Legacy Standard Bible

[Jonaitis]

"The Legacy Standard Bible is a translation that—at its core—seeks to be a window into the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By translating individual words as consistently as possible within their various nuances, it allows the reader to discern the Author’s intent. In this way, the refinements in the LSB also preserve the legacy of the NASB."

The Origin of the LSB

Who uses this translation? What do you think of it? In your opinion, does it preserve the legacy of the New American Standard Bible (Updated)?

 

[Jonaitis]

And He said to him, “I am Yahweh who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it.”
And he said, “O Lord Yahweh, how may I know that I will possess it?”

- Genesis 15:7-8 Legacy Standard Bible

I noticed that they have completely taken out LORD and inserted "Yahweh" in every place. I'm sure many who prefer to use Yahweh may enjoy this translation.

 

[Brother-Mike]

The Origin of the LSB

Who uses this translation? What do you think of it? In your opinion, does it preserve the legacy of the New American Standard Bible (Updated)?

They also went with original gender (e.g. "brother" rather than "brother and sister") and "slave" instead of drifting into "servant", etc. I've just run through my brief list of "Biblical litmus tests" (e.g. Isa 7.14) and it seems at first glance to be a decent, conservative and strongly word-for-word translation.

For example, Job 3:2 in most translations has something like "He said..." (NIV) or "And Job said" (ESV, NASB) but here the LSB goes with a more literal "And Job answered and said". According to the NET translation notes:

The text has וַיַּעַן (vayya’an), literally, “and he answered.” The LXX simply has “saying” for the entire verse. The Syriac, Targum, and Greek A have what the MT has. “[Someone] answered and said” is phraseology characteristic of all the speeches in Job beginning with Satan in 1:9.​

​

Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition., (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).​

​

So presuming the same rigor (perhaps at some expense of modern readability - e.g. in the example above Job isn't answering anyone technically) is followed then I'd say this would be a good reference translation, pairing well with ESV/NIV/NET as a primary reading translation.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I've just run through my brief list of "Biblical litmus tests"

I've been accumulating these verses over time, often gathered from various translation reviews. If curious, here they are

Isa 7:14​

“young woman” (NET, NRSV) vs. “virgin”​

​

Gen 2:19​

“had formed” (NIV) vs. “formed”​

​

Mar 4:31​

“Smallest of all seeds” is patently wrong. Some translations modify to save Jesus from an obvious error.​

​

2Sa 21:19​

Did Elhanan kill Goliath (NRSV) or the brother of Goliath (NIV, NET)​

​

2Th 2:15​

“Teachings” (NIV) vs. “Tradition” (NRSV)​

​

Acts 13:48​

DB Hart claims “ordained” or “predestined” is wrong instead of “disposed”. He claims this is a hinge-point of Reformed dogma.​

​

1Pet 4:6​

NIV “now dead” is evangelical skew?​

​

Mathew 18:15​

Litmus test on how translations handle gender inclusivity. e.g. NRSV awkward.​

​

Job 3:2​

Grk “and he answered”​

 

[Jonaitis]

Isa 7:14​

“young woman” (NET, NRSV) vs. “virgin”​

I am still unsure about this translation. I am convinced that Matthew only quotes Isaiah 7:14 from the LXX, because in the Hebrew bethulah means virgin (and 'virginity' from 'betulim'). This is not to say that Matthew is wrong, and that Christ's virgin birth is false, but they should make a footnote that this is taken from the LXX instead of implying that almah means something other than young woman/maiden.

 

[Margaret3110]

I noticed that they have completely taken out LORD and inserted "Yahweh" in every place.

That's a huge no for me.

 

[Jonaitis]

That's a huge no for me.

I knew some people would feel uncomfortable about this change.

Edit: I can see their intention, though.

 

[Brother-Mike]

I am still unsure about this translation. I am convinced that Matthew only quotes Isaiah 7:14 from the LXX, because in the Hebrew bethulah means virgin (and 'virginity' from 'betulim'). This is not to say that Matthew is wrong, and that Christ's virgin birth is false, but they should make a footnote that this is taken from the LXX instead of implying that almah means something other than young woman/maiden.

Compliments of Daniel Wallace et al:

Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parthenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.


Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition., (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).

---

Have I mentioned my love for the NET Bible yet? At least for peering into the brains of a translation committee?