Legacy Standard Bible - a year after translation

[Stephen L Smith]

John asked me in another forum:

Stephen, what do you think of the LSB now since time has passed?

I have actually been asking this question myself. I have seen many reviews by Calvinistic Dispensationalists etc, but not many reviews by Reformed people and/or ministries.

What do you think? Does it live up to its name of being an important revision of the NASB?

 

[pmachapman]

What do you think? Does it live up to its name of being an important revision of the NASB?

I think it will be a niche bible until they get more copies out there in the wild. Both the NIV84 and ESV taught us that extensive marketing is the key to winning evangelical acceptance.

Textually speaking, I think it is a useful revision of the NASB. In a recent study on Judges our men's group is doing, I have found it slightly more helpfully (in a literal sense) translated than the NKJV.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I think it will be a niche bible until they get more copies out there in the wild.

The problem is that the general public prefer a more 'readable' translation. I think it will be difficult for the LSB publishers to get a bigger market share than the NASB95. Also the ESV has already gained a sizable market share of the more conservative/literal translations.

Textually speaking, I think it is a useful revision of the NASB. In a recent study on Judges our men's group is doing, I have found it slightly more helpfully (in a literal sense) translated than the NKJV.

Back in Feb you stated:

the NKJV is an excellent literal translation (I would argue more literal than the NASB77).

I thought the LSB was about as 'literal' as the NASB77?

As you will know the important theme "right in my own eyes" in Judges - the LSB gets this right in Judges 14:3, unfortunately the NKJV does not make this connection.

 

[Polanus1561]

I don’t see it as a revision. That implies there were flaws in the NASB. It’s just a difference of rendering for different words, sometimes lsb chooses what the NASB footnoted as an alternative translation.

I’m sympathetic to the yhwh rendering but it’s abit jarring.

 

[Polanus1561]

With that said the CSB / LSB combo covers alot of ground in terms of translation philosophy. Something useful to have with the older ESV / NASB / NKJV trio

 

[Taylor]

I still think it needs work. I have reached out over and over again regarding blatant errors in the LSB, all to no avail. I think it has much potential, but it’s not there yet.

 

[pmachapman]

I think it will be difficult for the LSB publishers to get a bigger market share than the NASB95.

I agree. I don't think they are helping themselves though by not flooding the market. My local Christian bookstore has one hardback copy though!

I thought the LSB was about as 'literal' as the NASB77?

Now that I have an LSB OT, I am finding it more consistent and literal in the Old Testament than the NKJV. I haven't read the NASB77 in the OT a great deal.

Back in Feb you stated:

I wrote that when I only had the New Testament, and I stand by that statement for the New Testament. I was rereading my NASB77 in 1 Corinthians two nights ago and was a little frustrated by some of the choices (ignoring the textual variants).

 

[Polanus1561]

Really doubt LSB cares to hit the mainstream.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

From the sample reading I’ve done I still just really struggle to see what reason one would have to ditch the NASB95 for it unless one shares Macarthur’s particular translational hobbyhorses on those two words.

That’s not meant as a ding on the quality, I’m just not sure if it’s filling any actual gap that existed.

 

[Polanus1561]

From the sample reading I’ve done I still just really struggle to see what reason one would have to ditch the NASB95 for it unless one shares Macarthur’s particular translational hobbyhorses on those two words.

That’s not meant as a ding on the quality, I’m just not sure if it’s filling any actual gap that existed.

It’s more literal than the NASB in the NT. Sometimes ditching what the NASB needlessly supplied in italics

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

It’s more literal than the NASB in the NT. Sometimes ditching what the NASB needlessly supplied in italics

That’s true, it just doesn’t seem significant enough to me to really warrant a whole new translation, but others may feel differently of course!

 

[JimmyH]

Unlike the previous posters in this thread, I'm not an expert in critiquing English translations ... but I know what I like. I like the LSB so far. I plan to use it for my 1 year Bible reading plan in '23.

I used the NRSV ('89) in the 1 year plan and thought it was beautifully translated ... written. Of course I was disturbed by some of their translation choices, the inclusive language which had been so unique to it in '89 is now more or less standard fare in most current translations, but nevertheless I thought it a beautiful translation with a reputation for accuracy.

I found the ESV to be an improvement in terms of being more faithful to God's Word and eschewing the strange translation choices made in the NRSV.
I feel that way about the LSB. The team that worked on it were all believers with a high view of Scripture. Far better than the 2022 NASB revision.
John MacArthur said, in a youtube vid, that 'The LSB is the best English translation I've ever read.'
Note that he did not say it is the 'best English translation' ... but the best he had ever read. I consider that quite an endorsement.

 

[Polanus1561]

From what I see, it was an in-house project with Masters seminary people involved and I have the feeling that if in the end only Grace church and Masters use it, that would be the aim achieved for them. It’s not really a commercial project evidenced by the fact it’s not sold in mainstream stores. The publishers (Steadfast, an independent company) seem to be doing well in selling the LSB in various editions. Everyone is happy on their end. So anyone outside grumbling puzzles me. I benefit from it as a 6 dollars purchase on Logos. In places where it differs from the NASB it gives me some interesting points to ponder.

 

[Claudiu]

That’s true, it just doesn’t seem significant enough to me to really warrant a whole new translation, but others may feel differently of course!

The fact that it bears the name LSB is misleading. It could have been NASB20 had Lockman not gone down the route they did with the actual NASB20. So MacArthur bifurcated to his own. Seen in this stream, I do think it is an improvement, or at least different enough to make it interesting.

 

[JimmyH]

The fact that it bears the name LSB is misleading. It could have been NASB20 had Lockman not gone down the route they did with the actual NASB20. So MacArthur bifurcated to his own. Seen in this stream, I do think it is an improvement, or at least different enough to make it interesting.

I have great admiration for John MacArthur, though I don't share his view of eschatology. His stand against the LA government during the COVID pandemic was monumental, but more importantly his years of faithful preaching will give him a place in history beside Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, among others.

I first heard him on my car radio in 1986 preaching a sermon called "Examine Yourself." It was a devastating indictment for me at that time as a new believer. It is available online in his archive, and still will convict most listeners I think.
I still listen to him on the radio, computer, or Ipad from time to time.

I find it interesting that he, like other pastors from his era, having moved on to contemporary CT translations, still quotes Scripture verbatim out of the KJV.

Anyway .... His involvement in the LSB project, being a correction (he felt) to the revision of the NASB was of great interest to me. I waited until the full Bible was published before I began reading portions online, and finally went for a hard copy within the past month. I have read and compared a great many translations, and I'm liking it so far.

I've yet to find one that doesn't have some word ... verse ... that I like better in one than another, but that's just a subjective choice probably with all of us.

 

[bookslover]

I have great admiration for John MacArthur, though I don't share his view of eschatology. His stand against the LA government during the COVID pandemic was monumental, but more importantly his years of faithful preaching will give him a place in history beside Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, among others.

I first heard him on my car radio in 1986 preaching a sermon called "Examine Yourself." It was a devastating indictment for me at that time as a new believer. It is available online in his archive, and still will convict most listeners I think.
I still listen to him on the radio, computer, or Ipad from time to time.

I find it interesting that he, like other pastors from his era, having moved on to contemporary CT translations, still quotes Scripture verbatim out of the KJV.

Anyway .... His involvement in the LSB project, being a correction (he felt) to the revision of the NASB was of great interest to me. I waited until the full Bible was published before I began reading portions online, and finally went for a hard copy within the past month. I have read and compared a great many translations, and I'm liking it so far.

I've yet to find one that doesn't have some word ... verse ... that I like better in one than another, but that's just a subjective choice probably with all of us.

He became pastor of the church in 1969 (4 months before his 30th birthday). I think he preached from the KJV for about the first year of his ministry. But he quickly realized that - especially in southern California - that was not going to fly. So, he switched to the NASB in 1970 or 1971.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I am not familiar with this "version" at all. Off to google!

 

[ZackF]

I am not familiar with this "version" at all. Off to google!

The LSB doesn’t have much of a legacy yet.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I think the LSB could easily be called the NASV - as in a modern edition of the ASV1901. ASV21 might work too - between more consistent translations of Greek & Hebrew words to the use of the Sacred Name, it’s a better testimony to its predecessor than the NASB. All without the mild Unitarian tendencies of the ASV.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I think the LSB could easily be called the NASV - as in a modern edition of the ASV1901. ASV21 might work too - between more consistent translations of Greek & Hebrew words to the use of the Sacred Name, it’s a better testimony to its predecessor than the NASB. All without the mild Unitarian tendencies of the ASV.

The name was changed because many non Americans like a literal translation - that the name 'Legacy' rather than 'American' reaches a global audience.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I agree. I don't think they are helping themselves though by not flooding the market.

But if there is a small demand for the LSB the ministry may not recoup their costs. Bible translation and printing is an expensive business.

Now that I have an LSB OT, I am finding it more consistent and literal in the Old Testament than the NKJV.

I agree that sometimes the NKJV has not removed some of the inconsistent readings of the KJV therefore it is inconsistent in its literalness in places. The NKJV had one of the worlds leading Hebrew scholars, Dr. James D. Price, as a senior editor, he helped to ensure the OT translation was generally done to a high standard.

Just a comment about being consistently literal - textual scholar Dr Mark Ward argues that literal is not always best. Eg, in 2 Sam 19:35 the LSB reads "Can I know between good and bad? Or can your servant taste what I eat or what I drink?" However the LSB misses an important nuance. The context is about food and drink. Dr Ward points out the Hebrew word can have a sense of 'pleasant and desirable' hence the ESV, though slightly less literal, makes better sense of the text. "Can I discern what is pleasant and what is not? Can your servant taste what he eats or what he drinks?"

Another odd translation. In Eccles 12. I have been fascinated for some years with the teaching of Eccles 12, including how translations translate v 13. The NKJV, it seems to me is a very literal translation "Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all."

The LSB reads "The end of the matter, all that has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the end of the matter for all mankind."

The LSB seeks to connect the closing statement with the opening words 'the end of the matter'. However they had to use a lot of italics which suggests a more interpretative translation.

 

[iainduguid]

But if there is a small demand for the LSB the ministry may not recoup their costs. Bible translation and printing is an expensive business.

I agree that sometimes the NKJV has not removed some of the inconsistent readings of the KJV therefore it is inconsistent in its literalness in places. The NKJV had one of the worlds leading Hebrew scholars, Dr. James D. Price, as a senior editor, he helped to ensure the OT translation was generally done to a high standard.

Just a comment about being consistently literal - textual scholar Dr Mark Ward argues that literal is not always best. Eg, in 2 Sam 19:35 the LSB reads "Can I know between good and bad? Or can your servant taste what I eat or what I drink?" However the LSB misses an important nuance. The context is about food and drink. Dr Ward points out the Hebrew word can have a sense of 'pleasant and desirable' hence the ESV, though slightly less literal, makes better sense of the text. "Can I discern what is pleasant and what is not? Can your servant taste what he eats or what he drinks?"

Another odd translation. In Eccles 12. I have been fascinated for some years with the teaching of Eccles 12, including how translations translate v 13. The NKJV, it seems to me is a very literal translation "Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all."

The LSB reads "The end of the matter, all that has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the end of the matter for all mankind."

The LSB seeks to connect the closing statement with the opening words 'the end of the matter'. However they had to use a lot of italics which suggests a more interpretative translation.

I'm not familiar with Dr Price. Can you point me to the publications that make him "one of the world's leading Hebrew scholars"?

 

[Polanus1561]

But if there is a small demand for the LSB the ministry may not recoup their costs. Bible translation and printing is an expensive business.

the publisher has been selling the LSB very well. Inventories are being cleared out and there have been reprinting and new formats.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I'm not familiar with Dr Price. Can you point me to the publications that make him "one of the world's leading Hebrew scholars"?

I understood you were involved with the HCSB - so was Dr Price. He has been retired for some years now so is probably less well known in modern scholarship circles. He website gave quite a bit of his research background https://www.jamesdprice.com/home.html

 

[Stephen L Smith]

the publisher has been selling the LSB very well. Inventories are being cleared out and there have been reprinting and new formats.

The question remains - what percentage of the conservative Bible market are using the LSB. Personally I have been surprised that there appears to be little interest from the confessional Reformed camp.

 

[Polanus1561]

Another odd translation. In Eccles 12. I have been fascinated for some years with the teaching of Eccles 12, including how translations translate v 13. The NKJV, it seems to me is a very literal translation "Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all."

The LSB reads "The end of the matter, all that has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the end of the matter for all mankind."

The LSB seeks to connect the closing statement with the opening words 'the end of the matter'. However they had to use a lot of italics which suggests a more interpretative translation.

The construction is literally 'the whole of man'. NKJV is not as literal as they could be also (and it is good it isn't)

 

[Polanus1561]

The question remains - what percentage of the conservative Bible market are using the LSB. Personally I have been surprised that there appears to be little interest from the confessional Reformed camp.

Most churches using the ESV has switched to the ESV in the past 15 years. It is too early for any other switch. YHWH renderings also would be a big shift (think of how it would relate to worship songs/psalms also). You are probably looking at the NASB crowd then which is not a lot. I am not surprised there is little interest of churches using it (but plenty of individuals are interested in it). There is also the time factor. NASB churches would be using the NASB for ages now, and the LSB needs more than 2 years of settling down before consideration methinks.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

@iainduguid I would be interested in your thoughts on the LSB.

 

[TheInquirer]

Personally I have been surprised that there appears to be little interest from the confessional Reformed camp.

The translation was done entirely by "in house" guys from Masters. That alone says something.

 

[iainduguid]

Let me start, as I always do, by reminding us that translation is really hard. You can't write extensive notes to defend your decisions, as you would in a commentary, half of your footnotes will be deleted and there's always a chance that an English style editor will change what you wrote. You are also often hemmed in by the unwise decisions of a general editor somewhere along the way, often someone who has no personal experience of the translation process. I also haven't used the LSB extensively, so bear that in mind in reading my evaluation.

Having said that, I think some of their most trumpeted distinctions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Take the use of Yahweh throughout for the divine name. I get the attractiveness of that, and in some contexts it really pops as a translation. Think "I am Yahweh" or "Yahweh said to my lord" (Ps 110:1). In other places, however, it messes with people's favorite translations, for example: "Yahweh is my shepherd". That's why the HCSB went with Yahweh in some places and "the LORD" elsewhere - but that leaves you with some really strange alternations between the two, which is why the CSB ditched Yahweh completely. More importantly, it drives a wedge between the testaments, since the NT quotation of an OT passage often doesn't match. Even more importantly, the average reader won't now see that the NT is calling Jesus the same title as the OT calls Yahweh, "the Lord". If it is good enough for Jesus to use kurios when translating Yahweh, I can't think why "the LORD" isn't good enough for us.

The same problem exists for the much-trumpeted doulos = slave in all contexts translation. There are some places where doulos certainly ought to be translated slave. But there are plenty of other places where "servant" is a more apt rendition into English of the person's role. The result is a flattening of the Biblical text that results in a loss of nuance. It also - once again - threatens to put a rift between the OT and the NT; for example, according to this understanding Zech 3:8 ought to speak of "my slave, the Branch" (since LXX has doulos); fortunately, the translation goes for a more sensible (and traditional) "my servant, the Branch"). Very few words in one language always translate into a single word in another language: that's just not how languages work; so for example, ruach should be rendered breath, Spirit and wind, sometimes all within a short space (e.g. Ezek. 37:1-14). That's why nobody (except perhaps Youngs literal translation, which completely misrepresents the meaning of Ezekiel 37 because of its overly literal translation) adopts a consistently literal translation policy. Everyone (including the LSB) uses a more dynamic translation sometimes.

Finally, I don't think any one institution has the resources to do a great translation. For the CSB oversight committee, we have translators from a wide variety of backgrounds, who each brought their own expertise (including a full time in house editor to check consistency between parallel passages across the board). It still sometimes felt like an overwhelming project.