Legacy Standard Bible vs Christian Standard Bible

What translation would be your choice to supplement the ESV?

  • Legacy Standard Bible

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Christian Standard Bible

    Votes: 12 66.7%

  • Total voters
    18

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
I use the ESV as my main translation but I am debating what translation to complement it. I could go more the Literal direction and use the LSB. Or, I could go the Optimum Equivalent direction and use the CSB. Any thoughts?
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
Since you use the ESV as a primary have you ever given the NRSV consideration as an alternate? Both were born out of the RSV and might be fun to read/study side by side.

As to the LSB or CSB question, I'm not familiar with either one and am of no help to you in that area.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
It might be helpful to know why you use the ESV as your main. Plus, I'm just curious myself. ;)
 

Ethan

Puritan Board Freshman
I’ve been making the shift from ESV to CSB over the past year. Overall, I’ve found it to be a nice read.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
It might be helpful to know why you use the ESV as your main.
I used the NKJV in my youth and switched to the ESV about 2004. It was more readable than the NKJV and it was promoted as an accurate and fresh translation. Hence my decision to change. I have generally liked the ESV. I did consider switching to the CSB but I like the 'KJV style' language of the ESV.
 

Christopher Robin

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm not familiar with most of these! I must be way out of touch. I like the ESV for "just reading," and the NASB for "digging in."
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Certainly not! I don't regard the NRSV as evangelical.

Regularly consulting the NRSV (and RSV) was more understandable 30 years ago when there weren’t nearly as many versions translated by inerrantists. Since then we’ve got the ESV, (H)CSB, NET, EHV, LEB, and probably several others I’m forgetting.

If we won’t have a preacher or elders who aren’t inerrantists, why would we accept a Bible version translated by liberals, some of whom weren’t even Christians of any sort?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
The ESV is already a more formal equivalence translation. If you want a supplement, then supplement it with something that has a different translation philosophy, like the CSB. I still believe that the CSB has the very best translation philosophy of any translation out there. Whether its performance in bearing out that translation philosophy is as good as the philosophy itself is debated, though I think the result is outstanding.
 

RobertPGH1981

Puritan Board Sophomore
I purchased the CSB Ancient Study Bible which has quotes from church forefathers as study notes. I really like reading the CSB more than the ESV. Always felt the wording in the ESV to be awkward. Not sure if I will make the leap to CSB for personal study.

I feel like I am going back to NKJV as a preferred translation over against both the ESV and the CSB.
 

aaronsk

Puritan Board Freshman
This was my progression ESV -> CSB -> ESV -> KJV (became convinced of TR) -> NKJV/KJV

I initially liked the CSB but found with time and use it wasn’t as literal as I hoped and removed some phrases for whatever reason. I use it sparingly now. Careful of the CSB those folks have a strong marketing team and seem to have made a study Bible for everything. I purchased a few but none of them surpassed the ESV study Bibles notes. The super tailored ones seem to offer more milk than meat. Better off buying some commentaries I think. :2cents: I use the NKJV because it doesn’t intimidate people, has all the verses, issues are well known and has great textual footnotes for studying in a textual mixed environments.
 

Jonathco

Puritan Board Freshman
The NKJV is one of the most underrated translations, In my humble opinion.
My church uses the ESV and therefore, I do as well, since I often give the call to worship on Sundays or teach on Wednesday nights, but in any other case, I would likely use the NKJV and supplement with the CSB.

The NKJV is a solid, unchanging, literal translation, and the CSB provides a wonderful balance between being readable and yet seeking to remain optimally accurate to the original meaning.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
The ESV is already a more formal equivalence translation. If you want a supplement, then supplement it with something that has a different translation philosophy, like the CSB. I still believe that the CSB has the very best translation philosophy of any translation out there. Whether its performance in bearing out that translation philosophy is as good as the philosophy itself is debated, though I think the result is outstanding.
Lane, it was great to reflect on your comments. I know you have thought deeply about this so I'll share my thoughts on the LSB vs the CSB.

Why I like the LSB:
  • You said the ESV is basically a formal equivalence translation. I agree. I would say the ESV wavers between a formal equivalence translation and an optimum equivalence translation. However, the NASB tradition claims to be a consistent formal equivalence translation. It seems this is even more true for the LSB than the NASB 95. The LSB often goes back to the more literal NASB 77.
  • I grew up with the KJV, then the NKJV, therefore using a translation in that heritage has great appeal. Eg, Psalm 23 in the LSB is very similar to the KJV. In short I like a translation that "sounds like the Bible".
  • My church uses the NASB 95. I do not have that translation but getting the LSB would mean I have a NASB Bible.
  • The LSB website says "A translation is like a window – it allows you to see through to the other side. While many Bible renderings focus on the reader’s point of view, the Legacy Standard Bible began by asking a decidedly different question — what did the Author intend?" Does the LSB pick up important nuances in the original languages that are missed in less literal translations? https://lsbible.org/
  • The LSB is a critical text translation but I like how it includes some Byzantine text verses that others relegate to footnotes (it includes these verses in brackets).
  • I already own a HCSB. Therefore does it make sense to get a LSB rather than a CSB?
  • I like the fact that the LSB does not use verbal contractions (eg, don't, didn't etc.).

Why I like the CSB:
  • I find the word Yahweh in the LSB somewhat distracting (a personal opinion).
  • It certainly is a very readable translation. I can see the usefulness of an optimum equivalence to translation.
  • Unlike the LSB it uses an interdenominational panel of Bible translators. The LSB uses translators that adhere to the statement of faith of the Masters Seminary; thus there is a greater risk of theological bias in the LSB.
Obviously my points are more weighted towards a LSB but I genuinely would be interested in a response.

Another point Lane - you may like to review the LSB and the CSB for your blog. Most of the reviews for the LSB come from people with association to John MacArthur's ministry and the Masters Seminary. I have seen very few reviews of the LSB from Reformed pastors.
 
Last edited:

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
245396592_5002445989783173_9136637925273096948_n.jpg
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Lane, I hear the KJV "I was good enough for Spurgeon". This can be updated to "I was good enough for Vos". Question of Bible translations now solved :D
 

Jonathco

Puritan Board Freshman
Lane, I hear the KJV "I was good enough for Spurgeon". This can be updated to "I was good enough for Vos". Question of Bible translations now solved :D
"If the KJV was good enough for Jesus' disciples, it's good enough for me." - American-centric church goers. :stirpot: ;)
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
I find the word Yahweh in the LSB somewhat distracting (a personal opinion).
I am reading Psalms in the LSB out loud with my wife before bed, and I admit I am finding it a bit jarring.

I am much more comfortable addressing God as Father, Lord or God, in the same way I prefer to refer to my earthly father as Father or Dad, rather than his personal name.

Just as well the CSB changed from Yahweh in the HCSB (in some places), or you would only have one "like" point for the CSB, Stephen :)
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
"If the KJV was good enough for Jesus' disciples, it's good enough for me." - American-centric church goers. :stirpot: ;)
This is a silly mischaracterization. I am smart enough to know Paul didn’t use the KJV; it wasn’t around then. I choose the KJV because it was good enough for Augustine.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
I find the word Yahweh in the LSB somewhat distracting (a personal opinion).
I simply prefer sticking to the ancient convention of saying "Lord" in place of the Divine name, except where context requires otherwise. If we are to say the Divine Name, I am content to follow the very ancient practice of taking the consonants of the Tetragramaton, i.e. "JHVH" (יהוה) and add to it the vowels of the Hebrew word for Lord, i.e. "Adonia" (אֲדֹנָי) to form what in English translates to "JEHOVAH."

Anyone taking exception to such a policy must first certify that they refer to our Lord as "Yeshuah," and all biblical names in the way they would have been pronounced originally in the Hebrew, Babylonian, Aramaic, or Greek tongue. Which, it is certain, they do not.

My point is this: Exactness in this matter is unreasonable and contending for it is unprofitable.
 
Last edited:
Top