LSB or ESV for preaching?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shepherd's Grace

The Shepherd's Grace

Puritan Board Freshman
PB,

I’ve really been wrestling with which translation would be best to preach from and have in the pews. I’d like to note that I understand that this is personal opinion, but I really respect the members of this forum and I’m curious as to what your choice between the two would be, and your reasoning as to why.

A little background: I personally love literal translations, and I personally view the LSB as superior to the ESV in that regard. I use it for my study (former NASB 1995 guy). However, I understand the ESV is a bit easier to read, and I’m really concerned about pushing my personal favorite study Bible on churchgoers who may have a harder time understanding it. It may be a stumbling block for them wanting to read from it. At the end of the day, I want them to understand the Word of God so He can be glorified!

Thoughts?
 
Between the two I agree: the ESV would flow much more naturally for public reading. It's firmly in the Tyndale tradition.
 
Do whatever you read in your personal time, in my opinion! Then, there is no wasted time checking references and changing sermon material. I often have to preach in the NKJV but I use the ESV so that's a bummer, especially if a sermonic point hinges on a single word.
 
I would strongly encourage using the ESV over the LSB. "More literal" isn't a particularly helpful way to judge a translation. It's not a particularly apt term, for one thing (more accurate would be to speak of formal equivalence vs. dynamic equivalence), and for another, "more literal"/formally equivalent does not necessarily mean more accurate. You should choose the translation that makes it as easy as possible for the congregation to understand the meaning that the original text is supposed to communicate. That's the basic point of translation. Accuracy is, of course, the number one factor, but clarity is also very important, and translations that are too far on the "literal"/formal equivalence side of the spectrum nearly always sacrifice clarity, and sometimes also accuracy. Accuracy can be difficult to compare, though, because usually each translation is more accurate on certain passages, less accurate on others, and in most places more-or-less equally accurate.

Also worth noting that translations like the LSB and NASB contain some very awkward-sounding English, and that problem gets significantly amplified when reading them out loud.
 
I am neither a Greek scholar nor the son of a Greek scholar. But I was taught very early on that words between languages are seldom a 1:1 match. So translating a word such as δούλος exclusively as “slave” may not actually be the most accurate choice. A word-for-word translation with a bit more room for nuance is my preference.
Additionally, I think making a reasonable accommodation to your congregants is good. You’re thinking about the ESV, not the CSB or dare-I-say the Message. I was a NASB95 guy myself, but my wife read ESV and I felt that my children would have an easier time understanding ESV vs NAS95, so I switched to ESV. I’m glad I did.
 
dsanch1120 said:
You’re thinking about the ESV, not the CSB or dare-I-say the Message.
Click to expand...
Your statement seems to reflect a negative assessment of the CSB; was that your intent?

The CSB isn't quite as committed to formal equivalence as the ESV, but it's not that far down the spectrum. Certainly closer to the ESV than it is to something like the NLT. The Message, of course, is in a different category altogether.

I preach from the CSB. Used to preach from the ESV, and still use it for personal study.
 
mpinckard said:
Your statement seems to reflect a negative assessment of the CSB; was that your intent?

The CSB isn't quite as committed to formal equivalence as the ESV, but it's not that far down the spectrum. Certainly closer to the ESV than it is to something like the NLT. The Message, of course, is in a different category altogether.

I preach from the CSB. Used to preach from the ESV, and still use it for personal study.
Click to expand...
I also read and teach/preach from the CSB after having used the ESV for many years. I have been pleasantly surprised at how little I have traded in "literalness" to gain quite a bit in modern readability. It's a great, accurate translation of the Scriptures which is well-balanced.

If you are choosing between the LSB and ESV I'd encourage you to go with the ESV. Both will be fine, but the ESV is more readable and isn't as idiosyncratic as the LSB. I'd also add the ESV will have far more availability in a variety of editions for your people.
 
My opinion is that all English translations have issues in which they don't quite get across something in the text. It's unavoidable, and is the reason why it helps for pastors to know the original languages and be able to teach (to some extent) the nuances of a text.

In light of that, knowing every translation will have issues I disagree with, I go with the ESV because it is more readable and has more of the "majestic" style of the English language that I think is appropriate for public reading. It also goes in the stream of the KJV so it retains some of the old words or phrases, which I think is helpful culturally. For example, certain passages like Exodus 34 are well-known to many as "The Lord, the Lord..." The text is instantly recognizable for those who grew up hearing it. In contrast, the LSB with "Yahweh, Yahweh God. . .," though accurate, is just not as recognizable. Examples abound.
 
mpinckard said:
Your statement seems to reflect a negative assessment of the CSB; was that your intent?
Click to expand...
Oh not at all, I apologize for my phrasing, I didn’t mean for it to come off that way.
I read through the CSB Gen. to Rev. a few years ago and very much enjoyed it. Of the dynamic-equivalence texts, it’s by far my favorite.
My point was to say that he’s going from word-for-word translation to word-for-word, which is a much smaller difference than going to a dynamic-equivalence. Certainly did not mean to imply that the CSB and message are on the same level
 
dsanch1120 said:
Of the dynamic-equivalence texts, it’s by far my favorite.
My point was to say that he’s going from word-for-word translation to word-for-word, which is a much smaller difference than going to a dynamic-equivalence.
Click to expand...
Just to set the record straight for the benefit of whoever reads the thread, I would not count the CSB as a dynamic equivalence translation, at least as most people use that term. It is in the same cluster of translations as the ESV and NKJV in terms of how much it matches the syntax of the originals and how much it maintains concordance. I think it feels like a D.E. translation to people because it is so modern in its language (more modern than even the NIV at times), but in truth it is still quite an accurate translation in revealing the form of the text as well. True, it is slightly less formally equivalent than the LSB or ESV, but the gap there is much smaller than the gap between the CSB and NIV, for example.
 
Edward said:
Then you should deal with the difference in your sermon, and explain why you think one is the clearer / better translation of that passage.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but done too often this can become tedious for preacher and congregation. When I moved from the NIV to the ESV back in the day, it definitely reduced how often I had to say, "Now what the Greek really says here is..." The CSB is not actually any more dynamically equivalent than the ESV (and I say that as part of the CSB oversight committee); the biggest difference is the ESV's preference for traditional language ("Behold") and the CSB's preference for making the English as formal or informal as the original Greek or Hebrew. I'm equally happy to preach from either the ESV or CSB, and my new book on Acts will use the ESV since I'm publishing with Crossway. I can't say I'm a fan of the LSB, since it seems founded on some basic linguistic fallacies.
 
I was going to initially fall on the "use the LSB" side of the fence, as I am not particularly fond of the ESV; however, there are far more resources available in the latter that you could use to edify and instruct the saints. Further, any memorization work folks do from the ESV will likely have more staying power since there are far more congregations that use the ESV than the LSB. I spent years memorizing from the KJV and I haven't been in a church that uses that translation in forever.
 
As a pew-dweller, I'm not terribly concerned about a church's preferred text as long as it is reliability faithful. I'll sometimes pick up the pew Bible if I want to understand a difference I'm hearing, but otherwise will follow along in my NASB. Generally, my pastors have been doing their sermon prep from the original languages, and I'll note meanings that may not be apparent in my plain reading of the English text.
 
iainduguid said:
Fair enough, but done too often this can become tedious for preacher and congregation. When I moved from the NIV to the ESV back in the day, it definitely reduced how often I had to say, "Now what the Greek really says here is..." The CSB is not actually any more dynamically equivalent than the ESV (and I say that as part of the CSB oversight committee); the biggest difference is the ESV's preference for traditional language ("Behold") and the CSB's preference for making the English as formal or informal as the original Greek or Hebrew. I'm equally happy to preach from either the ESV or CSB, and my new book on Acts will use the ESV since I'm publishing with Crossway. I can't say I'm a fan of the LSB, since it seems founded on some basic linguistic fallacies.
Click to expand...
I’m curious to know more about these linguistic fallacies you talk of. Can you explain in further detail or point me to a source?

Thank you for the feedback.
[automerge]1741917574[/automerge]
Polanus1561 said:
are you a student or a pastor now?
Click to expand...
I have finished my studies for now and will get ordained on April 6th. I then am off to church plant in NH.
 
My own opinion is that the Bible I (ordinarily) preach from should be the same version that is in the pews, and the same version that is in the curriculum we use for our various SS classes and such. For me that's the ESV. But I have absolutely zero qualms about making reference to another version/translation when I believe it gets the word or "sense" right moreso than the ESV when it is germane.
 
dsanch1120 said:
Oh not at all, I apologize for my phrasing, I didn’t mean for it to come off that way.
I read through the CSB Gen. to Rev. a few years ago and very much enjoyed it. Of the dynamic-equivalence texts, it’s by far my favorite.
My point was to say that he’s going from word-for-word translation to word-for-word, which is a much smaller difference than going to a dynamic-equivalence. Certainly did not mean to imply that the CSB and message are on the same level
Click to expand...
No worries--it initially struck me as negative, but then I realized it may not have been intended that way, so that's why I asked!
 
I stick with the ESV when I lead in worship or teach because we have it in the pews at my church. I've had opportunities to teach sunday school and fill the pulpit at another church that uses the NKJV and use that when there.

If I were to be considering a new translation for a church, LSB would not be at the top of my list. There are far worse translations, but think the main changes of the LSB from the NASB 1995 are not very helpful (Yahweh instead of LORD -- I prefer the latter to align more with the practice of the Apostles in the NT; always using "slave" for doulos, which I think is not a good choice in every case). I also think the increased "literalness" just makes it stodgy without helping. I would probably go for the ESV if you prefer more traditional language or CSB if you're okay with less traditional language. I use CSB as my primary devotional reading translation and have been greatly blessed by it.
 
The Shepherd's Grace said:
I’m curious to know more about these linguistic fallacies you talk of. Can you explain in further detail or point me to a source?

Thank you for the feedback.
[automerge]1741917574[/automerge]

I have finished my studies for now and will get ordained on April 6th. I then am off to church plant in NH.
Click to expand...
In the main, it is the proclaimed goal of seeking to use one English word for each Greek or Hebrew word, on the grounds that this is more "accurate". Most dramatically, as noted by Jake in an earlier post, they translated every use of doulos [in the NT] by "slave", rather than "slave" or "servant" in other translations. This is a simple failure to understand how language works - the semantic range in the source language is rarely identical to that in the target language, and there are many cases where more than one English word is used to translate a single Hebrew or Greek word. It is also frankly deceptive, because in practice the LSB often uses multiple English words to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word. For example, in Ezekiel 37:1-14, where the word ruach occurs ten times, they translate it by wind, breath and Spirit.

There are places where "slave" is a very good translation of doulos. The NASB and CSB adopt that translation frequently, which allows a distinction with some other Greek words for "servant". But the semantic range of doulos is broader than what most people think of as a slave: it could be used of trusted employees who operate with a high degree of independence, where "servant" is arguably a more accurate rendering. And the consistency of the NT translation certainly doesn't carry over to the OT, where 'ebed is usually rendered "servant" in the LSB, except for a few idiosyncratic cases where it has been rendered "slave" (as in "my slaves the prophets") - even sometimes when the LXX does not have doulos (e.g. Jer. 4:4). So you have contrasting "servant" and "slave" for ebed within a few chapters. So much for consistency. As for the use of Yahweh instead of "the Lord", we have the example of Jesus and the disciples in favor of the latter (again, as Jake pointed out).

For some more issues from a KJV perspective, see here: https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/the-legacy-standard-bible/
 
iainduguid said:
The CSB is not actually any more dynamically equivalent than the ESV (and I say that as part of the CSB oversight committee)
Click to expand...
On the CSB website they include a diagram showing that th ESV is closer to the NASB both in accuracy and readability.

It seems to me that the LSB uses a literal if possible approach, the NKJV and the ESV use Complete Equivalence, and the CSB uses Optimum Equivalence.

Personally I have always seen the ESV as a 'middle point' between the CSB and the NASB. I stand to be corrected.

csbible.com

Translation Philosophy - CSB

OPTIMAL EQUIVALENCE The CSB follows a translation philosophy called “optimal equivalence.” The term conveys a commitment to both “formal equivalence” (which recognizes the importance of the form of the original language text—that is, the words used and the grammatical and rhetorical structures)...
csbible.com csbible.com
 
iainduguid said:
In the main, it is the proclaimed goal of seeking to use one English word for each Greek or Hebrew word, on the grounds that this is more "accurate". Most dramatically, as noted by Jake in an earlier post, they translated every use of doulos [in the NT] by "slave", rather than "slave" or "servant" in other translations. This is a simple failure to understand how language works - the semantic range in the source language is rarely identical to that in the target language, and there are many cases where more than one English word is used to translate a single Hebrew or Greek word. It is also frankly deceptive, because in practice the LSB often uses multiple English words to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word. For example, in Ezekiel 37:1-14, where the word ruach occurs ten times, they translate it by wind, breath and Spirit.

There are places where "slave" is a very good translation of doulos. The NASB and CSB adopt that translation frequently, which allows a distinction with some other Greek words for "servant". But the semantic range of doulos is broader than what most people think of as a slave: it could be used of trusted employees who operate with a high degree of independence, where "servant" is arguably a more accurate rendering. And the consistency of the NT translation certainly doesn't carry over to the OT, where 'ebed is usually rendered "servant" in the LSB, except for a few idiosyncratic cases where it has been rendered "slave" (as in "my slaves the prophets") - even sometimes when the LXX does not have doulos (e.g. Jer. 4:4). So you have contrasting "servant" and "slave" for ebed within a few chapters. So much for consistency. As for the use of Yahweh instead of "the Lord", we have the example of Jesus and the disciples in favor of the latter (again, as Jake pointed out).

For some more issues from a KJV perspective, see here: https://www.bibleleaguetrust.org/the-legacy-standard-bible/
Click to expand...
I appreciate the time you took in that detailed response!
 
I recently acquired a CSB and haven't thought much of it. My last 3 read-throughs have been in the KJV, and the read-through before that was NKJV. It seems like it's time to plan on something different, so my next read-through, Lord willing, will be the CSB - and that largely thanks to the positive comments about it on here.
 
I reject utterly the translation philosophy of the LSB. It is linguistic nonsense to translate the same Hebrew or Greek word by the same English word every time. This results in an incredibly wooden and inaccurate result. Read the preface to the KJV, and you will find that they understood this problem and had no hesitation whatsoever in using different English words, precisely because context determines meaning, not the lexical item itself. You'd be far better off using the KJV than the LSB (archaisms and false friends notwithstanding). The ESV is far superior to the LSB as well, and the CSB has the very best translation philosophy of all. The LSB is still the Word of God (cf. also the KJV preface again about the meanest translation of the Word of God still being the Word of God without qualification).

On another note, however, I have found it counterproductive to use any other translation than the one in use in the pew in a given church. It is confusing to people, and most congregants aren't used to the fine-tuned discussions of translation differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

StephenMartyr
  • Locked
ESV or HCSB?
2
Replies
33
Views
13K
StephenMartyr
StephenMartyr
Jash Comstock
  • Locked
NASB or ESV?
Replies
23
Views
43K
CalvinandHodges
CalvinandHodges
C
  • Locked
KJV & ESV (or another trans.)
Replies
22
Views
32K
NB3K
NB3K
RamistThomist
  • Locked
Which more literal: ESV or NASB?
2
Replies
36
Views
26K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Wannabee
  • Locked
Reformation Study Bible - ESV or NKJV
Replies
11
Views
18K
DMcFadden
DMcFadden
Back
Top