Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 21:29 "And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he regretted it and went. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 21:29 "And he answered, 'I will not'; but afterward he regretted it and changed his mind and went. |
Bible Question:
I really appreciate our prompt, thought-out response, Makarios and Hank. I assume neither of you work for Lockman, but you both seem to know a lot about their NAS. Now my question is probably a "dead-end", and is addressed mostly to Hank, since you stated you don't rush to buy a new translation till the ink dries: how dry does the ink need to be? NAS was first copyrighted in 1960, and it wasn't until '95(?) that it was corrected?!? With all the other translations available to the NAS translators, who were surely scholars and well aware of them as they did the NAS, WHY did no one question this being in opposition? For 35 years? Maybe I'm being too picky, but something we learned several years ago was that it's OK to question--matter of fact, it's wrong not to; be a Berian. Thanx again, guys! Art and Nancy |
Bible Answer: Dear Art and Nancy: I quite agree with you that 35 years is a long time to let a boo-boo grow gray with age before taking remedial steps, but, alas, I don't have the answer to that one. ..... As for as how long to let the ink dry on new translations, I'd say at least until the second or third printings. That should take care of the printing errors and the bulk of other glaring errors that may be present in the work. I read somewhere that Thomas Nelson makes minor revisions -- I've heard it called "fine tuning" -- in their New King James Version with every subsequent printing, although no major revision has been made since its maiden publication of the complete text (Old and New Testaments) in 1982. I assume Lockkman does much the same thing. I note that Lockman lists ten different copyright dates for the NASB ranging from 1960 through 1995. Well, that's the best no-answer I've got :-) If you'd like to pursue this further, why don't you drop Lockman a friendly e-mail and ask them why 35 years was allowed to lapse before they attended to this matter? And report your findings back to us! --Hank |