1st John Bible Nerd-Study - Week 42

 Week 42—1st John Bible Nerd-Study

*Missed last week? Click here for 1st John Bible Nerd-Study - Week 41

Week 42: NASB-2020 + paraphrase 4:20-5:5 

We talked about ASV (1901), NASB-1977, and NASB's 1995 update. Now they've brought out another update! This one may have a few pieces you cringe at and a few places that are a really good upgrade. I wanted to immediately check 1 Cor 7 which unfortunately ended in a terrible way in the past. They've updated that one to be a lot better (not as perfect as Darby's "virginity" translation, but not as terrible as saying a father can keep his daughter from ever getting married!-yikes). So that's an upgrade for certain. 

What you may gasp at is the gender neutrality they've implemented in places where they believed it to be very obvious. So instead of "brethren" or "brothers" it may say "brothers and sisters." The words "and sisters" are in italics, which is a way some translations distinguish between actual words translated and other words added in order to translate the thought. So the thought with "brethren" is that it includes brothers and sisters, but it's only 1 word. To translate word for word = brothers. But to keep the thought they added the additional words "and sisters" and put them in italics so you can still study in a more exact way. Before we toss this out we should consider a couple of things: 

1) by using the italics method they are trying to keep to the desire for an exact translation word for word (vs thought for thought). 

2) the hope with a modern-English-style translation is that it be read by those who are not currently studying. For all of us who are going to already be studying, we can handle the 1977 version. And probably some may switch after getting into reading the Bible. But for people just starting out, any hindrance you can remove is a help. 

They did purpose to only add the "and sisters" in places where it is obvious in the context that it's all of the saints. In other places, where Darby will show in a footnote that it actually says men-brethren, they keep it as brothers only. 

Maybe too much info on the translation, but we have some study nerds here who will care to know and may be bothered 🙂

Notice that some bible sites already have this version up and others don't. If it is available (like biblegateway) you'll see the option for NASB or NASB1995. That's how they distinguish now. You can still get the NASB 1977 version at places like Biblehub. Below is the link to 1 John and a comparison with 1995 and 2020. Maybe just enjoy reading 1st John but then skim the next one to quickly see the changes from the 95 update. 

1 John (NASB 2020 and compare with 1995)

Please share paraphrases of this wonderful passage we're on! If, in your studying, you need to start or stop in different places then feel free to of course. 

Here are some notes after reading through 1 John NASB 2020:

• in verse 9 "so that He will" seems like a lot of words to replace "to". Not sure if that is better on the exactness of the translation, but it does explain the meaning of "to". Otherwise, sometimes "to forgive us" can take a moment to understand that it means He will forgive us since He is faithful and righteous. It's not that He is faithful to forgive, but that He is faithful - and that's why we know He will forgive. Conclusion: some italics could have been used here for an extended translation of G2443 "so as" or "to".
• remains replacing abides - this is difficult for those of us used to the term and all of it's meaning. But for a newbie to Christian terms, remains is a better word at first. You lose the meaning of having a home there though. To abide in your abode (Christ) is better if you can handle it.
• I don't mind the "and sisters" since they're in italics.
• 2:17 - "continues to live forever" vs "lives forever" from the 95 update. They do now have "to live" in italics. That's an upgrade since it's not the right word. The right word is "continues" which is actually "abides" or "remains". Ultimate, of course, would have been to go all the way to "remains" or "abides" so someone can connect it with all of the other abiding/remaining verses: the one who does the will of God remains forever.
• 3:6 "sins continually" vs "sins". The word "continually" is in italics, but it seems like a quick way out of a difficult verse. This scripture's difficulty is what may lead you to the very discovery that the life of Christ in you does not sin, and in that you abide in Him you do not sin. You realize just how often you are not "remaining in Him". And how those times are when you do not see Him or know Him. To make such a statement about someone who continues to sin either seems too obvious or like a dangerous teaching. As if it's talking about someone not being a believer and that's why they continue to sin. What about the man in 1 Cor 5? If you take this section and concept to be so drastic as for someone who keeps on sinning all the time then it will always feel like it applies to other people. But when you realize what is happening when you live by your own self-life, then you tremble and want to purify yourself from all unrighteousness.
• slay/slew changed to murder = upgrade for quick meaning / downgrade for the mental picture of it and the exactness of the translation. It is the Greek word for butchering an animal.
• 3:18 "let's" vs "let us" - this small change does make a great difference. When you say "let's" you feel like it's something we're going to go do. When you say "let us" you feel like it's an official benediction. Not saying it's always been that way, but in 2020 it feels that way. This is also in other places like 4:7 - it ruins the songs we've learned "let us love one another" and doesn't sound as poetic, but it does sound like we're about to do it.
• 5:1 - my tracking didn't work right on this one. Only the words "whoever" and "is" are removed or replaced. Whoever is replaced with "everyone".
• 5:4 - whatever vs whoever - makes more sense, but do we lose some revelation here? We've been discovering all along in 1 John that we have eternal life within us. That life has been born from above and has victory over the world. Do we lose this a little when it sounds like whoever has been born-again in the past overcomes the world? Especially when we realize that we who are born again are often not overcoming the world?
• It's interesting they still kept the word "propitiation" with the footnote "means of reconciliation with God by atoning for sins; or sin-offering" - Sometimes there just aren't any simpler or new words to use that will carry the meaning ...

"let the word of the Christ abide in you richly ..."