Well, thank you all for joining us to talk once again about the Legacy Standard Bible. The whole translation is in, and as a result of even the Psalms, New Testament, and Proverbs coming out, there have been quite a few questions that have come across my desk, so I'm going to ask for your help right now to help me answer some of these questions.

One of them is about the issue of translating the word "temple" in the New Testament, and sometimes we have "sanctuary" as opposed to "temple" in some very familiar passages. Dr. Varner, can you help us to think through why we did that and why is that important? Yes. There are actually two words in Greek that render "temple" or "sanctuary," which of course refers in the New Testament to what we call the second temple or Herod's temple, the temple that was there in Jesus' day.

One is "eiron," which we have tried to consistently translate as "temple," and the other one is "naas," which we've tried to consistently translate as "sanctuary." So what's the difference? Why is it important? "Temple" is a word that describes the entire structure, including an outer courtyard, which probably was not in Solomon's temple.

"Sanctuary" refers to the inner section of the temple, what we call the holy place and the holy of holies, the priest's place, and that word "sanctuary" seems to be, at least in the New Testament, applying to that inner part of the temple complex. A couple of illustrations that might help in that regard is when the Gospels say that Jesus cleansed the temple, he did not cleanse the sanctuary.

He cleansed the outer part of the temple, really the court of the Gentiles. That was part of the temple complex. So that's where the sellers of animals, that's where the money changers had set up shop, out there in the outer part of the temple. So he cleansed that temple from that, from those activities.

They couldn't have gotten any further into the sanctuary, but they were in the temple complex. The sanctuary was where the priests did their work. The closest that a layman would come would be to bring a sacrifice to the fence that separated the temple of Israel from the temple of the priests, or the sanctuary of the people from the sanctuary of the priests, and he would hand the animal over.

That's as far as a layman could get. Then Judas betrayed our Lord for the pieces of silver, and then things didn't go as he had planned, I believe, and in the garden Jesus was arrested. And so it says that he took that money, which had become blood money, and he cast it into many translations just say the temple.

But actually the Greek says he cast it into the sanctuary, which makes it even more I think dramatic. He had gone through the court of the Gentiles with the money. He had gone through the court of the women. He had gone through Nicanor's gate and right up to the fence where a layman could go no further and he tossed it over the fence right into the sanctuary of the priests.

So we've tried to consistently translate and show a distinction between the outer part of the temple and the inner part called the sanctuary. And I think in later on in the epistles, the word sanctuary is used to even describe us as the people of God as the church. Is that right?

And that has particular theological meaning because the Shekinah glory, the presence of God was in the sanctuary, and so when we are called the "temple," we're really called the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit because in us the Holy Spirit dwells even as he dwelt in the Holy of Holies.

So there's this deliberate word choice and word distinction between two different terms that describe the "temple," but really the temple complex versus the very structure of the temple itself, the sanctuary, and by bringing that out, there is a theological significance to it. - It certainly is. - Yeah. - Certainly.

- But while I have you here, let me ask another question, and people have asked me this. Why did you guys change brethren to brothers? - This was a mini crusade of mine, but you guys got on board with it very, very early. There are certain words that I call "church words" that we only use them in church.

We don't use them in everyday talk. We don't even use them outside church when we're talking with each other, and one of those is "brethren." Now you tell me, do you ever refer to your male siblings as your brethren? No, you don't. But in church, sometimes we refer to our spiritual brothers as "brethren," but the Greek word is the same for physical brothers and also for spiritual brothers.

And if the Greek word is the same, when Paul addresses the brothers in Philippi, the brothers in Thessalonica, he's talking about the spiritual brothers, and there's no difference in the Greek word, so why don't we keep it as "brothers." So I think that's important. I don't think we lose any theological or gain anything theologically from it, but we I think correct what I call a "church word." Now there's something else, Abner, and that is some of modern translations, when they come to brothers, because they don't want to eliminate the ladies, they will automatically, even though the Greek just says "brothers," say "brothers and sisters." We have refused to do that because we know that "brothers" can be collective.

It's not just referring to male believers in those times when brothers are addressed in a church. It is "brothers and sisters," but it's just one word. But in James chapter 2, when James wants to specifically address brothers and sisters, he says that. If you see a brother or a sister in need, but he adds the Greek word "sister." So when the New Testament writers wanted to include sisters, they included the word "sister." So I think it's not only getting away from just a churchy word, brethren, but it's also honoring that's what it says.

And also, can we leave something to the preacher and teacher, who should come to the word "brothers" and remind the congregation that these spiritual brothers include male and female believers in the Lord Jesus. So let's leave some choice to the preacher or teacher to bring that out. So I think, well, I think we did the right thing in keeping it to "brothers." Yeah, that's what the text says, and that actually by keeping it not only with the translation of "brothers," but not including "and sisters" as a gloss on top of that brings out when the New Testament actually does say it.

It makes it stand out all the more. There's a deliberateness to that that is lost if you always just translate the gloss with multiple words. So this is, I think this is a very important observation. One of the other questions that have popped across my desk is the New Testament's use of the old and how we signify that in the legacy standard, following the NASB with some small caps.

But people have been wondering, "Where have you done more? Where have you brought that out more?" So Jason, why don't you begin by helping us identify some of those, and then Paul, you can follow up. Yeah, sure. I would love to. One that sticks out, I think, for me is Luke chapter 12, verse 35.

This one actually hits a couple different points that we wanted to draw out, in particular the Old Testament and the New, but several others even just having a window into the text that we've been kind of encouraging to do that. "Gird up your loins" seems like an old expression.

Most people don't talk about girding up your loins, and in fact, some of the translations just simply render it ready for service, ready for action. But we translated it "gird up your loins" in particular because it was a quotation from Exodus 12, verse 11. And both contexts have this idea of being prepared and ready to act when God will deliver His people.

So in Luke 12, 35 through 40, Christ is talking about His return, and when the Son of Man comes at an hour that you don't expect, and He uses terms like "waiting" and "ready" and "awake." And so we translated that, what other translations would simply try to help the reader understand a little bit more by a modern translation.

We wanted to go back because there's not only a connection back to the Old Testament in which the Israelites were being told to be ready and prepared and waiting for the deliverance that Yahweh would bring, Christ points back to that in the same context of His second coming and His disciples being ready for that deliverance.

And then there's also a wordplay on that that you lose if you don't translate that. Not only do you lose that Old Testament quotation, which we rendered in small caps, but you have this idea of where Christ is saying, "Gird up your loins and keep your lamps lit." And waiting for the Master to return, and when He comes you open up the door and then it says in verse 37, "Blessed are those slaves whom the Master will find awake when He comes truly I say to you that He will gird Himself to serve and to have them recline at the table." And so the expectation is the servants are ready and they're girded, meaning their robes are wrapped up and ready for service, ready for work.

And when the Master comes, you would anticipate that it would be the servants who are serving, and yet it's the Master when He returns, the one who will serve. And this eschatological banquet of this dinner table. So there's just a lot of, I think, nuances there that by simply having a window into the text of girding up your loins, connecting it back into Exodus, there's a lot of, I think, depth that the average reader might miss that I think we're trying to help give some insight into.

Yeah, if you honor the text, the text is so sophisticated, the text is so rich. All these implications, not just like you just pointed out of connecting back with the Old Testament, but connecting within the passage itself, there's so much theology that comes out. That's really, really good. Help us out, Paul.

Another one that comes to mind, sticking with Luke, the author, now in the book of Acts, in chapter 1, verse 8, Jesus gives the disciples their blueprint, their mission. And He says that you're to preach the gospel, you're to be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.

And we've capitalized that last phrase, "to the end of the earth," believing it to be an intentional quotation of the Old Testament scriptures. Now the NASB doesn't do that. Why did we think that was appropriate? As you read through the book of Acts, what you start to see is a theology where Luke is intentionally portraying the apostles' ministry in the likeness of the servant.

So he's not only drawing arcs back to his gospel, he's doing that, and showing these apostles are simply carrying on the ministry of the Lord Jesus. A lot of things that happens to them happen to Christ, a lot of things they do are similar to what Christ did. He's drawing those arcs, but in addition, he's drawing arcs all the way back to Isaiah.

And he's trying to stress, I think, that this mission, this gospel mission, is one that is advanced through suffering, the suffering that we see in Isaiah. And so that term, "the end of the earth," it's found in a number of places in the Old Testament, but it is found in one of the servant songs.

And so as Jesus gives the blueprint to the apostles, "This is what you're going to do," he's not simply giving them geographical locations. We tend to think of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and the end of the earth as just a geographical progression of the gospel. It is that, but it's so much more.

These are not just markers on a map. I mean, think about the fact Jerusalem's a city, Judea and Samaria's a region with certain connotations because of the Samaritans and their relationship with the Jews. And then you get the end of the earth, not simply the extremity, but to the Gentiles.

The gospel's going to the Gentiles. And as we know from the book of Isaiah, that was the servant's ministry. The glory of the Lord is too great to be contained within Israel. It's to go out to the Gentiles, and we understand from Isaiah 53 that the means by which that will happen will be through suffering.

And so it is a hint, and it gets developed as you read through the book of Acts. That theology gets developed, but we believe that in that first chapter there's just the first subtle hint that this book, the book of Acts, is going to be one that portrays the apostles in the likeness of the servant, particularly with reference to his suffering.

And so it's in capitals as an indication that it's drawing from Old Testament theology there. And that's so rich because that indication draws from the Old Testament the way you just said, and it draws a very deep and rich and broad theology into and incorporate into the book of Acts.

That's very helpful. Paul, while I have you, you have talked about and we've talked about some other translational decisions that kind of bring out some nuance in 1 John. Would you share some of those with us? Yeah. So if we jump over then to 1 John, and I think what we're talking about here is a more literal rendering of something that John says, which I remember we kind of deliberated over this for some time because it's difficult to bring out in the English, and the tendency would be to find a synonym, but when you do that you lose what John is doing.

So I'm in 1 John chapter 5 here, and John says, verse 1, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the one who gives new birth loves also the one who has been born of him." And it sounds maybe a little bit convoluted, and I think if you check other translations that second half of the verse will make reference to the Father and to those who have been born of him, which is a good translation, and it captures the essence.

The problem is you miss the play that John makes on the verb to beget, to give birth. So the verse would read, perhaps even more literally, "Everyone who loves the one who begets, the begetting one, God the Father, also loves the one who has been begotten, who has received the new birth." And I think what our translation does, it draws out that subtle play that John is making on this concept of the new birth, which again plays into the theology of this letter.

When we understand who we are, we're those that have been privileged, we've received the new birth, and when I understand that about myself and about you, you're one that's received the new birth and so am I, how can I not love you? How can I not love you as an expression of my love for the one who gave me the new birth?

We're caught up in this theology of the new birth, and John brings that out by refusing to simply say "Father" and "Children of God," but just to keep using that one verb, "genao," to give birth in this one verse, and so we tried to do that. And then just a few verses later, another one that we really tried hard to bring out what John's doing, in verse four, he says, "For everything that has been born of God overcomes the world, and this is the overcoming that has overcome the world, our faith." Again, it sounds convoluted, and perhaps the more straightforward path is to find synonyms.

But John is intentionally using this one verb, "genao," to overcome, to conquer, and he's doing it in a very emphatic way. This is the triumph that triumphs. This is the victory that victors. That's what John is saying. And when you see that intentional persistence with this one verb, "to conquer," you understand just how emphatic John is being.

When you've received the new birth, you are no longer enslaved to sin, period. Sin is not going to triumph in your life, ultimately. And he wants to communicate that as a great encouragement to his readers, and we tried to bring that out by also persisting with one English verb here, "to overcome." That's really helpful, and I think when we bring out what is already there, I think that's the predominant theme.

We are…there is a reason for it, not just on a translation philosophy side, but really on a bibliology side, because we believe that the Bible is inspired and that we don't improve on it. We just deliver what it is, and it in and of itself has it, and there is significance in every word choice, every decision that the Scriptures make.

Along that line, people sometimes wonder about James 3.1, and they say, "Oh, you kind of changed it from what NASB had. Let not many of you brothers or brethren or whatnot become teachers," but we translate it with a more direct imperative, "Do not become teachers, many of you." And why was that?

Well, "Let someone not become this" is a more indirect imperative. It would be more of a third-person kind of imperative, but James is not trying to skirt away from the issue. He is making a demand directly to his readers that many of them, many of you, you may never become this way.

You do not become this way, and we didn't want to lose that force because that's James's decision, and we wanted to honor that. And so these are the kinds of decisions where I almost describe it like Simon says. The author says it this way, so we do it that way, but we don't really have an option, and that's a really great thing.

Dr. Varner, help us think through another one of these kind of consistency word issues, which is of one accord. One accord. Help us to think through that. Well, you know, I like to use silly puns to keep my students' attention, and here's one of those. The King James, and we do too, say that all the believers were in one accord, and the silly thing is there are Hondas in the Bible, a Honda accord.

And well, apart from the silliness, accord is a good word. It means together, one accord, one mind, one purpose. We've tried to consistently translate that word, hamathumadon, and one accord. Actually, we do it more often with one accord, same meaning. It appears 10 times in the book of Acts, six times a positive statement.

All the believers were together with one accord. Four times in a negative way, the enemies of Stephen rose up against him with one accord. So 10 times it appears in the book of Acts, and we've tried to consistently translate it with one accord, while other versions will mix with one mind, with one purpose.

But Luke used the same word, and I think we should translate it that way. It does appear one time out of the book of Acts, Paul uses it, that with one accord, Jews and Gentiles might glorify God, Romans 15, 6. So I think in translating it with one accord, we've done honor to Luke and to Paul, and brought out that it can be with one bad accord or evil accord, and it can be with one good accord, depending on the context.

- And the reader will know that's the same word. That's the same word all the way through. They can trace it out themselves. That's really useful. Are there any materials, this is another question people have, are there any materials, new kinds of research that really helped you all, us all in the process of translating and updating the New American Standard to the Legacy Standard Bible, were there specific resources that you used in this process that really helped?

- I mentioned this on an earlier video. This might be a little bit of a repetition, but in Textual Criticism, we are the first English translation to have access to not just one Greek New Testament, but three editions of the Greek New Testament, the Nestle-Alan, the SBL Greek New Testament, and the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, that was done in a city called Cambridge, so we have access to that.

Now, Textual Criticism can be boring to a lot of people, I understand that, but we are not just depending on one group, say, of German Text Critics, we have an American Text Critic and British Text Critics to compare and see, and I think while we have stayed with the Nestle-Alan reading most of the time, we've been able to benefit from the scholarship of others.

I just heard an American Text Critic say yesterday in Mark 1-1, the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, there are some manuscripts that don't have Son of God. We retain that, and not only do manuscripts support it, but internally that's supported because Son of God is a major theme in the Gospel of Mark.

At the beginning, and then towards the end, the Centurion says, "Certainly this was God's Son. This was the Son of God." So at the beginning and the end of the Gospel of Mark. So not only do the manuscripts support the inclusion of these words, but internally, what's called internal evidence, supports the inclusion of those words as well.

Yeah, I'm thinking from a Hebrew side, we had access to at least part of things of like BHQ, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, and did you guys, and this is just me asking off the cuff, did you guys use Bible software in the process? We, I mean, our meetings were on Logos, and then I would always have my accordance as well.

And yeah, I just always ponder what it would have been like to undertake such a project before the age of Bible software. I mean, you just can't imagine. And so I was very, very thankful for the resources that we had, but also just the quick and ready access we had.

- And I think we're also drawing on just a wealth of research that we've done in the past. I'm thinking of issues in Romans, and Luke, I had read some articles by Gathercol, and we incorporated that research in our commentary on John by Carson and certain lexical issues that he raised there, and we tried to wrestle through and how to process that.

And I know both of you are in the process of dissertation work, and so you guys brought a lot of those insights into the mix as well. So yeah, there, I think there was a lot, a lot of just a wealth of research that comes in a lifetime study that comes into Bible translation, and that's important to note.

And we're thankful. We're just thankful for a lot of people who have done a lot of hard work and invested in us in that way. - And the quick access that we have to all of that at the fingertips, that is, you know, you could potentially have to stop and go and go to libraries and things like that, but with us and the ability, the benefit of having COVID shut down where we were really isolated in our homes, the software was really helpful, Logos, and I still am an old user of BibleWorks.

It's still working for me, as well as Accordance and those things. So it was, I think, really valuable. - Yeah, I had BibleWorks and Accordance on my screen, and every verse I was comparing. I could see the Greek, I could see three or four or five translations that we could compare it with.

It was very, very helpful, and I'm glad to see that Accordance, and I use Accordance every day now with the LSB being part of the Accordance modules. - And I think this just kind of brings us full circle back to the whole idea of why we do what we do and how we do it.

It's not just arbitrary decisions. This is well-researched. It's based upon the author's decision, and that kind of even ties into a question that people have, which is, "Why did you translate Messiah in some places, even in the New Testament at times, but Christ predominantly in the New Testament, and yet in the Old Testament, anointed one or Messiah is present?" And it goes back to the same principle, which is, we say what the text says.

John sometimes has the word Messiah transliterated, and when he does that, we say it. And when Christ is used, the Greek word there, we reflect that. And that's kind of the overriding principle there. There are decisions. We're not making arbitrary choices. We're trying to do as much research as we can into them so that what comes forth is not our opinion, but rather a window into what exactly was going on, represented correctly from the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic of the Scriptures.

And that's kind of our goal. Thank you guys for your great work on this, and thank you for answering these questions. I hope it's been very edifying for everyone. Thank you. Thank you.