NASB1995 v NASB2020

[@alfonso_barajas]

I genuinely think that the NASB 2020 is very underrated. It basically takes the strengths from most mainstream translations and mitigates the weaknesses. Accurate and literal (similar to the NASB 95 & LSB), but not sacrificing readability. Readable and accessible (similar to the NIV and CSB), but not sacrificing accuracy and literalness. Poetic and traditional (similar to the KJV and ESV), but again not sacrificing readability. I really think the NASB 2020 is a fantastic translation that deserves more recognition.

[@DutchMcGinnis]

I am a NASB 95 man...

[@charlesf2804]

Thanks for doing this. I think I'll stick with the 1995 and 1977 versions.

[@loveisall5520]

I have been carrying a Cambridge NASB New Testament pocket edition in my suit coat for work for 35 years and two bindings. I don’t see any need to change. I don’t see anything wrong with the changes. But sometimes I think we are obsessed with change really for the sake of it, I have said for a half century that the best Bible translation is the one that you will read daily and live by. Thank you so much for the video!

[@philtheo]

Here are my thoughts on the NASB 2020. 😊 1. Textual basis. I like that the NASB 2020 uses the most recent scholarship for the Old Testament (OT) and for the New Testament (NT). Of course, the most recent scholarship wasn't available in previous translations of the NASB like the NASB95. A. For the OT, the NASB 2020 primarily uses Biblia Hebraica (BH), just like most other English Bible translations. The main BH that the NASB 2020 uses is BH Stuttgartensia (BHS) which was completed in the 1970s. The most recent but still unfinished BH is Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) which was started in the early 2000s and will be completed in the future. The NASB 2020 primarily uses BHS but it incorporates BHQ as well. The NASB95 only used BHS, since BHQ wasn't available back then. Again, BHS is the current standard OT Hebrew text used in most of our English Bible translations, though it will most likely be replaced by BHQ once BHQ is complete. BHS is in turn based on the Leningrad Codex which is the oldest complete extant Masoretic Text (MT). The Leningrad Codex dates to approximately 1000 AD. There are other texts used in the NASB 2020 for its translation of the OT. Some of these texts weren't used in the earlier NASB95 let alone the NASB77. For example, there's the Aleppo Codex which dates to the early 900s AD, but it's not as complete as the Leningrad Codex. There's also the very significant Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Not to mention the Septuagint (LXX). Also the Targums. And several others. B. For the NT, the NASB 2020 primarily uses the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland's (NA) Novum Testamentum Graece. Specifically the NASB 2020 uses the 28th edition of Nestle-Aland (NA28) as well as parts of the yet-to-be published NA29. By contrast, the NASB95 used NA26, which is two or three editions behind the latest editions - NA28 and the forthcoming NA29. 2. Although the NASB 2020 uses the latest texts for its OT translation, it tends to stick to the MT tradition. It doesn't usually incorporate the earliest texts if these texts aren't found in the MT tradition. For example: A. Gen 4:8 has an extra line that's found in earlier texts like the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, but the NASB 2020 sticks with BHS/BHQ and the MT textual tradition. By contrast, the CSB includes the extra line. B. 1 Sam 14:41. The LXX has an entire middle section that is omitted in the MT. The CSB and the NIV include this omitted middle section on the basis of the LXX. But the NASB 2020 follows the MT and doesn't include it. C. Isa 53:11. The DSS and the LXX are important texts for the OT, and they are significantly earlier than the MT, and the DSS and the LXX contain the extra word "light" (and translations like the CSB and the NIV translate the verse to include "light" as well). But the NASB 2020 does not include "light". This is important because it is possible "light" refers to the suffering servant seeing the "light" of life, i.e., it may be a prophetic reference to the resurrection of Jesus. 3. Regarding the NT, the NASB 2020 generally follows the NA28/NA29, but sometimes doesn't. For example: A. 2 Pet 3:10. Some Bible translations translate the last word of the verse as "burned up", but "burned up" is most likely incorrect. Most of our English Bible translations now follow the NA28 which has instead "exposed", "disclosed", "discovered", "laid bare", or something to that effect. (And at present the NA29 adds the significant word "not" as in "not exposed" or "not disclosed" or "not discovered" or "not laid bare" based on the evidence of some Syriac and Coptic manuscripts; however the strength of this evidence is still being debated.) The NASB95 uses "burned up", whereas the NASB 2020 uses "discovered" as most contemporary English Bible translations do. B. Jude 5. Is it "Jesus" (e.g. CSB, ESV) or "Lord" (e.g. NIV, NASB95, NASB 2020)? This isn't a settled issue and either translation could be correct. 4. Literal and readable. A. Literal. I think "literal" is actually a poor term to use for what most people mean when they are referring to a literal Bible translation, that is, formal equivalence. But it appears we're stuck with the use of literal at least in popular discourse. Of course, the NASB in all its incarnations (77, 95, 2020) is considered very literal in the sense of being as transparent with the structure and syntax and so forth of the original biblical languages as is possible for a translation to be. In this respect, the NASB is at least similar to other so-called literal translations like the LSB, the LEB, and the ESV, and some might say it's even superior. B. Readable. By readable I mean clear (is it understandable?) and natural (is it how a native English speaker would put it?). For example, the sentence "I am the one whom people call John" is clear in that an English speaker can understand what it means, but it is not natural in that most English speakers don't speak this way. It would be both clear and natural to simply say "My name is John." With this in mind, I think the NASB95 is clear but not natural, i.e., there's quite a bit of truth to the charge that the NASB sounds clunky or wooden. By contrast, I find the NASB 2020 is significantly more clear and more natural than previous NASB translations. In fact, I'd say the NASB 2020's readability is almost but not quite up there with the CSB and the NIV which are considered very readable. And I'd say the NASB 2020 is more readable than the ESV and most other "literal" translations. Indeed, I think the NASB 2020 is often enjoyable to read. C. Literary style. The ESV has significantly superior literary style in comparison to the NASB 2020 and indeed in comparison to most other English Bible translations, though there are a handful of exceptions. Such as: the KJV which is the peak of English literary style; the RSV from which the ESV directly comes and as such equals; Alter's Hebrew Bible which is translated in fine modern English literary style while keeping an eye on Hebraic style; perhaps the NEB/REB, though these often play fast and loose with the original text. Nevertheless the NASB 2020 is in the Tyndale-KJV tradition and as such there are significant traces of literary beauty in the NASB 2020 as well. But by and large the NASB (in all its incarnations) is a cut or two below the ESV in terms of literary style. D. In short, I think the NASB 2020 balances both literalness (formal equivalence accuracy) and readability (clarity and naturalness) in maximal ways. The NASB 2020 is perhaps closest to the CSB with its optimal equivalence philosophy of translation. In my view, the basic difference between the NASB 2020 and the CSB is that the NASB is more literal (formally equivalent) than the CSB, while the CSB is more readable (clear and natural) than the NASB 2020. 5. Contentious issues. A. Lord as Yahweh. The NASB 2020 sticks with Lord as do most of our English Bible translations. The only major exceptions I know are the LSB which does generally translate Lord as Yahweh as well as the HCSB (not CSB, which went back to Lord from the HCSB's Yahweh). B. Gender accuracy. This is probably the primary issue that people think about when they think about the NASB 2020. The NASB95 tended to use the generic "brethren" for the Greek terms "adelphoi", whereas the NASB 2020 tends to use "brothers and sisters". I prefer "brethren", but I am also fine with "brothers and sisters". The NASB 2020 doesn't go overboard with "brothers and sisters"; I find it is still very traditional or conservative in its usage of "brothers and sisters" and suchlike (e.g. for anthropoi the NASB 2020 often uses "people"). Nevertheless many people who like the NASB dislike the NASB 2020 for this, and they either go back to the NASB95 or NASB77, or they move on to the LSB which as James White has said "the LSB is the NASB perfected". I don't agree, in part because I think even if it's a problem it seems to be outweighed by all the other benefits of the NASB 2020, but of course to each their own. We have plenty of solid Bible translations from which to choose. And personally speaking I most use the ESV and the CSB as my preferred English translations. C. Formatting and related issues * Capitalization of divine pronouns. * Extra italics to highlight words not in the original biblical text. * OT quotations in all caps. * Tons of textual footnotes. * I suppose each of these points could be debated as to their advantages and disadvantages, but overall it all makes the NASB comes across more like a reference work, which could be a good or bad or mixed thing, depending on one's perspective. Anyway, that's all I have for now!

[@faithministries62]

Thank you for your learned insights

[@HeavyHeartsShow]

“Formless and desolate emptiness” is pretty accurate to “tohu va bohu”

[@dougbaker2755]

Hello from America! I appreciate your channel very much. I like your steady impassionate presentation of factual information. Re: the NASB, I really like a formal equivalence translation, and I think the NASB balances that translation philosophy with readability. While I think the LSB is probably a bit more literal, it seems the NASB is a bit more readable. I have no problem with gender accuracy as long as the goal is accuracy and not gender inclusiveness per se. Between the 1995 & 2020, I give the edge to the 2020 primarily because I think it got the more precise nuances of the Hebrew & Aramaic in the book of Daniel. Though they're both good, that's why I prefer the NASB 2020. It's now the one I teach & preach from. Keep up your good work! Enjoy your channel!

[@Stupidityindex]

The Deceit of Religious Belief The only people who listen to this nonsense have no standards to exclude nonsense. And we are still dealing with this "think not I come with peace" nonsense. The religious are ludicrous, avoided like the old women with too many cats. Freud wrote the antidote to Christianity is literacy. Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. Who sends their children to prophet trade-school? If there were a god, then would there be any demand for scripture interpretations by various podium-jockeys using fantasyland vocabulary? These are the religious, the wolves in sheep's clothing. Even Jesus says faith is worthless or you could order mountains to move about. The scam works with faith & prayers, suggesting we all should travel with one foot in their fantasyland. Theologians acquire grand titles without certification from a deity, & project certainty using fantasyland vocabulary in an academic setting to compensate for lack of reason. We really should address the social acceptance of large numbers of people speaking a fantasyland vocabulary & openly indulging in the deceit of religious belief as a tool of fascism. It was secular law & order ending the inquisitions & witch-killings. The Christians slapped their books on the Old Testament, & the Mormons glued theirs on to them both, thus proving Christians lack quality-control. As if God does not have a perfect record of doing nothing, as if we had no reason for the saying: God helps those helping themselves.

[@davidyoung9856]

Thank you for reviewing the NASB 95 & NASB 2020.

[@justinthyme2666]

I recently wanted a wide margin Bible and checked out one that lockman has in 2020 and really like the quality of the materials and the price was right l, so I bought it. I’ve been a long user of the 95, but as the father of a little girl I like seeing sisters in the text and she likes it too. I have a lot of respect for Lockman and in addition to them still producing 95, they still own the Lsb, as well. I watched an interview of a gentleman there and he pointed out that they wanted a translation that was more accurate in the sense that certain words are meant for men and women, but that they don’t have a philosophy of gender inclusivity like some translations do. That may be a fine line but I think it’s a worthwhile distinction.

[@michealferrell1677]

I went from the 95 to the 2020

[@RowanTasmanian]

I have both the 95 and the 2020. I prefer the 2020 as for me, it reads smoother. I still love the 95, but read the 2020 more often. Thank you for the great review. Very educational.

[@JohnValencia70]

I agree 💯

[@procop4063]

I'm still looking for most accurate??... leaves unanswered questions . IVE read that many scholars claim the 1977 version was most accurate. It is available. I used (95 NAsB for many years my wife and I switched to NKJV and feel safe in that Translation in regards to accuracy.

[@HeavyHeartsShow]

95, 2020, and KJV are great for accuracy

[@jeffnasta4650]

I'm sticking with the 1995 version.

[@dreamscapes6787]

Very helpful. Thank you!

[@parkerhallmark4047]

Was looking for an unbiased review, still looking!

[@d.j.madonnie106]

Much thanks!

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

When we read "the man" in Psalm 1 and in the other psalms, I hope we think of THE Man, Jesus. He is the blessed, faithful and obedient man of Psalm 1. But who is this generic, sexless person the newer versions refer to? Is this man or woman earning his own salvation by works?

[@delanagracejohnson6282]

No, thank you. I’m sticking with 95 shalom

[@JoeSteele-mg6uo]

Immorality 1995 vs Sexual Immorality 2020. I'll stick with the more accurate one.

[@delanagracejohnson6282]

@@JoeSteele-mg6uo I like to mix it up with my Bible readings, delving into the NASB 1995 and 2020 editions, alongside the King James and New King James versions, among others. At the end of the day, I think it’s best to read from whatever translation resonates most with you. I suppose you could call me old-school-I’m already well aware that certain scriptures are addressing sexual immorality, so I don’t necessarily need the extra specificity. However, for someone new in the faith, having that clarity could be crucial for a deeper understanding. After all, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:19, “I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” The important thing is that the Word is clear, whether it’s in Old English or modern vernacular.

[@exiled30]

95

[@vasttrance877]

Great video brother

[@faithministries62]

Glad you liked it

[@michaeltravers3095]

I’m ready for the update of the MEV to improve a couple of verses. I love the MEV. It gives TR Onlyists an updated KJV to read.

[@guymontag349]

Don't you like the NKJV?

[@rbrock00]

I just bought a used 1995 edition because of the changes I was sure had crept into the 2020 version. It looks like I was right.

[@guymontag349]

Thank you for the excellent review. Two years ago, I read the NASB95 from Genesis 1 right through Revelation 22 using a Cambridge Clarion Bible and found it a most enjoyable read. I just acquired a Humble Lamb NASB2020 HIStory edition which I intend to also read cover to cover. I expect to be equally blessed in my reading. Thanks for pointing out some of the rather minor (in my humble opinion) differences between the two versions.

[@benhuremmanuel]

hows did the 2020 read turn out? and little review on the Humble lamb would be helpful for me

[@guymontag349]

@@benhuremmanuel Actually, I haven't read the NASB2020 just yet, as I decided to first do a complete read through of the NKJV. The NKJV has been my "go to" translation for many years, but I have never read it from Genesis to Revelation. I am now in Acts and it has been a wonderful read. I expect to be done with the NKJV about the beginning of summer. (I'm in no hurry.) In the meantime, however, I have been comparing the CSB with the NASB2020 and they are remarkably similar! So now I'm conflicted on which translation I should read next. Any suggestions? BTW, my friend - Tim Nickels of a 'A Nickels Worth Bible Reviews' is going to be doing a video on all the Humble Lamb bibles very soon on his channel. Here's a link: www.youtube.com/@anickelsworthbiblereviews

[@benhuremmanuel]

@@guymontag349 ever since i was a kid i used to read kjv, completed many times until 3 years ago, i ordered an ESV Study Bible Large Print Leather one, i have completed it once, and it made me understood God's word better, yesterday when i opened kjv again i understood nothing, esv made me understood the Bible, now i realised how much i missed the understanding of God's word all these years. my family is kjvo. im planning to buy NASB-95, wish Humble lamb does it. as of Now im ESV guy. my suggestion is to get one ESV Study Bible(not student, not womens, or mens) but the main study bible, its richness in theology is very good.

[@tjmaverick1765]

77>2020>95. I didn't want to like the 2020. I particularly wish they had left the gender language alone, however, the more I use it, the more I like it. I find it much more readable than the 95 text.

[@ThecrosseyedTexan]

You know I've been reading both of them simultaneously. I read the CSB first and then I'll read the same chapter in the 95/20 20. I read somewhere I believe it was the lockman foundation where is less than a 6% difference. I'm fine with either one of them I think they did a good job. Sometimes a word for word translation isn't the best way to go sometimes a thought for thought translation isn't the best way to go. I think we need to show each other a little more grace when it comes to things of this nature. The important thing is that we all love God's word.

[@faithministries62]

Well said

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

LSB is the accurate one that updates the NASB95, and doesn't go off in the direction of NASB2020

[@buildtolove]

LSB is alright but the people follow it act like a cult to me, treating John Macarthur as if he's the final authority on everything without allowing rooms for more open discussion and perspective. Nothing against John though

[@KyleSurette13]

@@buildtolove I haven’t found that. What I noticed are people avoiding the translation all together just because MacArthur was involved. They call it a “Calvinist” translation, and refuse to even give it a chance or a fair look

[@KevC1111]

NASB2020 is a far better translation than the lsb.

[@michealferrell1677]

The NASB 2020 is a much better version and should be praised for its more readable english . It isn’t at all less literal and the gender stuff is more accurate to the Original meaning. The NASB 2020 has come to be one that I read more regularly.

[@KevC1111]

@@michealferrell1677 💯

[@FredHenry1850]

The NASB95 has a few things that I wish were different. One major thing is the rendering of Romans 9:5, which states, "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (NASB95). "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (NASB20). There is no change, even with the most up-to-date scholarship. It ought to read, "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (LSB). This is a super clear Deity-of-Christ passage. Now, we don't NEED this to prove the Deity of Christ, but this is the more accurate rendering and having another clear Deity-of-Christ passage never hurts.

[@jacksonbooth2462]

I use both the 1995 and 2020 versions, and both are terrific. My one complaint, though, is that Lockman employs grammatical corrections in both texts when the original text, as it appears in the Interlinear Bible translation appears to stick to God’s actual wording. Case in point would be what God called the “expanse” in Genesis 1:8. The Interlinear Bible tells us God called the expanse heavens (plural), but both the 1995 and 2020 say that God called the expanse heaven (singular). While the 1995 and 2020 versions are “grammatically” correct (expanse and heaven both being singular), they pervert the whole context of the surrounding verses (Genesis 1:9, 14, 15 & 17) as well as other references in the Bible, e.g., Hebrews 4:14. I find this to be a weakness in the Lockman approach.

[@ahall3823]

I like the changes they’ve made.

[@jacklove4783]

I like the 95 and I don't like that they pull verses and put them in footnotes in the 2020 and the change of neutral gender is not what I prefer because man usually mens mankind. But putting verses in footnotes can remove meaning from the reading. Especially in sections like John 5:1-6

[@revdavidpeters]

Weird that they changed man to person and then kept all of the pronouns masculine. Seems weird to say, “or what person will give His son a ….” And it continues through the chapter. If I’m to believe that “person” needs to be gender non specific but then all the pronouns are masculine, was the original text truly gender specific? 🤔

[@Nanster-gv8nf]

WOW 2020 is a mess...

[@charming7722]

The King James shows prejudice against women of the 1611s who were not allowed an education or jobs unless it was sexual payments. The original Greek has words that salvation is offered to men and women! Women can only be saved because of childbirth - what about childless women? I'd prefer to read the scriptures as originally intended instead of the eyes of medieval culture. Yes, I was taught to read between the lines, so that it meant women too. I prefer the translations that show it in text. I like the NRSVue but realize it still has flaws in it. Prove me a translation without bias of the translators nor flaws. The NRSVue proves women could be Deaconesses, and speak in Church. St. Paul was not a "woman hater" after all, and why did the KJV translators change the name of a woman Deaconess to a made-up male name? I hate to be lied to!

[@alanhales6369]

The nasb mighy be correct to the Greek, but it comes from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts which are incorrect and unreliable, hence the errors in the nasb as we as other modern translations.

[@upholdingtruth]

Tell us, Mr. Expert in Textual Criticism and Biblical Manuscripts, what "errors" have you found in the "Alexandrian" text-type of Greek manuscripts (i.e., the earliest available, dating as far back as the early 2nd century, in sharp contrast to the *handful* of very late "Byzantine" text-type of manuscripts, dated between the 12th and 14th centuries, which form the basis of the "Textus Receptus")? Go ahead and prove to us all that the "Alexandrian" MSS are "incorrect" and "unreliable." The floor is yours . . .

[@alanhales6369]

@@upholdingtruth there's no proof that the Alexandrian text are the earliest manuscripts, people have fallen for the devil's lies, just like they have fallen for the lies of the translations that come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts. The earliest disciples, going back as far as the Apostle John disciples quoted from the Byzantine texts, including the entire chapter 16 of Mark's gospel. Anyone who knows the Bible will know that modern translations are erroneous. The Byzantine area was the places that the Apostles and the disciples went to, whereas the Alexandrian texts are from wnti-christian Egypt.

[@Eddievilar]

KJV people love to butt in...

[@AMx39]

Man… I’m not on either side as I don’t claim to know everything but you folks get so cuaght up in fighting over your opinions and debating which one of you knows more or is more accurate that you forget about what the actual purpose of the word of God. You have become modern day Pharisees who are blinded by their own proclaimed knowledge. Everyone is now trying to adjust the word and will of God to themselves and picks what best suits them. I don’t think many of they folks caught up in these ridiculous debates have truly ever met Jesus and ironically despite having all this “knowledge” of Greek that and “Hebrew” this are yet to see what God really wants from us. God called us to build not tear down. We need the Spirit of the Lord to mold us into what pleases the Lord not to what pleases us or makes it easier for us. The Lord doesn’t want the arrogance, he wants a humble and willing heart like that of a child who trust in him that will worship in spirit and in truth. I never new about all this craziness about translations and was brought up on the KJV’s Spanish equivalent. I wanted to get suggestions KJV variants and all I ever see is brothers fighting one another and judging one another, arrogance of some claiming to have more knowledge than others, hating on brothers who prefer the KJV calling them a cult or other calling brothers “fake because they choose a different translation. I just don’t get why in America we as a whole have this entitled mentality thinking that everything has to bend a knee to us including the word of God. It’s a shame really. Instead of fighting over things you don’t understand, go build a better relationship with Jesus and ask for his spirit to guide you and actually educate you in the matters of the Lord. The Parth of the Lord is narrow and long not easy and wide as we try to make it out to be.

[@alanhales6369]

@@AMx39 I never give my own opinions. I get the facts before I say things. The truth has to be taught, so I won't stop giving the truth for people like you, who gives their opinions.