The Literal Standard Version (LSV) is a translation tailored to support Baptist and similar theological perspectives. Its usage is expected to be predominantly within Baptist communities.
Thank you for the run down! I'm a big fan of the KJV, I remember the scriptures in kjv language but I recently picked up this LSV to give it a look through. I believe it really matters which Bible you read for some versions distort the text. Peace and Grace in Jesus name.
Why does the LSV say Heavens instead of Heaven in Genesis like the KJV puts it? Did GOD made multiple heavens in the same day because I was told in the original language it says Heaven not Heavens?
@@USMC199 see I have heard the opposite. Thay the original signifies plural (heavens) but it is rendered as singular Heaven. Like God is plural in Genesis 1:1 but it is rendered as singular since it is about Yahweh. I think the KJV translators knew it was plural but decided to put it in a singular to encompass everything that is not the earth.
Interesting. Do they render "baptizo" consistently as "immersion"? For instance, do they render Mark 7:3,4 as "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they IMMERSE [KJV: wash] their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they IMMERSE [KJV: wash] they eat not. And many other things there be, which they received to hold, as the IMMERSING [KJV: washing] of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables." In (v.4) here where the KJV has "wash" it is translating the Greek word "baptizo". Certainly these washings were not done by immersion, but by pouring (for the cleaning of hands) and sprinkling for the ceremonial cleansing of cups, pots, brasen vesels, and tables. Reading through this passage and many others in Greek is what changed my mind on the mode of baptism, that the Greek word "baptizo" simply does not always mean (and CANNOT always mean) immersion. I find it troubling when any translation intentionally imports its theology into the translation. Words do not have meaning, they have semantic range, ie, meaning determined on usage. "Baptism" simply does not always mean immerse. I prefer the KJV's honest in translating it as "wash" and "sprinkle" in places where it does not have an effect on the debate, and leaving it untranslated as "baptize/baptism" in places where it does effect the debate.
Just read their online version: "for the Pharisees, and all the Jews, if they do not wash the hands to the wrist, do not eat, holding the tradition of the elders, and [coming] from the marketplace, if they do not immerse themselves, they do not eat; and many other things there are that they received to hold, immersions of cups, and pots, and bronze vessels, and couches."(Mk.7:3,4) LSV They were consistent even here. It is comical to imagine 1st century Jews coming home from the marketplace to "immerse themselves". I wonder where the LSV translators think they immersed themselves? In their bathtubs that they didnt have? Perhaps they went to the community pools that didnt exist? lol I remained a staunch baptist for many years while recognizing that the word baptizo does not always mean immerse. I have respect for people who deal honestly with the text and still hold their views, whatever they may be. I lack respect for people who import their theology into their translation, thus locking all readers into their theological position.
Hey brother, They do consistently render the word in those passages as immerse. I definitely get your point and prefer how the KJV renders it as well. However I think in washing, even the hands that they would have to plunge them in to a pot thus totally immersing their hands in the water. But I would be interested to hear more from you because I know you know the Greek well!
@@BibleFanatics I hear you, but that simply was not a common practice in 1st century Judaea, a place will very little water. The common form of "washing" was by pouring (just like today, when we wash our hands or dishes, water pours out of the tap upon them). The doctrine of the mode and subjects of baptism is not dependent upon the meaning of the word "baptizo". Therefore it is best to let the text speak for itself rather than forcing it into a theological scheme like the translators of the LSV have done here. "Baptizo" simply does not have the restricted gloss "immersion". Words have semantic range, not meaning. Think of our English word "dip". Does it mean "immerse" or "submerge"? Sometimes it does, like if I were to "dip" a piece of pottery into glaze. Other times, like when we "dip" our fries in ketchup, it simply means to get a small amount of sauce on part of the subject. Again, we do not have to force the word "baptizo" to mean "submerge/immerse" in order to hold to the credo view of believers baptism by immersion. I can think of no Greek lexicon that does this.
@@DaneKristjan That is an interesting thought. I know that Calvin did believe it originally meant immerse as did Luther, which is why Luther proffered immersion even for children. Also the Greek orthodox church still immerse their children because of the understanding they have of baptizo. Would not pouring out water over hands still not include full immersion? You are still completely putting them under water? I always appreciate your feed back on these things. Also I agree 8 know the early Anabaptist did prefer pouring.
Whats important is if it sticks to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic translations, not to a version already out there which has been butchers. We've lost the real translation of the bible. Luke 9:35 should say "Chosen" or "Elect" not "Beloved"
Not to be too pedantic, but they translated God's name as the four Hebrew letters represented in English as "YHWH" purposely to be ultra literal so as to avoid the argument between those who prefer pronunciations of either "Yahweh" or "Jehovah". So, you flatly stating it as as being rendered "Yahweh" is not accurate, although, personally, I will read "YHWH" as "Yahweh", which I do think is most accurate.
@edmarklowelldelossantos4952, I'm sure you can pronounce it that way if you like. It's probably because you think it sounds like Messiah's name: Yeshua.
@@charlesberton2581 No, there are studies indicating Yahuah is the most accurate pronunciation. Did you make a study why Yahweh is the most accurate? What are your bases? I would like to know as I am also researching and open to what is.
I think the KJV is one of the most awkward translation of the Bible because of the Puritan English that is used. I find myself stopping to translate the old English thee and thou into common English instead of concentrating on what the Bible message is!!!
Really? I encourage you to read Genesis Chapter one and tell me what is so confusing about it. Also the thee and thou were not used in common back when the KJV was translated they are actually there to reflect the singular person in Greek and Hebrew thus being more accurate than modern versions because it is showing you what the original languages were intending. A great example of this is John chapter 3 with the thee and ye distinction which is singular and plural in the modern translations this can get confusing. No matter what translation you have there are going to be parts that are confusing. Not only that but literally english scholars and translators always note the KJV is the most poetic and smooth reading translations there are. I appreciate your comment and I know the KJV is not easy for everyone.
@@BibleFanatics Thank You for your comments. What? The KJV was written in the 1611 English that was spoken then, with their prejudices and understandings. It is far from the oldest or most accurate translation. I suggest you read a Interlinear Bible which is a direct word for word translation of the Hebrew and Greek to get the closes translation we can get. There is human errors in the translation and format of the KJB that has been passed down instead of corrected to other translations. Please, don’t misunderstand, the KJV is a very Good translation, after all it is still the word of God. But please, try and accept other version like perhaps, the NKJV, which still has the same errors, but is more readable.
@@arthurrubiera8029 What I am saying is in 1611 they did not use thee and thou in everyday speech that had already fallen out of common use. However it is our way in English to keep the singular and plural distinct instead of using you for everything which can make things more confusing. An interlinear is not a translation it is an interlinear made to follow the exact word order in the Greek and Hebrew which makes it unreadable in English. Translations are made into another language so that people can understand it. I can tell you are new to my channel as I am not a KJV only person. I use the MEV quite a bit and the SKJV as well as the NKJV. But the most accurate among those three is the KJV.
