How unusual is Galatians' approach toward the gospel?

Critics of how Evangelicals use Galatians could raise objections to the effect that Galatians is just one document, it's such a short letter, the approach Paul takes there isn't found much or at all elsewhere, etc. On the more liberal side, Galatians could be dismissed as an occasion when Paul lost his temper, a reflection of a bad aspect of Paul's character that we shouldn't emulate, or whatever. From a more conservative or traditional Christian perspective, it could be argued that we should be agnostic about or not base much on certain aspects of Galatians, since it's such a short letter, we don't know much about the context, the themes in question there aren't found much or at all elsewhere, etc.

But even if something Paul said in Galatians were only found there, it ought to be accepted as part of apostolic teaching, what's taught by scripture, and so on. That point could be conceded, yet the alleged rarity of what Galatians says could be appealed to in order to argue that the themes shouldn't be as prominent in our thinking as they are among many Evangelicals. Though I think Galatians expresses views like the foundational nature of sola fide more forcefully than any other source, that sort of material in Galatians is corroborated elsewhere more than people typically suggest.

My 5 favorite Christian books in 2025

I wrote most of the following at the end of last year, Dec 2025. Still, I thought it might be useful to post now in case anyone is looking for a good book to read. These would be my recommendations, for whatever that's worth.

The premise is someone asked for a list of the 5 favorite Christian books people read last year. Here are mine, just in alphabetical order by title. To be clear, only a few of these were published in 2025, I think. Most were published years before. I only read or reread them in 2025.

Note: Due to personal/family reasons, I haven't had as much time nor spiritual or emotional bandwidth to read over the last few years (and still don't really). As such, I tended to prioritize books which fed my soul as it were. If I felt a book didn't, then I was less likely to read it or finish it (e.g. the first volume of William Lane Craig's systematic philosophical theology is very intellectually stimulating but it was also a more dry read for me so I've set it aside for now). This list reflects all this.

If Bible translations were Star Wars characters

Just some humor:

If English Bible translations were Star Wars characters... 😊

* ESV = Yoda. Knowledgeable and wise, comes from a long and venerable heritage (Tyndale-KJV), but often talks backwards and uses archaisms.

* NASB = C3PO. Technically precise, popular with fellow robotic eggheads, but too literal-minded and woodenly awkward. NASB 2020 is C3PO with a smooth talking chip installed.

* LSB = K3PO. A different shade or color of C3PO in a land far, far away, i.e. Southern California, but throws in exotic sounding words (e.g. Yahweh) and obsessively repeats certain words as if it's glitching (e.g. slave).

* NET = R2D2. Said to be the robot's robot (the translator's translation), plugs in and interfaces with the latest tech, but most people don't really use it, per se, they only use it for its technical tools (NET notes).

* CSB/HCSB = Mace Windu. Boldly willing to take risks, even if it breaks with tradition (e.g. John 3:16, Rom 3:25), has a strong fan base within certain factions (SBC), but otherwise less popular than one might think, though it's increasing.

* NIV = Han Solo. Broadly popular, plain spoken and easy to follow, effectively gets the job done without any fancy acrobatics, but sometimes seems to be shady and may be smuggling illicit pronouns.

* NLT = Ewoks. Communicates with simple expressions, not the most technically proficient, but heart is in the right place and once in a while pleasantly surprises everyone.

* KJV = Darth Vader. Once thought to be the chosen one, speaks in an authoritative voice, but took a turn to the dark side when it began lording it over anyone who doesn't fall in line with the one true imperial text, the KJV Only.

* NKJV = Dark Helmet. On the one hand, it's a new and improved Vader. On the other hand, it looks like Vader lite.

* NRSV/NRSVue = Kylo Ren. Let the past die, forward thinking and progressive, but lack of faith is disturbing.

* Biblical Hebrew and Greek = Chewbacca. The most powerful warrior in terms of brute strength, but a bit woolly sounding to most people and as such needs a translator to understand.

A few thoughts on the NASB 2020

I have heard some people deride the NASB 2020, but I think the NASB 2020 is very good:

1. It seems to me the NASB 2020 unfairly received a bad reputation among conservative evangelicals before the completed translation had a chance to hit the market. That's primarily due to rumors about how it would translate adelphoi (as brothers and sisters, not brothers or brethren) and anthropoi (as persons or people, not man). I suppose conservative evangelicals feared it had gone progressive on gender. However, I find the translation of these terms in the NASB 2020 is relatively restrained. More so than the NIV 2011 and much more so than the NRSV let alone the NRSVue. It seems more or less on par with the CSB, which many if not most conservative evangelicals seem to have no problem with and in fact many have embraced it as their primary Bible translation, at least in the SBC (which of course is where the CSB's roots are). The NASB 2020 is still very much the work of conservative evangelicals.
2. In addition, the NASB95 could fairly be said to read woodenly or stilted, but I don't think it would be fair to characterize the NASB 2020 as wooden or stilted anymore. I find the NASB 2020 very readable - clear and natural. Not as readable as the NLT, the NIV, or the CSB, but the NASB 2020 is significantly more readable than previous NASB incarnations as well as more readable than the LSB to my ears. It is also more readable than the ESV, I think, or at worst it's roughly equal to the ESV, inasmuch as it uses more modern and less archaic language than the ESV (e.g. "storm" instead of "tempest"; "plagues" instead of "pestilences"; "warrior" instead of "man of war") and it uses more modern English syntax and less backwards Yoda-speak than the ESV, though there is still some. In general, the NASB 2020 flows quite smoothly for a "literal" (formally equivalent) translation, and it is often a delight to read as well, whereas the NASB95 was a fine literal translation but it did read somewhat more clunky to me. Although in fairness I never thought the NASB95 readability was as bad as many critics have said it was.
3. Others have pointed out that the NASB 2020 is overall more "literal" (formally equivalent) than even the NASB95. Apparently the NASB 2020 is not as literal as the NASB77, or the LSB, but it moves much closer in that direction than the NASB95. Personally, I haven't done an assessment about which NASB/LSB is the most "literal" so I can't say with any degree of confidence (though my guess would be the LSB), but I generally trust competent reviewers and scholars when they evaluate Bible translations.
4. The main thing I don't like about the NASB 2020 is its variety in translating the Hebrew word hesed. The NASB95 and the LSB primarily translate hesed as lovingkindness, the ESV as steadfast love, the CSB as faithful love, the NIV as unfailing love or simply flattened it as love, the NLT as unfailing love, and so on. However, the NASB 2020 translates hesed with a lot more variety - lovingkindness, love, mercy, compassion, faithfulness, etc. Personally I wish the NASB 2020 had primarily stuck with lovingkindness or another term like loyal love. It's not a dealbreaker, I still really like the NASB 2020, but I do wish it had been a bit more consistent in how it translated hesed. Of course, I realize a term like hesed has a wide semantic range, and hence why it shouldn't necessarily always have the same English term. But still my impression is the NASB 2020 errs a little too much on the side of variety than consistency with regard to hesed.
5. I think it would be in Lockman's interests to change the name of the NASB to something else because I think many non-American English speakers kind of balk at the name (e.g. Brits, Aussies, Kiwis). It'd be like if we had a Bible translation called the New Australian Standard Bible or the British Commonwealth Bible. This would make it seem like it's not a Bible translation primarily meant for Americans or only secondarily at best. So even though they might say the NASB is a very good translation, just the name alone might be a bit off-putting to them. Again, I suspect it'd be better if Lockman changed the name to something else like the LSB has done. I think that might help them better appeal to a wider audience.
6. Overall I probably prefer the LSB over the NASB 2020 if push came to shove - and this is considering that I tend to lean toward thinking the translation philosophy of lexical and syntactical correspondence or concordance is a bit misguided in the LSB - but nevertheless they're both very good translations. Indeed we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to Bible translations in English.

Traduttore, traditore

Someone said:

If you don't know what the original language of a text was written in, then you are 100% dependent on someone telling you what the source language says. Every translation is going to be wrong somewhere. I know this becawh use I used to be an interpreter for the Deaf/Hard of Hearing. It's is not possible to fully convey every word and concept from one language to another.

For what it's worth, if anything, here's my amateurish attempt at an answer: