Has anyone seen the new Literal Standard Version of the Bible

Found the text online on their website: https://www.lsvbible.com/

Is there any chance that Logos will pick up this translation? 

Is there any chance that Logos will pick up this translation? 

You can vote here. According to Andrew Batishko: this is the official place to request new books https://feedback.faithlife.com/boards/logos-book-requests/posts/literal-standard-version-bible 

Thank you, but this is not a book, but a new translation. Shouldn't new translations automatically be put on the list? What about the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) which is an update to the NAS95? 

I will request it, but I doubt that 2 or 3 people that want the LSV have enough influence to make it happen. By the way, Olive Tree Bible Software is already offering it for free. Just saying.

God bless.

Shouldn't new translations automatically be put on the list?

I'm more interested in having many of the old translations put on the list. However, there are so many new translations created each year that you need to define some parameters as to which new translations should be added automatically.

Shouldn't new translations automatically be put on the list?

there are so many new translations created each year

MJ's admission is one reason why I don't expect all new translations. "It has been estimated that nearly 500 versions of the English Bible have been published over the last 15 centuries" cited by https://www.theopedia.com/english-translations-of-the-bible Faithlife has provided a voting mechanism whereby we can suggest which translations to prioritize 

I have requested that Encyclopedia of English Language Bible Versions by Bradford B. Taliaferro (2012) be included in Logos - but it gained no traction at all which puzzles me, but then I am often puzzled. 

 This encyclopedia is the first book to identify, explain and categorize more than 1,400 versions of the English Bible. This includes 407 different Bibles, 53 Old Testaments, 407 New Testaments, more than 180 variants of the Authorized Version, 50 unfinished Bible versions and many others. It is an up-to-date and comprehensive reference work that includes internet versions along with print versions and offers details not found in other reference works. Scripture samples, bibliographic entries, translator lists, revision connections, variations of the texts, word substitutions and source texts are just some of the information found in this work. Biographical information about key translators is provided as well. Also unique to this work are difference tables which help differentiate among revisions of a particular Bible. An extensive index includes version titles, nicknames, abbreviations, translators, dates, source texts, and more.

What about the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) which is an update to the NAS95? 

I'm not able to upload it. I get always an error. But Mr. Luna from this thread got it. His email is in his profile.

I'm not able to upload it. I get always an error. But Mr. Luna from this thread got it. His email is in his profile.

I am completely confused by your post. What is the "it" you are trying to "upload?" What "error" are you getting? 

"it" means the Bible. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/193764/1202978.aspx#1202978 

Error see: I tried to upload it but I can't. See my post here https://community.logos.com/forums/p/206071/1199432.aspx#1199432 I tried at least 10 times in the past. 

To be honest I have written much more. But this crap of Forum software kicked me once again out. So I decided only to use short sentences.

It is offered for download in various versions here: https://www.lsvbible.com/p/get-lsv.html

A quick look through a few sections, I noticed a few things that may be of interest to those downloading.

In both the epub and pdf versions the "questioned" texts like the longer ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery are surrounded by double brackets. I did not notice any foot notes as reference on the said pages.

In the pdf version, there are "images" portraying Jesus that some may attribute to violation of the 2nd Commandment

"it" means the Bible. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/193764/1202978.aspx#1202978 

Error see: I tried to upload it but I can't. See my post here https://community.logos.com/forums/p/206071/1199432.aspx#1199432 I tried at least 10 times in the past. 

"it" means the Bible

If it is copyrighted, it is illegal to ”upload” it. 

In the pdf version, there are "images" portraying Jesus that some may attribute to violation of the 2nd Commandment

Let's not fall back to the iconoclast controversy of 726 to 842 AD.. Let's read history not repeat history.

But you know the feature requests I have done are also copyrighted by ME!!!!!!. Da ist mein Urheberrecht drauf. Und trotzdem kann ich hier schreiben.Was soll also das dumme Geschwätz von wegen Copyright. Jeder Satz den ich schreibe ist meine Autorenschaft und somit mein Eigentum. Nach deiner Logik könnte man ja gar nichts schreiben hier im Forum.

Or you can stop misrepresenting people's posts with your consistent condescending attitude! It is amazing that Faithlife allows you to continue to operate with that "MVP" tag.... If you possibly can see fit to get off your high horse/soapbox and recognize that there are a wide variety of views among users of Logos, you could clearly see from what I actually posted - it was a heads up for those it may offend depending on their views.

The views of MJ Smith are not the views of everyone in these forums, yet you seem to find ways to come at people as though you are the final authority.... 

In the pdf version, there are "images" portraying Jesus that some may attribute to violation of the 2nd Commandment

Let's not fall back to the iconoclast controversy of 726 to 842 AD.. Let's read history not repeat history.

I downloaded the PDF just to look at the pictures.  Unimpressed; I'm not sure what the point was. Not particularly artistic, certainly not period accurate. I guess someone likes them.

But I deleted the PDF ... I don't need the politicized evangelicals in my Bible. 

Or you can stop misrepresenting people's posts with your consistent condescending attitude!

Good grief, all I did was point out a bit of church history and I get a blistering attack. I thought it odd that you brought your theology so directly into the LST discussion so thought it appropriate to add context for your comment to deflect any theological discussion. I obviously misjudged the space from which you were writing. For that, I apologize -  I've never claimed to be socially adept. Yes, I did read your post as pushing the guidelines.