Legacy Standard Bible - some thoughts

Status
Not open for further replies.

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Lockman seems to be getting more liberal with allowing it used and Crossway is getting less.
My experience with Crossway confirms this. A few years ago I wrote the first Audio Bible app for Windows Phone and Windows 8/10. It was quite successful, and Crossway's API licensing at the time allowed me near unlimited use, so long as I did not keep local copies of the data or profit from their translation (I didn't make any money from it, but it did look good on my CV). Someone at Crossway even contacted me once to say my app was one of the biggest users of their API (my app today has 57,000+ users, I think it was about 16,000 then).

Fast-forward to my programming this last week, and their version 3 API has lots more access restrictions - there is no way that I can update my app to use their new API, as it only allows 5,000 queries a day, and my users would chew that up pretty quickly. On top of that, the authentication scheme would not work with the media player component Microsoft provided with Windows 8, and so I have just left it - the day Crossway pulls the plug on their version 1 API, I will just have to reduce the app to being KJV-only.

I compare this to their licensing the ESV to the Roman Catholic Church, and allowing them to alter the New Testament text to suit Roman Catholic theology yet still call it an ESV, and I get a bit perplexed at the changes that are taking place at Crossway. As a side note, I don't mind their licensing it to the ACNA to include the Apocrypha.

I wish Bible publishers would only use copyright to preserve the integrity of the text (like the Crown Copyright on the KJV or Thomas Nelson's old copyright message in the ASV), and not to hamper people creating different ways of getting God's Word out there.
 
Last edited:

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Why can't we all be KJVO? jk

I use the AV (for those not former Dominion countries that means KJV) and the NKJV. I want a translation with some staying ability that will not go through multiple 'upgrades' over my own lifetime.

But I'm a simple man....

Pin on the ultimate smileys orchestra/band
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
To the multiplying of translations there is no end.
I am quite happy (actually, joyful!) for the multiplication of translations in all languages, for every dialect and people. Maybe regarding the effort expended in just English language translations, I am not so impressed with.
 

Charles Johnson

Puritan Board Sophomore
I am quite happy (actually, joyful!) for the multiplication of translations in all languages, for every dialect and people. Maybe regarding the effort expended in just English language translations, I am not so impressed with.
I'm quite happy for the former, assuming they're done well. The latter is becoming increasingly vain. Not just bible translations, either. We heard recently of translation number five of the Institutes. I'm beginning to suspect that we're replacing language study with translating everything to English.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
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:
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.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
I thought the term vain glory in Philip 2:3 a little strange.
I missed that one! Yes, it is a bit unusual - reminds me of the Land of Vain-Glory in Pilgrim's Progress. I looked up my MacArthur Study Bible, and the note said "lit. empty glory", so this might have been something bubbling along in the GTY world that they have decided to rectify?
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
I compare this to their licensing the ESV to the Roman Catholic Church, and allowing them to alter the New Testament text to suit Roman Catholic theology yet still call it an ESV,

There was a forum post last week about the actual differences and I didn't see any evidence that the text had been altered to suit Roman Catholic theology. Do you have examples in mind?

Also, I'm curious if you've contacted Crossway about their API. It could be that they didn't think through the implications of limiting to 5000 queries a day.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Do you have examples in mind?
That post on the ESV-CE was me attempting to prove or disprove the bias once and for all - previously I was only aware of the Luke 1:28 change. I am still on the fence regarding the Catholic bias...I just can't shake a feeling that I can't trust the changes. Although the Luke 1:28 change is in the KJV & NKJV as you rightfully pointed out, those translations are not in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I distrust the motives of them being "restored". But, like I said in my reply to your post on Youtube, I was raised in a very Anti-Catholic household (my grandfather was a Black & Tan, and in the Orange Order for years), so I was bought up with (and still have it would seem) that bias. If this is a hatchet I need to bury, then of course I will listen to wisdom from my older brothers & sisters in Christ.
Also, I'm curious if you've contacted Crossway about their API.
No, I haven't. I probably won't unless I have to. Their v3 API now matches the standards of other APIs (I miss how freewheeling things used to be on the Internet!), so I think it is more a case of them conforming to the norm. Not a bad thing for them, despite being less helpful for me. That, and Windows Phone is dead, and there are a lot of Audio Bible apps on Android, etc, etc.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
That post on the ESV-CE was me attempting to prove or disprove the bias once and for all - previously I was only aware of the Luke 1:28 change. I am still on the fence regarding the Catholic bias...I just can't shake a feeling that I can't trust the changes. Although the Luke 1:28 change is in the KJV & NKJV as you rightfully pointed out, those translations are not in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I distrust the motives of them being "restored".

Understood, and apologies for not recognizing your user name. But I do want to urge extreme caution about accusing anyone or any company. It is very easy for someone to read your post about Crossway "altering the New Testament to suit Roman Catholic theology" and start to spread that as the truth, when in fact that is far from proven.
 

pmachapman

Puritan Board Freshman
Understood, and apologies for not recognizing your user name. But I do want to urge extreme caution about accusing anyone or any company. It is very easy for someone to read your post about Crossway "altering the New Testament to suit Roman Catholic theology" and start to spread that as the truth, when in fact that is far from proven.
Agreed and I apologise. I will be more careful in future. Too often have I gone off what people have said to me rather than researching first.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I think another difference is that always translate doulos to slave. Or, at least that is what they said in the beginning.
Right. Those are said to be the two main differences, along with more "consistency" in translating OT quotations in the NT, if I'm not mistaken. But I seem to recall MacArthur emphasizing that in one of the videos they've released.
 

VilnaGaon

Puritan Board Sophomore
On a practical note I hope to see a large print edition(12 point or larger) for those of us who need it.
Also I hope it will not be printed in Communist China like 90% of Bibles today seem to be
 

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
The LSB may appeal to some – and I may avail myself of some of its good readings, as I do with other modern versions – but essentially it is a critical text production.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
especially when reading aloud. I'm starting to see why some have clung to their NASB77's over the last few decades!

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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Just browsed through the app. It gets John 5 correct, unlike the ESV. It translates it "of himself" rather than "authority."
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
That one is pretty good, and it is the only choice in print for a text Bible in the 77. But note that it does not include all of the marginal notes. Some people may not care, but for some NASB readers, having all of the notes is a must have. Zondervan was a bit taken aback recently when they printed a NASB95 single column reference and received some negative feedback because it doesn't have all of the references and marginal notes that other NASB reference editions have typically had.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I just spent 3 hours going over Romans 11 with a IFB Dispensational. Nice guy. I'm happy to see the LSB staying true to the overall theological concept of "seed..."

That's all I got. Zonked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top