NASB

[Heirbyadoption]

A couple questions, primarily for regular NASB users or those who have actually looked into using one. Thanks.

1. Why did you switch to NASB from whatever version you use?
2. Do you have any reason to keep using the NASB95 over the NASB2020?
3. And has anybody ever seen a KJV/NASB (95 or more recent, ideally) Parallel Bible? I would love to get ahold of one.

[Josh]

1. My parents Iiked the NASB so I grew up with it, handwriting it out (something my mother called “copying God’s law”), and memorising it.

I haven’t bothered to read it in at least 10 years. If you don’t want KJV, NET is much better.

2. My parents didn’t like NASB2020 for various reasons and stayed with the older ones. My mother actually prefers the pre-95 first edition. You could say she’s an “Old Order” NASB adherent. My dad likes NASB95 because he has some computer software that has it.

3. I have never seen such a beast. Most NASB adherents (such as my parents) that I have known are rather anti-KJV.

[Neto]

I have the 1963 edition, given to me from my parents, Christmas 1973. I used it until sometime shortly after the complete NIV Bible came out in 1978.

I still use the NASB occasionally, but my copy is really ragged, because my Dad used it for years, probably the last Bible he was able to read & understand (memory loss due to Alzheimer's). I got it back in 2018, after my folks moved into a home, when he was no longer able to do normal activities. It may have been in the 8 version NT I had while in Brazil doing Bible translation. Most translators had one, since it made it so easy to compare the different translations.

I would say that it is better than the KJV, because it replaces the few words that have completely changed in meaning over the past 400 years, using more modern words. This makes it more readable and understandable for the modern reader. It DOES use more "theological" type words than does the NIV, for instance, and in that way it matches the KJV fairly well. (I have never read anything at all in the New KJV, but I would suspect that it is even more similar to the NASB than the 1611 KJV.) I cannot speak to any later revision, as I've probably never read from one of those. (Just like I still use the original NIV, and I know that it is now quite different.)

[EDIT: In regards to question # 1.: I switched for two reasons. I wanted something more readable than the KJV, and mainly because I was under the impression that the Bible Institute where I was planning to attend the next year required it. It turned out that they specified the 1901 ASB, its predecessor, I guess.]

[Bootstrap]

I see more similarity than difference in RSV, ESV, and NASB. When I compare translations of a Bible verse, I often use one of these as one of the translations. Here's a comparison, including two versions of NASB.

Genesis 1
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... B;NASB1995

Psalm 1
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... b,NASB1995

Isaiah 9
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... B;NASB1995

Matthew 5
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... B;NASB1995

Romans 7
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... B;NASB1995

Revelation 22
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... B;NASB1995

[Bootstrap]

This shows every change between NASB 1995 and NASB 2020, which makes it easy to compare:

https://j.hn/nasb-1995-nasb-2020-every-change/

[Heirbyadoption]

I haven’t bothered to read it in at least 10 years. If you don’t want KJV, NET is much better.

Josh - Could you expand a bit on "NET is much better"? I'd be interested to know more.

I have never seen such a beast (NASB/KJV Parallel). Most NASB adherents (such as my parents) that I have known are rather anti-KJV.

Our fellowship has historically used the KJV over the last century, and continues to do so in formal worship services. Over the last few years I have found myself shifting away from that in my own studies, but it becomes a bit cumbersome going back and forth when I am called on to participate in our service. Not the end of the world, but a parallel would simplify things tremendously.

I would say that it is better than the KJV, because it replaces the few words that have completely changed in meaning over the past 400 years, using more modern words. This makes it more readable and understandable for the modern reader.

"the few words that have changed meaning" is a bit of an understatement, lol...

[Josh]

I haven’t bothered to read it in at least 10 years. If you don’t want KJV, NET is much better.

Josh - Could you expand a bit on "NET is much better"? I'd be interested to know more.

It’s simply an opinion I have. The NASB tried to be literal in a ham fisted fashion like leaving sentences starting with “And”. I think anyone who thinks a “literal” translation is better is falling into a trap so I don’t agree with that mindset. My parents tend to think that the NASB is “literal”, thus whatever it says is more the inspired word of God than a KJV or an NIV. I don’t agree with that.

The NET also has much more detailed translator’s notes. I really like those to understand the different texts and decisions made to translate it.

My other gripe with the NASB is the frequent changes (I could levy this charge at many other translations). I want to learn and memorise scripture as a family and not have a “moving target”.

[Neto]

I haven’t bothered to read it in at least 10 years. If you don’t want KJV, NET is much better.

Josh - Could you expand a bit on "NET is much better"? I'd be interested to know more.

It’s simply an opinion I have. The NASB tried to be literal in a ham fisted fashion like leaving sentences starting with “And”. I think anyone who thinks a “literal” translation is better is falling into a trap so I don’t agree with that mindset. My parents tend to think that the NASB is “literal”, thus whatever it says is more the inspired word of God than a KJV or an NIV. I don’t agree with that.

The NET also has much more detailed translator’s notes. I really like those to understand the different texts and decisions made to translate it.

My other gripe with the NASB is the frequent changes (I could levy this charge at many other translations). I want to learn and memorise scripture as a family and not have a “moving target”.

I concur about the NET, specifically about the study notes. (I've said this before, but I have never seen another study Bible with better notes. The NIV study Bible I have - the original version, not sure if they've changed the notes - their notes read more like a devotional commentary, with biases of interpretation coming through. They are still useful, but in contrast, the NET notes are much more like an exegetical commentary, digging into the actual Greek text. As for the text of the NET, I don't know, as I have never used it for reading - I don't have a printed copy, and I stick with 'real' books for reading purposes.)