# This is NOT how you evaluate Bible translations > [!question] Lingering Questions > - Do NRSVue's own renderings of Genesis 2:19, Isaiah 7:14, and Psalm 22:16 actually meet the standard McClellan implies, or is that assumed? > - Does the "what a recommendation omits identifies its real criterion" heuristic hold outside religious apologetics — has anyone tested it on a software vendor comparison? > - What do the Colorado Springs Guidelines (1997) actually say about the ESV's founding dispute, in the primary documents rather than McClellan's characterization? > [!tip] Article Ideas > - Test the omission heuristic on a software or SaaS vendor comparison video and record whether the same diagnostic (what's missing tells you the real criterion) transfers cleanly outside biblical studies. > [!link] Cross Reference > - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] — translation choice as doctrine-distribution mechanism, direction-of-revision as evidence of motive > - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/What a Recommendation Omits Identifies Its Real Selection Criterion]] — already promoted from this source in a prior pass > - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Refuting a Claim on Its Own Premises Is Stronger Than Refuting Its Premises]] — this source's John 7 comparison is a second, cleaner instance of the same method already captured from McClellan's autism/sin video > [!quote] Vocabulary > - **LSB (Legacy Standard Bible)** — John MacArthur's revision of the NASB; the video's target text, prioritizing univocality and an evangelical interpretive lens over source-text fidelity in several worked examples > - **Formal vs. dynamic equivalence** — the word-for-word/thought-for-thought translation-theory dichotomy McClellan describes as outdated but still governing popular apologetics discourse ## Bibliographic capsule Biblical scholar Dan McClellan responds line-by-line to a popular apologetics video ranking Bible translations, arguing the creator has no working method for evaluating translation quality — evidenced by the omission of the scholarly-consensus pick (NRSV/NRSVue) and by showing that the creator's own stated objection to the NIV disqualifies three of his own four recommended translations. ## Author's thesis A translation ranking produced by someone who cannot read the source languages measures which English text flatters the ranker's prior theological commitments rather than translation quality — and this is detectable before checking a single verse, from what the list omits. ## Key arguments (≤3) 1. **The omission of the consensus pick is diagnostic on its own.** The NRSV/NRSVue, widely considered the most faithful English translation, never appears on the list — because, per McClellan, "it doesn't prioritize dogma over data." 2. **The creator's own objection disqualifies most of his own recommendations.** He condemns the NIV's John 7:8-10 for making Jesus appear to lie; three of his four recommended translations (CSB, ESV, NASB) render the verse identically to the NIV. Only the LSB differs. 3. **Direction of revision reveals motive.** The NASB renders Genesis 2:19 accurately; the LSB, revising the NASB, introduces a pluperfect that dissolves the Genesis 1/2 creation-order contradiction — a change that moves away from the source text, not toward it. ## Claim atoms ### A recommendation list's omissions identify its real selection criterion > [!quote] ID:rw_mcclellan_bible_h1 > And the reason they omit it is because it doesn't prioritize dogma over data. Where/why: opening segment, on the NRSV/NRSVue's absence from the list. A domain-independent diagnostic requiring no source-language expertise, applicable to tool comparisons, benchmarks, and vendor evaluations generally. Already promoted — see [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/What a Recommendation Omits Identifies Its Real Selection Criterion]]. ### The creator's objection disqualifies his own recommendations Where/why: John 7:8-10 segment. CSB, ESV, and NASB all render "I am not going up"; only the LSB adds "yet." A textbook internal refutation, verifiable by any viewer in minutes — the video's decisive evidence. Connects to [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Refuting a Claim on Its Own Premises Is Stronger Than Refuting Its Premises]] as a second instance of the same method. ### A revision that moves away from its base text signals doctrinal motivation Where/why: Genesis 2:19. The NASB rendered the wayyiqtol verb accurately; the LSB, revising the NASB, introduced the pluperfect ("had formed") to dissolve the Genesis 1/2 order conflict. Direction of change is evidence about motive that a static, single-translation comparison cannot supply. ### Translation choice is a doctrine-distribution mechanism Where/why: Isaiah 7:14 (Hebrew *almah* "young woman" rendered "virgin," importing the Septuagint's *parthenos* to protect Matthew's quotation) and the ESV's founding as an explicitly complementarian project. Connects to existing vault work on the Passion Translation — the LSB and ESV are the respectable-institution instances of the same underlying move. ### Formal/dynamic equivalence is an abandoned framework still governing popular discourse Where/why: frameworks segment. Word-for-word vs. thought-for-thought is described as an outdated dichotomy that hasn't informed working Bible translation for years but persists in online apologetics — a clean instance of scholarship-to-popular lag. ## Permanent candidates - H1 was already promoted in a prior pass — see [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/What a Recommendation Omits Identifies Its Real Selection Criterion]]. Do not recreate. - H2, H4, and the two-tier-authoritative-text pattern (Septuagint invoked to overrule the Hebrew at Isaiah 7:14, Masoretic preferred elsewhere) all connect to existing Permanents rather than warranting new ones — see Links below. ## Processing checklist - [x] Confirmed this doc's `notes` field already contained a full deep-read (Refactor Appendix present) — ported directly - [x] Checked existing Permanent notes before treating any atom as new — all already covered; connected rather than duplicated - [x] Connect into the relevant MOC — [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] ## Links - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Faith & Theology MOC]] — translation methodology, textual criticism, and doctrine-distribution through translation choice - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Divine-Revelation Translation Claims Immunize a Work From Scholarly Critique]] — because applies-in: the LSB's univocality/inspiration framing across this video's segments - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Two-Tier Use of Authoritative Texts Reveals Implicit Theology More Clearly Than Explicit Statements]] — because applies-in: the Septuagint-to-overrule-Hebrew, Masoretic-preferred-elsewhere pattern at Isaiah 7:14 is a textbook instance - [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/This Is NOT How You Evaluate Bible Translations]] — source document