Legacy Standard Bible now available to read online

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I was interested when I first started reading the free pdf's but I'm sticking with my KJV/NKJV. Even the hardest street thug I preach and witness to recognize the KJV. I hope everyone enjoys the updated NASB it looks very promising.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Ten years ago I would have been jumping for joy. A NASB with God’s name and backed by MacArthur and Master’s.

Now I’m too happy with the NKJV as my formal equivalent preference (supplemented by others), and not being a Bible collector anymore so I may not even get a print copy. It’ll be a nice electronic resource though!
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
If you buy this bible, whose coffers does it fill?

The name of the Bible is "Legacy" - whose legacy?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
If you buy this bible, whose coffers does it fill?
I’m not sure I understand this question. Is it intended to be an argument against buying the LSB? If so, the argument can be made against buying any Bible, since buying any Bible fills someone’s pockets. Or, are you just upset that John MacArthur would possibly benefit from its sale? In that case, the question is just an expression of personal prejudice, and thus I’m unsure what it contributes to this thread.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I’m not sure I understand this question. Is it intended to be an argument against buying the LSB? If so, the argument can be made against buying any Bible, since buying any Bible fills someone’s pockets. Or, are you just upset that John MacArthur would possibly benefit from its sale? In that case, the question is just an expression of personal prejudice, and thus I’m unsure what it contributes to this thread.
Every couple of years a "new" bible is churned out. This particular one is very expensive. It is enriching somebody.

It is bad enough when bibles have copyrights or companies have exclusive publishing rights to the bible; it is bad enough when publishers launch a new version every few years. But what gets me is that bible translation is neglected worldwide at the same time. There is often little money for many tribes' FIRST translation, and the bible translators are often poorly funded on missions support. Meanwhile church is big business in America. But hey...let's decide to retranslate the name of God as Yahweh and tweak a few things on yet another NASB and get us some sales!

How many versions of the NASB do we have now?

How many English translations are enough? As many as the market allows, it seems.

Macarthur also has a weird fascination with always translating the word doulos as slave, but this is a dumb insistence on his part, the semantic range has always been broader.

The name of the bible is Legacy. Again, for whose legacy was this thing created?
 
Last edited:

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
Every couple of years a "new" bible is churned out. This particular one is very expensive. It is enriching somebody.
Again, this could be said about the sale of most every Bible is our land. I'm failing to see how this is a unique criticism of the LSB.

It is bad enough when bibles have copyrights or companies have exclusive publishing rights to the bible...
This is a separate issue which, in my opinion, is often misrepresented and overplayed, so I'll leave it alone.

...it is bad enough when publishers launch a new version every few years. But what gets me is that bible translation is neglected worldwide at the same time. There is often little money for many tribes' FIRST translation, and the bible translators are often poorly funded on missions support. Meanwhile church is big business in America. But hey...let's decide to retranslate the name of God as Yahweh and tweak a few things on yet another NASB and get us some sales!
I share many of these concerns. I, too, am annoyed at the unceasing and often seemingly sectarian-motivated proliferation of English Bible translations. This is especially sad when, as you said, so many languages in our world need God's Word in their own language. In my opinion, we have enough. If we still cannot read God's Word with the KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, NEB, NRSV, REB, ESV, LEB, CSB, etc., then we have a problem. I agree, enough is enough.

The name of the bible is Legacy. Again, for whose legacy was this thing created?
According to them, no one. The "legacy" is that of the faithful and careful translation of God's Word.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
If you buy this bible, whose coffers does it fill?

The name of the Bible is "Legacy" - whose legacy?
With all the free stuff the ministry is offering it may not fill coffers, at least not at first. I just hope no one touches the NKJV with "updates."
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Freshman
I think if they were really trying to promote someone's legacy they could have done a better job of it. It is a bit of an odd name though and does raise questions.

You do wish that some of these new translations would at least commit to donating a portion of their profits to addressing the lack of translations as you mention or subsidize foreign language versions to serve those in need.

I do think that the amount of translations causes confusion for the average Christian as well. I don't know many average lay people that know the difference between them. They just tend to pick one they "like" and go with it. Additionally, it makes people feel that their already good translation isn't good enough and they need this new latest and greatest which then causes you to question whether the latest and greatest will then be overshadowed by another that is more "betterer" at some point.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
With all the free stuff the ministry is offering it may not fill coffers, at least not at first. I just hope no one touches the NKJV with "updates."
I understand why people dislike updates. However, what if the alternative is retaining a mistranslation of God's Word? Every translation makes some mistakes, even ones that have been around for as long as the KJV. We might wish that some of the more obvious mistakes had been fixed along the way. Of course, if the "update" actually makes things worse, or no better, there is no point in it.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Of course, if the "update" actually makes things worse, or no better, there is no point in it.
Iain, I am sure I speak for others on the Puritan Board - I would be interested in your comments on LSB translation choices. I know that is a broad comment but any comment over time would be quite insightful given your own experience in Bible translation. Probably best in a new thread.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
How many versions of the NASB do we have now?
There are now four versions in print--1977, 1995, 2020 and LSB. At least they didn't go the NIV route.

The NASB was already a niche translation, with a lot of people having switched to the ESV 15-20 years ago. Doing what they've done now really cements that, and fragments what you might call the "NASB community," probably unnecessarily. Beyond the gender language issue, there are other changes in the 2020 that many longtime NASB readers won't be able to swallow, such as abandoning "only begotten."
 

Romans830

Puritan Board Freshman
What Dr. MLJ thinks :

"I suppose that the most popular of all the proposals at the present moment is to have a new translation of the Bible….
The argument is that people are not reading the Bible any longer because they do not understand its language— particularly the archaic terms—what does your modern man… know about justification, sanctification, and all these biblical terms? And so we are told the one thing that is necessary is to have a translation that Tom, Dick, and Harry will understand, and I began to feel about six months ago that we had almost reached the stage in which the Authorized Version was being dismissed—thrown into the limbo of things forgotten, no longer of any value. Need I apologize for saying a word in favor of the Authorized Version in this gathering? Well, whatever you may think, I am going to do it without any apology.
Let us, first of all, be clear about the basic proposition laid down by the Protestant Reformers: that we must have a Bible which is understandable by people. That is common sense; that is obvious. We all agree too that we must never be obscurantist. We must never approach the Bible in a mere antiquarian spirit. Nobody wants to be like that or to defend such attitudes. But there is a very grave danger incipient in much of the argument that is being presented today for these new translations. There is a danger, I say, of our surrendering something that is vital and essential.
Look at it like this. Take this argument that the modern man does not understand such terms as “justification,” “sanctification,” and so on. I want to ask a question: When did the ordinary man ever understand those terms?… Consider the colliers to whom John Wesley and George Whitefield used to preach in the eighteenth century.
Did they understand them? They had not even been to a day school, an elementary school. They could not read, they could not write. Yet these were the terms which they heard, and the Authorized Version was the version used. The common people have never understood these terms. However, I want to add something to this. We must be very careful in using such an argument against the Authorized Version, for the reason that the very nature and character of the truth which the Bible presents to us is such that it is extremely difficult to put into words at all. We are not describing an animal or a machine; we are concerned here with something which is spiritual, something which does not belong to this world at all, and which, as the apostle Paul in writing to the Corinthians reminds us, “the princes of this world” do not know. Human wisdom is of no value here; it is a spiritual truth; it is something that is altogether different. This is truth about God primarily, and because of that it is a mystery. There is a glory attached to it, there is a wonder, and something which is amazing. The Apostle Paul, who probably understood it better than most, looking at its contents, stands back and says, “Great is the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16).
Yet we are told, “It must be put in such simple terms and language that anybody taking it up and reading it is going to understand all about it.” My friends, this is nothing but sheer nonsense! What we must do is to educate the masses of the people up to the Bible, not bring the Bible down to their level. One of the greatest troubles in life today is that everything is being brought down to the same level; everything is cheapened. The common man is made the standard of authority; he decides everything, and everything has to be brought down to him. You are getting it on television and in your newspapers; everywhere standards are coming down and down. Are we to do that with the Word of God? I say, No! What has happened in the past has been this: an ignorant, an illiterate people in this country and in foreign countries, coming into salvation, have been educated up to the Book and have begun to understand it, to glory in it, and to praise God for it. I am here to say that we need to do the same at this present time. What we need is, therefore, not to replace the Authorized Version with what, I am tempted at times to call, the ITV edition of the Bible. We need rather to reach and train people up to the standard and the language, the dignity and the glory of the old Authorized Version….
Very well, my friends, let me say a word for the old book, the old Authorized Version. It was translated by fifty-four men, every one of them a great scholar, and published in 1611.
Here is another thing to commend it to you: this Authorized Version came out at a time when the church had not yet divided into Anglican and Nonconformist. I think there is an advantage even in that. They were all still as one, with very few exceptions, when the Authorized Version was produced. The Authorized (King James) Version was produced.
Another important point to remember is this. The Authorized Version was produced some time after that great climactic event which we call the Protestant Reformation. There had been time by then to see some of the terrible horrors of Rome and all she stood for. The early Reformers had too much on their plate, as it were; Luther may have left many gaps; but when this translation was produced, there had been time for men to be able to see Rome for what she really was. These translators were all men who were orthodox in the faith. They believed that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and they submitted to it as the final authority, as against the spurious claims of Rome, as against the appeals to the church fathers and everything else.
Here, I say, were fifty-four men, scholars and saintly, who were utterly submitted to the Book. You have never had that in any other version. Here, and here alone, you have a body of men who were absolutely committed to it, who gave themselves to it, and who did not want to correct or sit in judgment on it—whose only concern and desire was to translate and interpret it for the masses of the people.
In view of all this, my argument is that the answer does not lie in producing new translations; they are coming out almost every year, but are they truly aiding the situation? No, and for this reason: men no longer read the Bible not because they cannot understand its language, but because they do not believe in it. They do not believe in God; they do not want it. Their problem is not one of language and of terminology; it is the state of the heart. Therefore what do we do about it? It seems to me there is only one thing to do, the thing that has always been done in the past: we must preach it and our preaching must be wholly based upon its authority."

 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
What Dr. MLJ thinks :
This statement needs clarifying to get a full picture of what MLJ believed:
  1. Banner of Truth makes this clarification in MLJ's 'Knowing the Times'. They say that MLJ's thought needs to be placed in context and adds "He was not against modern translations in principle and indeed gave one of them to his grandchildren. What he was strongly against was the policy that was encouraging evangelicals to think that effective communication with the contemporary world was the main problem to be addressed. He saw that as a deceptively superficial diagnosis."
  2. MLJ loved the KJV but did not hesitate to critique it if it made poor translation choices. Eg, if you listen to his majestic Ephesians or Romans series he critiques the KJV many times.
  3. He did indeed think we should educate the masses up to the level of the Bible but I think he would have appreciated the goals of the LSB in this regard. The LSB retains important words, takes the role of translation very seriously, and aims to be a literal careful translation.
  4. MLJ family came out publicly in support of the ESV when it was translated. The MLJ Recording Trust uses the ESV when they list a passage MLJ preached on.
MLJ clearly rejected KJV onlyism.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
This statement needs clarifying to get a full picture of what MLJ believed:
  1. Banner of Truth makes this clarification in MLJ's 'Knowing the Times'. They say that MLJ's thought needs to be placed in context and adds "He was not against modern translations in principle and indeed gave one of them to his grandchildren. What he was strongly against was the policy that was encouraging evangelicals to think that effective communication with the contemporary world was the main problem to be addressed. He saw that as a deceptively superficial diagnosis."
  2. MLJ loved the KJV but did not hesitate to critique it if it made poor translation choices. Eg, if you listen to his majestic Ephesians or Romans series he critiques the KJV many times.
  3. He did indeed think we should educate the masses up to the level of the Bible but I think he would have appreciated the goals of the LSB in this regard. The LSB retains important words, takes the role of translation very seriously, and aims to be a literal careful translation.
  4. MLJ family came out publicly in support of the ESV when it was translated. The MLJ Recording Trust uses the ESV when they list a passage MLJ preached on.
MLJ clearly rejected KJV onlyism.
This is good to hear. I’ve heard some MLJ sermons where he seemed to have a strongly KJVO position. He’s still further than I am but this is encouraging. (I say this as someone currently reading through the KJV.)
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
This statement needs clarifying to get a full picture of what MLJ believed:
  1. Banner of Truth makes this clarification in MLJ's 'Knowing the Times'. They say that MLJ's thought needs to be placed in context and adds "He was not against modern translations in principle and indeed gave one of them to his grandchildren. What he was strongly against was the policy that was encouraging evangelicals to think that effective communication with the contemporary world was the main problem to be addressed. He saw that as a deceptively superficial diagnosis."
  2. MLJ loved the KJV but did not hesitate to critique it if it made poor translation choices. Eg, if you listen to his majestic Ephesians or Romans series he critiques the KJV many times.
  3. He did indeed think we should educate the masses up to the level of the Bible but I think he would have appreciated the goals of the LSB in this regard. The LSB retains important words, takes the role of translation very seriously, and aims to be a literal careful translation.
  4. MLJ family came out publicly in support of the ESV when it was translated. The MLJ Recording Trust uses the ESV when they list a passage MLJ preached on.
MLJ clearly rejected KJV onlyism.
I'd be interested to know what modern translation he gave to his grandchild.

I think it bears mentioning that until the 1970s, (the full NASB was released in 1971, the NIV in 1978) all of the major modern translations such as the RSV and the NEB were obviously translated by non-evangelicals who rejected inerrancy. So he likely would not have recommended them as a primary translation regardless. I have seen him refer to the RV and the RSV occasionally and say they had gotten something or the other correct, which no KJVO would ever do.

I do remember seeing something from him in the Banner of Truth where he recommended the Trinitarian Bible Society. But they aren't quite KJVO, and as noted above, evidently MLJ didn't agree with them on everything either.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
As someone who grew up in England in the 1960's and 1970's, my recollection is that the RSV was widely used by evangelicals (who were aware of its faults but wanted something a bit more accessible than the KJV). I had a KJV, which was my baptismal bible, but as a young teenager was gifted an RSV and (later) a Good News Bible, which was a much easier to read paraphrase widely used in more liberal circles. I first started serious Bible reading on those two versions, before the NIV came along. I would suspect that if Lloyd-Jones gifted a modern version to a young person before the NIV, it would have been one of those two versions, on the principle that (almost) any translation of the Bible you read is better than the best translation that you don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top