Suggestion: NASB77 Version

Mark - I did a quick search and found that several other Bible Software companies, including free ones, were still selling the 77 version alongside the 95 version. Some even had both bundled together.

Interesting. I don't know what could be done. Logos has stated it can no longer sell the '77 version, but we haven't been told why not if an effort were made whether that could change.

I would suggest a suggestion be made through the suggestion forum to this effect.

I have the '77 version in Logos but really use it infrequently. I have bound study Bible in the '77 NASB that I sometimes bring out. When I do it is handy to have the older version on Logos to follow along with. Handy, but not essential. I wonder if I'd buy it if it were available in Logos and I didn't already have it?

Here is the suggestion. There seems to be an interest in this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Shawn Drewett

I already have this but I want others to have it that don't so here is my vote.

Kolen Cheung

What's better of the NASB77 over NASB95?

Shawn Drewett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/93866#Comment_93866

New American Standard Bible (Updated)

The NASBU differs from the NASB in only a couple of ways. One is in regard to its technique of translation. It has moved toward the dynamic-equivalence philosophy of translation because it omits numbers of conjunctions and shows more of a departure from the original than does the NASB (#3). The NASBU is still within the range of literal translations, but those changes reduce its effectiveness for study purposes. The other difference results from the same changes and produces an improvement in the style of English (#5), but the changes do not raise the level of readability of the NASBU substantially. In the judgment of most, it is still ‘wooden’. The NASBU still enjoys the advantage of the Tyndale lineage (#1), of a sound textual basis (#2), and of a conservative theological stance (#3).

From "How to choose a bible version" by R.L. THomas.

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/93960#Comment_93960

Personally I stopped using it because of the artificial use of Thees and Thous in reference to Divinity. I found that to be totally inconsistent with the philosophy of the rest of the translation and a constant irritant.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/93960#Comment_93960

I see. Thank you so much.

But now I prefer ESV more than NASB, basically because of the reverse interlinear in ESV (I purchased the printed one, contains only NT) and the HDNT (ESV). These devices help me to jump directly into Greek from ESV. And after that, insights from how the others translate the Bible might help too (NASB95, Darby). I will say Darby is actually much better than NASB. The only weakness is the old English, older textual basis, and the wrong English Grammar (use English but in the concept of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic). E.g. Eph 1:3-14 is in one sentence as in Greek, but I never find a modern translation do so (tell me if there is), except RcV, which is not popular and can be found only from its publisher (that's why it is not in Logos).

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94113#Comment_94113

E.g. Eph 1:3-14 is in one sentence as in Greek, but I never find a modern translation do so (tell me if there is), except RcV, which is not popular and can be found only from its publisher (that's why it is not in Logos).

The American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, Wuest's Expanded translation, and the Lexham English Bible all translate that passage as one sentence (and they are all in Logos). The Lexham English Bible is the only one with a reverse interlinear in it.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94119#Comment_94119

The American Standard Version, Young's Literal Translation, Wuest's Expanded translation, and the Lexham English Bible all translate that passage as one sentence (and they are all in Logos). The Lexham English Bible is the only one with a reverse interlinear in it.

Thanks. But ASV, YLT are not modern. YLT is around the time of Darby. ASV is more modern than them, but not modern enough...

Thanks for the Wuest's Expanded translation, it is the first time I heard about that (sorry to be ignorant). It is interesting to read that "a literal New Testament translation that follows the word
order in the Greek quite strictly." That might be a good modern translation. I will look at that soon. Thanks.

Lexham might be good too (especially it has reverse interlinear, where Darby doesn't). Thanks.

But the bad thing about Wuest's Expanded translation, and the Lexham English Bible is that they have the NT only! And WET do not subdivide the sentence according to the verse (verses might not make sense, but easy to refer to).

Thanks again. The information did help. It will be great to see that Lexham English Bible covers OT.

Anthony Etienne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/93960#Comment_93960

New American Standard Bible (Updated)

The NASBU differs from the NASB in only a couple of ways. One is in regard to its technique of translation. It has moved toward the dynamic-equivalence philosophy of translation because it omits numbers of conjunctions and shows more of a departure from the original than does the NASB (#3). The NASBU is still within the range of literal translations, but those changes reduce its effectiveness for study purposes. The other difference results from the same changes and produces an improvement in the style of English (#5), but the changes do not raise the level of readability of the NASBU substantially. In the judgment of most, it is still ‘wooden’. The NASBU still enjoys the advantage of the Tyndale lineage (#1), of a sound textual basis (#2), and of a conservative theological stance (#3).

From "How to choose a bible version" by R.L. THomas.

I was about to cite this book as well, in answer to the orig posters' question. This is a very good book IMO:

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94119#Comment_94119

E.g. Eph 1:3-14 is in one sentence as in Greek, but I never find a modern translation do so (tell me if there is), except RcV, which is not popular and can be found only from its publisher (that's why it is not in Logos).

Remember, the original Greek manuscripts did not have the text divided into sentences, though the modern printed editions of our Greek text do add them. Translators may read the passage differently than the editors of the Greek text.

Blessings,

Floyd

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94153#Comment_94153

But from the Grammar we can tell it is one single sentence, right?

Floyd Johnson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94155#Comment_94155

But from the Grammar we can tell it is one single sentence, right?

I certainly am not the one to ask. I have to assume that Greek editors and translators know more than me and that differences of opinions are possible and allowed.

Blessings,

Floyd

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/93966#Comment_93966

Personally I stopped using it because of the artificial use of Thees and Thous in reference to Divinity. I found that to be totally inconsistent with the philosophy of the rest of the translation and a constant irritant.

Do you think that this was a way to introduce a modern English version of the Bible to those who had spent their lives in the KJV?

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94167#Comment_94167

Do you think that this was a way to introduce a modern English version of the Bible to those who had spent their lives in the KJV?

Paul, I don't know, but I assume if it was then they would have mentioned it as part of their translation philosophy. I really have never seen any reason given for doing it, but if that was it, then it is certainly non-intuitive from my view point. But then again, so much is [:D]

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94173#Comment_94173

Do you think that this was a way to introduce a modern English version of the Bible to those who had spent their lives in the KJV?

Paul, I don't know, but I assume if it was then they would have mentioned it as part of their translation philosophy. I really have never any reason given for doing it, but if that was it, then it is certainly non-intuitive from my view point. But then again, so much is

It's the only reason that makes sense to me. It goes along with how all Biblical based movie characters, of the time, always used them also. It was still an era where "church language" was different from spoken language...

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94161#Comment_94161

I have to assume that Greek editors and translators know more than me and that differences of opinions are possible and allowed.

I think we could determine the sentence division except for some rare case. The sign for this determination is from the verb used. Of course, I am not an expert on Greek as well so I am kind of hesitate to bring out this point.

Mark Watson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94113#Comment_94113

But now I prefer ESV more than NASB, basically because of the reverse interlinear in ESV (I purchased the printed one, contains only NT) and the HDNT (ESV). These devices help me to jump directly into Greek from ESV. And after that, insights from how the others translate the Bible might help too (NASB95, Darby). I will say Darby is actually much better than NASB. The only weakness is the old English, older textual basis, and the wrong English Grammar (use English but in the concept of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic). E.g. Eph 1:3-14 is in one sentence as in Greek, but I never find a modern translation do so (tell me if there is), except RcV, which is not popular and can be found only from its publisher (that's why it is not in Logos).

Hey, you changed the point of this thread. I believe that is called hijacking. Please start a new thread in the future.

The original post was about Logos offering the NASB77 version alongside the NASB95 version. Does anyone else want to see the NASB77 version in Logos? Please post. (This is the original point of this thread).

Another thread stated that Lockman will grant Logos the rights to sell the 77 version if they want to.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94451#Comment_94451

ey, you changed the point of this thread. I believe that is called hijacking. Please start a new thread in the future.

As a new thread would it be Logos related? I'd call this thread drift and let it be.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94451#Comment_94451

Well, I am sorry about it.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94451#Comment_94451

Hey, you changed the point of this thread. I believe that is called hijacking

Threads are conversations and they naturally go other ways. You may always feel free to post a response to the original topic, despite what others are discussing. Besides, there is a more in-depth and current thread on the original topic if you wish to continue that conversation: NASB77 vs NASB95

As to the original topic, the post in the other thread made it sound like the availability of the 77 version was a done deal and all we need to do is wait for it to be made available for purchase.

Mark Watson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94587#Comment_94587

Threads are conversations and they naturally go other ways.

Yes, unfortunately several of them do and that is what takes up people's precious time in searching them to find real help or vote for a feature / resource be important to them.

As to the original topic, the post in the other thread made it sound like the availability of the 77 version was a done deal and all we need to do is wait for it to be made available for purchase.

My post was to see how many Logos users would be willing to purchase the NASB77 if and when it becomes available. That is why it was under Suggestion. Which I read in a very early post on these forums that this is the correct place to ask for a resource that is not currently available. If I am mistaken, please let me know where to post such requests.

I did not see an official post from Logos employees that the NASB77 will be available and on what date. I have not checked the Pre-Pub page, so it might be there already.

Have a wonderful evening and God Bless You.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95069#Comment_95069

Mark,

When the question was asked about the difference between the NASB and NASB95, it seemed to me to be an appropriate extension of the original conversation, especially if it helps convince someone that they might want to get the original NASB.

The Suggestions group isn't just for asking for a show of hands of interest from people. (I avoided the term "voting", since "no" votes tend to come off as confrontational and lead to arguments). The group is used for promoting and discussing anything that we might want Logos to consider: Features, resources, publishers, even policies. Seeing as how your original post didn't specifically call for a show of hands or a vote, it seemed valid to let the thread meander a bit.

Anyhow...to bring it back around to your desired topic:

Who here would buy the NASB (original version -1977) if it were offered?

Mark Watson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94452#Comment_94452

ey, you changed the point of this thread. I believe that is called hijacking. Please start a new thread in the future.

As a new thread would it be Logos related? I'd call this thread drift and let it be.

Todd,

See the post above from M.J. Smith. Perhaps I was not the only person who thought this thread had strayed beyond the bounds of Logos' forum?

And I do want people's input on whether a resource is beneficial or not - and why. So in your viewpoint is the NASB77 better in any way to the NASB95? Do you have any particular example of why you would would want the NASB77 if you already have the NASB95?

Besides all that, I find that any conversation on a thread tends to be good in these forums, because it keeps it at the top where it can be seen--which we all agree is a good thing (kind of like "any publicity is good publicity"). - - - Agree with you for the most part on this. There are a few threads that I hope will never surface again...because they were just points that cause argumentative responses.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95260#Comment_95260

And I do want people's input on whether a
resource is beneficial or not - and why. So in your viewpoint is the
NASB77 better in any way to the NASB95? Do you have any particular
example of why you would would want the NASB77 if you already have the
NASB95?

I've wanted the 77 version so that I could easily
compare the two versions. It's helpful to see what changed, and it can point out places where the translation is difficult. It's also helpful to see the gradual evolution of translations from KJV to ASV to NASB to NASB95. You can clearly see what was retained for the sake of familiarity.

Also the 77 version is paragraph formatted...better for reading in that aspect. I also want to be able to search for passages based on the original wording in case I have a quote that I want to find. Mostly, I like the NASB95 better, although I wish it had paragraph formatting. After using the ESV for a while, I find myself heading back to the NASB95 more and more as the ESV seems to retain too much baggage from the RSV at times.

(By the way, I was (and am) under the impression that MJ was in agreement with me. Do we need to exegete her phrasing? [:P] )

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95069#Comment_95069

I would buy the NASB '77 depending on the price. Given that it takes up little space and can be helpful to reference, especially in reading older books that rely on it, I wouldn't mind having it. I'm a little confused about why the NASB77 and the BAGD 2nd ed are no longer sold in Logos. I suspect it might have something to do with licensing and the cost of keeping them updated in the latest format. BAGD was referenced millions of times between its publication and the coming of BDAG 3rd ed. Now if you want to read what the author was referring to you must have a print copy of BAGD because sometimes BDAG has been completed changed. I realise that Logos doesn't want to produce every edition of a work but when you already have it why discontinue selling it?

Tom

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95285#Comment_95285

Well, I feel from the conversation that sometimes the newest might not be the best in some sense. But Logos might tends to publish the newest version only.

So, then NASB77 is only one example to show this problem.

Then I will suggest that whenever we purchase a certain copy, it will be great to offer an optional choice to include the previous editions too (which should be able to change this option after you buy it). But of course that means Logos is keep managing more and more different editions. So, might be we can apply this only on those special case: NASB, BDAG, etc.

Mark Watson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/95268#Comment_95268

(By the way, I was (and am) under the impression that MJ was in agreement with me. Do we need to exegete her phrasing? )

As a guy with a "star" under your picture, I guess you are entitled to your opinion....oh wait...everyone in the Logos forums are.

Anthony Etienne

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/94587#Comment_94587

Hey, you changed the point of this thread. I believe that is called hijacking

As to the original topic, the post in the other thread made it sound like the availability of the 77 version was a done deal and all we need to do is wait for it to be made available for purchase.

Is this officially true, or just enthusiastic hoping? I hope it is true...I really would like NASB77 in my Logos 4 Library.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/102795#Comment_102795

I would like NASB77 to appear too. And it would be great if it is included whenever one has a copy of NASB.