Literal Standard Version: A Disappointing Review 

Just twquestion,are you a TR only or critical text UBS/Nestle-Aland?Which do you commend using for Bible reading,NKJV or MEV in addition to KJV?Thanks.

I kind of felt the same way about it. Anyone wanting an extremely literal translation would better be served by an interlinear where you can get at the precise meaning behind each word without needing to know the original languages.

The LSV was intended to be an update of the YLT, not a brand new translation. I like it and read it but not for daily devotions. I use it more as a reference, making comparisons between other TR based translations. I think it's a good resource and like tools in a toolbox, it's there when you need it.

Question...aside from readability issues, is this the closest to original text? Is this the most literal? My interest is in original text. Thank you

Hi what is your take on “NIV2020”?

i have not read all of LSV yet, fat book that it is, but i was very impressed with the tests i did throw at it. it beat the YLT, KJV, and NASB95 in accuracy tests that i threw at it (Phillipians 2:6 is plain wrong in the YLT and the KJV). And i like that they preserved the roughness of the original text, one can really see why KJV and YLT made their mistake, it's an inelegant piece of writing by Paul and Tim. the worst part so far of this translation for me is the strange and inaccurate addendum at the end of it, which reads like some jottings never meant to be published i would have written and then deleted or rewrote later, strange jottings by someone who knows just enough to be dangerous, but certainly not worthy to be writing in a Holy Bible Translation. i can't speak to their choice of source text, not my arena, but i like that they preserved text newer translations have deleted. this bible is obviously for people like me that want accuracy above all else. i recognized a long time ago that the NIV is not a very good bible because it sands down the text, info loss. the KJV is not an inerrant translation and is not readable. don't know if LSV really succeeds though, its weird errant comments at the back blew my confidence away

Do you have a NASB1995 vs YLT?

What are some of the passages you hoped the LSV would have the guts to diverge from the traditional translation? I’ve been looking online at parallel translations and for certain texts (I can’t remember which off the top of my head) and the LSV I thought was better along with the Aramaic translation in English. One area I wish would be improved is for translators to stop translating “messenger” as “angel” for the example in the so called “Angel of the Lord” passages since it’s obviously not an Angel but the Messenger of the Lord (Word of the Lord, the Logos.) I think it’s confusing because new students to the Bible don’t need to be misled thinking Jesus is an Angel. I’m not very familiar with Young’s so maybe I ought to give that a try.

Very helpful review. Thanks.

Well done. I like the LSV as a tool for laymen. I would agree with with your assessment about readability and elegance.

Hi, Shawn! Small quibble with your review. In the brief time I’ve spent with it, I’ve found the LSV‘s super-formal-equivalence translation quite useful in some places. I’ll just cite one quick example: Jeremiah 3:7. In NASB it reads: Jeremiah 3:7 (NASB 2020) 7 Yet I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. This seems to say that God thought that unfaithful Israel would return to Him, and expected it, but then she didn’t; thus, it gives the impression (in an admittedly small way) that God had imperfect foreknowledge. This is where the highly literal reading of the LSV helps: Jeremiah 3:7 (LSV) 7 And I say, after her doing all these, Return to Me, and she has not returned, and her treacherous sister Judah sees it. This accurately has God give Israel the imperative, the command to return, which rebellious Israel then simply disobeys. So it doesn’t impugn (again, in an admittedly small sense) God’s perfect foreknowledge. Young’s and KJV also get the literal reading right. But of course, the point of the LSV was to be that accurate in more modern and (at least somewhat) more readable English than Young’s or KJV. So I don’t agree with the idea that LSV doesn’t bring anything to the table that Young’s didn’t already give you. It does give what is to me a much more readable modern translation, still with all of the accuracy. Those kind of things, which I’ve encountered in several places so far, seem to me to put the LSV at the top of the list of hyper-literal translations for study purposes. (It’s not good enough in English to replace something like NASB as your go-to “reading” Bible.) Thanks, Shawn!

If you cannot read Greek or Hebrew how do you judge accuracy?

A very thoughtful helpful review.

Agree with this review about 100%, and I've only owned the LSV for less than 24 hours. I got it yesterday because I wanted a copy of the apocrypha on my Kindle, and it was 8 bucks. From what I've seen, the apocrypha reads fine, and I enjoy reading off my Kindle rather than another screen like my phone. So, for that purpose, it was fine. But, and it's a big But, I trudged through 1 John last night, and it was a real trudge. I think they are saying "easy to read " in comparison to Youngs, which, yes, it is, but it certainly isn't easy to read by any other definition. I think I would rather grapple with something like the Amplified Bible if I want something kind of hard to read, but more literal and accurate than an average popular English translation. But I enjoy reading Maccabbes around the time of Hanukkah, and that is what I've got. So, for my purposes, it should work out fine.

Mine is on the way.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I used it twice and never again. Can’t even get anyone to buy it from me 😂

It's difficult to read but force one to read more slowly and understand more.

you would not think that the LSV is Not a real improvement on Young's Literal translation.. if you tried to understand a text like Job 4:17 in the Young's translation... that verse seems discombobulated in Youngs... but makes sense in the LSV... if you really like the Young's .. you must be dyslexic.. cuz that is how Job 4:17 and other verses come across to me in Young's.. 17 `Is mortal man than God more righteous? Than his Maker is a man cleaner? what does "Is mortal man than God".. trying to say?..

I find it helpful as a companion for bible study.

I got the LSV solely because the digital version has a large apocrypha collection with the Bible, including texts such as Jubilees, 1-3 Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, 1-2 Clement, Didache, and many more. You can buy the so called “120 book Bible” for no more than $9.99 digitally. I haven’t done much reading of the canon 66 books yet. I probably like Young’s more as well.

I love LSV and NASB20.

This review helped me decide to stand by my favorite standard, the KJV. The phrasing and language used in KJV is special; even "set apart" and is great for memorization. I'm 73 and still recall phrases and verses that help guide my life; sometimes in the smallest ways. I'm sad that our children hear/read so many different versions and do not have the Word "in their hearts" to help them choose God's ways in the moments when needed. All these translations tell us the same basic tenets, but in unnecessary variations. Is this trend a tool of evil? I believe it could be.

I like that it doesn't use the word gentile even once but instead has nations most of the time. Apparently the reviewers have missed that. The YHWH thing is good too.

See 1 Cor. 13: 8 whether [there be] prophecies, they will become useless. I can't find "useless" as a valid "translation." It appears in this case that they are being overly creative, rather than literal.🤔😊 Thank you!

The lsv is more accurate and literal than the so-called nasb and esv

Marketing is a tool to sell anything

DOnt look up the hebrew text when it comes to new testament. You look up the original greek. Nobody spoke hebrew back then and the disciples commonly wrote in Greek.

NASB 2020 is heresy! Gender inclusion is blasphemy! I agree; the LSV is literal and word for word, and most certainly not elegant! If you want poetic and easy reading, go with the NIV or NLT, another set of blasphemy and heretical bible translations. I understand my language is hyperbolic, but I cringe when people want the Word of God to be poetic and easy to understand. I believe we need to look for accuracy above all else in a transltaion. We need to read what the authors wanted to convey, not what we want to hear. As translations move toward what society wants to hear (gender inclusion), we move away from the word of God and end up with the devil's work!

Learn basic Koine Greek and Hebrew so that you can use interlinear translations well and study from those. This is way superior than any translated bible.

Got this version for E-Sword this morning. I downloaded it when I learned it used TR Greek text. When I compare for example Rev 22:14 (Do His Commandments vs Wash this robes) it’s apparent that someone took away and added to the Word of God. Wouldn’t want to be in their shoes come Judgment Day! I’m a Textus Receptus guy.

The point is that we want a translation that doesn't shunt you into a Jesus is Jehovah perspective and deliberately rendered in such a manner as to comply with the Trinitarian deception. The LSV goes some way towards it, its rendering of Phil 2:6ff and Hebrews 1 being of note but it still renders John 1 as some hypostatic Word hanging around with Jehovah, which, whatever theological drum you bang on, is to make this same Jehovah a liar when he insists that besides HIM (a personal singular pronoun) there is NONE other, if you accept that Jesus was a new creation by God's word which is his spirit to fulfil the prophetic word, then the understanding of word and spirit as God's necessary eternal attributes in no way conflicts with his express declaration of being a soul - which is to say in biblical language One Person - until this Trinitarian bias is removed in favour of translation which actually expresses what the author might be saying all translations whether readable or not are suspect, and their 'readability' merely a manifestation of Satan as an angel of light in the purpose of deception so best to stick with the KJV which at least didn't suffer the need that modern evangelicals have to discover their Trinity fully hatched in the NT.