Subject: But the older NASB did. Why? |
Bible Note: The possible reason cited by retxar is excellent. Another, and possibly additional, reason may well be that the use of the old forms of pronouns in the second person are no longer used in contemporary English and thus appear odd in what claims to be a modern translation. The claim is alive among some that the old pronoun forms are more reverential than modern ones. This is a matter of opinion and taste, nothing else. Jesus addressed the Father as Abba, tantamount to calling Him "Daddy." The autographs of our New Testament were written in the Koine Greek of the people, not in the Attic Greek of the academe. Do prayers prayed in "King James" English have any special advantage? The question merits no response. Everyone who has thought much about it could probably come up with a definition of their ideal translation of the Bible. Mine would be one in which the sacred texts are given in as clear and understandable standard contemporary English as possible without altering their meaning. In my view, the New American Standard Bible 1995 Update comes close. --Hank. |