Same (: I do like this small version though. Easy to carry. And I mostly study the NT so it is indeed convenient in more than one way but most definitely all of the LSB access is preferred. The most accurate Bible to date and I will argue till the return of Jesus Christ. The new KJV of the modern English era.

Me too! I preordered the hard cover handy size today and can’t wait.

@@theburlyburrito I pre-ordered the Handy Size patina brown Italian cowhide with paste down liner, aka the $99 one.

@@RyGuy8989 Very nice, I’m sure that you’ll love it!

Will it come as one Bible? And when will it be released ?

It comes with translation notes

@@southernberean8166 that is great! Thank you

In what form does it come with translation notes? Cause I was thinking the same thing. Some version that has translation comments would be well received. These conversations are really edifying and insightful. I have a copy and it seems more like they labored to get rid of all footnotes, period.

Good point. Also puts the kibosh on “gender neutral” “translations”.

Large and giant with WIIIIIDE MARGINS please 🙏 I'll take care of the cart to move it around at home 😋

What are some inaccuracies? Just curious so I can be aware.

@@briankuzmaguitar When you can do so, turn to Acts 19:1-5 in your Greek New Testament, read through the verses. After you do so read the following English versions (ASV-1901; NASB; LSB). Which of the 3 versions is more accurate and closest to the Greek text in Acts 19:1-5? There are several other passages the LSB reads as the NASB, and both have missed the mark in one way or another.

@@mikerichards1264 thank you for the texts. Diving in to word studies on those verses, it’s clear that both the versions fall short, but the LSB appears to rectify the author’s intent. For example, nasb and esv are implying that the Greek word “ei” (which means “if”) is the authors way of saying “if it exists”. The Greek clearly translates “we have not even heard if the Holy Spirit is. The is is clearly referring to the statement beforehand, which was Paul’s. If we are going to imply anything, it would have to be that, based on the author’s intended communication, to imply that Paul would want to say they weren’t aware it even existed, only by saying “if it even is”. That would be assuming the author was trying to say “is” was the word for existed, instead of assuming they were answering in relation to Paul’s question. It wouldn’t make sense that way, hence the LSB in italics put the correct implicated words “being received” referring to Paul’s question.

@@briankuzmaguitar another point of significant difference is Paul's question: "into what were you immersed?" The response was, "into John's immersion." Then they were "immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus.". (That's what the Greek says.) Of the translations named only the ASV-1901 translates consistently. The NASB, ESV, and LSB missed it.

@@mikerichards1264 not exactly. Here’s why. Immersion in the English language does not imply religious rite. In the context of again, the correct implication and intention of the writer, we are talking of literal baptism by immersion for the purpose of public declaration. ASV is wrong to simply say it was a bath or getting wet without any mention of the purpose of it. Sorry friend. I’m rolling with LSV. Do a word study on it. See #3. Below baptized G0907 βαπτίζω ----- [Analytics] baptized (51x) G0907 (78x) [Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament] 907 βαπτίζω 77 βαπτίζω (< βάπτω), [in LXX: IV Ki 5:14 (טבל [2881]), Is 21:4, Jth 12:7, Si 31 (34):30*;] to dip, immerse, sink; 1. generally (in Polyb., iii, 72, of soldiers wading breast-deep; in i, 51, of the sinking of ships); metaph., to overwhelm (Is 21:4; cf. MM, Exp., x); c. cogn. acc., βάπτισμα β., Mk 10:38, 39, Lk 12:50. Mid., 2. to perform ablutions, wash oneself, bathe (IV Ki 5:14, Jth 12:7, Si 31 (34):30): Mk 7:4; aor. pass, in same sense, Lk 11:38. 3. Of ablution, immersion, as a religious rite, to baptize; (a) absol.; Mk 1:4, Jo 1:25, 26, 28, 3:22, 23, 26, 4:2, 10:40, I Co 1:17; ὁ βαπτίζων (= ὁ βαπτιστής, M, Pr., 127), Mk 6:14, 24; c. acc., Jo 4:1, Ac 8:38, I Co [p. 75] 1:14, 16; c. cogn. acc., τὸ βάπτισμα, Ac 19:4 (cf. Mk 10:38, supr.); pass., to be baptized, receive baptism: Mt 3:13, 14, 16, Mk 16:16, Lk 3:7, 12, 21, 7:29 (τ. βάπτισμα) Luke 7:30, Ac 2:41, 8:12, 13, 36, 9:18, 10:47, 16:15, 33, 18:8; mid., 22:16 (M, Pr., 163); (b) with prepositions: ἐν, of the element, Mt 3:6, 11, Mk 1:4, 5, 8, Lk 3:16, Jo 1:26, 31, 33, 3:23, Ac 1:5, 2:38, 10:48, 11:16, I Co 10:2; εἰς, of the element, purpose or result (Lft., Notes, 155), Mt 3:11, 28:19, Mk 1:9, Ac 8:16, 19:3, 5, Ro 6:3, I Co 1:13, 15, 10:2, 12:13, Ga 3:27; c. dat., ὕδατι, Lk 3:16, Ac 1:5, 11:16; ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, perh. to fulfil the wish of a dead friend, I Co 15:29 (v. ICC, in l.; cf. DB, i, 238 ff.; DCG, i, 169a; ii, 605b; Cremer, 126).†

Same with John 3:16

I’m with you. Why not loyalty or fidelity? Better yet, why not covenantal love? As much as I look forward to this version, I am disappointed in this one thing.