FivePointSpurgeonist
Puritan Board Freshman
Legacy Standard Bible
read.lsbible.org
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.If you buy this bible, whose coffers does it fill?
Every couple of years a "new" bible is churned out. This particular one is very expensive. It is enriching somebody.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.
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.Every couple of years a "new" bible is churned out. This particular one is very expensive. It is enriching somebody.
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 bibles have copyrights or companies have exclusive publishing rights to the bible...
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....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!
According to them, no one. The "legacy" is that of the faithful and careful translation of God's Word.The name of the bible is Legacy. Again, for whose legacy was this thing created?
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."If you buy this bible, whose coffers does it fill?
The name of the Bible is "Legacy" - whose legacy?
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.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."
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.Of course, if the "update" actually makes things worse, or no better, there is no point in it.
There are now four versions in print--1977, 1995, 2020 and LSB. At least they didn't go the NIV route.How many versions of the NASB do we have now?
This statement needs clarifying to get a full picture of what MLJ believed:What Dr. MLJ thinks :
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.)This statement needs clarifying to get a full picture of what MLJ believed:
MLJ clearly rejected KJV onlyism.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
I'd be interested to know what modern translation he gave to his grandchild.This statement needs clarifying to get a full picture of what MLJ believed:
MLJ clearly rejected KJV onlyism.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.