Thoughts on the CSB

Based up what reasons though should they read that way instead?

 

Each and every verse cited was dealt with in one or more posts in this thread. Please address the reasons given rather than requesting regurgitation. The CSB is deeply flawed, but is better than the ESV, NIV and NLT, in my opinion.

 

You are all over the place in your assertions, even on the same day!

In the You are not among my sheep thread you said:
"I point to the NASB, NKJV, LEB, and CSB as being faithful to the text rather than agenda driven."

On the one hand you consider it deeply flawed, and on the other hand you claim it is faithful to the text.

It's a case of Van vs. Van again.

 

Yet another change of subject (Van is once again flawed) rather than addressing the topic. The CSB is deeply flawed but is better than the ESV, NIV and NLT in my opinion.

"Of My sheep" refers to individuals who are open to the gospel, willing to accept God's word. They are the fields white for harvest.

 

No, that refers to those whoa re the elect of God, whom Christ died for, and they will hear His voice and respond to Him!

 

Deeply flawed, as in not be faithful to the Greek/Hebrew texts, or because they translated differently than you would have? Are your credentials in this superior to theirs?

 

Liberals love to tell non-liberals the meaning of words, except those meanings are not found in published dictionaries.
Is "use a woman for sex" "faithful to the Greek text" of 1 Corinthians 7:1?

 

It is an idiom. Does "touch a woman" have an established sexual meaning in English? No, it doesn't.

 

Ah, dear Rob, have you posted an opinion as fact?
The NIV thinks the idiom refers to marriage.
The NET thinks sexual relations are in view.
I think the idea is to engage in sexual misconduct.
Therefore since we do not know what exactly the idiom was intended to convey, we should translate the idiomatic phrase literally (touch a woman) and then footnote what we think the intended message was.
Your preference is not, repeat not, faithful to the Greek text.

 

Please quote my post, and highlight the parts you feel are opinion.

 

Deeply.

 

Because of Biblical footnotes, many bible students are aware of idiom "touch a woman" has an established sexual meaning. Of course they differ as to the exact meaning.

You did not say that was your opinion, you stated it as fact, when it is not.

 

As someone apparently agrees, the CSB has been shown to be deeply flawed. But that of course depends on how many botched verses does it take to say it is deeply flawed. Opinions may very but seven verses shows a pattern of flawed translation, in my opinion.

Compare how the CSB handled the idiom at Ruth 2:9 and at 1 Corinthians 7:1. Ruth says "touch you" with a footnote explaining the meaning is either sexual or physical harassment. They should have followed that methodology at 1 Cor. 7:1 (in my opinion.)

 

As you yourself said: "Van is flawed."

Setting yourself up as a master translator and issuing edicts evidences your flaws, that is a fraudulent translator.

 

Then source it. Touch a chord, a woman's touch... but show me an example of "touch a woman" being an English idiom with an estaished meaning.

 

Yet another change the subject to Van's flaws, rather than address the topic.

 

Did I say "touch a woman" was an English idiom. Nope. All these posters have are deflections from the actual topic. The CSB is deeply flawed, as I demonstrated. And it employs inconsistent methodology as I also showed.

 

Let's consider Psalm 1:1
HCSB: "How happy is the man who does not follow the advice of the wicked or take the path of sinners or join a group of mockers!"

CSB: "How happy is the one who does not walk in the advice of the wicked or stand in the pathway with sinners or sit in the company of mockers!"

Clearly from a "readability" perspective, the HCSB presents a much improved translation. Apparently a traditional translation introduces the three behaviors as "walk," "stand" and "sit." Another weakness is that many translations say "blessed is the man who" rather than happy. Now "blessed" seems archaic, but the idea is that the godly and therefore prudent choice will result in blessings or rewards. I think the CSB went downhill, taking the path of tradition, and joining provincialists.

Rewarded is the person who does not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path of sinners, or join in with mockers.

 

In my own view, If one had to make a choice, I would rather have as close as possible word for word rather then sacrifice for reading. But I am often unique in that perspective.

Now I know every translation is not complete without some aspect of readability.

What concerns me is placing the level of reading below a standard that allows for subjective thinking to replace objective analysis. When does subjective become paraphrase has been an issue at least since “Goodnews for Modern Man” hit the presses.

That is why a faithful steward will resource from more than one version to draw perspective.

 

I have read all of Revelation, most of John, 1&2 Samuel and reading through Acts and 1st Kings in the CSB right now. The NASB and ESV are still my preferred, but the CSB is still a good translation. It is a mediating transaltion like the NIV. I think the CSB will be better for most readers to read vs. the likes of the NASB and ESV. While the CSB is not prefect, niether is the NASB or NIV. I just recently got the Spurgeon Study Bible in CSB. I don't find much benefit in Spurgeon's comments, but the transaltion is worth having. Especially for comparison if you use a NASB or ESV. I have seen some accuse it of being a "Calvinist " translation. That is nonsense. Co-chair David Allen is at times a near rabid anti-calvinist. Accusing the translation of having a theological agenda to promote Calvinist is a baseless charge. It is a good transaltion.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk