You can read the LSB New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs online here: read.lsbible.org/ . Just type the name of a book in the window. As you can tell from my voice, allergy season is upon us again. I apologize for the throat-clearing sounds and curiously pitched vocalizations you'll hear in this video.
@The Pilgrim - thanks! I don't feel especially unwell (apart from the usual allergy-induced fatigue), but I can't speak for an extended period of time. I had to break this one into short segments to keep the words from getting crowded out by all the coughs and throat clearings.
I trust you are not too incovenienced at present. May I ask whether you have encountered the 'Refreshed American Standard Version', currently nearing completion? Please see RASV.org .
This is only my personal opinion but it is a Frenchman who testifies to you: Of all the English versions I've been able to test, the 1995 NASB is truly the most beautiful, literal and melodious translation. I have several copies of the NASB at home, including Schuyler. It's amazing to have such a sumptuous translation.
Dr. Jones, thanks again for an excellent review of the LSB New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs. I ordered the same NT in your review and it is scheduled for delivery today. I look forward to getting the LSB Bible reference edition in the near future. God bless you brother! Thank you for these outstanding reviews!!
I have to simply say thank you Grant! I have gained quite a lot of insight by watching your videos. You have obviously dedicated a serious amount of time of your life to the word of God, and then to share what you've been given with everyone this way is a great service. I truly consider your opinion highly valued and much appreciated. May God bless you richly always.
For the issue of John 5:37 and Galatians 4:15, I think it’s fair to state that the choice to switch was based on English grammar. To give an account of yourself before a judging audience, we would typically say you are giving a testimony. For another outside yourself to state an account on your behalf, they are acting as a witness to yourself. I think it’s a fair change and it’s fascinating to see how the LSB simultaneously took the NASB95 and provided a more “word-for-word” text while also expanding the readability and literary flow of the translation itself. I’m getting an LSBNT for sure.
One cool thing to note is that the lsb translates proverbs 26:4-5 correctly. Compare it to the nasb, it doesn’t add the word “deserves” in order to make a seemingly contradictory passage easier.
I would have thought it would have matched the NA28 a bit more than it did, but as always, every translator is a text critic! Thank you for taking the time to do your analysis - I appreciate your method, and the dataset you have compiled of the various translations!
Thanks, Peter! I wonder sometimes whether my set of 153 variants is too narrow. Perhaps it includes too many _unpopular_ NA28 readings? At any rate, the NABRE and the CSB seem to follow it closely, while most translations demonstrate their independence and, as you say, do their own textual criticism.
@@RGrantJones Maybe, but I cannot think of a better way than you have done it, and I think the fact that we are not seeing a high level of conformity on the scatter plot leads me to believe your variants were a good selection to begin with for their purpose in comparing translations. Your comment raises an interesting question though: I wonder if it would be interesting to do a video on unpopular NA28 readings? Perhaps there are theological, historical, liturgical, or even more consistent textual reasons behind these popular deviations from the committee's decision?
@@pmachapman - I like that idea. I could look through my data and find the top several most refused Nestle-Aland textual choices. It might be possible to credibly speculate as to why those choices were shunned.
@@pmachapman - Here are the highlights: In those 153 variant locations, 2 Pt 3.10 is unpopular, as is to be expected, with only the Hart translation following NA28. In Lk 23.34, 31 of the 35 translations disagree with NA28's omission of 'Father, forgive them ...'. In 2 Cor 5.3 'being clothed' is preferred over 'being stripped' by a wide margin (30 out of 35). (There are a number of other unpopular NA28 selections, but those are the ones I found most interesting.)
You have me becoming a fan. I use the NASB most of the time so this wouldn’t be a hard switch. I just got a copy of the new genuine leather Valley of Vision I’d love to see your thoughts on it. I think its a beautiful book, stiff but the best “bible” paper I’ve ever seen and mine is bound beautifully.
Thanks for the review, I imagined the Tyndale house would have had a bit more influence aw well, glad to see it’s gone more literal. I wonder if they’ll go with Septuagint readings in the OT to match up with when the NT quotes the LXX
You have some of the most informative reviews--definitely the most technical. What would you say your favorite thing is about the LSB translation, and what would be your least favorite thing?
Thanks, Gary! Off the top of my head, in terms of favorite thing: the fact that many literal, marginal readings were moved into the main text. My least favorite thing: the attempt to mark the Greek imperfect tense in English by translating it with an English past progressive or an inceptive expression. I understand why the NASB translations do that, but I dislike it nonetheless. I discuss that topic starting at about the 29 minute point in this video: ua-cam.com/video/047pMXd1Gjw/v-deo.html .
Hi Grant, thank you for the video. Does the intro explain why there are no text or translation notes? For me theses are most helpful in other translations. Blessings John
John - TheBurlyBurrito is right: as far as I know, there's no explanation in the introductory material. But I'm confident we'll see references in the complete editions. TheBurlyBurrito says there are references in the app, and Peter Chapman showed references in Accordance in a recent video. I hope we also have a full set of text and translation notes at some point.
Thanks! Yes, that is an awkward edit. I cut it there to avoid some allergy-induced noises. But you didn't miss much. All I had to say was that the LSB's text is lengthier than the '95's.
@@RGrantJones Ah right, okay. Sounds good. Would you still prefer the 1977 NASB over the LSB? Overall, I've really enjoyed the LSB. I'm a fan of the ASV, ESV, and various NASBs. The rendering of "monogenes theos" in John 1:18 as 'Only Begotten God' is still a bit weird to me, but that's the only thing I've seen so far. I like a lot of the literal marginal readings brought into the text. The gender inclusivity in the 2020 actually didn't bother me, but they only went halfway so it was awkward. But I like the LSB overall a tiny bit more than the other translations since it keeps the literal renditions in the text and "feels" more like the King James.
@@daric_ - I did notice a few instances where the LSB reached back beyond the NASB to the ASV or the KJV, so I agree that it 'feels' more like the KJV. I'm not sure I prefer it to the '77 yet, however. I'll have to wait to see the full edition.
Thank you for your careful review, brother! I’m curious as to what you see as the likelihood of the translators being made aware of some of the minor alterations you suggest to be made?
Thanks for commenting, Caleb Paul! I informed them of several via the LSB web site back when the .pdf of Mark was posted, so I think the chances are good.
Thanks for commenting! Regarding the NA28 score, the conclusion I draw is that in general translation committees like to do their own textual criticism. Of the translations I've examined, only the CSB and the NABRE seem to default to NA28 readings.
Mr. Jones, What about Genesis 1:1? In the beginning God (or Elohim) created the heaven and the earth. Which do you think it should be? God or Elohim? God bless
Thanks, WordAflame! The NKJV scores fewer liberties than the LSB primarily because it more consistently marks translator-supplied explanatory wording with an italic font. The LSB often leaves verbs of being and pronouns that are implied but not represented in the source language in normal font. Sometimes, like the '95 NASB, it leaves proper nouns that are supplied by the translator in normal font, like 'the dragon' in Rev 13.1 and 'Jesus' in Mk 2.4. The NKJV also more consistently translates the 'answered and said' pleonasms (see John 7.21). The LSB is more consistent in translating the Greek imperfect tense in a distinctive way, so it makes up some ground there. At a fundamental level, the scores on the translation continuum are due to the way I've decided to score liberties and weight them equally. I'm confident that if one were to define liberties differently and/or weight them differently, the scoring would change.
@@RGrantJones I have a different method. I use LOGOS software to quickly identify differences between the NASB77, NASB95, LEB, and the NKJV in selected passages then I check with the various lexicons within LOGOS and in most cases, the LSB is more accurate in my opinion. However, I am a majority text advocate, and therefore this version could never be my primary translation.
Is it fair to compare the NKJV with others like the LSB or NASB since they come from different manuscripts? What’s your thoughts? I kind of feel like it’s apples to oranges… I always appreciate your vids. They are always so very well informative and very well articulated.
I don't like that they didn't go with the lxx and dss in psalm 145:13. Also the john 7:8 change isn't in the greek right? that's a bad change imo Overall, seems to be the best of the nasb family so far
I agree with you regarding Ps 145.13. In John 7.8, the LSB is translating a textual variant. P66, P75, and Vaticanus all include 'not yet', and that's the reading in the Majority as well.
I was thinking that Quran also affirms roughly the three part division of OT/Hebrew Bible. It talks about Torat (Torah), Pamphlets of Prophets (Prophets), Zabur (Psalm/Ketuvim) for the pre Jesus Jews. So, Jews are correct in kicking out Apocrypha from their scripture. Three part division is correct apparently. I think Jews will never kick out some books from their scripture just because they were competing with early Christians for influence. Btw, why do Orthodox and Catholics have different Deutro books? Do they get their books from different versions of Greek Bible? I read somewhere that there are different Septuagint.
I think the CSB being in between literal and readable is an OPTIMAL. translation. Middle of road is usually between 2 ditches. If the MASB is by MacArthur then HE is NOT inspired as far as I know.
Thanks for the question, Rodger! I don't have a single favorite Bible translation. I often use the KJV for morning and evening prayer. I frequently read the RSV. For private study, I usually choose from among the more literal translations -- primarily the ASV and the RV these days. I also often use the New English Translation of the Septuagint when I'm reading the Old Testament.
@@RGrantJones thanks for replying, I keep bouncing between translations which I think is a problem. I have been enjoying the NIV recently but worry it may have a liberal bias, do you rate the NIV? I will have to give the RSV a look
@@rodgermilner7800 - The RSV is a looser version of the ESV, but in better English (in my opinion). It also has the reputation for being somewhat liberal, but I think that may be largely due to its translation of Isaiah 7.14 (young woman rather than virgin). I've used the 1984 NIV, and I consider it a good, interpretive translation, though it's somewhat bland. I've tried to use the 2011 NIV, but I have trouble with the modern gender inclusive language -- it just rubs me the wrong way.
@@RGrantJones good to know, I will certainly read the NT in the RSV. The gender pronouns are also my main concern with the NIV. Would you consider yourself a Catholic out of curiousity?
@@RGrantJones I think the RSV is among the most beautiful translations after the King James. You're the second person who has mentioned the RV. So now that catches my interest.
Thanks for mentioning that, hetrogamr84. I normally reduce the volume on the music to about 25%. But it's been so long since I've produced a video with the musical intro, I forgot to do that.
This is so sad. I don't see why no one can just translate the text consistently and accurately. I mean, English bibles still use "James" vs Jacob. It would be better not to add anything and just explain things. Else they are doing the very thing they are seeking to remove. Old manuscript additions are now just new manuscript additions
You can read the LSB New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs online here: read.lsbible.org/ . Just type the name of a book in the window.
As you can tell from my voice, allergy season is upon us again. I apologize for the throat-clearing sounds and curiously pitched vocalizations you'll hear in this video.
@The Pilgrim - thanks! I don't feel especially unwell (apart from the usual allergy-induced fatigue), but I can't speak for an extended period of time. I had to break this one into short segments to keep the words from getting crowded out by all the coughs and throat clearings.
Not to worry.. Better to suffer from allergies than COVID!
Quercetin with bromelin is a natural remedy for allergies which reduces the histamine levels which cause allergies, and boosts immune system.
I trust you are not too incovenienced at present. May I ask whether you have encountered the 'Refreshed American Standard Version', currently nearing completion? Please see RASV.org .
This is only my personal opinion but it is a Frenchman who testifies to you:
Of all the English versions I've been able to test, the 1995 NASB is truly the most beautiful, literal and melodious translation. I have several copies of the NASB at home, including Schuyler. It's amazing to have such a sumptuous translation.
Dr. Jones, thanks again for an excellent review of the LSB New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs. I ordered the same NT in your review and it is scheduled for delivery today. I look forward to getting the LSB Bible reference edition in the near future. God bless you brother! Thank you for these outstanding reviews!!
Thank you for your kind words, Phillip!
I have to simply say thank you Grant! I have gained quite a lot of insight by watching your videos. You have obviously dedicated a serious amount of time of your life to the word of God, and then to share what you've been given with everyone this way is a great service. I truly consider your opinion highly valued and much appreciated. May God bless you richly always.
Thank you for those very kind words, Joshua!
Amen! 🙏 🙇
Very much appreciated indeed!
For the issue of John 5:37 and Galatians 4:15, I think it’s fair to state that the choice to switch was based on English grammar. To give an account of yourself before a judging audience, we would typically say you are giving a testimony. For another outside yourself to state an account on your behalf, they are acting as a witness to yourself. I think it’s a fair change and it’s fascinating to see how the LSB simultaneously took the NASB95 and provided a more “word-for-word” text while also expanding the readability and literary flow of the translation itself. I’m getting an LSBNT for sure.
You have such an excellent calming voice and also excellent videos! Thanks for this review
Thanks very much, Conspiracy Cuber!
I’ve been enjoying reading my copy. I love the paper!
Me too! Thanks for commenting!
I would like if more publishers made large print New Testaments with Psalms & Proverbs.
Excellent thorough review! You left no stone unturned, which I appreciate.
Thanks, Roger!
One cool thing to note is that the lsb translates proverbs 26:4-5 correctly. Compare it to the nasb, it doesn’t add the word “deserves” in order to make a seemingly contradictory passage easier.
Thanks for the detailed review. Merry Christmas Grant.
Merry Christmas to you and your family, Pastor Brett!
I would have thought it would have matched the NA28 a bit more than it did, but as always, every translator is a text critic! Thank you for taking the time to do your analysis - I appreciate your method, and the dataset you have compiled of the various translations!
Thanks, Peter! I wonder sometimes whether my set of 153 variants is too narrow. Perhaps it includes too many _unpopular_ NA28 readings? At any rate, the NABRE and the CSB seem to follow it closely, while most translations demonstrate their independence and, as you say, do their own textual criticism.
@@RGrantJones Maybe, but I cannot think of a better way than you have done it, and I think the fact that we are not seeing a high level of conformity on the scatter plot leads me to believe your variants were a good selection to begin with for their purpose in comparing translations.
Your comment raises an interesting question though: I wonder if it would be interesting to do a video on unpopular NA28 readings? Perhaps there are theological, historical, liturgical, or even more consistent textual reasons behind these popular deviations from the committee's decision?
@@pmachapman - I like that idea. I could look through my data and find the top several most refused Nestle-Aland textual choices. It might be possible to credibly speculate as to why those choices were shunned.
@@RGrantJones That sounds awesome - let me know if you need any research assistance!
@@pmachapman - Here are the highlights: In those 153 variant locations, 2 Pt 3.10 is unpopular, as is to be expected, with only the Hart translation following NA28. In Lk 23.34, 31 of the 35 translations disagree with NA28's omission of 'Father, forgive them ...'. In 2 Cor 5.3 'being clothed' is preferred over 'being stripped' by a wide margin (30 out of 35). (There are a number of other unpopular NA28 selections, but those are the ones I found most interesting.)
You have me becoming a fan. I use the NASB most of the time so this wouldn’t be a hard switch. I just got a copy of the new genuine leather Valley of Vision I’d love to see your thoughts on it. I think its a beautiful book, stiff but the best “bible” paper I’ve ever seen and mine is bound beautifully.
Thanks for the review, I imagined the Tyndale house would have had a bit more influence aw well, glad to see it’s gone more literal. I wonder if they’ll go with Septuagint readings in the OT to match up with when the NT quotes the LXX
Thanks for commenting, Ryan. My guess is that, no, the LSB will stick closely to the Masoretic Text.
You have some of the most informative reviews--definitely the most technical. What would you say your favorite thing is about the LSB translation, and what would be your least favorite thing?
Thanks, Gary! Off the top of my head, in terms of favorite thing: the fact that many literal, marginal readings were moved into the main text. My least favorite thing: the attempt to mark the Greek imperfect tense in English by translating it with an English past progressive or an inceptive expression. I understand why the NASB translations do that, but I dislike it nonetheless. I discuss that topic starting at about the 29 minute point in this video: ua-cam.com/video/047pMXd1Gjw/v-deo.html .
@@RGrantJones Thank you!
Great review!! I personally love the LSB and will be my main translation.
Thank you, Ryan! It's shaping up to be an excellent choice, to be sure.
Hello sir God bless you. I wanted to ask you which Bible translation you recommend to read for regular everyday growth
Hi Grant, thank you for the video. Does the intro explain why there are no text or translation notes? For me theses are most helpful in other translations.
Blessings
John
The introduction to it doesn’t as far as I know from my copy. However, they do have references on the LSB app.
John - TheBurlyBurrito is right: as far as I know, there's no explanation in the introductory material. But I'm confident we'll see references in the complete editions. TheBurlyBurrito says there are references in the app, and Peter Chapman showed references in Accordance in a recent video. I hope we also have a full set of text and translation notes at some point.
Great analysis. There is a bit of an odd edit at 15:39 where Revelation 18 is skipped?
Thanks! Yes, that is an awkward edit. I cut it there to avoid some allergy-induced noises. But you didn't miss much. All I had to say was that the LSB's text is lengthier than the '95's.
@@RGrantJones
Ah right, okay. Sounds good. Would you still prefer the 1977 NASB over the LSB?
Overall, I've really enjoyed the LSB. I'm a fan of the ASV, ESV, and various NASBs. The rendering of "monogenes theos" in John 1:18 as 'Only Begotten God' is still a bit weird to me, but that's the only thing I've seen so far. I like a lot of the literal marginal readings brought into the text. The gender inclusivity in the 2020 actually didn't bother me, but they only went halfway so it was awkward. But I like the LSB overall a tiny bit more than the other translations since it keeps the literal renditions in the text and "feels" more like the King James.
@@daric_ - I did notice a few instances where the LSB reached back beyond the NASB to the ASV or the KJV, so I agree that it 'feels' more like the KJV. I'm not sure I prefer it to the '77 yet, however. I'll have to wait to see the full edition.
Thank you for your careful review, brother! I’m curious as to what you see as the likelihood of the translators being made aware of some of the minor alterations you suggest to be made?
Thanks for commenting, Caleb Paul! I informed them of several via the LSB web site back when the .pdf of Mark was posted, so I think the chances are good.
@@RGrantJones That’s wonderful to hear! Once again, thank you for all the effort you’ve put into distilling this info for your viewers.
Great review. I like the design of the book. It's pretty. 16:00 is interesting. NA28 score (?) is rather low than I expected.
Thanks for commenting! Regarding the NA28 score, the conclusion I draw is that in general translation committees like to do their own textual criticism. Of the translations I've examined, only the CSB and the NABRE seem to default to NA28 readings.
Mr. Jones, What about Genesis 1:1? In the beginning God (or Elohim) created the heaven and the earth. Which do you think it should be? God or Elohim? God bless
1 Timothy 6 : 8 -- I don't have a strong opinion either way.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for the response.The best bible reviewer channel.
Another good review. However, I find the LSB more literal than the NKJV. It would be great to see your analysis of the NKJV (versus) LSB.
Thanks, WordAflame! The NKJV scores fewer liberties than the LSB primarily because it more consistently marks translator-supplied explanatory wording with an italic font. The LSB often leaves verbs of being and pronouns that are implied but not represented in the source language in normal font. Sometimes, like the '95 NASB, it leaves proper nouns that are supplied by the translator in normal font, like 'the dragon' in Rev 13.1 and 'Jesus' in Mk 2.4. The NKJV also more consistently translates the 'answered and said' pleonasms (see John 7.21). The LSB is more consistent in translating the Greek imperfect tense in a distinctive way, so it makes up some ground there. At a fundamental level, the scores on the translation continuum are due to the way I've decided to score liberties and weight them equally. I'm confident that if one were to define liberties differently and/or weight them differently, the scoring would change.
@@RGrantJones I have a different method. I use LOGOS software to quickly identify differences between the NASB77, NASB95, LEB, and the NKJV in selected passages then I check with the various lexicons within LOGOS and in most cases, the LSB is more accurate in my opinion. However, I am a majority text advocate, and therefore this version could never be my primary translation.
Is it fair to compare the NKJV with others like the LSB or NASB since they come from different manuscripts? What’s your thoughts? I kind of feel like it’s apples to oranges…
I always appreciate your vids. They are always so very well informative and very well articulated.
What is different about the MacArthur Study Bible that is different from the NASB 2020?
Do we know when the whole thing comes out?
I don't like that they didn't go with the lxx and dss in psalm 145:13. Also the john 7:8 change isn't in the greek right? that's a bad change imo
Overall, seems to be the best of the nasb family so far
I agree with you regarding Ps 145.13. In John 7.8, the LSB is translating a textual variant. P66, P75, and Vaticanus all include 'not yet', and that's the reading in the Majority as well.
@@RGrantJones ah ok, that makes a lot more sense then. Do you know what the na28 and Tyndale house gnt have there?
@@cesaresp101 - NA28 reads 'not'. THGNT has 'not yet'.
@@RGrantJones awesome, thanks
What are your thoughts on using "Yahweh" instead of "LORD" or even the tetragrammaton?
I don't mind it. 'LORD" and 'YHWH' are both fine with me too. Thanks for the question!
I was thinking that Quran also affirms roughly the three part division of OT/Hebrew Bible. It talks about Torat (Torah), Pamphlets of Prophets (Prophets), Zabur (Psalm/Ketuvim) for the pre Jesus Jews. So, Jews are correct in kicking out Apocrypha from their scripture. Three part division is correct apparently. I think Jews will never kick out some books from their scripture just because they were competing with early Christians for influence. Btw, why do Orthodox and Catholics have different Deutro books? Do they get their books from different versions of Greek Bible? I read somewhere that there are different Septuagint.
I think the CSB being in between literal and readable is an OPTIMAL. translation. Middle of road is usually between 2 ditches.
If the MASB is by MacArthur then HE is NOT inspired as far as I know.
I would pay to see you do a comprehensive review of the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses
Does Psalm 68:4 and 83:18 retain the name of God or does it replace it with "the LORD" ?
ivan - the LSB has 'Yah' in 68.4 and 'Yahweh' in 83.18.
@@RGrantJones Perfect ! Thanks !
A lot (most) of the updated quotes match the NKJV.
What is your favourite bible translation please?
Thanks for the question, Rodger! I don't have a single favorite Bible translation. I often use the KJV for morning and evening prayer. I frequently read the RSV. For private study, I usually choose from among the more literal translations -- primarily the ASV and the RV these days. I also often use the New English Translation of the Septuagint when I'm reading the Old Testament.
@@RGrantJones thanks for replying, I keep bouncing between translations which I think is a problem. I have been enjoying the NIV recently but worry it may have a liberal bias, do you rate the NIV?
I will have to give the RSV a look
@@rodgermilner7800 - The RSV is a looser version of the ESV, but in better English (in my opinion). It also has the reputation for being somewhat liberal, but I think that may be largely due to its translation of Isaiah 7.14 (young woman rather than virgin). I've used the 1984 NIV, and I consider it a good, interpretive translation, though it's somewhat bland. I've tried to use the 2011 NIV, but I have trouble with the modern gender inclusive language -- it just rubs me the wrong way.
@@RGrantJones good to know, I will certainly read the NT in the RSV. The gender pronouns are also my main concern with the NIV. Would you consider yourself a Catholic out of curiousity?
@@RGrantJones I think the RSV is among the most beautiful translations after the King James. You're the second person who has mentioned the RV. So now that catches my interest.
Seems to be a good translation, much better than the NASB 2020. However, could never be a main for me due to its unfortunate choice of NT basis.
The music intro is way too loud going to your quiet voice. This tactic is used commonly is selling whatever in commercials.
Thanks for mentioning that, hetrogamr84. I normally reduce the volume on the music to about 25%. But it's been so long since I've produced a video with the musical intro, I forgot to do that.
This is so sad. I don't see why no one can just translate the text consistently and accurately. I mean, English bibles still use "James" vs Jacob. It would be better not to add anything and just explain things. Else they are doing the very thing they are seeking to remove. Old manuscript additions are now just new manuscript additions
Typos are never a good thing. Witness RSV Quentel.
Homosexual black women Jesus, coming to a bible near you...