I was totally against the revision until I started reading the NASB2020 for myself. I really like it!

I actually like the capitalization and the italics. It's good to read the introduction to any Bible translation to see what is utilized as a tool.

I'll be 49 next week and in my 30 years of apologetics I've never heard anyone ever say capitalizing pronouns when referring to God is weird. You're the first.

I think capitalization pertaining to God and Jesus should be made it is show of respect

So, I like the capitalization of pronouns for God to honor Him and distinguish Him.

With your comments on God's name Yahweh not being correctly translated, The Legacy Standard Bible (Final Revision of NASB95) has done so! The LSB, which MacArthur & the Master's Seminary/University have worked on, are using Yahweh instead of LORD. Praise God!

It's always good to have another translation around. I would say I split 50/50 between the Christian Standard Bible in the NASB 95 and 2020. I just got a giant super giant print version of it and so far I love it I'm reading through the Psalms with it

This is why every translation should have translator notes like the NET does. The NET full notes edition has really opened my eyes to the flaws and strengths of each translation. Even the NET is not perfect. I just respect the transparency.

I don’t see the complaint around the 15:30 mark. The double brackets let me know it’s not there but keeps the flow, especially if someone is reading from a TR based text.

Thank you for the video, Sean. Your access to the sources is a service that most cannot provide in a review. I preach from the 1995, and I feel like-even though I enjoy the 2020 personally and read it to my kids-I cannot use it for preaching because of the philosophy of gender accuracy. There are some obnoxious instances of GA where the translation just grinds on me, Romans 9:20 for example. But more importantly, I don’t want to have to defend the GA philosophy to the congregation, knowing that they’re mostly going to view it as a cultural capitulation. The biggest change (IMHO) with the 2020, compared to the previous editions, is not the translation; it’s the target audience. Because of this, the NASB has abandoned its niche and joined the back of the line in another. Furthermore, by catering to those who are less familiar with the Bible, Lockman is unintentionally alienating its older constituency, the ones who instinctively “just know” that man refers to mankind. Also, I have grown to love all those “NASBisms.” Perhaps they could be more creative with OT quotes, though nobody should reasonably think that it’s yelling at them if they’ve read the front matter. Maybe an alternative font, right-justifying the text, or using bold could be a solution. Again, I honestly appreciate your work here. God bless you, brother.

As a former KJV person I actually like the block verses look more than paragraphs. It was one of the main reasons I chose the NASB over the NRSV

Thank you for this great review!! What is your preferred Bible translation? Thank you

For in-depth Bible study, always reference more than one version.

I personally love the capitals to distinguish! Great review. Now I will definitely be upgrading. I’ve not been interested in all my NASB’s, but now I’m interested. The Westcott & Hort.

What do you think about the Legacy Standard Bible? I really like the capitalization of OT quotes and capitalization of diety pronouns.

The NASB1995 is very good. Currently, I'm using the World English Bible. I like it.

I really enjoyed your research information in this video and after watching was almost thinking maybe I will purchase and read the 2020 version. I am fairly new to theology and the NASB 95 is my primary study Bible. I do not agree that we need to keep updating versions to the modern English. I feel that instead maybe people need to update their language skills. Some of the updated verses I've read in the 2020 seem like they were written for children. But the main reason for my comment is you lost my support after your criticism of "NASBisms." These features are outstanding and one of the reasons I find the NASB easy for me to study from. How hard is it for a new reader to read the explanation on formats? Thats what I did the first time I picked up an NASB. I truly wish that other translations would also use the same formatting.

There is no "2017 ESV". The last revision of the ESV was 2016.

Last slide: "it's traditionalism works against accuracy" should be 'its traditionalism…' Hmm... I wonder how many of us even notice the mistake? Do most of us study the text so carefully? Are we in danger of straining at gnats? How significant are some of these changes?

I used the NASB95 until I obtained the Legacy Standard Bible. It is really good.

CSB vs NASB 2020?

No problem with Capital OT quotes or italics as am used to them and also the preface to NASB explains it. But i strongly agree that publishing part need a fresh mind and some lessons learned from such as Holman, for i was browsing their store and all i see is large print, paragraph format, mono color verse numbers &c.

I was disappointed that this video did not discuss how the NASB 2020 butchered John 1:18. It now reads "God the only Son" as opposed to "the only-begotten God" in previous editions. This is pure bias.

The Humble Lamb HIStory has my attention with its layout.

What is your preffered english translation and why? I personally love the Nasb95.

What do you think of the NASB 2020 translation of "monogenes theos" in John 1:18 as "God the Only Son", versus in the NASB 1995 as "the Only Begotten God"? In James White's "The Forgotten Trinity", he compared several translations, and "God the Only Son" was also in the NRSV and said this was preferable, but that "the only Son, who is God" is the best way to translate it and maintain the word order. He references Harris, "Jesus as God", pp 88-92, for a longer discussion on this translation. I thought this was interesting.

So the niv or 2020?

Very clear and argumented presentation. Thank you very much for your work.

Just because something isn't in an older manuscript, doesn't mean that those verses didn't exist during the time of those manuscripts, unless you can prove that the manuscripts were the only ones in existence at that time, and that there were none that existed that with those verses. unless you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that those verses in the manuscripts used weren't deleted, you can never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the newer manuscripts added them.

It was pretty cool to see this because some of the reasons that he listed as maybe "negative" are things that I like, but that's more the opinion ones. I mean I totally agree that the NASB should translated the additions to the MT if they are found in the Syriac, Latin, Greek, and Samaritan. While I don't think it should translate all of them, the overall is if the context and manuscript evidence or even the verse itself like with Cain and Able, as the literal reads weirdly, then it should be in there. I also think that they should remain EXTREMELY consistent in the gender accuracy as that Genesis verse was not accurate. _adam_ does appear to mean mankind or person, but it shouldn't flip flop like that. I also find that the pronoun thing can be a real problem for people who haven't learned monotheism nor understand how the words _holy spirit_ work in the text. Some thing that I do like though is the 2 column verse by verse instead of paragraph format. For me its just easier to read and check the context and stuff because I pay attention to individual verses more carefully. IDK maybe its because my first Bible was KJV, but its just easier for me to find verses and also for me to read. I also love the OT quotations even if it is in all capitals. I don't think that the NASB is responsible if someone doesn't bother to read the preface and understand the all caps is OT quotation. I find the same thing to be true of the _italics_ because I like to know when the translators are not adhering to the text. For me it really speeds up my Bible study. And I understand Sean's criticisms of those, but my only concern is how else would you note that stuff without drawing attention to it. Like I thought that the purpose WAS to note the OT quotations or additions. Like that's the whole point! That people know. That your attention is drawn to those. With the OT quotations the only way I see not to draw attention to them is with a footnote. As for the additions, I see no way to do it. One of the reasons why many KJV onlyist, crazy as that movement is, or just people who stick to the KJV is because of the italics. Like it's kind of a big deal in the grand scheme of translating. Escpecially if you've ever studied Hebrew and seen solely literal translations or read interlinear. That languages makes NO SENSE literally. Put that in front of someone with no understanding of Hebrew and watch them fail at reading it. And while a good portion of that is syntax, another reason is because certain words have no equivalent or are not present in the Hebrew, but are needed to flow in English. Great video Sean! Thank you for your help in my understanding of the NASB.

The ESV is amazing when in Lexicon, as in the Diadem.

I noticed that you never mentioned the NKJV... Was there a reason for this?

Beautiful discussion, Sean. Thank you and may God, Yahweh continue to give us wisdom. God bless us...

Has Sean reviewed the LSB?

Gender-accurate translation is begging the question.

My 1995 NASB matches your example for the 2020 NASB. Sigh. I spent months trying to make a good choice. Please help with best translation that is readable.

My bible for Exegesis is the NASB 1977. The 1995 is less accurate in some instances, and stronger in others. For everyday general reading I use the CSB.

Every reviewer has something to say of different verses of the Bible and why one transalation choose one reading over the other. However no reviewer has commented on Genesis 11: 10-26 wherein about 600 years have been truncated from the genealogy by the MT while the LXX has not. Is this so big a Mountain that they can't see it or are they being selectively blind?

31:50 ~ Pretty sure you meant majority text, not Masoretic text.

Here is why they are "catering to the old school look and feel" is probably because they are actually thinking about what they are doing! Many many new Bibles are printed in fonts that you need a microscope to read - being either so small or so faint of print that you can hardly see them! After all, why are books actually printed? Could it be so you can actually READ them!? Why yes! That is why they are printed - to read - not so they can be the latest greatest art experiment to wow your friends!

1 Samuel 14:41-NASB 2020 didn't go with the longer version. Therefore, Saul said to the LORD , the God of Israel, "Give a perfect lot." And Jonathan and Saul ere selected by lot, but the people were exonerated. No question is asked and the NKJV says about the same thing.

What do you think about the Legacy Standard Bible?

What resources would you recommend for somebody who wants to begin learning about textual criticism and/or biblical accuracy?

Just because the manuscript is earliest doesn't mean it is more reliable!? The reformers new about these other, remote Manuscripts, they chose not to use them.

The 77 is cool. Especially in psalms with the thous and thees. Theyre all good in my opinion tho.

Great information thank you! First time seeing your channel I just subscribed based off this video... Do you have a video that in your opinion and expertise would describe the 1 bible that is most accurate modern English translation?

It's interesting since you made this video they have changed the funds and all sorts of things I really enjoy your video but I think your last critique here about style was jumping the gun a little bit because they had just put it out and not too many other publishers had picked it up yet. But it has all sorts of font styles and things now

From what you said, I am so disappointed if it is true that the OT does not present as much of a critical text but rather a slavish loyalty to the Masoretic text. I was really hoping that because they use Stuttgartensia and Quinta that they would be more loyal to the original versus tradition. I am not saying that they are not committed to accuracy or that they never go with the critical text but the examples you give really disappoint me. I might get a cheap copy anyway just because it is so literal and the NT sounds good. Thanks for an educated video.

What are your credentials?

Capitalization for OT or LXX quotes and italics for words not present in the original language is a very good idea. That is, unless you can offer a better alternative. I get relating to the contemporary reader, but let's not accommodate the stupid reader. There are mega millions of illiterate people in the world, so should we have a 72,000 page picture book of the Bible. This is why we are supposed to have teachers which have been around since the beginning. Very good video.

It appears that you and R. Grant Jones disagree in regards to the NASB2020’s reliance on the DSS and Septuagint so now I am confused.

Cogent, brilliant, and answers all of my questions. Thanks Bro

I don’t agree on the capitals for OT or pronouns for deity. ESV doesn’t do it so I love it but I also appreciate NASB for doing it to find OT references quickly.

Excellent! Exactly the kind of review I needed, especially regarding gender language. Thank you and Lord Bless! 🙋🏼‍♂️📖

Thanks for doing this review. I wanted to see if it was worth it to me to spend $20 to add this to my E-Sword as I already have the NET+ for study and the GW for comparative reading for plain language. I will stick with those plus the Septuagint, Heb OT, and Greek NT TR+. Regarding the publishing format, who still reads paper books of any kind let alone bibles? I begin each morning with a cup of java and the E-Sword on my 78" screen. Other books I purchase are Kindle editions or even PDFs.

Thanks for the info, is NT retain other bracketed sentences same as 95?

*2016 ESV

No, changing gender that's actually indicated in the original to suit modern sensibilities is not the job of the translators. That is the job of exegetes.

NKJV for me. Your welcome 😊

Thanks for this. I am halfway through and it’s super interesting. So which bible do you use for everyday reading:) Also, I am looking for the best English bible which references every OT quotation / reference / allusion in the NT. can you recommend one please? Thank you so much for referencing the Devine name and how wrong it is to replace Gods name with LORD. I would love to know why you use Yahweh over Yehovah and whether you have a chance to consider some of the most recent research in the area?

Thank you for all your work!

yes, indeed, if Bible translators of a new Bible are convinced that John 7.53-8.11 and Mark 16.9-20 are *not* part of the original inspired text, they should be honest and consistent and *omit* these passages completely from the text, and put the complete passages in the footnotes together with the other variant readings... yes, agreed, they should have some more "backbone", indeed ... and as to the name Jehovah in the OT, if translators let it stand in the English text transcribed from Hebrew into English, instead of *translating* it, then it would no longer be *translation* but *transcription* of course... then they may also consider transcribing the name of the Lord in the NT, why only in the OT? so instead of reading "the Lord Jesus Christ", it should read "Kyrios Jesus Christ", for it's not like the names of God and of Christ are of *lesser* importance in the *NT* , the "current" Testament... and further, the translators must evaluate where to limit transcription, should they transcribe only apostle, prophet, evangelist, etc., words that are *traditionally* transcribed ?? or should they throw out that tradition and start to be *consistent* and also begin transcribing poimen (shepherd), daimonion (evil spirit), diabolos (devil), adelphos (brother), etc. or shall the translators just continue to pick and chose ?? ... further, regarding the word adelphoi = brothers (plural), if that is "translated" 'brothers and sisters', that would no longer be *translation* of the word, it would be translation *and* adding to the Greek text, and when a Bible translator or scholar calls that "accuracy", he is right that it is accuracy, but it is accuracy towards our modern society, not towards the Greek text.... and a translator should of course be honest about it and state clearly that this is not in agreement with the Greek word and the Greek text.... for the Greek word is masculine and means brother, and there is a word for "sister", in the feminine (adelphe), and it would be wrong to "translate" that "sisters and brothers", as i'm sure most would agree with .... lastly, words in italics used traditionally for words added to the original language texts for clarity may be confusing to modern readers *if* they do not first read the Preface by the translators where they lay out their translation method... before reading a Bible, and start using it as one's standard reading bible, one should at least read the Preface or Introduction to it... if a Bible reader is too lazy to read that, he or she is too lazy to read the Bible itself... using italics or some other feature in a Bible translation to signal words added is the most *honest* method of translating the Bible... one *could* use parentheses instead to avoid possible confusion... in conclusion: all interpretation and exegesis belongs in commentaries or in the footnotes of a Bible, not in the text itself.... thanks, and God bless.... :-))

Not a very good translation at all. The dumbing down of the Bible is of a negative effect to the Word of God.

This was a very good presentation and informative video. I do agree with some of his points and respectfully have a different viewpoint on others. First, I do like a translation that is accurate, easier to read and understand, so kudos to the NASB 2020 on that note. I do like gender accuracy when the text is clearly talking to or about men and women. According to a couple of examples, the NASB 2020 did not go all the way in being gender accurate in those verses that were hybrid. I also think where the original says Yahweh, then it should say Yahweh in the verse. Also, say that capitalizing pronouns when its clearly talking to or about the deity is weird is where I very much disagree with him. It, in my view is giving honor and respect to God. I don't have a problem when quoting Old Testament verses using all capital letters in the New Testament. Last but not least, Mark 16:9-20 and John 8. There are very many debates on this subject whether they belong in the text or not. I personally believe Mark 16;9-20 does belong in the text. (See the teaching by the late Chuck Missler on this subject) As far as John 8 and this wonderful story of forgiveness by Jesus, I have no idea if this story belongs in the text, but I love the story. Basically, still put these passages in the text with the explanatory footnotes. Blessings!!

The modernized pronouns do not bother me. Unlike the "gender agenda" this is not the point.

That was dope!

Thank you, Brother 🌹🌹🌹

Hmmm. I love the NASB '95, and (hugging my Douay) I think St. Jerome did a great job with collecting Holy Writ (and I truly think poor, much-malingered St. Jerome's work has stood the test of time.. he used LXX in places, and it's generally lovely). The NASB '20 was sounding _okay_ until we got to the gender confusion. I was nearly ready to purchase the NASB 2020 until I saw that mess... _at least they didn't use "peoplekind",_ I suppose, but my eyes bled. It's "brethren". Or "fratres". Isa 66: nobody's leaving the wimens behind: I know that; everyone knows that; the gender changes are cringeworthy. The update is a slippery slope to woke, NASB crew.

The word men meant always humankind all since the language that Adam spoke, from this you can see that the man was first made and then the woman, now they want to change the language so people can't question why it is this way, Let me tell you that this would not have been the language when humans evolved from apes, so this let's people think. This is a part of the evidence that God created men, first man and then woman, By this you must not go with the stream.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f52hhriE27a2gKs.htmlsi=KtfZWZn7xjOZ4Mxh Starting at time 11:50 - This pastor believes >70% of the church fathers around the 3rd century quoted more from the MT Greek. I thought that was interesting. It would be nice, since I don't know how to read Greek, to have English bible translations going straight from the Greek text. There are already straight TR bibles, MT bibles. I'd like to add a straight CT bible to my collection

I think I NOW like 2020 over 1995. In 25 years they should have learned something about translation. And intended meaning in modern English.

NASB 2020.. The italicized politically correct Bible.. Who should tolerate it, God?

Completely agree! It’s time to put away translation tradition! Stop adding the texts that aren’t in the oldest and best mss and stop translating יהוה as (the) LORD. Jeremiah 12! Is a witness against the translators.

Good video. p.s. Typo on the last slide-should be "its" not "it's."