Legacy Standard Bible - some thoughts

JTB.SDG

Puritan Board Junior
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

Puritan Board Junior
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 :)
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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!
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.
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.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.) ;)
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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.
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.
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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

Puritanboard Commissioner
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Moderator
Staff member
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 :)
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
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!)
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.
 

PointyHaired Calvinist

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 
Top