Christian Standard Bible 2017

[rsr]

Comment:
I rarely used the HCSB. I felt that it was "quirky". The use of Yahwey in the OT bothered me just as much as the over frequent use of Messiah in the NT.
When I write I rarely capitalize the pronouns for deity, so artificial IMO.

I'll have to look over the Christian Stand Bible when it comes out in March and spend some time in its pages.

Rob

I agree with the thrust of your concerns. "Squirrelly" might even be a better description in some cases.

Our previous pastor used the Holman extensively, so I compared it often to the ESV (and later LEB). The new pastor uses the ESV primarily.

I hope that the 2017 revision will be a real improvement and make it a worthy alternative to the NIV.

 

[Jerome]

2017 Christian Standard Bible (CSB): First Look [LINK]

A few notes of interest:
All HCSB bullet notes have been removed.
All 645 instances of Yahweh in the HCSB have been replaced with the more traditional LORD (all caps).

Oh boy. They previously put out full page ads with an earnest looking young man telling us that "The Name is Yahweh"

The remainder of the ad copy assures us that:

God gave us his personal name, which is why you’ll see it in the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Accuracy, one of the reasons you’ll love reading any of the HCSB digital or print editions.

You cannot make this stuff up.

 

[Deacon]

I've been using the Lexham English Bible in my studies this past year.
It also uses Yahweh for the places where the text reads YHWH.
When I read it in a group I replace it with, "the LORD". - I think it is more acceptable in a group setting.
Strangely the LEB text doesn't bother me as much.
Perhaps because I see it as a niche Bible than a mainstream one.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Press Release
B&H to Launch Christian Standard Bible (CSB) Version in 2017

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – (June 21, 2016) B&H Publishing Group announced today the completed revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Renamed the Christian Standard Bible® (CSB), the text will be available in a full line of Bibles for readers of all ages, with initial products releasing March 2017.


Comment:
I rarely used the HCSB. I felt that it was "quirky". The use of Yahwey in the OT bothered me just as much as the over frequent use of Messiah in the NT.
When I write I rarely capitalize the pronouns for deity, so artificial IMO.

I'll have to look over the Christian Stand Bible when it comes out in March and spend some time in its pages.

Rob

The Baptist version! SBC specifically...

 

[Jerome]

From the OP link:

Use of slave for δοῦλος/doulos has been changed to servant in most passages such as Romans 1:1.

Oops, there goes another key selling point in Lifeway's previous ad campaign. Remember this full page ad with another pensive chap admonishing "Are we servants or slaves?":

The ad copy at bottom intoned:

Slaves had no rights, but some servants did. So when readers see Christians called to be Christ’s slaves in the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the radical nature of discipleship is clearer. Accuracy, one of the reasons you’ll love reading any of the HCSB digital or print editions.

Flip...flop.

 

[Jerome]

Just a year ago, they were touting that the SBC's polling division Lifeway Research had found that:

READERS EMBRACE HCSB’S CHOICE OF ‘SLAVE’

Survey participants were told: “In the original Greek and Hebrew, the Bible occasionally uses words that some might think do not fit in our society today, such as ‘slave.’ Some translators think these should be translated literally as ‘slave,’ while others think they should reflect current context and be translated as ‘servant.’ Which do you prefer?”

Nearly half (46 percent) strongly prefer a literal translation, and 28 percent somewhat prefer a literal translation. Fourteen percent somewhat prefer a translation to reflect current context while 4 percent strongly prefer such a translation. Seven percent are not sure.

The HCSB translates many ancient concepts literally, including “slave,” and uses bullet notes at the end of the Bible to explain them.

 

[rsr]

Kudos to Holman folks for (belatedly) acknowledging errors.

 

[Rippon]

It is interesting to note that the CSB is moving closer to the NIV rather than the ESV direction.
It uses "brothetrs and sisters" when appropriate, noting that it is not bowing to political correctness, just being more accurate. That's the claim that the TNIV and current NIV made. It was a truthful claim, but was met with scorn. Let's see if it now acceptable in the eyes of those who denounced the same in the TNIV and new NIV. I have a feeling that it is now more acceptable. So the whole controversy was just much ado over nothing.

There are other signs of it being much closer to the NIV than it was in the older form. I bet World magazine will say hardly anything negative about it ---to their shame when they demonized the TNIV. Such hypocrites.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is interesting to note that the CSB is moving closer to the NIV rather than the ESV direction.
It uses "brothetrs and sisters" when appropriate, noting that it is not bowing to political correctness, just being more accurate. That's the claim that the TNIV and current NIV made. It was a truthful claim, but was met with scorn. Let's see if it now acceptable in the eyes of those who denounced the same in the TNIV and new NIV. I have a feeling that it is now more acceptable. So the whole controversy was just much ado over nothing.

There are other signs of it being much closer to the NIV than it was in the older form. I bet World magazine will say hardly anything negative about it ---to their shame when they demonized the TNIV. Such hypocrites.

Actually, the Niv DID bow down to poltical correctness and evangelical feminism...

 

[Rippon]

Actually, the Niv DID bow down to poltical correctness and evangelical feminism...

Actually you continue to sling false accusations.

And to be consistent, you will have to say that the NLT, NET and CSB are guilty of your wild charges too.

 

[Rippon]

I don't know if the CSB will continue to use the folowwing from the preface of their former offering:
" Optimal wequivalence starts with an exhaustive analysis of the text at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) in the original language to determine its original meaning and intention (or purpose). Then relying on the latest and best language tools and experts, the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original."

Though the HCSB and its new incarnation are known as mediating --the above describes functional equivalence to a T.

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually you continue to sling false accusations.

And to be consistent, you will have to say that the NLT, NET and CSB are guilty of your wild charges too.

You do understnd that a big reason they changed some wordingto to deal with the false views tha somehow te Bible was too "masculine", that it was biased against women supposely?

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know if the CSB will continue to use the folowwing from the preface of their former offering:
" Optimal wequivalence starts with an exhaustive analysis of the text at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) in the original language to determine its original meaning and intention (or purpose). Then relying on the latest and best language tools and experts, the nearest corresponding semantic and linguistic equivalents are used to convey as much of the information and intention of the original text with as much clarity and readability as possible. This process assures the maximum transfer of both the words and thoughts contained in the original."

Though the HCSB and its new incarnation are known as mediating --the above describes functional equivalence to a T.

Their version is a more conservative version of the new Niv!

 

[Friend of God]

From what I've read, many of the things that people currently appreciate about the HCSB are going away. It seems they will lose some current readers in an effort to gain many more.

 

[Jerome]

Yeah, they need to "reach different constituencies" if this revamped HCSB is to fly. They're teaming up with the leading Sunday School curriculum publisher to introduce it to those outside the Southern Baptist bubble: "David C. Cook has curriculum power."

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...lishers-partner-on-new-bible-translation.html

 

[Jerome]

From what I've read, many of the things that people currently appreciate about the HCSB are going away.

Looks like just about everything they highlighted in the previous ad campaign is being jettisoned.

Another full page ad, a half-faced gal offers "Looking for The Messiah?"

Not any more I guess. From the OP link:

the new CSB uses the title Messiah much less often than the HCSB, which used it 116 times in the New Testament

And the link noting all these changes is the second one (from a blogger), not the first one (from B&H).

 

[Rippon]

You do understnd that a big reason they changed some wordingto to deal with the false views tha somehow te Bible was too "masculine", that it was biased against women supposely?

You spout utter nonsense.
Are you willing to admit that the CSB, NET and NLT are "guilty" of your reckless charge? Spit it out and answer. Don't hedge, dodge or evade. If you accuse the NIV of such things then the same things apply to the CSB.

 

[Rippon]

Their version is a more conservative version of the new Niv!

Based upon what reasons do you arrive at such an unwarranted conclusion?

 

[Yeshua1]

You spout utter nonsense.
Are you willing to admit that the CSB, NET and NLT are "guilty" of your reckless charge? Spit it out and answer. Don't hedge, dodge or evade. If you accuse the NIV of such things then the same things apply to the CSB.

I am not accusive the Niv of anything, just saying that they have chosen to ue much more inclusive renderings than somemore formal versions chose too! And Csb did aslo, as does NLT!

 

[Yeshua1]

Based upon what reasons do you arrive at such an unwarranted conclusion?

http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html
Same reasoning as in the Niv 2011 edition!