Legacy Standard Bible vs Christian Standard Bible

[Stephen L Smith]

I am reading Psalms in the LSB out loud with my wife before bed, and I admit I am finding it a bit jarring.

Did you mean the word Yahweh, the literal nature of the translation, or both?

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

I heard you have become an elder in the New Plymouth church. That was a blessing to hear, as well as the good numbers coming into membership recently. God is good.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

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.

Thank you for the insight. I admit it is an area I need to reflect on more.

Did you see the recent article in Reformation 21 on this?

What Is “the Name?”

How should we talk about our God?

www.reformation21.org

 

[iainduguid]

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

This is not actually true. If you read Vos's sermons in "Grace and Glory" it is clear he was using the ASV translation, not the KJV. For what it is worth.

As for this:

• 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

It is naively simplistic. The author intended to convey something to the reader. You can't just separate them, unless you refuse to translate the text at all (as the Koran does). Moreover, while it is true that sometimes more word for word translations will preserve nuances in the original languages - especially for readers that actually know the original languages - sometimes they will obscure nuances in the original languages that an optimal translation brings out. Or - especially for people who think they know more of the original languages than they do (if they really know the original languages why do they need a translation?) - sometimes people think they see nuances in the original languages that aren't really there. That's not an argument particularly for or against any specific translation but a word of warning for us all.

 

[pmachapman]

Did you mean the word Yahweh, the literal nature of the translation, or both?

I am very happy with the sentence structure and English style in general of the LSB - it is the use of Yahweh I have found difficult to adjust to.

I heard you have become an elder in the New Plymouth church. That was a blessing to hear, as well as the good numbers coming into membership recently. God is good.

Thank you @Stephen L Smith - yes it is a very exciting time here in New Plymouth, and I am thankful for an experienced session I can learn from. We also start our second formal worship service on Reformation Sunday, D.V. Do come up and visit us!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

This is not actually true. If you read Vos's sermons in "Grace and Glory" it is clear he was using the ASV translation, not the KJV. For what it is worth.

What edition of Grace and Glory are you referring to? I have the Banner of Truth 2020 Edition and the sermons I checked used the KJV. That said I have not checked them all.

As for this:

• 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

It is naively simplistic. The author intended to convey something to the reader. You can't just separate them, unless you refuse to translate the text at all (as the Koran does). Moreover, while it is true that sometimes more word for word translations will preserve nuances in the original languages - especially for readers that actually know the original languages - sometimes they will obscure nuances in the original languages that an optimal translation brings out. Or - especially for people who think they know more of the original languages than they do (if they really know the original languages why do they need a translation?) - sometimes people think they see nuances in the original languages that aren't really there. That's not an argument particularly for or against any specific translation but a word of warning for us all.

When I included this comment I knew it was provocative but felt a good discussion on this is helpful. In my church denomination most of the churches use a literal translation such as the ESV or NASB 95. Is this because in Reformed theology we start with God said, what God has revealed. In other words we start with God, not man. I raise this as a discussion point because I am thinking through the issue myself.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I am very happy with the sentence structure and English style in general of the LSB - it is the use of Yahweh I have found difficult to adjust to.

Great

Thank you @Stephen L Smith - yes it is a very exciting time here in New Plymouth, and I am thankful for an experienced session I can learn from. We also start our second formal worship service on Reformation Sunday, D.V. Do come up and visit us!

That is encouraging news. I do plan a visit sometime. I have a few logistical issues to work through, but a visit is on my agenda.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I balanced out my comments in Post # 23 and added the CSB uses an interdenominational committee of translators whereas the LSB uses translators from one theological perspective, thus is at greater risk of theological bias.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

@greenbaggins since we are providing charts I saw the below one. I must agree that ESV translators worded things awkwardly at times. Because of that Yoda is a great way to describe the ESV. (don't agree with all the comments int the chart).

 

[iainduguid]

What edition of Grace and Glory are you referring to? I have the Banner of Truth 2020 Edition and the sermons I checked used the KJV. That said I have not checked them all.

When I included this comment I knew it was provocative but felt a good discussion on this is helpful. In my church denomination most of the churches use a literal translation such as the ESV or NASB 95. Is this because in Reformed theology we start with God said, what God has revealed. In other words we start with God, not man. I raise this as a discussion point because I am thinking through the issue myself.

I'm using the 1922 edition, published by Reformed Press during Vos' own lifetime (which I have in Logos). I suspect Banner probably changed it to the better known translation (and you have to go to the fourth sermon "Rabboni" to see a difference anyway). It just struck me as I was reading the sermons that it wasn't quite the KJV, so I checked. Perhaps that is where Ed Clowney developed his attachment to the ASV, though I don't know that for sure.

Also your comment on more literal translations "starting with God and not man" is precisely the common mistake I have in mind. People assume that a more word for word translation is necessarily more accurate, which is simply false. It can help you see some things that you can't see in a less literal translation, but it can also obscure things that a less literal translation brings out better. These things are things that God intended us to understand as well, and the original audience would have immediately understood. For example, how do you translate the Hebrew word ashre' (Psalm 1:1)? More literal translations tend to go with "Blessed", which immediately confuses it with baruk (also translated "blessed" but a completely different word and concept); less literal translations often go with "happy", which has a number of drawbacks of its own but at least allows the English reader to see that there are two different ideas being expressed in the original. It just isn't the case that "literal" equates to "What God said" and "functional/optimal equivalence" equates to "a man-centered approach".

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I'm using the 1922 edition, published by Reformed Press during Vos' own lifetime (which I have in Logos).

You may be aware the Banner of Truth Ed has 10 more sermons than the original 1922 edition.

Also your comment on more literal translations "starting with God and not man" is precisely the common mistake I have in mind. People assume that a more word for word translation is necessarily more accurate, which is simply false. It can help you see some things that you can't see in a less literal translation, but it can also obscure things that a less literal translation brings out better. These things are things that God intended us to understand as well, and the original audience would have immediately understood. For example, how do you translate the Hebrew word ashre' (Psalm 1:1)? More literal translations tend to go with "Blessed", which immediately confuses it with baruk (also translated "blessed" but a completely different word and concept); less literal translations often go with "happy", which has a number of drawbacks of its own but at least allows the English reader to see that there are two different ideas being expressed in the original. It just isn't the case that "literal" equates to "What God said"

Point taken. I have read the comments on Optimum Equivalence in my HCSB and found them insightful.

"functional/optimal equivalence" equates to "a man-centered approach".

Just to clarify - I did not link Optimum Equivalence with a 'man-centered' approach. I would have a degree of concern about the Dynamic Equivalence approach.

 

[Edward]

"If the KJV was good enough for Jesus' disciples, it's good enough for me."

I always heard it as saying. "If it was good enough for John the Baptist, it's good enough for me."

 

[py3ak]

In my church denomination most of the churches use a literal translation such as the ESV or NASB 95. Is this because in Reformed theology we start with God said, what God has revealed. In other words we start with God, not man. I raise this as a discussion point because I am thinking through the issue myself.

I made this observation in 2013, so maybe enough time has passed that a repetition is not redundant:

...the idea is often expressed that a translation should make the original text sound contemporary, using every day speech; or that a translation should be designed to produce in today's reader the effect it would have had on the original reader. But I think that's quite wrong with regard to any translation, whether you're talking about the Atlamal or the Apocalypse. First of all, it's writing, not speech. It is a deliberately composed text, not a casual conversation, and will therefore probably have more extensive vocabulary, more formal diction, and more elaborate organization than your typical casual conversation. Again, the mindset of the original readers is in most cases irrecoverable - it's a question of imagination, rather than research, especially where the original readers didn't leave much in the way of literary remains. But leaving that aside, the fact that a text was written in colloquial language doesn't mean that when it's put into my language it ought to be colloquial. My colloquialisms are different from Snorri's, Hesiod's, and Jeremiah's. I'm not an Icelandic landowner, a Greek farmer, or a Hebrew shepherd; strangeness is a necessary part of approaching their texts. A translation that brings them into my world is not as helpful overall as a translation that, if it can't bring me into theirs, at least does something to show it to me.

For example, in Hansel and Gretel rendering "Wer A sagt, muss B sagen" as "In for a penny, in for a pound" gives you the gist of the thought and colloquially reproduces the impression of a common expression; but rendering it "He who says 'A' must also say 'B'" is not only more exact, it also gives me a better glimpse into a world that isn't my own.

 

[hLuke]

I always heard it as saying. "If it was good enough for John the Baptist, it's good enough for me."

"If it was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me."
Was I too late?

 

[iainduguid]

For example, in Hansel and Gretel rendering "Wer A sagt, muss B sagen" as "In for a penny, in for a pound" gives you the gist of the thought and colloquially reproduces the impression of a common expression; but rendering it "He who says 'A' must also say 'B'" is not only more exact, it also gives me a better glimpse into a world that isn't my own.

Perhaps, but this only works if you actually know that "Wer A sagt, muss B sagen" means the equivalent of "In for a penny, in for a pound" (I didn't). Otherwise, you might completely misinterpret or be puzzled by the idiom. Hence my point that "word for word" translations tend to benefit people with a greater understanding of the original language and context, while more dynamic equivalent translations tend to be more helpful for people with less understanding. Taken to its logical conclusion, you can't get more literal than the original language, so we shouldn't translate the Scriptures at all because of what is inevitably lost in even the most literal translation. That's fine for those fluent in Greek and Hebrew, but not so much for the rest. On the other hand, the opposite extreme is a Bible with a very limited vocabulary range - in Africa, we used a New Testament with an 850 word vocabulary which was much better (though far less accurate) for many of these new converts with very little English than the KJV.

Every translation is somewhere on that spectrum, trading literality for comprehension. That's why many people find it helpful to use more than one translation for different things. If you are doing an intense study of Romans, you really want a literal translation, or better still the Greek text. If you are reading through the Bible in a year, covering several chapters a day, you might want something a bit easier to read and understand. Pulpit bibles tend to be a compromise. For years, I used the NIV, wishing for a slightly more literal translation where you didn't have to say so often "Now what the Greek literally says..."; then I used the ESV, while wishing that it didn't take ordinary Hebrew and make it sound as if it were written in special "Bible Hebrew" (I take your point about literary compositions, but not all of the Bible is in high style). That's why I like the CSB (which I should considering my involvement in its production; I had some small input on where on the spectrum it ended up; just don't blame me for New Testament committee decisions...).

 

[py3ak]

I am nearly done reading through the CSB and have liked it quite well. When I read through the 2011 NIV I often rolled my eyes and gnashed my teeth.

The point I am getting at with citing Hansel and Gretel is that when a translation makes something contemporary, the advantages for comprehension come at the cost of obscuring something about the text: the strange character it inevitably has at this remove from its original setting. I understand that there is a continuum and that no translation will perfectly satisfy every criteria. But it is of immense value to have one or more translations that instead of asking, "What can a contemporary reader understand?" ask "How can the quality of the original be reflected in my language?" There are always tradeoffs; but the value of the reader entering a strange world by reading the text seems a consideration that is often left out of view.

To take an extreme example, if someone would undertake to rewrite The Worm Ouroboros (or Finnegan's Wake) to be readily intelligible to an average high school student of today, the character of the work itself would be entirely destroyed. It is deliberately archaizing, written with intense artificiality of diction: nobody in 1922 spoke like that. The experience of encountering the text would be entirely transformed if it were translated into casual contemporary speech. Naturally, in this case it's acceptable that the book should be a pleasure reserved for a small set of readers, whereas it's imperative that God's word be circulated widely. I'm not opposing that, but merely highlighting that part of understanding the Bible is being faced with the reality that it doesn't speak as we do.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

For years, I used the NIV, wishing for a slightly more literal translation where you didn't have to say so often "Now what the Greek literally says..."

Preachers who preach from the NASB (for example John MacArthur and Steve Lawson) argue the preacher is the one to explain difficult passages. Their argument is that the translator's job is to literally translate, the preacher's job is to explain the text. It seems to me those who love the NASB are concerned that a dynamic equivalent translation is more prone to a translator bias. Of course there will always be a spectrum. Even the NASB does not read as literal as an Interlinear. I have real theological differences with MacArthur but I do believe his faithful exposition of the text over many decades, rightly or wrongly using the NASB, has built up a spiritually mature church congregation.

Just to clarify something - I made a brief comment in an earlier post about the Translation Philosophy of the LSB. This link gives a much better description - scroll to 'key principles' https://lsbible.org/preface/

then I used the ESV, while wishing that it didn't take ordinary Hebrew and make it sound as if it were written in special "Bible Hebrew"

I love the fact that the ESV is in the Tyndale tradition. I guess that reflects my KJV and NKJV heritage. If the ESV used optimum equivalence approach to translation it would be an excellent translation. I have to say I do find the ESV more readable than the NKJV.

just don't blame me for New Testament committee decisions

I find it strange that the CSB translates 2 Tim 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired by God". Surely the footnote is better and more consistent with an optimum equivalence approach, namely, "All Scripture is breathed out by God" as found in the ESV. Just a general comment - I realise you were not part of the NT committee

 

[pmachapman]

Some of the discussions regarding Hansel and Gretel and "Wer A sagt, muss B sagen" remind me of Revelation 22:13 in the Lutherbibel: "Ich bin das A und das O,"

I had a German flatmate ask me after reading this: "What is the A and the O?" You can be too literal sometimes.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am nearly done reading through the CSB and have liked it quite well.

I am currently reading Hebrews in the CSB. I must admit that the constant use of "brothers and sisters" does get on my goat a bit.

 

[Taylor]

I am currently reading Hebrews in the CSB. I must admit that the constant use of "brothers and sisters" does get on my goat a bit.

I’m divided. I’m not necessarily against it in terms of accuracy. I think αδέλφοι can indeed mean “brothers and sisters.” However, it just makes for burdensome English. There are many more examples of this: “female slave” instead of “maidservant”; “males who have sex with males” instead of “homosexual”; etc. I have been reading through the original NIV and have been struck with how great a translation it is. One of the reasons is because they don’t burden the English in such a way as this.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I’m divided. I’m not necessarily against it in terms of accuracy. I think αδέλφοι can indeed mean “brothers and sisters.” However, it just makes for burdensome English. There are many more examples of this: “female slave” instead of “maidservant”; “males who have sex with males” instead of “homosexual”; etc. I have been reading through the original NIV and have been struck with how great a translation it is. One of the reasons is because they don’t burden the English in such a way as this.

Yes, that is exactly what I find wrong with it.

Evidently, you will soon be joining my NIV-only extremist sect.

 

[Taylor]

Yes, that is exactly what I find wrong with it.

Evidently, you will soon be joining my NIV-only extremist sect.

It’s not the extremist in you I’m worried about. It’s the Irish part.

 

[Claudiu]

I’m divided. I’m not necessarily against it in terms of accuracy. I think αδέλφοι can indeed mean “brothers and sisters.” However, it just makes for burdensome English. There are many more examples of this: “female slave” instead of “maidservant”; “males who have sex with males” instead of “homosexual”; etc. I have been reading through the original NIV and have been struck with how great a translation it is. One of the reasons is because they don’t burden the English in such a way as this.

This is the phrase I was looking for to describe what annoys me with the new move to update translations with gender inclusive language.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Yes, that is exactly what I find wrong with it.

Evidently, you will soon be joining my NIV-only extremist sect.

“If it ain’t 84, it ain’t from the Lord!”

 

[JM]

AV!

"Pick up a copy of the Authoritized King James Version of Holy Scripture in the pew in front of you and turn to..." Ian Paisley at the beginning of many, many sermons.

 

[ZackF]

AV!

"Pick up a copy of the Authoritized King James Version of Holy Scripture in the pew in front of you and turn to..." Ian Paisley at the beginning of many, many sermons.

Wouldn't he have just said "Authorised (Irish right?) Version in the pew in front of you..." without the King James part?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Wouldn't he have just said "Authorised (Irish right?) Version in the pew in front of you..." without the King James part?

Yes, I heard him say that very thing a few times.

 

[Morgan]

Preachers who preach from the NASB (for example John MacArthur and Steve Lawson) argue the preacher is the one to explain difficult passages. Their argument is that the translator's job is to literally translate, the preacher's job is to explain the text. It seems to me those who love the NASB are concerned that a dynamic equivalent translation is more prone to a translator bias. Of course there will always be a spectrum. Even the NASB does not read as literal as an Interlinear. I have real theological differences with MacArthur but I do believe his faithful exposition of the text over many decades, rightly or wrongly using the NASB, has built up a spiritually mature church congregation.

That almost seems wrong to me, like the way that is stated they do not want the common Christian to be able to figure it out on their own. I think people should not rely on the church leaders to explain things to them, they should be able to get into scripture and figure it out themselves. Unfortunately most people are lazy and do just that, wait for someone like MacArthur to explain it to them. Put up a Youtube video instead of studying the passage. I realize you mentioned "difficult passages" and it referred to others and not you. I just do not agree with their idea on that.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

That almost seems wrong to me, like the way that is stated they do not want the common Christian to be able to figure it out on their own. I think people should not rely on the church leaders to explain things to them, they should be able to get into scripture and figure it out themselves. Unfortunately most people are lazy and do just that, wait for someone like MacArthur to explain it to them. Put up a Youtube video instead of studying the passage. I realize you mentioned "difficult passages" and it referred to others and not you. I just do not agree with their idea on that.

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph 4:11-12

 

[Pilgrim]

“If it ain’t 84, it ain’t from the Lord!”

The Newly Inspired Version?

 

[Morgan]

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ Eph 4:11-12

I am not sure of your point, are you implying that only those mentioned in the scripture above can interpret difficult passages?