Legacy Standard Bible - some thoughts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
The Legacy Standard Bible now has an informative Website. Home - Legacy Standard Bible (lsbible.org) There is a lot of useful information there including Blog posts, Video library and the goals and translation approach of the impending LSB.

It looks like they are trying to combine the strengths of both the NASB 77 and 95. It will be a seriously literal translation, but they have also aimed at readability.

I have been reading through their sample of Mark's gospel and can say I enjoyed it. That said there are a few quirks. Most of the verses in the LSB in Mark ch 1, for example, start with 'And'. A literal rendering no doubt but not the best English.

I am seriously considering making this one of my main translations. It will depend if there is a strong dispensational bias or not (the translators come form the Masters Seminary and the Masters University).
 

Jonathco

Puritan Board Freshman
It will depend if there is a strong dispensational bias or not (the translators come form the Masters Seminary and the Masters University).

The LSB has intrigued me for sometime now. I share your concern for dispensational bias, given MacArthur's and Masters' bend toward it.

Interestingly enough, NASB fans will have an entire ecosystem of translations to choose from, given that the NASB 77, NASB 95, NASB 2020, and LSB will all be available in print form simultaneously.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Most of the verses in the LSB in Mark ch 1, for example, start with 'And'. A literal rendering no doubt but not the best English.
This seems to match the NASB77 - it seems to me that the '95 removed a lot of these, sacrificing literal renderings for easier English. I personally like the re-addition of the "and's", as after having read Mark in Greek I really appreciate Mark's use of the particle, especially when reading aloud. I'm starting to see why some have clung to their NASB77's over the last few decades! I was born into the generation of the '95, so was never really exposed to the '77.

I am seriously considering making this one of my main translations. It will depend if there is a strong dispensational bias or not (the translators come form the Masters Seminary and the Masters University).
Does your congregation use the NASB? We use NKJV, so I probably won't make it my main translation, but I think it could be a worthy replacement for the NASB95 when that becomes hard to obtain.

I will be interested to see how they translate 1 Cor 7:36. We had a pulpit swap two Sunday's ago, and the Rev Archbald made a very good case to me as to why the passage refers to a virgin daughter (like the NASB95) and not a fiancée (like the ESV). I don't like the NASB 2020's rendering of the passage - it tries to mimic the NKJV, but just reads cryptically. The italics in the 95 are helpful for interpretation!

Has anyone here looked through the information on the LSB website and/or looked at the translation sample pages?
The LSB seems to have generated quite a bit of interest online. The comparison video I posted to YouTube a month ago is still popular, and there is a Legacy Standard Bible group on Facebook where people are poring over Mark line by line and publishing their comparison. The results seem positive so far. One Youtuber (R. Grant Jones) has found several typos and notified the committee, but nothing earth shattering has been found (unlike when Lockman posted snippets of the 2020 online!)
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
Rev Archbald
When you mentioned Rev Archbald I got curious. Then I realised you were part of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand :cheers:
This seems to match the NASB77 - it seems to me that the '95 removed a lot of these, sacrificing literal renderings for easier English. I personally like the re-addition of the "and's", as after having read Mark in Greek
I think the LSB leaning back towards the NASB 77 is a good thing. After all the NASB is supposed to be a literal translation. If people want something less literal the ESV is a good option.
Does your congregation use the NASB? We use NKJV, so I probably won't make it my main translation, but I think it could be a worthy replacement for the NASB95 when that becomes hard to obtain.
Our congregation uses the ESV. I did not realise some RCNZ congregations use the NKJV. I did wonder if one day the LSB will become a Synodically approved translation.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
Interestingly enough, NASB fans will have an entire ecosystem of translations to choose from, given that the NASB 77, NASB 95, NASB 2020, and LSB will all be available in print form simultaneously.
This is my theory - the LSB will replace the NASB 77 and 95. People who love the '77 edition will love the careful translation. People who love the '95 edition will love it too. However if it is too literal for them, the ESV is a good choice. Therefore, long term, the feasible editions will be the LSB and the NASB 20. Time will tell I guess.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Sophomore
Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one. I do look forward to the LSB though if it's all they say it will be.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
I did wonder if one day the LSB will become a Synodically approved translation.
I have been wondering that too. I would say at this stage it is more likely than the NASB2020!

Abner Chou posted a short informal Q&A on the LSB to the Legacy Standard Bible YouTube channel, which I found encouraging regarding the committee's attitude to not only the translation, but our responses to it online. It is a good thing when translators understand the gravity of their task (not that I have met any over the years who were flippant or careless regarding God's Word or their duty to Christ and His Church).

I did not realise some RCNZ congregations use the NKJV.
Yeah, a lot switched from the NIV84 or NKJV to the ESV. We went the opposite direction after our pastor had settled in and we needed to buy more bibles. When we changed I noticed some polished off their old Reformation Study Bibles that had grown dusty while we were using the ESV. I enjoyed the change being a TR kind of guy, and I find it comforting that the NKJV hasn't changed since '83.

The KJV would have been my preferred choice, but I am still happy with a TR based translation - as one elder once reminded me: "The King James never ceased being approved by synod!" I like that quote.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
Abner Chou posted a short informal Q&A on the LSB to the Legacy Standard Bible YouTube channel, which I found encouraging regarding the committee's attitude to not only the translation, but our responses to it online. It is a good thing when translators understand the gravity of their task (not that I have met any over the years who were flippant or careless regarding God's Word or their duty to Christ and His Church).
Yes saw that. I sent them a message to ask how they deal with sectarian bias. I think the LSB will be a great translation but concerned there may be a dispensational bias?
I enjoyed the change being a TR kind of guy
Are you TR only or TR preferred? Actually I am thankful the LSB does preserve some Byzantine priority readings.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Are you TR only or TR preferred?
Probably TR preferred would be the best way to describe my view. I do use a critical Greek text when reading, but will place a lot more weight on TR or Byz variants when needing to decide on a reading. I like the smooth readings in the TR (a reason scholars see them as non-original), but am still convinced of the antiquity (I am reading through Chrysostom's homilies, which are usually TR), and also the confessional support (even then it gets complex for that time period - e.g. the Geneva Bible has some non-TR readings in the margins and 1 or 2 in the text). I do realise how TR vs CT debate can get, so I try to be gracious and sympathetic to both sides!

But back to the LSB - are the readings in the text or margins? I like the unobtrusive single brackets for the longer ending of Mark. Some other translations like the early RSV's feel like they are loathe to include it!

There is a change going on at the United Bible Societies editorial committee where they are including more TR readings in the margins of the upcoming UBS6 (mostly due to the TR's continued use in global translation), so it would be cool to see this trend reflected in modern translations.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
What are your thoughts regarding how the LSB translates the word slave in the NT. See here for their approach to this.

John MacArthur has written a book on this. No doubt the LSB reflects MacArthur's convictions on translating this particular word.

Thoughts?
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
What are your thoughts regarding how the LSB translates the word slave in the NT. See here for their approach to this.

John MacArthur has written a book on this. No doubt the LSB reflects MacArthur's convictions on translating this particular word.

Thoughts?
I would think it is best to let the context determine the best rendering of δοῦλος in any given passage. Limiting in this way seems to overlook the nuances in it usage.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
What are your thoughts regarding how the LSB translates the word slave in the NT. See here for their approach to this.
I am slowly being convinced that it is possible to be consistent in translating δουλος as slave. After reading your post above, I quickly ran through all occurrences of its forms in Accordance, and did not find any places where I could object to the word slave being used.

Also, having looked at how παιδα is used in the NT recently, I have adequate confidence that when Scripture means a paid servant, it uses παιδα (excluding cases when it obviously is a child), and when it means slave (probably including indentured servants) it uses δουλος. I still am unsure though, on whether Acts 4:27,30 refers to Christ as the child of God (KJV) or his servant (NKJV, ESV)...but that's a rabbit trail...

As a postscript, I do find the NASB 77+95's use of "bondslave" in Titus 2:9 bizarre (is it even a word?), so at least the LSB is cleaning that up. (I must note that the NASB 2020 does correct this occurrence to slave).
 
Last edited:

MWJ '90

Puritan Board Freshman
Just to mention the NAS 77 is still printed and can be bought. I just got one. I do look forward to the LSB though if it's all they say it will be.
Now this, I did not know. I ordered a used pew copy of the NASB '77 from eBay back in 2018. I didn't know it was still in print. Thanks for the information.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
The LSB website has been updated to include a History of the LSB, including the earliest days of the Lockman Foundation. https://lsbible.org/history/
I have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation. They rarely licenced or gave away their translations (although I am told this has changed), especially when you compare them to Crossway, a company I have found very pleasant to licence their translation from.

The fact that their other English translation was the Amplified Bible did not exactly convince me of their orthodoxy either.
 

retroGRAD3

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation. They rarely licenced or gave away their translations (although I am told this has changed), especially when you compare them to Crossway, a company I have found very pleasant to licence their translation from.

The fact that their other English translation was the Amplified Bible did not exactly convince me of their orthodoxy either.
Crossway might be a little too generous though as they have also authorized a Roman Catholic ESV.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
I have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation.
Note that the LSB will stand on its own feet. It is essentially a translation by Masters Seminary and Masters University scholars. I am more concerned about a dispensational bias than anything else.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Note that the LSB will stand on its own feet. It is essentially a translation by Masters Seminary and Masters University scholars. I am more concerned about a dispensational bias than anything else.
Frankly, at this point I will take Dispensational bias over Woke bias, egalitarian bias, SJW bias, Arminian bias, etc., none of which will infect the LSB. Of that I am confident. At least “older school” Dispensationalists, for all their error, believe and defend the inerrant Bible.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
Frankly, at this point I will take Dispensational bias over Woke bias, egalitarian bias, SJW bias, Arminian bias, etc., none of which will infect the LSB. Of that I am confident. At least “older school” Dispensationalists, for all their error, believe and defend the inerrant Bible.
Agreed. And one can add the Masters Seminary and University are on the 'milder' end of the Dispensational spectrum.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Agreed. And one can add the Masters Seminary and University are on the 'milder' end of the Dispensational spectrum.
Yes, I think this translation will not wear it's Dispensationalism as much as Darby's Translation did. I think Spurgeon had some choice words to say about that version.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
One of the translators explains Col 1:15-20 in the LSB. What do you think of his argument?
I found his paragraph divisions interesting - I am not aware of any other bibles that use these particular divisions. I think they way they have chosen to display and divide it makes the best use of the verse per line format.

The NET Bible shows the section as poetry (and its notes give a reasonably detailed explanation why), but the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, which tries to retain the paragraphing of earlier manuscripts, has verses 9-22 as one big paragraph.

It does make me wonder whether we are seeing too much into text when we start seeing structures like this and delineate them?
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
It does make me wonder whether we are seeing too much into text when we start seeing structures like this and delineate them?
I agree. The LSB is supposed to be a literal translation, but it seems to me that a structure like this is really an interpretative approach.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
The LSB now provides a free sample of the book of Philippians on their website . As noted above you can also receive a free sample of the book of Mark.
Thanks, @Stephen L Smith for the link, or I would have missed it!

I took the PDF, and fed it into a piece of software I have just finished writing that compares Bible translations in a format similar to the old Interlinear RV/AV Bible. I thought I might post my results comparing it to the NASB as a video, like I did for Mark 1:
 

Kinghezy

Puritan Board Sophomore
have always been a bit cagey of the Lockman Foundation. They rarely licenced or gave away their translations (although I am told this has changed), especially when you compare them to Crossway, a company I have found very pleasant to licence their translation from.

Crossway no longer allows ESV to be distributed to eSword (http://www.crosswire.org/pipermail/sword-devel/2019-June/047095.html). I only have it, because it is on my local phone. But if I ever have to reformat or replace [the phone], it [ESV] will be inaccessible. Lockman's NASB has recently been added (not sure when, but was able to download it fall 2020).

So... at least with this, Lockman seems to be getting more liberal with allowing it used and Crossway is getting less.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top