Legacy Standard Bible - some thoughts

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."

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:
"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

 
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.
 
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.
 
As a matter of interest, the quote I made by Abner Chou (and his fuller argument) has now been posted on the LSB website:
 
As a matter of interest, the quote I made by Abner Chou (and his fuller argument) has now been posted on the LSB website:
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."
 
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'.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yes, I didn’t read your post carefully enough. My apologies.
No worries :)
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
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.
 
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.?
 
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'?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ....
 
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. :think::scratch:
 
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.
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top