NASB 95 vs 2020 - A COMPARISON and ANALYSIS 

3 months later, I would be interested to know what Bible you ended up with. I don't mean which translation only, I mean which specific Bible. I mention this because I cannot imagine the pressure I'd feel if I was looking for the one and only Bible I would ever have and am curious about what sorts of features you prioritized in that situation.

I was going to get the 2020 Stridon but went LSB instead

@@BibleLovingLutheranI went LSB instead as well and really enjoy it.

2020 is about catering to "political correctness" of the world in the 21st century. It isn't about getting closer to Jesus Christ.

Amen!

Amen Brother! Glory be our Lord!

Don't be deceived! www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.htm

I was looking at my LSB while he was doing comparisons, and it looks like the LSB, which is an update to the NASB 1995, keeps translating genders according to the 1995 version. However, it is more modern, which is why some of the wording is the same as the 2020, but there are points at which the LSB differs from both the NASB 1995 and 2020.

There were similar kinds of changes, mostly modernizing and smoothing in nature.

@@tulanijones7865 thank you

I was wondering the same thing.😺

I like the NLT too.

Preach!

That change ("let us" to "let's") is a terrible one. The prose reads at such an elevated level otherwise that to have a random contraction thrown in here and there makes it sound awkward.

Agreed on the contractions. It may be because I grew up hearing the KJV, but I tend to think the Bible should sound formal and lofty. (I say that, however, with the acknowledgement that the original Greek in many cases did NOT sound that way.)

You are so correct...This from an old English teacher!

Couldn’t agree more. The contractions sound way too informal so as to be borderline flippant.

Oh, interesting! Thank you for pointing this out.

Schuyler Stridon will be coming out. Single column text set up beautifully from what I can tell. I preordered mine and there’s a review somewhere here on RU-vid.

Zondervan has some red letter editions, but I'm not sure if any Lockman editions are red letter.

how are you enjoying it?

Both are Bad! www.chick.com/information/article?id=logsdon-renounces-nasb

@@drtruthseeker8400 For any passerbyers don't waste time on this man. He's referencing to a site who's statement of faith he doesn't even believe in, which is belief in the Trinity(Trinity is truth) along with many other controversial claims. He's only here to cause derision with negative discourse and there is another account with an eerily similar name "TruthSeeker Ultimate" spewing Muslim rhetoric. I cannot 100% confirm they're the same account, but both made within a month apart and both comments are on this video at around the same time. Watch out for false prophets and trust in the Lord brothers. (Matt 7:15)

@@AbombOO7 I'm not the same person, and all you did was personally attack me, you never addressed any EVIDENCE! The fact is that the Catholics created the Doctrine of the Trinity, there is only ONE GOD, the FATHER, and His Son, The LORD JESUS, THERE ARE NOT 3 GOD'S AS THE TRINITY TEACHES!

@@AbombOO7 Are you butt hurt because you have a False satanic NASB??

@@drtruthseeker8400 esv is more accurate than NKJV. There was so many words they didn’t even know the meaning of in the start of King James Bible. There’s so much more you should watch mine winger on this and love god. Stop going against Christians.

www.chick.com/information/article?id=logsdon-renounces-nasb

Are you sure it’s a 2020? I thought Schuyler only did the 95 NASB?

@@Matthew-307they put out the Stridon in the 2020 text, I believe that’s the only 2020 they currently offer. Cambridge also released the Topaz in the 2020, which I believe is also their only current printing of it

Nasb 1995 is still being printed.

Same 😁

I somewhat agree with the number issue. I was always taught that you choose a format and stick with it throughout a document, so whether you choose to spell out numbers or use the numeric format, you would stick with one and not alternate between the two, but that's an older rule that I guess may no longer apply in today's modern world.

@@Tribulation_Harvest I was taught (in the 1990s through 2000s) that best practice was to spell out numbers up to ten (or was that 10? lol) and then use numerals for larger numbers. For example, "two people went into a store and bought 178 items altogether" would be preferable to either "2 people went into a store and bought 178 items altogether" or "two people went into a store and bought one hundred seventy-eight items altogether". For Bible translations specifically, I prefer numerals as it makes it easier for me to spot patterns. Spelling out the larger numbers often leads to my brain just comprehending "big number" and then continuing to read for meaning. I realize this is a personal shortcoming and nothing to do with correct formatting or good translation practice etc. Though I dislike having to read out large numbers when numerals can communicate the concept quickly and clearly, in practice I agree with you that it is preferable to use either numerals or letters consistently across a single document instead of flip-flopping.

I would suggest CSB version. As an additional reference.

www.chick.com/information/article?id=logsdon-renounces-nasb

ISBN: 9781581351750

The words were worn out when you got it, they do not contain the words of God! www.jesus-is-lord.com/nasv.htm

@@drtruthseeker8400 let me guess, you're a KJV-onlyer? That position has been so thoroughly debunked there is absolutely no doubt that objectively speaking, the KJV is most assuredly NOT the best, let alone only translation. As long as your not reading the New World Translation or something like that, you'll be just fine.

@@jordazmo19 It clearly is the authorized version, and you lack study Jordan or you're part of the movement to try and undermine God's Holy Word! You have ZERO evidence that anything even comes close to king James!

@@drtruthseeker8400 who authorized it? Certainly not God. I could make my own translation and call it the authorized version or the inspired version or the only true version, but that doesn't make it so. I actually used to be King James only, and not only do i have abundant evidence that the KJV is inferior, it's an objective reality that you can prove to yourself with facts and evidence. The KJV is an archaic, inaccurate, translation that causes far more confusion than any translation should. Switching to other translations was just about the best thing I've done in relation to improving my understanding and appreciation of God's holy word. If the KJV works for you that's wonderful; some people may do better with KJV, especially if that's what they're used to, but it's not the best translation and it's certainly not the only trustworthy translation. In your view, were there just no bibles or saved people before 1611? I guess i get it, if the KJV was good enough for Paul it's good enough for me, right? Oh wait...

@@jordazmo19 You're in for a rude awakening! WHAT VERSION IS AUTHORIZED/BETTER....??????????????????

"NWT-2013" ......Why would you even consider the infamously heretical New World Translation, a valid translation?

@@SolitaireZeta I merely mention it, to show that its revision is/was NOT an improvement. I am very sure the J.W.s today do not study or know Greek whatsover.

As a youngster, when I read "Lord of hosts" I think someone is having a dinner party.

Like there literally was no reason to do this, it was in brackets anyways!!!

@@HerveyShmervy I think that is the best part. It is more true to the original text as the authors wrote it because it is more faithful to the actual Greek manuscripts. Accuracy is paramount and leaving in texts that were not in the original is misleading.

Same… it sucks

They didn’t take it out. They just moved them to the bottom as a scholarly note.

It is just about catering to gender ideologues.

​@@markoredano9141😂 no it's not! 🤦 Its about clarifying the gender specifics of a passage, it's literally a Non issue. No reason for all you people to be complaining over, none at all.

That's because none of those Bibles are From God.....Easy to prove.

I would say that the NASB 2020 and the CSB are both good for reading aloud, whereas the ESV is less smooth. Of these three, I would personally choose the NASB 2020 if I were going to be reading aloud, or the CSB if I didn't have the other one handy.

@@pastornickmcrae How many classes did you have growing up where they used different textbooks? These Bible you list are tainted, and are products of Catholicism.

@@drtruthseeker8400😂

​@@drtruthseeker8400prove it then! 😂 You sound like a fool

www.chick.com/information/article?id=logsdon-renounces-nasb

@@drtruthseeker8400 Thanks for the website you shared I guess you are a KJV exclusive person and believe that other Bible versions are new age influenced and therefore corrupt and untrustworthy I understand.If you can give me a book or a webpage where I can download for free a list of Bible words that are archaic and has modern English definitions I will stop using the NASB or any other modern versions.

@@joseenriqueagutaya131 Thanks....Is this what you're looking for? www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Free-Bible-Dictionary.php

@@drtruthseeker8400 Not sure yet I have to look at it though,I still read from the KJV and use as commentary the modern versions like NKJV,NASB1995 and NIV 1984 for comparison.I am now KJV preferred.Thanks for your effort in finding this website.

@@joseenriqueagutaya131 Thanks, and congrats for finding the truth.....I wouldn't recommend looking at the others, or commentary, they are all tainted....Feel free to ask any questions, God bless!

www.chick.com/information/article?id=logsdon-renounces-nasb

Yes, this is my thought as well. Why are they trying to compete in an already-oversaturated marketplace. There is frankly a stupid number of translations already available. Does Lockman really think there's room for one more? And I'm with you on the language. The NASB possesses a lot of the grandeur of the KJV, but in modern English, and I appreciate that.

Exactly. If all the translations keep "smoothing out the language" how can the Word of God cut the way its supposed to. Noone goes into battle with a dull sword so why are we dulling the sword of the spirit.

@@ReformedMikeD I think it's important to remember that, ultimately, there really is no such thing as a "literal" or "word-for-word" English translation. Beyond the fact that an actual word-for-word translation would render nonsense in the English language, there are also other issues. Consider two: 1. Many idioms in the original languages are not immediately understandable to English readers. For instance, the original Hebrew often reads "and God's nostrils grew large," while the English reads "and God grew angry." Or the Greek may talk about believing with the "intestines," but in English this is translated as "believing with the heart." 2. Mark is full of run-on sentences that are always broken up into multiple sentences in English. Revelation is full of grammatical errors, which are always cleaned up in English. Did God inspire the poor writing? Should we translate that into English? Well regardless of the answer, translators simply don't. Anyone who thinks they're really reading a true "literal" translation is simply unaware of all the textual issues that stand in the way. Even the translations that have a reputation for being word-for-word, like the NASB, are still pretty far from it. If you really want to read the actual words that God inspired, you have to learn Hebrew and Greek.

My words exactly!!! I’ve used the 1977 since 1986 as a 19 year old. It never let me down once!!!

Amen my brother, so well said. I have my AMP 2015 that I've been reading for almost two years now, all highlighted in, pored and cried over. Now I decided to get something that I'd be able to read smoothly without the brackets and italics, that I'd be able to memorize the Psalms for prayer. I have KJV, YLT (best in terms of most literal, but old english slows you down for regular reading), Interlinear; NASB 1995, but when I read "Do homage to the Son" instead of "Kiss the Son" I was just like com on bro, why, why can't you just translate as it is, why are you reinterpreting it for me. So I order the NASB 2020, which says "Kiss the Son", but then they change man to mankind, as if we don't understand that man includes both male and female. And I looked it over, and NASB 2020 really does actually seem like the more literal translation. Even in the Psalms where it's written O Lord, O God, in the NASB 1995, in the YLT (literal) it just says Lord without the O's, and where there are actually O's they do include it; the NASB 2020 gets it right. But then in Ecclesiastes they use futility instead of vanity in NASB 2020, and emptiness I think in NASB 1995. The 'let us' in NASB 1995, they put 'let's' in NASB 2020. It's like impossible to get a perfect version. It's probably just me though with a pharisee outlook, paying attention to the wrong things. But yeah, when I found the YLT I was like this is perfect for memorising, old english whatever, at least it's the literal word of God. Order one copy, it's like max 8 point font with a textbook like structure, thick pages, really big book, hardcover, not how a bible should look like. Order another one. Comes same size, paperback, super small font. Order a third one, font is microscopic. Sorry for my rant lol; i'm not ordering any more Bibles. Gonna use either of the NASBs (1995 or 2020) for regular reading, and consult my beloved written in and highlighted in first love AMP with the helpful footnotes, and the YLT for if I need the literal word.

The NASB 1995 was translated to how people speak today. The KJV was translated to how people spoke in the 1611. There’s no such thing as a modern language translation that doesn’t read as the people speak in a given historical era.

No

Absolutely not. I'm a non denominational NASB user. Switched from the 95 to the 20. It was a tough move but I decided to pull the trigger. This translation is the least denominationally driven translation because of the word for word philosophy. It avoids too much interpretation that you see in other translations. The NASB is a great translation if you want to HEAR the voice of God.

NASB was NEVER popular in the UK, simply because it has ‘American’ stamped all over it. I personally am enjoying the NASB 2020, and feel it will eventually get more traction both in the USA and UK, once everybody calms down and their NASB 2020 hernia’s have been fixed. Kind regards from the UK.

Those texts are virtually identical.

@@taylorsexton5739 maybe he meant trinitarian bible society since they print a tr

Which the 2020 maintains by putting “sisters” in italics as a clarifying thought by the translators.

The NASB 95 said "toward his virgin daughter." Maybe you misunderstood what I meant by that. I wasn't trying to interpret. I was just saying the verse in the 95 implies the way a father is treating his virgin daughter, regardless of what that particularly means.

I would love to have it!

Yea, it really makes it more DIFFICULT to read...🤦

Some people have complained the translation is too literal and loosening up the flow of English to capture how its actually spoken is aimed at producing a more readable translation. The cost is some literalness has to be sacrificed to establish a balance between accuracy and readability. A tough job and reasonable people are going to differ on where to draw the line there.

I know there is a case to be made for less literal translation for some people or at some times. I use different translations all the time but I think the main drawcard of the NASB is that it has the report being the most literal out of all of the readable (ie not Young’s) translations available? It makes no sense to me that people looking for the NASB would choose the 2020 which is almost as literal and slightly more readable. Wouldn’t most people after that philosophy be looking at an ESV?

It seems like they modernized the passages, while staying true to what the Hebrew and Greek are telling us.

I'm with you on this.

I’ve mixed feelings about it. I prefer a more conservative and literary expression but other people want something more contemporary. What the KJO miss is language and culture never stands still. Modern Hebrew and modern Greek sound radically different from their ancient forebears but that can’t be helped. English underwent a sound shift too during the Middle Ages. Inevitably, people no longer understand what they once did. I’m all for defending tradition but when you can no longer explain what it is that you revere, of what use is tradition? Like it or not, the Bible has to keep up with language and cultural change, if only to remain relevant to the needs of future generations.

Christians are not seeing what's happening here. God refers to man as man not men and women because woman comes from man. This is an attempt to satisfy the feminist agenda. I honestly prefer the 1977 updates but I'm warming up to the 1995 version as most bibles have this format. In the end God said he would preserve His word so regardless of the translation if it causes true repentance in the heart of the reader I'm all for it.

I agree... I think most people of average intelligence can understand the “understood” .

Young's Literal Translation.

Thanks, will read on line until I find a copy.

@Robert Rodrigues.... in regards to your note regarding the fondness for the 1977 over the 1995 or newer versions of the NASB.. I can understand where you are coming from.... here is where I am coming from however... I became a KJV onlyist several years ago.. for various reasons....I believe it to be the most flawless reading of God's word... then within the last year... due to my church closing... I began attending a different church where the NASB was preached from.. and many at the church use the ESV as well.. .. so I found myself... rather than trying to follow along with the NASB in my KJV bible...buying an NASB... but it was a 1977 version.. with all the thees and thous etc.. still intact.....after reading along with the sermons... I realized that.. my version did not match the Pastor's version... so I went and bought the updated 1995 version... while I understand your concern.... I realized that if I was going to hold on to my belief that the 1977 NASB was better textual wise... I may as well stay with my KJV... but if I was going to try to grasp the modernization of God's word.. then I should continue with the 1995 NASB... I believe the 1995 to be a great translation for those who wish to read the bible with more modern language.. while the KJV to be far superior to the 1977 NASB for those who do not... that being said... I thought I would share with you that the 1977 NASB has been known to contain errors in it that have been corrected in the updated 1995 version of the NASB.. one main error is the text of LUKE 24:51....in the 1977 NASB... there is no mention of Jesus being taken up or ascending.... it only states he departed from them... it doesn't say how.. or where Jesus went... in Acts 1:1-2....Luke procedes to remind Theophilus.. that he (LUKE).. has told Theophilus all that Jesus did and taughrt... don't you think the part that Jesus ascended was taught to Theophilus..?... according to the 1977 NASB.. it wasn't.. since.. Luke does Not mention this in the 1977 version of the NASB.... there are other instances too where.. the 1977 has left out certain things that with the 1995 NASB have been corrected..

@@jeffcarlson3269 Thank you dear sir for your kind words and your reply. I personally do not trust the KJV or the Greek Manuscripts behind her, ie Textus Receptus / Byzantine Manuscripts, therefore im my view the issue of Acts 1:1-2 doesnt stand - no dosrispect sir to you, it is simple that you and I hold to diferent family of manuscripts. God bless you sir

Would love a 77… difficult to find… so my 95 will do…