When I first was introduced to the ESV, I was very impressed by it. I had grown up using the NASB and hadn’t ever been very fond of the NIV. So, I was pleased by a new “word-for-word” translation option. The translation was smooth and fairly easy to read. It also appeared to be the preferred translation for many books, websites, churches, etc.
My husband and I eagerly purchased Reformation Study Bibles, downloaded the ESV Study Bible on our Nooks, and started using the ESV as our default translation on the YouVersion Bible app. When our oldest two boys joined the church as communing members, we presented them with their own ESV Reformation Study Bibles with their names engraved on the covers.
When I was researching Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS), I discovered that the ESV Study Bible’s notes strongly advocate for ESS. This shouldn’t have been too surprising since Dr. Wayne Grudem was the editor for the Study Bible and is one of the leading proponents of ESS. After discovering that Dr. Grudem was on the oversight committee for the ESV translation, I was uncertain, but I knew he was just one man among many on the committee. I hadn’t noticed any real problems in the translation itself.
Last September, however, Crossway announced that they had made new changes to the text and that those changes would be the last ones made. The ESV text would be permanent as of 2016. While it might be a poor decision to determine that you’ll never need to update a translation, I really didn’t have any objection to that part of Crossway’s statement. What was much, much more concerning to me was a couple of the new changes that were now going to be permanently set in stone:
| Permanent Text (2016) | ESV Text (2011) |
|---|---|
| Genesis 3:16 | |
| Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. | Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. |
| Genesis 4:7 | |
| Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it. | Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it. |
In making these changes, the ESV had decided to change the translation of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 to reflect a particular interpretation of the passages. I plan to write more soon on the origin and history of this interpretation, but for now I’ll just summarize my concerns using an excerpt from an article by Wendy Alsup and Hannah Anderson:
In the height of the battle against feminism in the 1970s, Susan Fohproposedthat the similarity between 3:16 and 4:7 was that a woman’s desire toward a man was similar to sin’s desire to destroy Cain. It was, dare we say, contrary to him. This connection is problematic for many reasons, including the fact that the language of Genesis 4:7 is unclear and may actually refer to Abel’s good desire toward Cain.**
Worse, from an interpretive standpoint, Foh used the confusing and obscure text of Genesis 4 to project something backonto the clearer Hebrew in Genesis 3. In contrast, a straightforward chronological reading of Genesis 1-4 actually affirms the lexical definition of the preposition ‘el as “for” or “toward.” In terms of the fall, the woman’s desire for children, her desire for her husband, and the man’s efforts at cultivating the ground are all good things to be pursued in fulfillment of the Creation Mandate; but post-Fall, these good desires are thwarted with painful consequences. Just as the man’s desire to produce fruit from the ground is rewarded with sweat and pain, a woman’s desire to produce children from her own body is rewarded with sweat and pain. Just as the man turns to his attention to the earth looking for fruitful relationship, a woman turns toward (not away from) a man seeking fruitful relationship. (We will explore this more in Part 3.)
The only way translators can justify rendering ‘el as “contrary” is to assume something negative about the woman’s desire based on the use of desire in Genesis 4:7-8. But such a novel change relies solely on commentary, not on accepted definitions to the Hebrew ‘el. (emphasis original)
They go on to explain why this translation has bad implications:
Our first concern about the latest rendering of Genesis 3:16 is that it does not fit the larger rhetorical frame of the passage. It implies a sinful motivation for the woman’s desire rather than describing the broken context in which she finds herself. It also disrupts the parallelism of the text. God speaks to the woman about how the Fall affects her. He then speaks to the man about how the Fall affects him. Rendering 3:16 as “your desire shall be contrary to your husband” injects a statement about the woman’s nature when there is no corresponding statement about the man’s nature in terms of his work. We believe there is no parallel statement because Genesis 3:16 should not be read as an indictment of the woman’s desire.
As we discussed in Part 2, you can only arrive at a negative reading of the woman’s desire if you read negativity back into the passage from Genesis 4:7-8. But such a reading is highly prejudicial because it implies that the woman’s desires by their very existence are contrary to her husband. Because the rest of the passage is read as a statement of fact about this post-Fall world, the sentence “your desires shall be contrary to your husband” will also be read as a statement of fact. The rhetorical affect is to create suspicion around every desire that a woman has.
After a flurry of articles and blog posts, Crossway announced that the 2016 ESV text would not be permanent. While many were relieved to read this, some of us noted that nothing was said about the controversial change to Genesis 3:16 and 4:7. Would that be changed? To date, nothing has been said regarding changing these passages back. I know that published text takes time to be changed. As such, I expected that the ESV Bibles published last year would reflect the “contrary to” translation. And they do. This includes the big six-volume ESV Reader’s Bible.
I had hoped that maybe the online versions could be and would be changed. But so far, they haven’t. The current edition of the ESV on the ESV.org website gives this translation for Genesis 3:16:
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16 ESV)
The same is true for the major online Bible websites that offer multiple translations. The 2016 edition of the ESV with “contrary to” is the one in use.
I found this very discouraging. But it wasn’t the only reason I had for changing translations. In the Trinity debate this summer and the aftermath this fall, one of the discussions was over the interpretation of “monogenes.” Is it “only begotten” as the older English translations have it? Should it be “only,” “one and only,” “unique” as most of the recent translations, including the ESV, have it?
Lee Irons wrote to argue for “only begotten” as the preferred translation and many seem to be in agreement now. I’m glad for that. How many of us have memorized John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son …”? Somehow it doesn’t sound quite right “For God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son …”. Granted that’s mostly personal preference, but there is a strong theological truth missing when we leave out the “only begotten.”
Between the “contrary to” in Genesis 3 and 4 and the missing “only begotten” in the New Testament passages, my husband and I decided that the ESV wasn’t the translation we wanted to use as a family. To be clear, we’re not dogmatic about it. Our church and many of our friends still use the ESV, we aren’t complaining about it or demanding change. But for our own devotions individually and as a family, we’ve decided to switch to the New American Standard (NASB). We have four main reasons for doing so.
- The NASB translates monogenes as “only begotten.” Given the Trinity debate this summer, I see the benefit in reinforcing this fundamental truth that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (John 3:16 NASB)
2. The NASB does not translate Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 to say “contrary to.” In fact, I really like the way the NASB translates the passage. Especially the “yet”:
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16 NASB)
3. As you can see in the NASB and ESV verses quoted here, the NASB capitalizes the divine pronouns whereas the ESV does not. While it isn’t necessary, it is something I prefer. I find it helps keep track in a passage on who is talking.
4. In all translations, it’s necessary to add words at times. This is true in any translation from one language to another. What I appreciate about the NASB is that it tells you when words have been added by italicizing them. This allows the reader to consider how the translators have added things for clarity. It also is very transparent. The reader knows what words aren’t actually there in the original language.
A good example can be found in Ephesians 5:21-22:
and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:21-22 NASB)
I thought it was interesting to note that in verse 22, “be subject” has been added so that the sentence makes sense. Considering that there is much discussion about what connection there should be between verses 21 and 22, I think it worth noting that verse 22 follows on referring to verse 21 in the original Greek. The literal translation is: “Wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” Without verse 21, verse 22 just wouldn’t make sense. Knowing which words have been added can enhance Bible study.
So for these various reasons my husband and I have switched from the ESV to the NASB. I know that the NASB, or any other translation, is not without problems. But for now, we are content with our decision. Now, to find someone to put a new binding on my old NASB. More than twenty years of backpacks, college retreats, and Bible study has left it being held together with tape. Maybe for my birthday …
A Daughter of the Reformation 
Sad that it’s come to this. I was also dismayed about the new Gen. 3:16 rendering and I’ve more or less reached the same decision. Only I’m not leaving the ESV entirely; I will continue to use those copies I have that were published before 2016. I just won’t be buying any copies with the 2016 text. That doesn’t take care of the monogenes issue, but that by itself isn’t enough for me to stop using Bibles that were gifts or have good study notes and have the language I’m used to.
I’m not going as far as you and your family, but I don’t blame you at all. I also won’t even be recommending the ESV to people unless and until Crossway announces they’ve reverted to the old rendering of the Gen. 3 and 4 passages. Which I don’t think is all that likely…
LikeLike
The NASB 2020 says only son
LikeLike
Thanks. I saw they’d made that change in the NASB 2020. I’ll stick with the earlier editions
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughts and reasoning for changing to NAS. I have never been a fan of ESV. I had submitted translation suggestions since 2001, but never acknowledged or accepted. Add John 20:23 as a bad translation (and NIV does the same).
I began using NAS in 1978. Of course in seminary Greek NT and Hebrew OT were primary. But over the years, for English translations NAS is still my first choice.
LikeLike
John?
LikeLike
Do you mean John 20:23? NAS and NKJV get it right
LikeLike
Even in the pre-2016 edition of 2011, there are marginal notes at Genesis 3.16 and 4.7 which say, “Or, ‘against'”. Just off the top of my head, I’m thinking that the translation committee didn’t make the change for theological reasons (Grudem’s not the only one on the committee, after all) but, possibly, for reasons having to do with the usage of the particular Hebrew word. Just a guess. I like the ESV. At my age (64), I don’t plan to change translations again.
LikeLike
Yes, those marginal notes are still not based on the Hebrew itself. The word in question is never used to mean contrary to.
LikeLike
Here is a good explanation by a Hebrew professor https://www.google.com/amp/s/myonlycomfort.com/2016/09/08/genesis-316/amp/
And I’m not telling you not to use your ESV. These are just my reasons.
LikeLike
Yes, I understand you’re not trying to get me (or anyone) to abandon the ESV. Not to worry. That article you linked to is interesting. So, maybe the trajectory is Susan Foh – Wayne Grudem – ESV translation committee. Well, maybe Grudem will re-assess what Foh said and get the translation committee to (eventually) change its mind about those two Genesis passages. But, as you or someone wrote, this could take a long time (lead time for publishing, etc.).
By the way, the NASB was the first translation I read when I got saved (1980), but I never cared for it’s woodenness. Unfortunately, the NIV only gets dragged further to the political Left with each new “revision.” No one translation is perfect, and we just have to do the best we can. Excellent website, by the way!
LikeLike
Rachel, I am not sure if you mean that אל never means “against” or never means “contrary to,” but, in the former case, it clearly can take the notion of “against.” Here are some examples:
Genesis 4:8 Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against [אל] Abel his brother and killed him.
Numbers 32:14 “Now behold, you have risen up in your fathers’ place, a brood of sinful men, to add still more to the burning anger of the LORD against [אל] Israel.
Jeremiah 21:13 “Behold, I am against [אל] you, O valley dweller, O rocky plain,” declares the LORD, “You men who say, ‘Who will come down against us? Or who will enter into our habitations?’
Ezekiel 38:3 and say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I am against [אל] you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal.
I agree that “contrary to” is a questionable translation. I wrote on this topic a while back, and it may be of some interest to you:
https://neurosciencelinguisticsandhebrew.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/on-the-new-esv-translation-of-genesis-316/
As an addendum, I mentioned Sam Powell in the article, and he has came over to my blog and clarified, and I don’t think we are that far off, so, make sure you read his comments in the comments section. Other than that, my concern is the interpretation of *headship* as what is crucial here, rather than *sin* being the big issue. The desire to dominate other people is a sinful desire, but that is what happens now after the fall. In fact, you can see that if you continue to read through Genesis. The infighting within human relationships and power for domination is something that is all over the book. The point of Genesis 4:7 is that this is not just something that happens in marriage. It happens in *all* human relationships. That is the state we are in due to the fall, and that is why we need to have gospel centered relationships.
Also, while there are many people who are taking Lee Irons’ work on “only begotten” as definitive, I am studying morphology right now, and I am really concerned that he is not taking into account certain fine distinctions that are essential to morphology. In fact, this whole emphasis on morphology deeply concerns me, as I don’t think that morphology is the key to the meaning of monogenes. I think it is an issue of lexical semantics more so than morphology. I have not commented on it because I am waiting for the book Retrieving Eternal Generation to come out, as Irons has said that his full argument will be contained in that book. Sadly, I have not even seen it on Amazon yet. Maybe he will address my concerns with his use of morphology in that article, and maybe he will not. We will see.
Also, one other issue that Voddie Baucham brought to my attention is Psalm 127:5
Psalm 127:5 How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate. [NASB]
Psalm 127:5 Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. [ESV]
Notice how the NASB translates as a passive [How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them] while the ESV translates as an active [Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them]. Baucham tries to settle the issue by saying that מלא is a piel stem, and the piel stem is active. However, the issue is not the stem of the verb. The issue is the fact that מלא [fills] is a third person masculine singular verb, and can take any third person masculine singular subject. The problem is, the whole first portion of this Psalm has been about Yhwh’s provision. “Unless the Lord builds a house…” etc. Even the second portion of the Psalm starts, “Behold, children are an inheritance from the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is a reward” with the obvious assumption that it is a reward *from Yhwh.* Since Yhwh is a third person masculine singular noun, it could *also* be the subject of מלא. Hence, the question is whether you have:
Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them
or
Blessed is the man whose quiver he [Yhwh] fills with them
The latter would obviously be more consistent with the context “unless the Lord builds a house” and even “children are an inheritance from Yhwh.” However, translations such as the NASB have translated it as a passive to leave it open as to who the subject is. Baucham runs right through that like a freight train running behind schedule.
In fact, while that is the reason Baucham prefers the ESV to the NASB, that is one of the reasons I prefer the NASB to the ESV. The NASB is simply more careful about things like that.
LikeLike
Barbara,
Thanks for pointing that article by Mackintosh out. I was not aware of it. I was able to obtain a copy and read through it, and I think one of the problems that I have is the reliance on ancient translations. Ancient translations can often misunderstand the Hebrew. You see, for example, the Septuagint translating דֶֹבֶר [pestilence] as λογος meaning “word.” The reason is that one of the Hebrew words for “word” is דָבָר, and, at one point in time, there were no vowels in Hebrew. It would have read simply as דבר. If the translator is not aware that there is are vowels that can be added so the word means “pestilence” or “word,” and is only aware of the meaning “word,” he will, inadvertently, make a mistake. And you can see that with rare words as well. It is partially because words change in their meaning over time, and partly because, if the word is rare enough, the translator will have to guess at the meaning of the term if he doesn’t know what the meaning is. The other problem that I see is that Mackintosh is using sources from just before and after the time of Christ. That certainly tells us what people living in those time periods thought the word meant [if his interpretation of those translations is right], and gives us a Jewish tradition in and after the time of Christ. However, that tells us nothing about what the author in the Late Bronze Age meant by the use of the term. It only gives us a possible interpretation. Also, a number of ancient translations get meanings of individual words by looking at other occurrences of the term. That is not wrong in and of itself, but one must beware of the fact that words can have different semantic fields. You don’t beat a rug in the same way you beat someone at chess. You don’t run to the store in the same way you run a computer program. Words across these semantic fields can have analogical meanings, such as good desire and malicious desire. In fact, Mackintosh himself falls into that trap when he says that the meaning “desire” works in Genesis 3 and in Song of Songs 7, but not in Genesis 4. The idea that the translators could be thinking along the same lines as him is not unlikely. However, if there is a different but analogous meaning in the semantic fields dealing with sin and love, then the argument would be irrelevant. Also, while I agree that it is unlikely that תּֽשׁוּקָה is an error for שׁוּב, it is also possible that those translations *thought* that it was, or, at very least, that it came from שׁוּב. That would explain the “turning” aspect of all of the translations he cites, without having to posit the notion of “devotion” in the meaning of תּֽשׁוּקָה. Now, one could argue that those translations are right, but that would require some argument that actually interacts with the linguistic evidence from Hebrew itself. The problem at this point is the paucity of evidence. “Desire” seems to me to be the most likely rendering, as it has survived into Modern Hebrew. However, even there you have problems, because it is not necessarily true that Modern Hebrew uses the same meanings as Biblical Hebrew since words can change in their meanings. And, in around 3000 years, that is entirely likely. However, that is the best we got at this point, except for a possible Arabic cognate that would require ignoring the fact that when Northwest Semitic languages like Hebrew have the ʃ sound, it is usually represented as s in Biblical Hebrew, and vice versa. There are exceptions to this. However, it is also possible that exceptions are loanwords, and not cognates.
All in all, while Mackintosh’s article is interesting, there are still too many problems both in the handling of the translations, as well as in the linguistic evidence itself to abandon the notion of “desire.” And, as I pointed out, it is not necessary as long as one follows the argument of Genesis that sin is the problem, and not some vague notion of headship.
LikeLike
I always enjoy and am greatly enriched by your analytical posts, Rachel. You’ve written on this topic before and when I had a chance to find a brand new NASB at a used bookstore (irony intended) I pounced on it and began comparing it with my old ESV. I’m finding some of the differences to be quite illuminating, adding to my understanding of the text. Perhaps a reason not to get “stuck” on a particular translation. But I agree with you that aside from suspect theological aims, there’s no good reason for the ESV (2016) to deviate from its previous translation.
LikeLike
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I have been similarly struggling with translations, and have gone back and forth for a while now between the NASB and ESV. I started out with the NIV when I became a Christian in 1999, but the changes that have happened over the years have turned me away from it.
The most recent changes to the ESV were just as distasteful to me as the original dust-up that happened when the NIV translators released the TNIV. I was encouraged when they retreated from their decision to make it “permanent”, but have become less so as the months go back without any effort to revert back to the previous translations of Gen. 3:16 and 4:7. I’ve grown tired of translation preference being a political decision. It should not be so. But, I will likely make the switch back the NASB as well.
LikeLike
Another text to compare between NAS and ESV is Matthew 18:18. Difference in how to translate future perfect passive.
NAS Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
ESV Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
LikeLike
That is interesting
LikeLike
Rachel,
Regardless, of what Irons may have said, which I read and found lacking, the consensus in actual Greek scholarship, Mounce, BDAG, etc is the monogenes does not have any relationship to sonship except by context. The word means one who is unique, special, or one of a kind. In John 3:16 it is this relationship between monogenes and uiou (son) that gives us the translation Only/Unique Son. In John 1:18, where the best manuscripts have monogenes Theos the NET, translates, properly, The Only One (monogenes), Himself God,
Tim
LikeLike
Leonard’s fixes Bibles for an extremely fair rate (they charge the going rate for regular books), anything from just putting it back together to doing a fancy leather cover.
LikeLike
Thanks!
LikeLike
Although I share your concerns about the changes to these ESV texts, for me, at least, the NASB is not the best alternative. It has a distinct premillennial bias in some places (Matt 24 for example) and word quality is, as one early critic of the NASB noted, “English as never spoken anywhere.” If I was going to switch to another formal equivalent translation it would be either the NKJV or the old RSV.
LikeLike
Barbara,
Interesting that a translation of a passage which requires changing the second half of the verse from a first person to a third for no reason other than not liking what it actually reads, is the translation you like and in your opinion is the correct one, hmmmm! Could it be that all the other groups of translators got it right and you just don’t agree with what it says? In fact, two of the translations you listed as ‘getting it right’ list I hate divorce as another acceptable reading.
Tim
LikeLike
Fascinating that some of you have problems with the latest version of the ESV. My denomination, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), recently adopted it as the official translation for the lectionary (the three-year cycle of Scripture readings for weekly Saturday night/Sunday services). It’s also the official translation for daily Scripture readings as well. The previous translation was the NRSV.
Of course, members can use any translation they want for personal Bible study or in small groups. My own small group has been using the NIV and has no plans to change.
LikeLike
I used the ESV for about 18 months, realized it was horrible, and went back to the KJV.
LikeLike
Good move!
LikeLike
Great post. I would be more than happy to rebind your Bible for you. Send me an email and I will send photos of examples of the work I’ve done, as well as the leathers I have available. I can repair spines and everything. Matthew.c.riegel@gmail.com
LikeLike
I used the ESV as my main translation for a few years since 2009; before that I used mostly the KJV and NKJV. After dozens of verse and word comparison, I switched back to the NKJV as my main translation. I like the English style of the ESV way better, but the constant finding of plain bad translation and inaccuracies were tripping me up. The 2016 ESV not only did not address the ESV weaknesses, but added a few more. What a shame that a translation that could have been for modern times what the KJV was many years ago wasted the opportunity because of ill informed theologians and those who put their own agenda above the Word. One of the mistranslations that exasperates me is Genesis 3:6b, “and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate”. There is nothing in the Hebrew that is equivalent to “who was”. Older translations just say “with her”, which is a Hebrew idiom meaning “also” (other language Bibles, such as the Portuguese Joao Ferreira de Almeida, translate it that way). See article here for more (about middle of the page): http://www.bible-researcher.com/esv.html. Who btw, makes a good case for Only-begotten (http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html). In Portuguese that word was transliterated as “unigenito”, not as “unico” (only) in the 1600’s or 1700’s.
LikeLike
Thanks for this article. I have several ESV bibles but quit using the translation in 2016 for the reason outlined in your article. I use the 1984 version of the NIV and also like to use the NLT.
BTW, a great site for purchasing bibles is here:
https://evangelicalbible.com
I have purchased several bibles from them and highly recommend them.
-Todd Wilhelm
LikeLike
Yes, I agree, the ESV does contain too many flaws. One sad observation is the ESV is based on the RSV, rather than the NRSV. Many of the problems in the ESV were corrected in the NRSV. Revelation 13:8 translates “apo” as before for doctrinal harmonization, rather than correctly as “from” or “since.” The NRSV corrected this error in the RSV, but the ESV reflects the error from the RSV.
LikeLike
In an ideal world, I might recommend the combination of AV/RV/ASV : say, the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Westminster Bible (AV) and Harold E Monser’s Cross-Reference Bible — an excellent combination of good translation, textual references and thematic references. In the not so ideal world, but as even an old fogey like me must deal with people as they are, I tend to recommend the combination of NASBU//ESV — still a very good combination of good(ish) translation and textual references. In practice, I have found that most people really do not wish to be burdened with more than two translations; but the NRSV might be added as a third, for the keen student. Alas, no publisher issues a parallel NASBU/ESV – I suspect that Lockman and Crossway cannot, or do not wish to, agree terms. I do not recommend the NIV for serious students. Of the Bibles that I placed with serious students, whether believers or unbelievers, the NASBU Single Column Reference Bible was enormously popular – a hardback edition, it cost only £15/$20, but -alas!- it has been discontinued! I hope that something similar will be produced when the forthcoming NASB revision is ready! Call me a snob, if you will – but I am no longer interested in placing a Bible with non-serious folk, though I do give out ESV Gospel portions, as they are very cost-effective. in all this, how we have lost the precious Christian unity so beloved of the nineteenth century believing scholars who wanted to revise the AV, but slowly and by common consent, by way of an enlarged or second margin, so as to preserve what they called “our common version”.
LikeLike
As an ardent lover of the NASB! I was looking forward to the imminent publication of the NASB 2018, then 2019, now 2020 eevision. But, the portions so far released on Facebook at “The Lockman Foundation” open/public page, do not inspire either me or a few others! If anyone cares to check this out, I should be interested to know your views.
LikeLike
I wonder whether anyone has checked the excerpts from the NASB 2020?
LikeLike
Here is a link to a blog that provides NASB 2020 revised verses, along with the bloggers assessment.
https://opened-heart.com/2017/12/11/nasb-2018-2019-release-news/
LikeLike
I’ve just linked my daughters and daughters-in-law to your blog. The place to get your Bibles rebound is located right here in the little town I live in.
http://www.norrisbookbinding.com/
LikeLike
Hi Rachel,
I agree with your observations. Others had mentioned that before and I am personally quite content to read my KJV. You and your readers might like to read Sam Powell’s (My Only Comfort) article on on “Accusing An Elder”. Under discussion is 1 Timothy 5:19. It is quite solemn, as he points out, that the ESV, NKJV, and the NASB all have an incorrect translation whereas the KJV correctly states the correct procedure for accusing an elder. Do read what he has to say…you will be quite sad that those three other versions enable cover-up of clerical abuse.
LikeLike
Thanks. I appreciate Sam’s work very much
LikeLike
did you know that the niv version of the Lord’s prayer is different? it omits: for thine is the kingdom and the glory forever and ever.
dont use it.
LikeLike
But in the Genesis passages, God is giving a curse. How is the woman’s desire for or toward her husband a curse? That sounds like a good thing.
LikeLike
The meaning in this Genesis passage is the call to not toy with another’s inclination to emotion. It was phrased in the customary form of a just-so story (which was thought witty) though it is far more than that. The Old and New Testaments alike are intended to startle us with their paradoxes.
LikeLike
The claimed word of “God” treats us as if we have neither mind nor memory; the corporation calls itself God, and so that it can wrongfoot / gaslight us at its whim it is changeable (one better than the real God).
LikeLike