't it change "his" to "his or her"? It would be very awkward, but perhaps not much more than how it handles "brothers and sisters". At the end of the day, manipulating the text for purposes like this will sometimes create more issues than it resolves.
My preference would have been to retain the literal rendering in the text in accordance with its translation philosophy to adhere to the form of the original and include a footnote denoting the interpretation, similar to the ESV. It's interesting to note that James 2:15 has "brother or sister" in the Greek (ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ), so maybe there's a reason the Spirit inspired the rendering in the original here and not elsewhere.
@@sbs8331 amen!!!
Worry more about that demon Yoda statue/idol up on the shelf there 😂
😂😅
The Jar Jar binks idol is what I should really be worried about lol
It’s not a problem brother, it’s a perception.
I think you’re over laboring the ‘brothers and sister’ thing, and make it out of all proportion.
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.
You falsely say it was "added" but it was not. The original text used a word that meant both men and women. If its translated to a term that could be misunderstood to be only men then THAT is the improper translation (although it would not have been at the original translation time when that was better understood). I understand the thought behind the argument but its still not valid to say it was added. You are doing a disservice to anyone that might misunderstand bretheren or "man" to not be inclusive.
@@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.
I love the 2020 and the 1995 , I got a tony evans study bible in the 2020 and surprised it has the bracketed omited verses like the 1995 does and keeps that in the text which makes me happy. Ive seen that most versions of the 2020 dont do that but in fact they footnote them....but this version I use in company with a KJV side by side or back n forth and I enjoy them both and comparing verses I appreciate your points I just disagree with most of this but appreciate the information.
@@SoberNSavedByGodsGrace thank you for the thoughtful comment even though you respectfully disagree! Blessings to you!
My standard was always the NASB '95 but it's since been replaced by the LSB. But I do own a copy of the NASB 2020. I knew about the changes before it was released and I did have my concerns. But since reading it I found that the changes are not at all anything to be convicted about. This is legalism at its best. The Holy Spirit is the one that translates the Bible for you anyway. Just enjoy the various translations for what they are. If you really want an accurate bible then go learn the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
Every single translation adds words, or deletes them, to make the text more intelligible to it's audience. Even the KJV was updated several times between 1611 and 1769.
If you are that much of a stickler, use an interlinear.
I agree
NASB 2020 compared to the LSB, the LSB doesn't have the "and sisters"
I would love to get my hands on a good pastor version of the LSB, it looks like a great translation, but I don't know much about it other than McArthur's early promo videos about it.
@ScienceFaithReasoning I got one and I like it, they used the NASB for the translation of the LSB. You can get it free online till you find a physical copy. Definitely worth looking at.
But it has "Yahweh." Since Hebrew vowels weren't introduced until the middle ages Masoretic Text, we don't know how it was pronounced. That is an LSB translation choice. More literal would be YHWH.
If brethren means brothers and sisters within the context then why is sisters an issue? The problem here is the translation philosphy. Literal does not always mean accurate. Brothers and Sisters is an accurate translation. Literal texts are not importnat unless youre using it to help you study the greek and hebrew. The NASB is cool but its not that serious.
It seems like youre allowing it to upset you a little. The italics is only useful for students. For regular reading understanding and comprehension its just not necessary. It shouldnt be used as a main translation in my opinion.
I like the NRSV and RSV for reading and study, and the KJV just because its awesome. My favorite bible of all time is the 2005 edition of the KJV New Cambridge Paragraph bible.
I would recommend the NET full notes edition for you if you havent already checked it out. Take it easy out there man.
@@BufoZilla haha I appreciate the comment! And I agree with you 100%. I think it’s really mainly an issue for me personally more than an objective issue with the translation. But I do like the KJV, it’s just harder for me to read it cause the old language in some areas
I bought the NASB 2020 but it doesn't have cross references so I'm staying with my NASB 1995.
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
I don't want to mean but I'm 70 and was raised on the KJV and love the NKJV and recently the NIV you sound silly.
Do not add or take away from God’s Word.
@@Imsaved777 it’s a difficult situation with translations into English because you have to add words to help it make sense, but I don’t appreciate it when words are added unnecessarily and cause more confusion rather than clarity
I agree, adding sisters is a total distraction. I've quit using the CSB and switched to the BSB for mostly this reason.
@@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.
That change definitely annoyed me in the 2020, I actually used the NASB 77 before. The 2020 definitely reads more smoothly than the 77, but at the end of the day I prefer the 77.
@@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!
So buy the 95 edition, they are still available and you will be fine. Move on
Time to move to the LSB which does use "brethren" (instead of "brothers and sisters")! 😊
@@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!
Oh come on brother.... many up ...this from a college graduate and 70 year old saint.
Sometimes your spirit knows the intent, and it doesn't sit right with you. I have no problem with women in office or using of gifts, but this inclusivity stuff going on in the world has put a bad taste on us, and any changes that insinuate such is going to turn us off.
I agree with that sentiment.