# Legacy Standard Bible - a year after translation



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 21, 2022)

John asked me in another forum:


Polanus1561 said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> 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. 


pmachapman said:


> 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:


pmachapman said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2022)

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 (Dec 21, 2022)

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 (Dec 21, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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!


Stephen L Smith said:


> 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.


Stephen L Smith said:


> 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).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 21, 2022)

Really doubt LSB cares to hit the mainstream.


----------



## NM_Presby (Dec 21, 2022)

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 (Dec 21, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> 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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Dec 21, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 21, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 21, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> 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.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## bookslover (Dec 22, 2022)

JimmyH said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 22, 2022)

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


----------



## ZackF (Dec 22, 2022)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


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


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

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 22, 2022)

I think the LSB could easily be called the NAS*V* - 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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 22, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I think the LSB could easily be called the NAS*V* - 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> 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. 


pmachapman said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 23, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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 (Dec 23, 2022)

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


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 23, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> 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.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 23, 2022)

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.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 6


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 23, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


At risk of piling on, in the OT the LSB calls Moses "the servant of God" (Ex. 14:31; Mal. 4:4; etc.), while in the NT he becomes "the slave of God" (Rev. 15:3) because of its commitment that _doulos = _slave. In other words, the pursuit of verbal consistency in one area comes at the cost of verbal consistency in another.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## pylgrym (Dec 24, 2022)

From the Preface to the (AV1611) reader:
" ... wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie.
" But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveiling; if one where Thinke, never Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to savour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously? 
"A godly Father in the Primitive time shewed himselfe greatly moved, that one of the newfanglenes called , though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had beene used) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, wee might justly feare hard censure, if generally wee should make verball and unnecessary changings. 
"We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happie that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: so if wee should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, wee might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partiall in our selves and judges of evill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was alwayes counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English versions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or store that he hath given us. Lastly, wee have on the one side avoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leave the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation in stead of Church: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscuritie of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sence, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may bee kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee understood even of the very vulgar."


----------



## Jake (Dec 24, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


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


It's funny to me how divorced many Bible translation names are from what they represent. For starters, most American-made translations use American spelling, grammar, and sometimes even units of measure no matter how much they claim to be something like the "International" version of the "English Standard."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 24, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


That, in a nutshell, is why people need to be careful when they say they prefer a more "literal" translation. Literal meaning what? That you want a word woodenly translated from one language to another or literal in the sense that you want to understand what the original writer was communicating?

I believe we ought to have readable translations of the Scriptures that can be used by peopple who don't have the facility for advanced study in language, but there is just no way to get around the fact that we will always need teachers to explain certain things. That includes idioms and other things that just don't tranlsate well when you're trying to translate "word" for "word". I think it's always a challenge for the translators to decide to leave the words in as they translate across and leave it up to the teacher to explain what that conveys to a modern reader or to try to do the work of the "teacher" by interpreting the meaning.
I've really enjoyed reading this discussion. You've motivated me to use the CSB for my upcoming reading plan that I'll begin in 2023 once I close out my current plan.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 24, 2022)

NASB 95 for me in 2023. Got me a nice Quentel for that. Its footnotes provide a wide range of semantical uses of words.


----------



## ZackF (Dec 24, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> You've motivated me to use the CSB for my upcoming reading plan that I'll begin in 2023 once I close out my current plan.


Ditto on the CSB. I am actually using a 2yr chronological plan. The handling of the Psalms isn't the greatest but overall, it will get the job done.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 24, 2022)

ZackF said:


> Ditto on the CSB. I am actually using a 2yr chronological plan. The handling of the Psalms isn't the greatest but overall, it will get the job done.


Psalm 23:1… sigh

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## ZackF (Dec 24, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Psalm 23:1… sigh


I meant the reading plan and not the translation. This is informative though...  That CSB reading does sound like getting a pizza missing the extra pepperoni.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 24, 2022)

Jake said:


> It's funny to me how divorced many Bible translation names are from what they represent. For starters, most American-made translations use American spelling, grammar, and sometimes even units of measure no matter how much they claim to be something like the "International" version of the "English Standard


Just as well there is an Anglicised ESV for people such as myself who still speak the King's English!


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 24, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Just as well there is an Anglicised ESV for people such as myself who still speak the King's English!


I thought you spoke the Queen’s English?


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 24, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I thought you spoke the Queen’s English?


I believe when our National Anthem changes to God save the King, our language changes too?

In any case, this was one of the books I learned grammar from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King's_English


----------



## Jake (Dec 24, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> Just as well there is an Anglicised ESV for people such as myself who still speak the King's English!


Yes, but why do we need an Anglicised version if that's the default in most of the non-America world?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Dec 24, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Psalm 23:1… sigh


I know you're partial to the rendering of the Passion "Translation" 

"Yahweh is my best friend and my shepherd. I always have more than enough."

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 24, 2022)

"Literal" can be used as a marketing point to sell to a "low information audience" that doesn't know anything about Bible translation - as in "ours is more literal than everything else so therefore you NEED to trust us and buy it."


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 26, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> 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.


I appreciate this insight. Some of the LSB advertising material made me feel a little guilty for not using a translation using the word 'Yahweh' but I can now see the advantage of using LORD particularly considering the NT usage. 

I was amused at your comment about the LSB last year  


iainduguid said:


> mainly addressing MacArthur's pet peeves.





iainduguid said:


> 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).


The LSB was primarily done by faculty members of both the Masters Seminary and the Masters University. I am not sure how widely they consulted experts from other organisations.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 26, 2022)

pmachapman said:


> speak the King's English!


Speaking as one New Zealander to another, are you suggesting there is an inextricable link between speaking the King's English and driving on the correct side of the road?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 26, 2022)

Some people want the church to do a translation, some want a variety of translators (presumably from different churches as a parachurch effort)…. So what’s the final word here?

If say the OPC did a translation and WTS professors are involved… would the translation be seen as being too “narrow”?


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 26, 2022)

I think people perhaps underestimate the work involved in a Bible translation. I read that the KJV had over sixty people involved in the project; the HCSB had about 100. The LSB is more a light revision of a pre-existing text (the NASB) than an entirely fresh translation. That's more like the shift from the HCSB to the CSB, which was still the work of 10 primary editors (5 OT and 5 NT). Each of my fellow members of the OT committee (2 Presbyterians, 2 Baptists, and a Lutheran) had tremendously valuable contributions to make. The end result would have been significantly worse if we had less. It would take a lot more than the resources WTS has (or the OPC, PCA or ARP has) to create a new translation, especially since most scholars have many other projects they are working on for the benefit of the church and the best known are probably only willing to commit to projects with deadlines more than five years away.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Dec 26, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> I read that the KJV had over sixty people involved in the project;


Over sixty people couldn't figure out that the Holy Spirit is not an "it" in Romans 8:16.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 26, 2022)

bookslover said:


> Over sixty people couldn't figure out that the Holy Spirit is not an "it" in Romans 8:16.


There’s no need to phrase the matter in this manner. They didn’t need to “figure out” anything, being eminently greater theologians than likely any of us here. They knew the Holy Spirit is not an “it.” They could have chosen this rendering for some reason unknown to us, or it could have been an honest oversight. Unless you have some historical insight that no one else has, I would suggest avoiding such irreverent criticism. Perhaps you meant it in jest; it just appeared to be a cheap shot.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> There’s no need to phrase the matter in this manner. They didn’t need to “figure out” anything, being eminently greater theologians than likely any of us here. They knew the Holy Spirit is not an “it.” They could have chosen this rendering for some reason unknown to us, or it could have been an honest oversight. Unless you have some historical insight that no one else has, I would suggest avoiding such irreverent criticism. Perhaps you meant it in jest; it just appeared to be a cheap shot.


Is it not just a neuter noun issue


----------



## Taylor (Dec 26, 2022)

Polanus1561 said:


> Is it not just a neuter noun issue


The noun πνεῦμα ("S/spirit") and the pronoun αὐτὸ ("it/itself/same") in Romans 8:16 are both neuter, yes.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> The noun πνεῦμα ("S/spirit") and the pronoun αὐτὸ ("it/itself/same") in Romans 8:16 are both neuter, yes.



Then they, knowing that the Holy Spirit is, in fact, a person, should have made the theological decision to override the grammar to reflect that fact, as modern translations do ("The Holy Spirit himself. . ." ESV, for example). To woodenly translate the term using "it," even though the Holy Spirit is not an "it," is bad translation procedure.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 26, 2022)

bookslover said:


> Then they, knowing that the Holy Spirit is, in fact, a person, should have made the theological decision to override the grammar to reflect that fact, as modern translations do ("The Holy Spirit himself. . ." ESV, for example). To woodenly translate the term using "it," even though the Holy Spirit is not an "it," is bad translation procedure.


This should have been your initial comment. It is much better than "sixty people couldn't figure it out."


----------



## bookslover (Dec 27, 2022)

Taylor said:


> This should have been your initial comment. It is much better than "sixty people couldn't figure it out."



It would be interesting to know why _they_ didn't make that rather obvious decision. Plus, as it is, it's dangerous. I wonder how many heretics have tried to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is not a person but, rather, an influence, based on the KJV's translation of Romans 8:16.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 27, 2022)

bookslover said:


> It would be interesting to know why _they_ didn't make that rather obvious decision.


I don't know, and neither do you, which is my entire point. Asking the question and even some guarded speculation is fine, but saying they "couldn't figure out" that the Spirit is not a thing as opposed to a person contributes virtually nothing.



bookslover said:


> ...as it is, it's dangerous. I wonder how many heretics have tried to "prove" that the Holy Spirit is not a person but, rather, an influence, based on the KJV's translation of Romans 8:16.


This isn't really how false doctrine works. False doctrine is often "proved" from perfectly-translated passages and sometimes even from the original languages themselves. So, this isn't dangerous. Anybody who believes the KJV teaches that the Spirit is impersonal based upon this one passage—the origins of which, again, we do not know—is simply an ignoramus and shouldn't be taken seriously on any point of doctrine whatsoever because they are incapable of basic hermeneutics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Dec 27, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I don't know, and neither do you, which is my entire point. Asking the question and even some guarded speculation is fine, but saying they "couldn't figure out" that the Spirit is not a thing as opposed to a person contributes virtually nothing.
> 
> 
> This isn't really how false doctrine works. False doctrine is often "proved" from perfectly-translated passages and sometimes even from the original languages themselves. So, this isn't dangerous. Anybody who believes the KJV teaches that the Spirit is impersonal based upon this one passage—the origins of which, again, we do not know—is simply an ignoramus and shouldn't be taken seriously on any point of doctrine whatsoever because they are incapable of basic hermeneutics.


Exactly. Heretics will make up whatever they makeup and people will listen to whatever they want to listen. e.g the serpent/seed nonsense mentioned in the other thread. If people want to ignore John 14:26 to complement Romans 8:16, well that is that

Reactions: Like 2


----------

