Logos NASB95

Interesting observation. Obviously, don't know, but I wonder if it was when they were including the Strongs numbers ie picked up an early '95.  Logos NASB95's always had niggles.

Wow, that’s troubling. I certainly see the same thing here. It makes me wonder how many other places this happens in.

Thanks for pointing this out. We'll get it corrected. Let us know if you encounter anything else.

I totally agree.

Will do.  Thanks.

Is there an update on this? It still looks wrong here. Also, how many passages are affected?

Is there an update on this? It still looks wrong here. Also, how many passages are affected?

As near as I can tell this matches the original source material we received back whenever we first produced it. Likely the publisher has made some changes over the year that we haven't received.

We're trying to track down the full list of those changes.

Thank you for the update. Much appreciated.

All,

For some reason, the Logos Edition of the NASB95 text does not agree with NASB95 on Bible Gateway or with the NASB95 text in BibleWorks.  I find a divergence at Mark 4:40.  There is a text variant issue here, I know.  But the Logos NASB95 resource seems to be reproducing the rendition found in the earlier NASB text (i.e., 1978) at Mark 4:40.  Can anybody please tell me why this discrepancy exists in the Logos NASB95 resource?

Irving...just so you know, Bible references that post in pop-ups through RefTagger have a default for the ESV (to my personal chagrin). If you wish to reference a particular Bible translation, you must include additional data after the B/C/V entry, such as Mk. 4:40 NASB95 or Mk. 4:40 NASB77.

EDIT: I noticed this once before, but FL has allowed yet another thing to slip through the cracks. It used to be that you had to differentiate NASB95 from NASB77, but now it seems that there is only a single NASB identification, which recognizes the 95, apparently making the 77 an outcast persona non grata. I don't know why, but Logos seems to be losing more functionality recently than it has been gaining. I would happily trade EVERY data set FL churns out for the basic, longtime functionality that seems to keep disappearing into the ether. It's a very troubling circumstance.