Featured Christian Standard Bible 2017

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:

You cannot make this stuff up.

 

The Baptist version! SBC specifically...

 

From the OP link:

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:

Flip...flop.

 

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’

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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:

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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