# Legacy Standard Bible - some thoughts



## Stephen L Smith

The Legacy Standard Bible now has an informative Website. Home - Legacy Standard Bible (lsbible.org) There is a lot of useful information there including Blog posts, Video library and the goals and translation approach of the impending LSB.

It looks like they are trying to combine the strengths of both the NASB 77 and 95. It will be a seriously literal translation, but they have also aimed at readability. 

I have been reading through their sample of Mark's gospel and can say I enjoyed it. That said there are a few quirks. Most of the verses in the LSB in Mark ch 1, for example, start with 'And'. A literal rendering no doubt but not the best English. 

I am seriously considering making this one of my main translations. It will depend if there is a strong dispensational bias or not (the translators come form the Masters Seminary and the Masters University).

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Jonathco

Stephen L Smith said:


> It will depend if there is a strong dispensational bias or not (the translators come form the Masters Seminary and the Masters University).



The LSB has intrigued me for sometime now. I share your concern for dispensational bias, given MacArthur's and Masters' bend toward it. 

Interestingly enough, NASB fans will have an entire ecosystem of translations to choose from, given that the NASB 77, NASB 95, NASB 2020, and LSB will all be available in print form simultaneously.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Has anyone here looked through the information on the LSB website and/or looked at the translation sample pages?


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> Most of the verses in the LSB in Mark ch 1, for example, start with 'And'. A literal rendering no doubt but not the best English.


This seems to match the NASB77 - it seems to me that the '95 removed a lot of these, sacrificing literal renderings for easier English. I personally like the re-addition of the "and's", as after having read Mark in Greek I really appreciate Mark's use of the particle, especially when reading aloud. I'm starting to see why some have clung to their NASB77's over the last few decades! I was born into the generation of the '95, so was never really exposed to the '77.



Stephen L Smith said:


> I am seriously considering making this one of my main translations. It will depend if there is a strong dispensational bias or not (the translators come form the Masters Seminary and the Masters University).


Does your congregation use the NASB? We use NKJV, so I probably won't make it my main translation, but I think it could be a worthy replacement for the NASB95 when that becomes hard to obtain.

I will be interested to see how they translate 1 Cor 7:36. We had a pulpit swap two Sunday's ago, and the Rev Archbald made a very good case to me as to why the passage refers to a virgin daughter (like the NASB95) and not a fiancée (like the ESV). I don't like the NASB 2020's rendering of the passage - it tries to mimic the NKJV, but just reads cryptically. The italics in the 95 are helpful for interpretation!



Stephen L Smith said:


> Has anyone here looked through the information on the LSB website and/or looked at the translation sample pages?


The LSB seems to have generated quite a bit of interest online. The comparison video I posted to YouTube a month ago is still popular, and there is a Legacy Standard Bible group on Facebook where people are poring over Mark line by line and publishing their comparison. The results seem positive so far. One Youtuber (R. Grant Jones) has found several typos and notified the committee, but nothing earth shattering has been found (unlike when Lockman posted snippets of the 2020 online!)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> Rev Archbald


When you mentioned Rev Archbald I got curious. Then I realised you were part of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand 


pmachapman said:


> This seems to match the NASB77 - it seems to me that the '95 removed a lot of these, sacrificing literal renderings for easier English. I personally like the re-addition of the "and's", as after having read Mark in Greek


I think the LSB leaning back towards the NASB 77 is a good thing. After all the NASB is supposed to be a literal translation. If people want something less literal the ESV is a good option. 


pmachapman said:


> Does your congregation use the NASB? We use NKJV, so I probably won't make it my main translation, but I think it could be a worthy replacement for the NASB95 when that becomes hard to obtain.


Our congregation uses the ESV. I did not realise some RCNZ congregations use the NKJV. I did wonder if one day the LSB will become a Synodically approved translation.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Jonathco said:


> Interestingly enough, NASB fans will have an entire ecosystem of translations to choose from, given that the NASB 77, NASB 95, NASB 2020, and LSB will all be available in print form simultaneously.


This is my theory - the LSB will replace the NASB 77 and 95. People who love the '77 edition will love the careful translation. People who love the '95 edition will love it too. However if it is too literal for them, the ESV is a good choice. Therefore, long term, the feasible editions will be the LSB and the NASB 20. Time will tell I guess.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one. I do look forward to the LSB though if it's all they say it will be.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> I did wonder if one day the LSB will become a Synodically approved translation.


I have been wondering that too. I would say at this stage it is more likely than the NASB2020!

Abner Chou posted a short informal Q&A on the LSB to the Legacy Standard Bible YouTube channel, which I found encouraging regarding the committee's attitude to not only the translation, but our responses to it online. It is a good thing when translators understand the gravity of their task (not that I have met any over the years who were flippant or careless regarding God's Word or their duty to Christ and His Church).



Stephen L Smith said:


> I did not realise some RCNZ congregations use the NKJV.


Yeah, a lot switched from the NIV84 or NKJV to the ESV. We went the opposite direction after our pastor had settled in and we needed to buy more bibles. When we changed I noticed some polished off their old Reformation Study Bibles that had grown dusty while we were using the ESV. I enjoyed the change being a TR kind of guy, and I find it comforting that the NKJV hasn't changed since '83. 

The KJV would have been my preferred choice, but I am still happy with a TR based translation - as one elder once reminded me: "The King James never ceased being approved by synod!" I like that quote.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> Abner Chou posted a short informal Q&A on the LSB to the Legacy Standard Bible YouTube channel, which I found encouraging regarding the committee's attitude to not only the translation, but our responses to it online. It is a good thing when translators understand the gravity of their task (not that I have met any over the years who were flippant or careless regarding God's Word or their duty to Christ and His Church).


Yes saw that. I sent them a message to ask how they deal with sectarian bias. I think the LSB will be a great translation but concerned there may be a dispensational bias?


pmachapman said:


> I enjoyed the change being a TR kind of guy


Are you TR only or TR preferred? Actually I am thankful the LSB does preserve some Byzantine priority readings.


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> Are you TR only or TR preferred?


Probably TR preferred would be the best way to describe my view. I do use a critical Greek text when reading, but will place a lot more weight on TR or Byz variants when needing to decide on a reading. I like the smooth readings in the TR (a reason scholars see them as non-original), but am still convinced of the antiquity (I am reading through Chrysostom's homilies, which are usually TR), and also the confessional support (even then it gets complex for that time period - e.g. the Geneva Bible has some non-TR readings in the margins and 1 or 2 in the text). I do realise how TR vs CT debate can get, so I try to be gracious and sympathetic to both sides!

But back to the LSB - are the readings in the text or margins? I like the unobtrusive single brackets for the longer ending of Mark. Some other translations like the early RSV's feel like they are loathe to include it!

There is a change going on at the United Bible Societies editorial committee where they are including more TR readings in the margins of the upcoming UBS6 (mostly due to the TR's continued use in global translation), so it would be cool to see this trend reflected in modern translations.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> Probably TR preferred would be the best way to describe my view.


I think the Reformation-Heritage Study Bible is a great study bible in the TR heritage.


pmachapman said:


> But back to the LSB - are the readings in the text or margins?


In the text. Therefore they don't 'delete' disputed verses, they include them in brackets.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

What are your thoughts regarding how the LSB translates the word slave in the NT. See here for their approach to this. 

John MacArthur has written a book on this. No doubt the LSB reflects MacArthur's convictions on translating this particular word. 

Thoughts?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Stephen L Smith said:


> What are your thoughts regarding how the LSB translates the word slave in the NT. See here for their approach to this.
> 
> John MacArthur has written a book on this. No doubt the LSB reflects MacArthur's convictions on translating this particular word.
> 
> Thoughts?


I would think it is best to let the context determine the best rendering of δοῦλος in any given passage. Limiting in this way seems to overlook the nuances in it usage.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I would think it is best to let the context determine the best rendering of δοῦλος in any given passage. Limiting in this way seems to overlook the nuances in it usage.


Are you saying that sometimes δοῦλος should be translated as servant or bond-servant?


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> What are your thoughts regarding how the LSB translates the word slave in the NT. See here for their approach to this.


I am slowly being convinced that it is possible to be consistent in translating δουλος as slave. After reading your post above, I quickly ran through all occurrences of its forms in Accordance, and did not find any places where I could object to the word slave being used.

Also, having looked at how παιδα is used in the NT recently, I have adequate confidence that when Scripture means a paid servant, it uses παιδα (excluding cases when it obviously is a child), and when it means slave (probably including indentured servants) it uses δουλος. I still am unsure though, on whether Acts 4:27,30 refers to Christ as the child of God (KJV) or his servant (NKJV, ESV)...but that's a rabbit trail...

As a postscript, I do find the NASB 77+95's use of "bondslave" in Titus 2:9 bizarre (is it even a word?), so at least the LSB is cleaning that up. (I must note that the NASB 2020 does correct this occurrence to slave).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MWJ '90

retroGRAD3 said:


> Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one. I do look forward to the LSB though if it's all they say it will be.


Now this, I did not know. I ordered a used pew copy of the NASB '77 from eBay back in 2018. I didn't know it was still in print. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

The LSB website has been updated to include a History of the LSB, including the earliest days of the Lockman Foundation. https://lsbible.org/history/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jonathco

Stephen L Smith said:


> The LSB website has been updated to include a History of the LSB, including the earliest days of the Lockman Foundation. https://lsbible.org/history/


Fascinating read; thank you for sharing!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> The LSB website has been updated to include a History of the LSB, including the earliest days of the Lockman Foundation. https://lsbible.org/history/


I have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation. They rarely licenced or gave away their translations (although I am told this has changed), especially when you compare them to Crossway, a company I have found very pleasant to licence their translation from.

The fact that their other English translation was the Amplified Bible did not exactly convince me of their orthodoxy either.


----------



## retroGRAD3

pmachapman said:


> I have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation. They rarely licenced or gave away their translations (although I am told this has changed), especially when you compare them to Crossway, a company I have found very pleasant to licence their translation from.
> 
> The fact that their other English translation was the Amplified Bible did not exactly convince me of their orthodoxy either.


Crossway might be a little too generous though as they have also authorized a Roman Catholic ESV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> I have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation.


Note that the LSB will stand on its own feet. It is essentially a translation by Masters Seminary and Masters University scholars. I am more concerned about a dispensational bias than anything else.


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Note that the LSB will stand on its own feet. It is essentially a translation by Masters Seminary and Masters University scholars. I am more concerned about a dispensational bias than anything else.


Frankly, at this point I will take Dispensational bias over Woke bias, egalitarian bias, SJW bias, Arminian bias, etc., none of which will infect the LSB. Of that I am confident. At least “older school” Dispensationalists, for all their error, believe and defend the inerrant Bible.

Reactions: Like 4 | Praying 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor Sexton said:


> Frankly, at this point I will take Dispensational bias over Woke bias, egalitarian bias, SJW bias, Arminian bias, etc., none of which will infect the LSB. Of that I am confident. At least “older school” Dispensationalists, for all their error, believe and defend the inerrant Bible.


Agreed. And one can add the Masters Seminary and University are on the 'milder' end of the Dispensational spectrum.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed. And one can add the Masters Seminary and University are on the 'milder' end of the Dispensational spectrum.


Yes, I think this translation will not wear it's Dispensationalism as much as Darby's Translation did. I think Spurgeon had some choice words to say about that version.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

One of the translators explains Col 1:15-20 in the LSB. What do you think of his argument?


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> One of the translators explains Col 1:15-20 in the LSB. What do you think of his argument?


I found his paragraph divisions interesting - I am not aware of any other bibles that use these particular divisions. I think they way they have chosen to display and divide it makes the best use of the verse per line format.

The NET Bible shows the section as poetry (and its notes give a reasonably detailed explanation why), but the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, which tries to retain the paragraphing of earlier manuscripts, has verses 9-22 as one big paragraph.

It does make me wonder whether we are seeing too much into text when we start seeing structures like this and delineate them?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> It does make me wonder whether we are seeing too much into text when we start seeing structures like this and delineate them?


I agree. The LSB is supposed to be a *literal *translation, but it seems to me that a structure like this is really an *interpretative *approach.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

The LSB now provides a free sample of the book of Philippians on their website . As noted above you can also receive a free sample of the book of Mark.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> The LSB now provides a free sample of the book of Philippians on their website . As noted above you can also receive a free sample of the book of Mark.


Thanks, @Stephen L Smith for the link, or I would have missed it!

I took the PDF, and fed it into a piece of software I have just finished writing that compares Bible translations in a format similar to the old Interlinear RV/AV Bible. I thought I might post my results comparing it to the NASB as a video, like I did for Mark 1:


----------



## Kinghezy

pmachapman said:


> have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation. They rarely licenced or gave away their translations (although I am told this has changed), especially when you compare them to Crossway, a company I have found very pleasant to licence their translation from.



Crossway no longer allows ESV to be distributed to eSword (http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2019-June/047095.html). I only have it, because it is on my local phone. But if I ever have to reformat or replace [the phone], it [ESV] will be inaccessible. Lockman's NASB has recently been added (not sure when, but was able to download it fall 2020).

So... at least with this, Lockman seems to be getting more liberal with allowing it used and Crossway is getting less.


----------



## pmachapman

Kinghezy said:


> Lockman seems to be getting more liberal with allowing it used and Crossway is getting less.


My experience with Crossway confirms this. A few years ago I wrote the first Audio Bible app for Windows Phone and Windows 8/10. It was quite successful, and Crossway's API licensing at the time allowed me near unlimited use, so long as I did not keep local copies of the data or profit from their translation (I didn't make any money from it, but it did look good on my CV). Someone at Crossway even contacted me once to say my app was one of the biggest users of their API (my app today has 57,000+ users, I think it was about 16,000 then).

Fast-forward to my programming this last week, and their version 3 API has lots more access restrictions - there is no way that I can update my app to use their new API, as it only allows 5,000 queries a day, and my users would chew that up pretty quickly. On top of that, the authentication scheme would not work with the media player component Microsoft provided with Windows 8, and so I have just left it - the day Crossway pulls the plug on their version 1 API, I will just have to reduce the app to being KJV-only.

I compare this to their licensing the ESV to the Roman Catholic Church, and allowing them to alter the New Testament text to suit Roman Catholic theology yet still call it an ESV, and I get a bit perplexed at the changes that are taking place at Crossway. As a side note, I don't mind their licensing it to the ACNA to include the Apocrypha.

I wish Bible publishers would only use copyright to preserve the integrity of the text (like the Crown Copyright on the KJV or Thomas Nelson's old copyright message in the ASV), and not to hamper people creating different ways of getting God's Word out there.


----------



## JM

Why can't we all be KJVO? jk

I use the AV (for those not former Dominion countries that means KJV) and the NKJV. I want a translation with some staying ability that will not go through multiple 'upgrades' over my own lifetime.

But I'm a simple man....

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Charles Johnson

To the multiplying of translations there is no end.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## pmachapman

Charles Johnson said:


> To the multiplying of translations there is no end.


I am quite happy (actually, joyful!) for the multiplication of translations in all languages, for every dialect and people. Maybe regarding the effort expended in just English language translations, I am not so impressed with.


----------



## Charles Johnson

pmachapman said:


> I am quite happy (actually, joyful!) for the multiplication of translations in all languages, for every dialect and people. Maybe regarding the effort expended in just English language translations, I am not so impressed with.


I'm quite happy for the former, assuming they're done well. The latter is becoming increasingly vain. Not just bible translations, either. We heard recently of translation number five of the Institutes. I'm beginning to suspect that we're replacing language study with translating everything to English.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> I took the PDF, and fed it into a piece of software I have just finished writing that compares Bible translations in a format similar to the old Interlinear RV/AV Bible. I thought I might post my results comparing it to the NASB as a video, like I did for Mark 1:


Enjoyed the analysis Peter. I thought the term vain glory in Philip 2:3 a little strange. Vain glory is an archaic word that both the Geneva Bible and the KJV use. I did wonder why they did not stick with the NASB 95 here? Both the NASB 77 and 95 use empty conceit.


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> I thought the term vain glory in Philip 2:3 a little strange.


I missed that one! Yes, it is a bit unusual - reminds me of the Land of Vain-Glory in Pilgrim's Progress. I looked up my MacArthur Study Bible, and the note said "lit. empty glory", so this might have been something bubbling along in the GTY world that they have decided to rectify?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

John MacArthur Reads Psalm 37 from the LSB​


----------



## JM

Stephen L Smith said:


> John MacArthur Reads Psalm 37 from the LSB​


I like it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

JM said:


> I like it.


Other than using Yahweh, it is practically the same word for word as the NASB95.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

pmachapman said:


> I compare this to their licensing the ESV to the Roman Catholic Church, and allowing them to alter the New Testament text to suit Roman Catholic theology yet still call it an ESV,



There was a forum post last week about the actual differences and I didn't see any evidence that the text had been altered to suit Roman Catholic theology. Do you have examples in mind?

Also, I'm curious if you've contacted Crossway about their API. It could be that they didn't think through the implications of limiting to 5000 queries a day.


----------



## retroGRAD3

Pilgrim said:


> Other than using Yahweh, it is practically the same word for word as the NASB95.


I think another difference is that always translate doulos to slave. Or, at least that is what they said in the beginning.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think another difference is that always translate doulos to slave. Or, at least that is what they said in the beginning.


----------



## JM

Pilgrim said:


> Other than using Yahweh, it is practically the same word for word as the NASB95.


I haven't really used the NASB but using Yahweh is cool with me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pmachapman

Logan said:


> Do you have examples in mind?


That post on the ESV-CE was me attempting to prove or disprove the bias once and for all - previously I was only aware of the Luke 1:28 change. I am still on the fence regarding the Catholic bias...I just can't shake a feeling that I can't trust the changes. Although the Luke 1:28 change is in the KJV & NKJV as you rightfully pointed out, those translations are not in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I distrust the motives of them being "restored". But, like I said in my reply to your post on Youtube, I was raised in a very Anti-Catholic household (my grandfather was a Black & Tan, and in the Orange Order for years), so I was bought up with (and still have it would seem) that bias. If this is a hatchet I need to bury, then of course I will listen to wisdom from my older brothers & sisters in Christ.


Logan said:


> Also, I'm curious if you've contacted Crossway about their API.


No, I haven't. I probably won't unless I have to. Their v3 API now matches the standards of other APIs (I miss how freewheeling things used to be on the Internet!), so I think it is more a case of them conforming to the norm. Not a bad thing for them, despite being less helpful for me. That, and Windows Phone is dead, and there are a lot of Audio Bible apps on Android, etc, etc.


----------



## Logan

pmachapman said:


> That post on the ESV-CE was me attempting to prove or disprove the bias once and for all - previously I was only aware of the Luke 1:28 change. I am still on the fence regarding the Catholic bias...I just can't shake a feeling that I can't trust the changes. Although the Luke 1:28 change is in the KJV & NKJV as you rightfully pointed out, those translations are not in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I distrust the motives of them being "restored".



Understood, and apologies for not recognizing your user name. But I do want to urge extreme caution about accusing anyone or any company. It is very easy for someone to read your post about Crossway "altering the New Testament to suit Roman Catholic theology" and start to spread that as the truth, when in fact that is far from proven.


----------



## pmachapman

Logan said:


> Understood, and apologies for not recognizing your user name. But I do want to urge extreme caution about accusing anyone or any company. It is very easy for someone to read your post about Crossway "altering the New Testament to suit Roman Catholic theology" and start to spread that as the truth, when in fact that is far from proven.


Agreed and I apologise. I will be more careful in future. Too often have I gone off what people have said to me rather than researching first.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pilgrim

retroGRAD3 said:


> I think another difference is that always translate doulos to slave. Or, at least that is what they said in the beginning.


Right. Those are said to be the two main differences, along with more "consistency" in translating OT quotations in the NT, if I'm not mistaken. But I seem to recall MacArthur emphasizing that in one of the videos they've released.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

The LSB translators explain why the LSB retains Yahweh in the Old Testament. Would be interested in comments by Hebrew scholars.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VilnaGaon

On a practical note I hope to see a large print edition(12 point or larger) for those of us who need it.
Also I hope it will not be printed in Communist China like 90% of Bibles today seem to be

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

The LSB may appeal to some – and I may avail myself of some of its good readings, as I do with other modern versions – but essentially it is a critical text production.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

pmachapman said:


> especially when reading aloud. I'm starting to see why some have clung to their NASB77's over the last few decades!



I'm beginning to think the '77 is the best modern translation overall. The ESV is more beautiful on the psalms, but ruins it by reading John 5 as "his authority" rather than "of himself."

I like parts of the CSB on the Old Testament, but I like the '77 the best.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist

retroGRAD3 said:


> Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one. I do look forward to the LSB though if it's all they say it will be.



Where do you get yours from?


----------



## JM

The app is ready for download.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Just browsed through the app. It gets John 5 correct, unlike the ESV. It translates it "of himself" rather than "authority."


----------



## Stephen L Smith

BayouHuguenot said:


> Just browsed through the app. It gets John 5 correct, unlike the ESV. It translates it "of himself" rather than "authority."


You may likely find the LSB is as good as, or even better that the NASB 77.


----------



## retroGRAD3

BayouHuguenot said:


> Where do you get yours from?


Here is a link: https://www.christianbook.com/NASB-size-bible-bonded-leather-black/9780899579443/pd/579443.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

retroGRAD3 said:


> Here is a link: https://www.christianbook.com/NASB-size-bible-bonded-leather-black/9780899579443/pd/579443.


That one is pretty good, and it is the only choice in print for a text Bible in the 77. But note that it does not include all of the marginal notes. Some people may not care, but for some NASB readers, having all of the notes is a must have. Zondervan was a bit taken aback recently when they printed a NASB95 single column reference and received some negative feedback because it doesn't have all of the references and marginal notes that other NASB reference editions have typically had.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

An informative review of the LSB by fellow New Zealander and Greek Scholar Darryl Burling

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## JM

I just spent 3 hours going over Romans 11 with a IFB Dispensational. Nice guy. I'm happy to see the LSB staying true to the overall theological concept of "seed..." 

That's all I got. Zonked.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Stephen L Smith said:


> Enjoyed the analysis Peter. I thought the term vain glory in Philip 2:3 a little strange. Vain glory is an archaic word that both the Geneva Bible and the KJV use. I did wonder why they did not stick with the NASB 95 here? Both the NASB 77 and 95 use empty conceit.


Points for NAS95!


----------



## JTB.SDG

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm beginning to think the '77 is the best modern translation overall. The ESV is more beautiful on the psalms, but ruins it by reading John 5 as "his authority" rather than "of himself."
> 
> I like parts of the CSB on the Old Testament, but I like the '77 the best.


What parts of the 77 in your mind beat out the 95? I honestly don't know as much about the 77.

I wish the 77 had been consistent about translating the singular/plural pronouns like the KJV. I didn't really understand why they only did it for some of the books but not others (I think that's correct). I do love how KJV marks the pronouns. If a NASB 95 came out with consistent thee's and thou's, that would be my translation. Or at least if there was some way of marking them; like putting "you" but doing so in small caps or some other way of marking if it's singular/plural. Of course in Deuteronomy it gets a little crazy.

I love the literal aspect of the NASB. I also love how when that's not possible they supply extra English words to get the meaning across but they do so in italics to let you know it's not in the original. Just a few of the reasons the NASB has won me over


----------



## RamistThomist

JTB.SDG said:


> What parts of the 77 in your mind beat out the 95? I honestly don't know as much about the 77.
> 
> I wish the 77 had been consistent about translating the singular/plural pronouns like the KJV. I didn't really understand why they only did it for some of the books but not others (I think that's correct). I do love how KJV marks the pronouns. If a NASB 95 came out with consistent thee's and thou's, that would be my translation. Or at least if there was some way of marking them; like putting "you" but doing so in small caps or some other way of marking if it's singular/plural. Of course in Deuteronomy it gets a little crazy.
> 
> I love the literal aspect of the NASB. I also love how when that's not possible they supply extra English words to get the meaning across but they do so in italics to let you know it's not in the original. Just a few of the reasons the NASB has won me over



77 had the thees and thou when speaking to God, right? I know I criticized some aspects of that mentality a while back, but I remember enjoying it at the time.


----------



## ZackF

If anyone is worried that NASB2020 is going to replace 1995 I don't see that happening. The 1977 version is being still being sold new in stores.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Stephen L Smith said:


> Enjoyed the analysis Peter. I thought the term vain glory in Philip 2:3 a little strange. Vain glory is an archaic word that both the Geneva Bible and the KJV use. I did wonder why they did not stick with the NASB 95 here? Both the NASB 77 and 95 use empty conceit.





JTB.SDG said:


> Points for NAS95!


I have been reflecting a little more on this. The KJV and the Geneva Bible have this as one word 'vainglory'. The LSB reads vain glory. I did wonder if they were trying to emphasise the vanity of human pride. Pride is foolish, vain, and sinful.


JTB.SDG said:


> What parts of the 77 in your mind beat out the 95? I honestly don't know as much about the 77.


I notice throughout Mark's gospel the LSB starts many verses with 'and'. No doubt a very literal translation which is not the best english. But it seems to me the LSB is trying to both be literal to the original languages AND bring out the action packed narrative of Mark's gospel.

My recent post (# 59) has a review of the LSB comparing it to the original language and the NASB 95. I found that helpful.


----------



## David Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed. And one can add the Masters Seminary and University are on the 'milder' end of the Dispensational spectrum.


Agreed, you can't put all dispensationalists into the same camp.


----------



## Pilgrim

The more that I think about it, the more that I'm really not interested. I'm not sure that they are correct in insisting on "slave" every time and in having Yahweh instead of LORD.


BayouHuguenot said:


> Just browsed through the app. It gets John 5 correct, unlike the ESV. It translates it "of himself" rather than "authority."


So does the NASB95. Probably 98% of the LSB is going to be the same as the NASB95.


----------



## Pilgrim

The more that I think about it, the more I'm thinking that this doesn't really interest me, at least not to the point of spending money on it. I don't know that they are correct in insisting on "slave" every time and on insisting on "Yahweh" instead of LORD. Sure, I'll consult the app and other free options, but that may be about it.

I could go on an additional rant about MacArthurism now having its own Study Bible, hymn book, theology text, (which, like the Study Bible, doesn't credit the individual contributors) and Bible translation, but I think I'll just leave it at that for now. (And that's coming from arguably one of the biggest MacArthur defenders on this board over the past decade.)

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pilgrim said:


> Probably 98% of the LSB is going to be the same as the NASB95.


It may be less than that (it is hard to tell). In some respects it looks like a revision of NASB 77.


Pilgrim said:


> The more that I think about it, the more I'm thinking that this doesn't really interest me, at least not to the point of spending money on it. I don't know that they are correct in insisting on "slave" every time and on insisting on "Yahweh" instead of LORD.


I am interested because I like the idea of a very literal translation. I use the ESV and HCSB also. However, for those who prefer the NASB95 it probably is not worth investing in a LSB. 


Pilgrim said:


> I could go on an additional rant about MacArthurism


From what I have seen they have worked hard to minimise theological bias. I appreciate that.


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> 77 had the thees and thou when speaking to God, right? I know I criticized some aspects of that mentality a while back, but I remember enjoying it at the time.


Yes. That was one of the biggest changes in the 95 vs the 77. The only other translation (major one anyway) that does that is the RSV. To me that was something pretty strongly tied to the mid 20th C when some people still prayed that way but otherwise wanted something a bit more contemporary.


----------



## Pilgrim

Stephen L Smith said:


> It may be less than that (it is hard to tell). In some respects it looks like a revision of NASB 77.
> 
> I am interested because I like the idea of a very literal translation. I use the ESV and HCSB also. However, for those who prefer the NASB95 it probably is not worth investing in a LSB.
> 
> From what I have seen they have worked hard to minimise theological bias. I appreciate that.


As with the NASB, that the LSB will be more "literal" than the NKJV (or even KJV) will be highly debatable. If one is limiting it to CT translations, sure, it probably will be more literal than others besides the RV/ASV, at least among those that anybody has ever heard of. 

No doubt, it will be useful, especially depending on whatever marginal notes they include.


----------



## Pilgrim

Stephen L Smith said:


> It may be less than that (it is hard to tell). In some respects it looks like a revision of NASB 77.
> 
> I am interested because I like the idea of a very literal translation. I use the ESV and HCSB also. However, for those who prefer the NASB95 it probably is not worth investing in a LSB.
> 
> From what I have seen they have worked hard to minimise theological bias. I appreciate that.


I'm not too concerned with theological bias. I understand that most of the original NASB translators were from Talbot or DTS anyway, so some have said that it already has a bit of a "dispensational bias." I've never been fully convinced of that, but some people will say that here and there. (Some people will tell you that the NIV has a "Calvinist bias" too, for what its worth.)


----------



## Taylor

BayouHuguenot said:


> Just browsed through the app. It gets John 5 correct, unlike the ESV. It translates it "of himself" rather than "authority."


I know this is a common criticism of the ESV, many claiming the ESV advocates for ESS here (as well as in similar places like John 8:28 and 14:10), but I just don't see it. For one thing, the translation of ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ as "of my own authority/initiative" is not unique to the ESV. The RSV (which means the ESV actually didn't originate this rendering for themselves, but rather retained it ), NASB95, NET, NKJV, Amplified, and ISV all translate it this way.

Second, translating the verse this way does not necessitate an ESS understanding of Jesus' words. It seems to be to be a broad consensus from the Reformed "heavy hitters" that the words Jesus is using here does not refer to himself as God, but as the Messiah in the flesh:

"Our Saviour’s meaning is plainly this: The Son neither willeth nor can do any thing, but what the Father willeth and doth in him; therefore he is one in essence with the Father, and equal to him. For what things soever he doequoth, these also doeth the Son likewise: the Son doth those things which the Father doth; and, *as the Messias*, he doth those things which the Father willeth to be done."​​—Matthew Poole, _Annotations Upon the Holy Bible_, 3 vols. (New York, NY: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 3:303.​​"[H]e did nothing of himself, *not of himself **as man*, of himself alone, of himself without the Father, with whom he was one."​​—Matthew Henry, _Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume_ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 1968).​​"The discourse does not relate to the simple Divinity of Christ, and those statements which we shall immediately see do not simply and of themselves relate to the eternal Word of God, but *apply only to the Son of God, **so far as he is manifested in the flesh*."​​—John Calvin, _Commentaries_, John 5:19.​​"[Jesus speaking:] 'The doctrines which I preach among you are a proof of what I assert, and to them I appeal; for *these are not of myself, **as man*, but the father that dwelleth in me.'"​​—John Gill, _Commentaries_, John 14:10.​
I say all this as someone who doesn't really care for the ESV, and as someone who opposes ESS. I've just seen this accusation leveled against it, and I just don't think it holds weight. If anything, we could fault the ESV Study Bible for being unclear in its note on John 5:19. But, even then, I see nothing there that 1) teaches ESS explicitly or 2) teaches anything different than the men I quoted above say.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## bookslover

I was at the bookstore at MacArthur's church yesterday, and I saw copies of the LSB Psalms and New Testament for sale. The only copies they had were in one of the fancy skins (maybe goatskin, I forget), for which they wanted $42. I was going to pick one up for me and for my pastor (a NASB guy from way back). But, at $42 a pop (just for the Psalms and the NT, mind you), I passed. I'll wait until it comes out on newsprint. LOL

No wonder they had a LOT of them stacked up for sale!


----------



## bookslover

bookslover said:


> I was at the bookstore at MacArthur's church yesterday, and I saw copies of the LSB Psalms and New Testament for sale. The only copies they had were in one of the fancy skins (maybe goatskin, I forget), for which they wanted $42. I was going to pick one up for me and for my pastor (a NASB guy from way back). But, at $42 a pop (just for the Psalms and the NT, mind you), I passed. I'll wait until it comes out on newsprint. LOL
> 
> No wonder they had a LOT of them stacked up for sale!



I did, however, pick up a copy of the 5th edition of Sam Waldron's commentary on the 1689 and a copy of Mark Noll's _In the Beginning was the Word: The Bible in American Public Life, 1492-1783._


----------



## pmachapman

bookslover said:


> But, at $42 a pop (just for the Psalms and the NT, mind you), I passed.


A friend of mine calls NT with Psalms/Proverbs the "shareware" version of the Bible, so you could look at it as a lot of money for a piece of shareware!

That said, I've just ordered mine from gracebooks.co.nz for $45NZD, so if anyone else in NZ wants to order one and not pay high shipping fees, you now can! Go on, @Stephen L Smith


----------



## Stephen L Smith

pmachapman said:


> That said, I've just ordered mine from gracebooks.co.nz for $45NZD, so if anyone else in NZ wants to order one and not pay high shipping fees, you now can! Go on, @Stephen L Smith


I will order from Gracebooks but will wait until the full translation comes out. I can read sizable portions online now. 

I am shifting to Whanganui in a few days time - just "down the road" from you

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## pmachapman

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am shifting to Whanganui in a few days time - just "down the road" from you


Mike mentioned that - do come up and stay for a weekend or so when you are settled - Mike has a guest room in his house and is always happy to have people visit (my house is a bit packed with kids, books, and baby clothes at the moment!)


Stephen L Smith said:


> I will order from Gracebooks but will wait until the full translation comes out. I can read sizable portions online now.


I know, just thought a bit more prodding might convince you to change you mind . A fellow congregant in New Plymouth pre-ordered it, so I saw it in the flesh for the first time 2 weeks ago, which basically convinced me to buy it. That said, seeing the translation notes now in Accordance does make me think the full version will be very good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist

bookslover said:


> The only copies they had were in one of the fancy skins (maybe goatskin, I forget), for which they wanted $42. I was going to pick one up for me and for my pastor (a NASB guy from way back). But, at $42 a pop (just for the Psalms and the NT, mind you), I passed. I'll wait until it comes out on newsprint. LOL


Goatskin is remarkably expensive. Maybe it’s worth it but that’s too rich for my blood at this point. Some of the other copies (simulated leather) seem to be cheaper but it looks like those were snapped up ahead of your.


----------



## JonC

David Taylor said:


> Agreed, you can't put all dispensationalists into the same camp.


Not even for a "time out"? (joke...maybe not a good one).

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Herald

retroGRAD3 said:


> Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one. I do look forward to the LSB though if it's all they say it will be.


This was the first Bible I ever owned.


----------



## Herald

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed. And one can add the Masters Seminary and University are on the 'milder' end of the Dispensational spectrum.


Perhaps. However, that is no guarantee that their graduates will remain on the milder end. I have seen solid confessional pastors come out of liberal schools and rabid Dispensationalists come out of Reformed schools. You just never know.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

retroGRAD3 said:


> Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one.


From where?


----------



## retroGRAD3

C. M. Sheffield said:


> From where?


https://www.christianbook.com/NASB-size-bible-bonded-leather-black/9780899579443/pd/579443

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

retroGRAD3 said:


> https://www.christianbook.com/NASB-size-bible-bonded-leather-black/9780899579443/pd/579443


Grazie Signore!


----------



## VilnaGaon

Does anyone know if the new LSB Bible will be printed in Communist China like 90% of Bibles today seem to be?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pmachapman

My LSB NT is printed by Royal Jongbloed in The Netherlands.

It looks like other bibles that Steadfast Bible's makes are printed in China, so we may have to wait and see which way they go - I would imagine both, depending on premium versus standard/economy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

John MacArthur and the LSB translation have published part 3 of their roundtable discussion.


----------



## ZackF

C. M. Sheffield said:


> From where?


It's also available off the shelf at Mardel.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

The book of Jonah is now available to read








FREE RESOURCES


We exist to create God-honoring Christian resources, and our name is rooted in three verses of scripture. Each is found in chapter three, verse sixteen of their respective books of the Bible: John 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 3:16.




316publishing.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Boreal

Great


----------



## Stephen L Smith

For those of you who have been reading the LSB, have you detected a dispensational bias? I have been following the LSB Facebook page and the translators themselves are making comments that they aim to make the LSB very consistent in its word choices. One senior translator, Abner Chou, has argued that "because LSB is so consistent, it stitches together an entire theology of resurrection that spans from the early book of Job to Isaiah, Daniel, and Hosea." 

This made me wonder if his 'theology of resurrection' meant a dispensational approach. Just wondering

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> For those of you who have been reading the LSB, have you detected a dispensational bias? I have been following the LSB Facebook page and the translators themselves are making comments that they aim to make the LSB very consistent in its word choices. One senior translator, Abner Chou, has argued that "because LSB is so consistent, it stitches together an entire theology of resurrection that spans from the early book of Job to Isaiah, Daniel, and Hosea."
> 
> This made me wonder if his 'theology of resurrection' meant a dispensational approach. Just wondering


I haven’t. One of the Dispensationalist “hot spots”—namely, 2 Thess. 2:7—does not capitalize “he” like the NKJV does. This is encouraging.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> One of the Dispensationalist “hot spots”—namely, 2 Thess. 2:7—does not capitalize “he” like the NKJV does.


Yes. I used to use the NKJV as my main translation, so I checked the LSB on this particular verse. Like you, I was pleased it did not capitalise 'he'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Taylor said:


> I haven’t. One of the Dispensationalist “hot spots”—namely, 2 Thess. 2:7—does not capitalize “he” like the NKJV does. This is encouraging.


It isn't capitalized in the NASB either. Since the LSB is a light revision of the NASB95 they would have had to go out of their way to capitalize it. (It is however capitalized in the NASB 2020 which is a bit of a surprise to me.)

The better practice would be to avoid capitalizing pronouns altogether, it seems to me, since there are occasions in which it requires the translator to make a choice in questionable cases in translations (NKJV, NASB) that are supposed to keep that to a minimum.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Stephen L Smith said:


> For those of you who have been reading the LSB, have you detected a dispensational bias? I have been following the LSB Facebook page and the translators themselves are making comments that they aim to make the LSB very consistent in its word choices. One senior translator, Abner Chou, has argued that "because LSB is so consistent, it stitches together an entire theology of resurrection that spans from the early book of Job to Isaiah, Daniel, and Hosea."





Taylor said:


> I haven’t. One of the Dispensationalist “hot spots”—namely, 2 Thess. 2:7—does not capitalize “he” like the NKJV does. This is encouraging.


Taylor I mentioned the senior translator Abner Chou's lectures on hermeneutics. As I said above Chou argues:


Stephen L Smith said:


> "because LSB is so consistent, it stitches together an entire theology of resurrection that spans from the early book of Job to Isaiah, Daniel, and Hosea."


He argues the LSB is literal and consistent. In some hermeneutics lectures he gave at a pre-trib study centre in 2016, he argues that dispensationism is literal and consistent. Is he making a link between the LSB and dispensationalism? One is tempted to think so. Here are the two lectures . Note: if anyone wants to discuss dispensationalism specifically, it is best you start a new thread. 

Lecture: historical-grammatical hermeneutic






Lecture: Christocentric hermeneutic


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> He argues the LSB is literal and consistent. In some hermeneutics lectures he gave at a pre-trib study centre in 2016, he argues that dispensationism is literal and consistent. Is he making a link between the LSB and dispensationalism?


I doubt it, but I can't know. This doesn't concern me, though, even if it were the case. As I have said before, in terms of Bible translators, I would rather have them be a bunch of overly literalistic Dispensationalists who love and cherish God's Word than a bunch of Woke Twitter-novelist SJWs any day of the week.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> I doubt it, but I can't know. This doesn't concern me, though, even if it were the case. As I have said before, in terms of Bible translators, I would rather have them be a bunch of overly literalistic Dispensationalists who love and cherish God's Word than a bunch of Woke Twitter-novelist SJWs any day of the week.


Fair enough. As I have said before the fact that the LSB aims to be a literal translation, I think this will minimise interpretative decisions.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

The full LSB can now be read for free at https://read.lsbible.org/

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 3 | Informative 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Jonathco

Stephen L Smith said:


> The full LSB can now be read for free at https://read.lsbible.org/


I've been waiting for this. Excited to dive in!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> The full LSB can now be read for free at https://read.lsbible.org/


Clever. The major publisher for the LSB is 316 Publishing. Today (November 12), the day of the release of the full LSB text, is the 316th day of 2021.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1 | Wow 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

As a matter of interest, the quote I made by Abner Chou (and his fuller argument) has now been posted on the LSB website:








The Way Consistency Ties the Testaments Together - Legacy Standard Bible | Your Translation for a Lifetime


We at 316 Publishing are blessed to have the support of the translators in pointing out what it is that makes the LSB such a unique translation. Recently, Dr. Abner Chou, Interim President of the Master’s University, interacted with the Facebook Legacy Standard Bible Fan Group with a couple of...




lsbible.org


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> As a matter of interest, the quote I made by Abner Chou (and his fuller argument) has now been posted on the LSB website:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Way Consistency Ties the Testaments Together - Legacy Standard Bible | Your Translation for a Lifetime
> 
> 
> We at 316 Publishing are blessed to have the support of the translators in pointing out what it is that makes the LSB such a unique translation. Recently, Dr. Abner Chou, Interim President of the Master’s University, interacted with the Facebook Legacy Standard Bible Fan Group with a couple of...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lsbible.org


I found it interesting that the first text mentioned was Hosea 6:1-3, given that just a few verses later in Hosea 6:7, the LSB translates the verse (rightly) in such a way as to make a direct connection to, and prooftext for, the Covenant of Works: "*Like Adam* they have trespassed against the covenant."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> I found it interesting that the first text mentioned was Hosea 6:1-3, given that just a few verses later in Hosea 6:7, the LSB translates the verse (rightly) in such a way as to make a direct connection to, and prooftext for, the Covenant of Works: "*Like Adam* they have trespassed against the covenant."


Fascinating insight, but most modern translations (including NASB 95 and 2020) translate it 'like Adam'.


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Fascinating insight, but most modern translations (including NASB 95 and 2020) translate it 'like Adam'.


I wouldn't say most. Many translations say "at Adam" (RSV, NRSV, NIV2011, NET, and REB) or "like men" (KJV, Geneva, NKJV, and MEV).


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> I wouldn't say most. Many translations say "at Adam" (RSV, NRSV, NIV2011, NET, and REB) or "like men" (KJV, Geneva, NKJV, and MEV).


I said modern. The KJV and Geneva are not modern. I should have said modern popular. I meant those used in conservative circles such as NASB 95 and 20, ESV, CSB, NIV etc.


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> I said modern. The KJV and Geneva are not modern. I should have said modern popular. I meant those used in conservative circles such as NASB 95 and 20, ESV, CSB, NIV etc.


Yes, I didn’t read your post carefully enough. My apologies. Yes, there does seem to be a divide there with the modern translations. Either way, Hosea 6:7 is a debated passage, and I believe it had direct relevance to the Covenant of Works. I’m glad that the LSB got it right. Even The Message gets it right!

P.S. By the way, I heard that you have been in conversation with my good friend Ryan recently! He’s a good brother.


----------



## iainduguid

Taylor said:


> Yes, I didn’t read your post carefully enough. My apologies. Yes, there does seem to be a divide there with the modern translations. Either way, Hosea 6:7 is a debated passage, and I believe it had direct relevance to the Covenant of Works. I’m glad that the LSB got it right. Even The Message gets it right!
> 
> P.S. By the way, I heard that you have been in conversation with my good friend Ryan recently! He’s a good brother.


This is a good example of how complex translation is. First, let's dispose of the nonsense about "consistent literal translation". No one translates _'adam_ consistently as Adam, not even the LSB (see e.g. Lev 13:2 and Ezek 36:14, where LSB goes with "a man" or "men"; ESV and CSB both go with "a person" and "people" which is arguably more accurate, since neither context is gender specific LSB doesn't even translate _'adam _ "consistently literally" in the three other places it occurs in Hosea). The reason no one translates the Bible consistently literally, is that the most literal translation is sometimes simply incorrect. Some translations are _more_ consistently literal, to be sure, which does indeed sometimes help you to see connections that are obvious in the original language but may be obscured in translation; however, there is sometimes a cost to that literal translation in that it obscures a different aspect of the meaning. Did I mention yet how complicated the work of translation is?

Hos 6:7 is a great example. I think LSB gets it right here in preferring the more literal "like Adam they transgressed the covenant" rather than "like men they transgressed the covenant" (though most conservative translations have gone the same way, so it's nothing special). That helps to make the connection back to Adam's sin, and the Hebrew word _'adam_ often seems to have what we might call "creational overtones" harking back to man's mortality as the offspring of the original man. Ezekiel 36 14 is another good example of these creational overtones, even though nobody could or should translate the Hebrew literally here. That's why preachers should be able to read the original languages and not be dependent upon translations. But there is also something lost in translating Hosea 6: 7 as "Like Adam..." Adam is not the only example of a person who transgressed the covenant: all those in Adam also follow in his footsteps as a class in transgressing the covenant, as Israel's history graphically demonstrates. So "Like humans, they transgressed the covenant..." is not wrong either and makes a slightly different point that is equally valid. "To err is human...", precisely because of Adam's sin; that isn't an excuse for Israel but a further condemnation, since they were meant to be a holy nation. In Hebrew you can make both points in the same words, in English whichever translation you choose the preacher is going to have some explaining to do.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> Yes, I didn’t read your post carefully enough. My apologies.


No worries  


Taylor said:


> Yes, there does seem to be a divide there with the modern translations. Either way, Hosea 6:7 is a debated passage, and I believe it had direct relevance to the Covenant of Works. I’m glad that the LSB got it right. Even The Message gets it right!


Agreed. I have been enjoying Jon Bonker's course on covenant theology. In the attached pdf link he argues that no matter which way you translate it, Hos 6:7 would appear to apply covenant terminology to the relation of God to man established by creation. Pg 16-17 


https://f5b3affa-3815-4a9f-8ecc-bd3f816dc0bd.filesusr.com/ugd/be37d2_583908871d7142daa73c5145c6757a4c.pdf




Taylor said:


> P.S. By the way, I heard that you have been in conversation with my good friend Ryan recently! He’s a good brother.


Yes he is a good brother. We made contact after me emailing the Reformed Forum (one of my favourite ministries) with a few questions. He replied on behalf of the Reformed Forum and we have kept in contact since. We share a lot of common theological interests. Also, he was a seminary with my pastor.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> First, let's dispose of the nonsense about "consistent literal translation". No one translates _'adam_ consistently as Adam, not even the LSB (see e.g. Lev 13:2 and Ezek 36:14, where LSB goes with "a man" or "men"; ESV and CSB both go with "a person" and "people" which is arguably more accurate, since neither context is gender specific LSB doesn't even translate _'adam _ "consistently literally" in the three other places it occurs in Hosea). The reason no one translates the Bible consistently literally, is that the most literal translation is sometimes simply incorrect.


Iain, you make a good point, and I have to say I have been a little perplexed at some of the arguments used for promoting the LSB.

Here is one interesting example. I have been fascinated by how various translations translate Eccles 12:13. Some translations (eg CSB translate it "fear God and keep his commands, because this is for all humanity". The NASB has something similar. Others have 'whole duty of man (eg ESV, KJV, Geneva etc) However the LSB has "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." It seems to link the argument back to 'the end of the matter' at the start of the verse. But the second 'end of the matter' is in italics. It seems to me this is an interpretive argument rather than a literal translation. Otherwise why would you have a good number of words in italics.?


----------



## Polanus1561

Well.. _duty_ is often supplemented in other versions.. hardly anyone would translate it as_ 'whole of man_'. So I guess your question is why 5 interpretative supplemented words instead of 1 supplemented word in 'duty'?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

John Yap said:


> Well.. _duty_ is often supplemented in other versions.. hardly anyone would translate it as_ 'whole of man_'. So I guess your question is why 5 interpretative supplemented words instead of 1 supplemented word in 'duty'?


Thank you John. That is a better way of framing my question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

iainduguid said:


> This is a good example of how complex translation is. First, let's dispose of the nonsense about "consistent literal translation". No one translates _'adam_ consistently as Adam, not even the LSB (see e.g. Lev 13:2 and Ezek 36:14, where LSB goes with "a man" or "men"; ESV and CSB both go with "a person" and "people" which is arguably more accurate, since neither context is gender specific LSB doesn't even translate _'adam _ "consistently literally" in the three other places it occurs in Hosea). The reason no one translates the Bible consistently literally, is that the most literal translation is sometimes simply incorrect. Some translations are _more_ consistently literal, to be sure, which does indeed sometimes help you to see connections that are obvious in the original language but may be obscured in translation; however, there is sometimes a cost to that literal translation in that it obscures a different aspect of the meaning. Did I mention yet how complicated the work of translation is?
> 
> Hos 6:7 is a great example. I think LSB gets it right here in preferring the more literal "like Adam they transgressed the covenant" rather than "like men they transgressed the covenant" (though most conservative translations have gone the same way, so it's nothing special). That helps to make the connection back to Adam's sin, and the Hebrew word _'adam_ often seems to have what we might call "creational overtones" harking back to man's mortality as the offspring of the original man. Ezekiel 36 14 is another good example of these creational overtones, even though nobody could or should translate the Hebrew literally here. That's why preachers should be able to read the original languages and not be dependent upon translations. But there is also something lost in translating Hosea 6: 7 as "Like Adam..." Adam is not the only example of a person who transgressed the covenant: all those in Adam also follow in his footsteps as a class in transgressing the covenant, as Israel's history graphically demonstrates. So "Like humans, they transgressed the covenant..." is not wrong either and makes a slightly different point that is equally valid. "To err is human...", precisely because of Adam's sin; that isn't an excuse for Israel but a further condemnation, since they were meant to be a holy nation. In Hebrew you can make both points in the same words, in English whichever translation you choose the preacher is going to have some explaining to do.


Dr. Duguid,

Thanks for your thoughts. Although I am not a professional translator like yourself, I do understand, having studied for several years the biblical languages in seminary, how difficult and complicated the task of Bible translation is. So, I say what I say about the LSB with that very much in my mind. Everything you say here, while good information, is not new to me. Like you, I have an aversion to this constant back-and-forth between "literal" and "not literal" regarding Bible translation. They are not helpful terms (or even concepts), and I have said as much many times on this board.

With these complexities in mind, I still really like the LSB. Perhaps the thing I love about it the most is the fact that they do go to fairly great lengths to ensure a word-choice consistency _as much as possible_ (you note rightly it is not always the case). One example they themselves bring up is the term זֶרַע ("seed") in the Old Testament, which we know has great biblical-theological significance (see Gal. 3:16). The only two translations that satisfy me in their handling of this term is the ESV and CSB, both of which fairly consistently translate it as "offspring." I like "offspring" better than "descendant/s" because the former, like the English "seed," can be singular or plural without changing form, thus leaving open that possible triple meaning of physical descendants, spiritual descendants, or the Descendant, Christ himself. I love how the LSB reverts the term back to "seed," as I think that's a better term. Yes, it's strange in English, but the term is rich theologically.

In reading the LSB, I have already found it to be overly wooden, but I still think it is highly valuable precisely because of this. Every Bible translation, after all, is a tool to be used in different situations, to accomplish different purposes. I think each translation in their own right accomplishes these purposes well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> Like you, I have an aversion to this constant back-and-forth between "literal" and "not literal" regarding Bible translation.


For theological conservatives perhaps the LSB nicely compliments the CSB.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak

Professor Compton, from MARS, just got an LSB and promptly observed a curious inconsistency in terminological choices:



> Hmm. Just got my copy of the Legacy Standard Bible in the mail today and was using it to work through Leviticus 18 as part of a lecture for tomorrow. The LSB prides itself in consistency of English glosses of Hebrew and Greek words so as to help English readers see how particular words are being, but when I was looking at the Hebrew word טמא, I came across this for Leviticus 18:
> לטמאה to be defiled (v.20)
> לטמאה to be made unclean (v.23)
> תטמאו defile yourselves (v.24a)
> נטמאו become defiled (v.24b)
> ותטמא become unclean (v.25)
> ותטמא become defiled (v.27)
> בטמאכם should you make it unclean (v.28)
> תטמאו defile yourselves (v.30)
> Admittedly, “defile(d)” and “unclean” are quite close in meaning, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why they placed variation between the two terms here (note especially vv.20 & 23 where the verbs are written identically!). I still think this translation has some great potential as a study edition, but was disappointed to be dealing with this on day 1. And I haven't even mentioned the clause ordering where the direct object, though fronted as _causus [sic] pendens _in the Hebrew, occurs late in the clause earlier in the chapter.... well, of course now I did ... but ....

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

py3ak said:


> Professor Compton, from MARS, just got an LSB and promptly observed a curious inconsistency in terminological choices:


Wow, this is very odd. The NASB 95, which is the base text for the LSB, translates the verbs consistently here.


----------



## Taylor

py3ak said:


> Professor Compton, from MARS, just got an LSB and promptly observed a curious inconsistency in terminological choices:


I sent an inquiry via the LSB website about this issue. There has to be some reasoning behind it. If their base text is the NASB 95, which translates these terms consistently, I cannot possibly see why the editors would make this change without some kind of rationale. We’ll see what they say, if anything.


----------



## Taylor

For the past few days I've used the LSB a good bit, both in personal study and in general perusal. While I have greatly enjoyed and appreciated the project's work, there have been a couple things I have encountered that give me pause:

1) The work seems to have been somewhat hastily done. As some of you may know, the production of the LSB has been rushed ahead even though the project is technically incomplete. The revision work is done, but the OT footnotes are not finished yet. Nonetheless, print versions are being shipped as we speak. It just doesn't feel like the project is coming to a nice close, but is rather being done in a piecemeal fashion. The whole thing has only been in the works for one year, which is outrageously short, even for a revision project. The ESV took three or four years, I think.

2) I have noticed a few typos and missing punctuation here and there. There have also been unexplained changes to the NASB 95 which go against the LSB's stated goals, namely that of verbal consistency. A puzzling example has already been noted above in Leviticus 18 by @py3ak.

3) The most annoying thing is that none of these issues can be addressed because contact with the LSB committee, its members, or the website, has been made difficult is not impossible. I contacted them via the website contact form earlier this week concerning the Leviticus 18 issue, and have yet to get a response, not even a confirmation that my inquiry was received. There is also no list of names for those who are on the translation committee. And even the name I was able to find, there is no way to contact them. (By contrast, I have in the past spoken directly to members of NIV committee and the CSB committee via email, and have received very fast responses from both. No such avenues of inquiry or suggestion seem to be open to the readers of the LSB.)


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> The most annoying thing is that none of these issues can be addressed because contact with the LSB committee, its members, or the website, has been made difficult is not impossible. I contacted them via the website contact form earlier this week concerning the Leviticus 18 issue, and have yet to get a response, not even a confirmation that my inquiry was received.


Taylor, one of the translators, Dr William Varner, will be answering questions related to the LSB in December I think. You can submit a question here.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor, one of the translators, Dr William Varner, will be answering questions related to the LSB in December I think. You can submit a question here.


That's helpful, thank you. However, the general inaccessibility (and, in many cases, unknowability) of the committee is problematic. It should not be the case, in this modern era, that someone has to schedule a sit-down interview with a Bible translator in order for the general readership to ask questions (and most of them will likely never even be seen by Dr. Varner). Frankly, it's souring my impression of this project a bit. Perhaps that is a bit dramatic of me, but virtually every major modern translation I know of has a list of all the translators, editors, and sometimes even reviewers, on their websites. To find out who is on the LSB committee, I have to watch one of their round table videos and try to find a place where there is a name on the screen when one of them is talking. I am not kidding, I can find the King James translators' names easier than I can find the LSB translators' names, and I think that is ridiculous.


----------



## Polanus1561

Join the facebook group.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> The work seems to have been somewhat hastily done.


This has concerned me too. Perhaps one reason for this is the theological consistency of the translators. They do not have to spend time debating the theological implications of translating the verse a particular way. They hold to the same statement of faith. Of course this has its downsides too.


----------



## iainduguid

Stephen L Smith said:


> This has concerned me too. Perhaps one reason for this is the theological consistency of the translators. *They do not have to spend time debating the theological implications of translating the verse a particular way. They hold to the same statement of faith*. Of course this has its downsides too.


Having been a translator and a reviser, I don't think this saves you much time. We spent no time discussing theological differences for the CSB: we were all focused simply on what the best rendering into English would be. A so-called "literal" translation might be a bit quicker to be sure, since you probably wouldn't spend as much time wordsmithing the English as we did. But the largest amount of time was simply spent looking at each verse carefully, first as individuals and then as a committee, even if we ended up leaving the verse unchanged. There's really no way to shorten that process while maintaining quality and consistency. We also had one member from the publisher, whose full time work was hunting down and eliminating internal inconsistencies wherever possible. From my perspective as an outsider with no visibility into the process is that the LSB has appeared remarkably quickly. Most likely that means having left a lot of the original NASB untouched (which may not necessarily be a bad thing), while mainly addressing MacArthur's pet peeves.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> But the largest amount of time was simply spent looking at each verse carefully, first as individuals and then as a committee, even if we ended up leaving the verse unchanged. There's really no way to shorten that process while maintaining quality and consistency. We also had one member from the publisher, whose full time work was hunting down and eliminating internal inconsistencies wherever possible.


Thank you Iain. That was insightful. 


iainduguid said:


> From my perspective as an outsider with no visibility into the process is that the LSB has appeared remarkably quickly. Most likely that means having left a lot of the original NASB untouched (which may not necessarily be a bad thing),





Taylor said:


> The whole thing has only been in the works for one year, which is outrageously short, even for a revision project. The ESV took three or four years, I think.


Iain, you mentioned a lot of the original NASB may have been left untouched (although I have noted a good number of changes), but as Taylor has pointed out, the ESV (a revision of the RSV) took three or four years to complete. 

I did wonder if MacArthur relieved the core translators from their normal pastoral and teaching duties so they could spend more time on the LSB revision project.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

John MacArthur on why you should use the Legacy Standard Bible.


iainduguid said:


> mainly addressing MacArthur's pet peeves.


I smiled when I saw this. MacArthur clearly states in this video that all his 'pet peeves' have been thoroughly addressed.  

I have made some enquiries regarding the LSB having center column references (i.e., a good reference Bible). I get the impression they are not interested. If so that is tragic.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer

> Stephen L Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> I smiled when I saw this. MacArthur clearly states in this video that all his 'pet peeves' have been thoroughly addressed.
Click to expand...

Surprised they didn't call it "The MacArthur Legacy Standard Bible"


----------



## Stephen L Smith

TheInquirer said:


> Surprised they didn't call it "The MacArthur Legacy Standard Bible"


Well actually it is more relevant for us Kiwi's - by changing American [NASB] to Legacy makes it more relevant internationally. 

By the way I see you live in WA. My brother pastors an Arminian church in Gardiner, WA.


----------



## Taylor

To be honest, I was incredibly enthusiastic about the LSB, but given the typos and errors I and others have already found, and given the fact that the website has a contact form they do not answer, I have entirely lost interest and virtually all enthusiasm. My opinion has sadly changed. I fear the LSB was hastily done, and it doesn’t seem to be what it purports to be, at least not consistently.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Stephen L Smith said:


> Well actually it is more relevant for us Kiwi's - by changing American [NASB] to Legacy makes it more relevant internationally.



Interesting - somehow it didn't occur to me how the geocentric naming would affect the rest of the world. Makes sense.



Stephen L Smith said:


> By the way I see you live in WA. My brother pastors an Arminian church in Gardiner, WA.



Had to look up where Gardiner was - other side of the state. Nice area to visit in the summer months.



> My opinion has sadly changed. I fear the LSB was hastily done, and it doesn’t seem to be what it purports to be, at least not consistently.



You wonder if they rushed it to get MacArthur's approval before he retires.

Frankly, I've had it with the hubris of MacArthur and his cronies and I'm tired of pulling my punches in talking about them. Some of the comments from the video:


"This is the best translation the English language has every seen" and then goes on to promote the Master's Seminary guys who worked on it as if they have a corner on the foremost linguists and translators in the world.
"As close as the English language has ever gotten to [the original autographs]."
Believes God's Spirit superintended the translation.
Says it's the cap off of his lifelong ministry (yep, MacArthur Legacy Edition)
"The perfect tool for Bible expositors and serious Bible students."
That video is MacArthur with his marketing hat to sell copies to his network - "As soon as you can, you *need* to order your copy of the Legacy Standard Bible." Disgusting.


----------



## reformed grit

Stephen L Smith said:


> By the way I see you live in WA. My brother pastors an Arminian church in Gardiner, WA.


Don't lose hope. You know, Calvin's wife had been an Anabaptist just a while earlier.


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist

They’ve made it quite clear that the speed of it was only made possible because of how much time they were able to dedicate to it because of covid.


----------



## reformed grit

Well, "the Covid Legacy Translation" is right out.


----------



## Taylor

Spurgeonite said:


> They’ve made it quite clear that the speed of it was only made possible because of how much time they were able to dedicate to it because of covid.


There is a difference between speed and haste.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> To be honest, I was incredibly enthusiastic about the LSB, but given the typos and errors I and others have already found, and given the fact that the website has a contact form they do not answer, I have entirely lost interest and virtually all enthusiasm. My opinion has sadly changed. I fear the LSB was hastily done, and it doesn’t seem to be what it purports to be, at least not consistently.


Yes I have lost some enthusiasm too. My sincere hope was that the LSB would be a modern NASB 77. I felt that the NASB 95, slightly less literal, had no real advantage over the ESV. In other words I would use my ESV with the more literal LSB, and perhaps the CSB too. I am inclined to think a potential downfall of the LSB is the short timeframe in which it has appeared, as you noted. That is, insufficient time cross checking for accuracy. 

I have decided to wait another year and see if the LSB comes out with center column references, and the typos etc are corrected. Otherwise I might purchase a NASB 77.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

TheInquirer said:


> Frankly, I've had it with the hubris of MacArthur and his cronies and I'm tired of pulling my punches in talking about them. Some of the comments from the video:
> 
> 
> "This is the best translation the English language has every seen" and then goes on to promote the Master's Seminary guys who worked on it as if they have a corner on the foremost linguists and translators in the world.
> "As close as the English language has ever gotten to [the original autographs]."
> Believes God's Spirit superintended the translation.
> Says it's the cap off of his lifelong ministry (yep, MacArthur Legacy Edition)
> "The perfect tool for Bible expositors and serious Bible students."
> That video is MacArthur with his marketing hat to sell copies to his network - "As soon as you can, you *need* to order your copy of the Legacy Standard Bible." Disgusting.


Yes I was troubled by this too. I find MacArthur an oddity. I appreciate his expository preaching and his Calvinistic view of the gospel. But his dispensationalism often undermines the good aspects of his ministry.


----------



## Pergamum

I trust MacArthur less because of this.

Again, my father told me never to trust a rich preacher and this applies despite them being "reformed". Too much of this appears to be highly commercialized. Thousands of languages need their FIRST translation of the bible and here we are making "pet peeve bibles" by celebrity pastors.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor

Pergamum said:


> Thousands of languages need their FIRST translation of the bible and here we are making "pet peeve bibles" by celebrity pastors.


To my shame, I used to scoff a little when people said this. The longer this English Bible translation enterprise continues, the more annoyed I become with it. We English speakers have enough.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid

Taylor said:


> To my shame, I used to scoff a little when people said this. The longer this English Bible translation enterprise continues, the more annoyed I become with it. We English speakers have enough.


I hear what you are saying but it's a bit of a straw man argument, like the parent who tries to get his daughter to eat her veggies by saying, "Think about all the starving children in Africa!" It is true that there are many hungry people around the world, and we should seek to alleviate their needs as we are able, but the child leaving or eating their food does not directly impact the fate of the hungry.

So too a new English translation, however good or bad, does not directly affect the fate of those who need first translations in their own language. The funding for a new translation will largely come from people choosing to spend their money on this translation rather than another (I doubt MacArthur is planning this as an entirely charitable venture; if that were the case, then a viable argument could be made that donors should send their money to international Bible Translation work instead of funding the new translation). Nor are the scholarly resources being devoted to this easily relocatable to the work of Wycliffe; the challenge as I understand it as rather to find people able to work with the target language and teams of national translators rather than needing more experts in the original languages.

None of this should downplay the need for more people and resources for the work of Bible Translation into languages that do not yet have God's Word in their own tongue. Perhaps seminaries should dedicate more resources to courses in Bible Translation, Linguistics etc and guide more students in that direction as a career choice (WTS has sent some graduates in that direction, but we could probably do more). If I'm mistaken, and my services would help advance the cause of translation into a new or underserved language please feel free to DM me and ask for help. But I don't think there is a direct correlation between more English translations and fewer translations in other languages. Perhaps, just as as the child's abundance should ideally awaken gratitude in her heart and a desire to grow up to alleviate the needs of a hungry world, so too our abundance of English Bible resources (not only Bibles but other excellent books) should move us to gratitude and a desire to do what we can to feed the spiritual hunger of the wider world.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## reformed grit

Wycliffe statistics

Reactions: Praying 1


----------



## Taylor

iainduguid said:


> I hear what you are saying but it's a bit of a straw man argument, like the parent who tries to get his daughter to eat her veggies by saying, "Think about all the starving children in Africa!" It is true that there are many hungry people around the world, and we should seek to alleviate their needs as we are able, but the child leaving or eating their food does not directly impact the fate of the hungry.
> 
> So too a new English translation, however good or bad, does not directly affect the fate of those who need first translations in their own language. The funding for a new translation will largely come from people choosing to spend their money on this translation rather than another (I doubt MacArthur is planning this as an entirely charitable venture; if that were the case, then a viable argument could be made that donors should send their money to international Bible Translation work instead of funding the new translation). Nor are the scholarly resources being devoted to this easily relocatable to the work of Wycliffe; the challenge as I understand it as rather to find people able to work with the target language and teams of national translators rather than needing more experts in the original languages.
> 
> None of this should downplay the need for more people and resources for the work of Bible Translation into languages that do not yet have God's Word in their own tongue. Perhaps seminaries should dedicate more resources to courses in Bible Translation, Linguistics etc and guide more students in that direction as a career choice (WTS has sent some graduates in that direction, but we could probably do more). If I'm mistaken, and my services would help advance the cause of translation into a new or underserved language please feel free to DM me and ask for help. But I don't think there is a direct correlation between more English translations and fewer translations in other languages. Perhaps, just as as the child's abundance should ideally awaken gratitude in her heart and a desire to grow up to alleviate the needs of a hungry world, so too our abundance of English Bible resources (not only Bibles but other excellent books) should move us to gratitude and a desire to do what we can to feed the spiritual hunger of the wider world.


The argument (at least from me) is not: “More English translations mean fewer in other languages.” Rather, it is simply: “We have enough English translations already.” There is a difference. We just don’t need anymore.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## reformed grit

Our generation has certainly been blessed, sometimes to the extent of confusion. As a 'tent-maker' I sold Bibles for over 30 years. When I was young there weren't that many popular choices - the KJV, the RSV, the Douay-Rheims. The Geneva and other early English Bibles had become popularly invisible. We've had an explosion of English translations (and other things) ever since. There's still mostly under 10 that are popularly saturated in English culture, but hundreds of others from which to slake one's thirst. Too many of those to whom I sold Bibles were genuinely confused by the choices, and too many remain so; but I confess to my own pet peeves and longings for an 'ideal' English Bible that addresses them. 

One thing about the Latin Vulgate's Church endorsement for so long, and that of the KJV following, was the air of trustworthy reliability in the masses, regardless of particular parts of those that could've, should've been better. Still, as mentioned earlier, with textual variants both now and going way back, I always tried to guide folk to an English translation I thought best for their particular situation, even if not my favourite. And, trying not to seem as one saying, "Yep, you need to buy them all", I'd recommend comparing popular English versions. This became sooo much easier when computers entered Bible helpfulness. Surely it won't be that long before we can program our own personal android to sort through all the original-language and English variants to give each of us exactly what we seek?


----------



## FivePointSpurgeonist

Taylor said:


> The argument (at least from me) is not: “More English translations mean fewer in other languages.” Rather, it is simply: “We have enough English translations already.” There is a difference. We just don’t need anymore.


I for one can thank God for His providence in this and the blessing it has been to me.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

"Dr. William Varner, a translator with the Legacy Standard Bible, answers questions about translation, the process of translating through the Bible, as well as a variety of textual notes in the Legacy Standard Bible."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Taylor said:


> To be honest, I was incredibly enthusiastic about the LSB, but given the typos and errors I and others have already found, and given the fact that the website has a contact form they do not answer, I have entirely lost interest and virtually all enthusiasm. My opinion has sadly changed. I fear the LSB was hastily done, and it doesn’t seem to be what it purports to be, at least not consistently.


Taylor you can discuss issues directly with the translators at the Facebook group "Legacy Standard Bible Fan Group". A few moments ago I was discussing the LSB translation of 2 Tim 3:16 with one of the translators. There is an unhealthy loyalty to the LSB in this group (In my humble opinion) so a few objective critiques would bring some balance, I think. 

I did wonder if the typos etc have been corrected in the more recent reprints? This LSB FB group have not made any mention of typos' (unless I missed some of their comments which is possible.)


----------



## Taylor

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor you can discuss issues directly with the translators at the Facebook group "Legacy Standard Bible Fan Group". A few moments ago I was discussing the LSB translation of 2 Tim 3:16 with one of the translators. There is an unhealthy loyalty to the LSB in this group (In my humble opinion) so a few objective critiques would bring some balance, I think.
> 
> I did wonder if the typos etc have been corrected in the more recent reprints? This LSB FB group have not made any mention of typos' (unless I missed some of their comments which is possible.)


Thanks for the info, brother. Unfortunately, I don’t have Facebook.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

bump


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Sorry for the strange post. Just fixing a bug in the thread


----------



## Taylor

@Stephen L Smith, thank you!

I just wanted to pop in and say that the full version of the LSB has finally been released on Accordance. I have it and have been looking through it. Since I was one who raised a complaint about the apparent lack of ability for people to submit corrections, I am happy to report that the issues that I saw (e.g., the inconsistent rendering of “defile” and “make unclean” in Lev. 18) have been fixed! It just seems the online version has yet to be updated.

So, perhaps the committee is in fact interacting with input from readers. This is good news.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

py3ak said:


> Professor Compton, from MARS, just got an LSB and promptly observed a curious inconsistency in terminological choices:





> Hmm. Just got my copy of the Legacy Standard Bible in the mail today and was using it to work through Leviticus 18 as part of a lecture for tomorrow. The LSB prides itself in consistency of English glosses of Hebrew and Greek words so as to help English readers see how particular words are being, but when I was looking at the Hebrew word טמא, I came across this for Leviticus 18:
> לטמאה to be defiled (v.20)
> לטמאה to be made unclean (v.23)
> תטמאו defile yourselves (v.24a)
> נטמאו become defiled (v.24b)
> ותטמא become unclean (v.25)
> ותטמא become defiled (v.27)
> בטמאכם should you make it unclean (v.28)
> תטמאו defile yourselves (v.30)
> Admittedly, “defile(d)” and “unclean” are quite close in meaning, but I can’t for the life of me figure out why they placed variation between the two terms here (note especially vv.20 & 23 where the verbs are written identically!). I still think this translation has some great potential as a study edition, but was disappointed to be dealing with this on day 1. And I haven't even mentioned the clause ordering where the direct object, though fronted as _causus [sic] pendens _in the Hebrew, occurs late in the clause earlier in the chapter.... well, of course now I did ... but ....



I wonder if Professor Compton has discussed these with the translators?


----------

