• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The new LSV(Literal Standard version)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rippon2 said:
No, it was its predecessor --the HCSB. At no point did the CSB start out to be MT-based.
Click to expand...
As you rightly pointed out here, it was the HCSb, but I tend to see it as basically the Csb as before the revision!
 
Origen

Origen

Active Member
On page 4 of the Preface it states:
It’s with this goal in mind that the Literal Standard Version (LSV) was written—a modern, yet literal English translation based upon the most prolific texts: the Masoretic Text (MT) for the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus (TR) and Majority Text (M) for the New. However, in certain, specific instances other manuscript versions and text-types are used where the evidence seems incontrovertible (e.g., the LXX and DSS in the Hebrew and Aramaic; the Alexandrian in the Greek).
Click to expand...
John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him]." That is not a TR or M reading.

I have no problem with "only begotten God"(or "only begotten son" for that matter), yet I have to wonder what is the incontrovertible evidence which tips the scales one way or the other for the LSV. No other translation criteria are cited other than the very vague statement given above.
 
Last edited:
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Origen said:
On page 4 of the Preface it states:
John 1:18 - "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him]." That is not a TR or M reading.

I have no problem with "only begotten God"(or "only begotten son" for that matter), yet I have to wonder what is the incontrovertible evidence which tips the scales one way or the other for the LSV. No other translation criteria are cited other than the very vague statement given above.
Click to expand...
They might have been better off going the Nkjv way, translate it as the MT does, and then footnote the alternatives!
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Origen said:
...I have to wonder what is the incontrovertible evidence which tips the scales one way or the other for the LSV. No other translation criteria are cited other than the very vague statement given above.
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if it isn't just shorthand for "we generally use TR and M, except when we would rather use something else."
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
Great that they kept the only begotten rendering!
Click to expand...
Begotten is archaic, but can be updated using "fathered" if the action is male, or "born" if the action is by a female. However, I doubt that "the only fathered One" would be well received. Arguments for "begotten" actually are based not on study (its a mistranslation from the Latin) but on provincialism, if it was good enough for those in the past, it is good enough for me.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Begotten is archaic, but can be updated using "fathered" if the action is male, or "born" if the action is by a female. However, I doubt that "the only fathered One" would be well received. Arguments for "begotten" actually are based not on study (its a mistranslation from the Latin) but on provincialism, if it was good enough for those in the past, it is good enough for me.
Click to expand...
And good enough for those such as on BGAD and Dr Robertson!
 
V

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeshua1 said:
And good enough for those such as on BGAD and Dr Robertson!
Click to expand...
Utter falsehood, the BGAD indicated "begotten" was inadequate for a translation of monogenes. One and only or unique are the translations considered "adequate."
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Van said:
Utter falsehood, the BGAD indicated "begotten" was inadequate for a translation of monogenes. One and only or unique are the translations considered "adequate."
Click to expand...
Actually, allowed/permitted/ as per the Bible researcher!
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Rippon2 said:
No, I don't know anything about it. However, the stated goal is misguided. It seems to concentrate on individual trees and yet missing the forest. A context-for-context translation would be much better.
Click to expand...
Beating a (subjective) dead horse. This is your opinion and your opinion only. You cannot definitively claim context for context is better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top