Thoughts on the CSB

[Van]

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 translation 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, neither 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 translation 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 Calvinistic. Accusing the translation of having a theological agenda to promote Calvinist is a baseless charge. It is a good translation.

I am unaware of the charge the CSB (or the HCSB) is Calvinistic. Some of the CSB study notes are Calvinistic. The CSB is better than the ESV, NIV and NLT. But because we should prefer word for word translation philosophy versions, the NASB, NKJV and LEB are superior for study purpose, but certainly the CSB can be a valuable comparison study bible

 

[Rippon]

But because we should prefer word for word translation philosophy versions,

Since they don't exist --why should we prefer them?

certainly the CSB can be a valuable comparison study bible

Since you regard the CSB as "deeply flawed" how can it be considered
valuable" in any sense?

Your reasoning is quite irrational Van.

 

[Van]

We are all "deeply flawed" yet God uses us as ambassadors for Christ.
As far as the absurdity that word for word philosophy versions do not exist, I guess interlinears, LEB, NASB, NKJV, do not exist.
Look at any bible comparison chart, with word for word at one end and thought for thought at the other. Again, they post to derail discussion of the topic, in this case flaws in the CSB.

 

[Van]

Agedman, thanks for agreeing with my post #43. BTW, you were spot on with your post #39.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.)

I would say its more that the Csb, and the Niv, Esv, many other versions, do not meet your seal of approval, buton what translation team have you been on again?

 

[Yeshua1]

I am unaware of the charge the CSB (or the HCSB) is Calvinistic. Some of the CSB study notes are Calvinistic. The CSB is better than the ESV, NIV and NLT. But because we should prefer word for word translation philosophy versions, the NASB, NKJV and LEB are superior for study purpose, but certainly the CSB can be a valuable comparison study bible

I would agree with you the the more formal translations are superior for biblical studies, but those such as Niv/Csb are still valid and good ones in their own right.

 

[McCree79]

I would agree with you the the more formal translations are superior for biblical studies, but those such as Niv/Csb are still valid and good ones in their own right.

The NIV and CSB are good. But one will usually favor a translation based on thier presupposition. Should a translation reflect as closely as possible, the words of the author? If you believe that you will naturally think the NASB, ESV, or NKJV are some od rhr best around. If you believe that a translation should reflect the thoughts of the orginal readers as they read the ancient writing in their lifetime, you will favor the NLT or GW. If you want something in between, you probably feel the NIV or CSB are two of the best available.

Since I favor the first, I like the NASB and the ESV. I also feel the NLT has gone to far by over interpreting and assuming interpretations they should have left to the reader. Christians will never be in agreement on the "best" translation due to our different presuppositions. That being said, I believe most English readers would fall into the "balanced" or "meditating" approach and favor the NIV and CSB.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

The NIV and CSB are good. But one will usually favor a translation based on thier presupposition. Should a translation reflect as closely as possible, the words of the author? If you believe that you will naturally think the NASB, ESV, or NKJV are some od rhr best around. If you believe that a translation should reflect the thoughts of the orginal readers as they read the ancient writing in their lifetime, you will favor the NLT or GW. If you want something in between, you probably feel the NIV or CSB are two of the best available.

Since I favor the first, I like the NASB and the ESV. I also feel the NLT has gone to far by over interpreting and assuming interpretations they should have left to the reader. Christians will never be in agreement on the "best" translation due to our different presuppositions. That being said, I believe most English readers would fall into the "balanced" or "meditating" approach and favor the NIV and CSB.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

That was one of the best posting yet made on this subject matter!

 

[Van]

Let's consider Jude 1:5,

" Now I want to remind you, although you came to know all these things once and for all, that Jesus {a] saved a people out of Egypt and later destroyed those who did not believe;"

Footnotes:

1. 5: Other mss read the Lord, or God

The NASB has Lord where the CSB has Jesus. But both the LEB and NET also have Jesus in the main text. The NASB includes a footnote that early mss read Jesus. All this to say the CSB handled this improved understanding of the text correctly, putting what the translators believe is most likely the correct reading in the main text, but footnoting alternate possibilities.

By the way, file this upgraded view as reinforcing the view that the Angel of the Lord in the OT was indeed, the second person of the Trinity.

 

[Rippon]

As far as the absurdity that word for word philosophy versions do not exist, I guess interlinears,

Do you consider interlinears to be translations?

LEB, NASB, NKJV, do not exist.

They are not word-for-word --no translation can be. You are living in a fantasy world Van --a Vantasy.

Some translations such as you mentioned are more formal in their approach, but certainly can't be considered word-for-word. As a self-proclaimed translation expert you should be aware of this fundamental principle.

 

[McCree79]

Let's consider Jude 1:5,

The NASB has Lord where the CSB has Jesus. But both the LEB and NET also have Jesus in the main text. The NASB includes a footnote that early mss read Jesus. All this to say the CSB handled this improved understanding of the text correctly, putting what the translators believe is most likely the correct reading in the main text, but footnoting alternate possibilities.

By the way, file this upgraded view as reinforcing the view that the Angel of the Lord in the OT was indeed, the second person of the Trinity.

The ESV also reads "Jesus". I also agree with your conclusion that it was the Son present. As I beleive it was The Son's presence seen in Isaiah' vision in the temple. I suspect the 2018 NASB will read Jesus as well.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[McCree79]

Do you consider interlinears to be translations?

They are not word-for-word --no translation can be. You are living in a fantasy world Van --a Vantasy.

Some translations such as you mentioned are more formal in their approach, but certainly can't be considered word-for-word. As a self-proclaimed translation expert you should be aware of this fundamental principle.

I agree with Rippon here. "Word for word" is a misleading phrase. "Formal" is better word to describe the philosophy behind the ESV and NASB. I have been studying Greek for the last 6 months or so. It doesnt take long before you realize that words, such as articles have to be added or subtracted. Genitive nouns will cause you to add words as well as dative. Verbs frequently demand multiple words....so on and so on....any way, "word for word" is misleading.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to those who misrepresent the views of others to derail and disparage.
I said "But because we should prefer word for word translation philosophy versions,
They indicated I said "word-for-word"

Like liberals, they gin up issues to deflect and disparage.

Next, I am charged as a "self proclaimed translation expert." No quote will be forthcoming. The charge is totally bogus, invented to deflect and disparage, and change the subject from flaws in the CSB to insults directed toward me.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with Rippon here. "Word for word" is a misleading phrase. "Formal" is better word to describe the philosophy behind the ESV and NASB. I have been studying Greek for the last 6 months or so. It doesnt take long before you realize that words, such as articles have to be added or subtracted. Genitive nouns will cause you to add words as well as dative. Verbs frequently demand multiple words....so on and so on....any way, "word for word" is misleading.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Yes, as the basic translation philosophy would be in a formal version to keep the literal meaning over into english when possible, but also at times need to do a looser rendering, such as idioms, in order to get point across. Its basically a question of the primary emphasis of the translators on how to handle bring original languages over into english version.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pay no attention to those who misrepresent the views of others to derail and disparage.
I said "But because we should prefer word for word translation philosophy versions,
They indicated I said "word-for-word"

Like liberals, they gin up issues to deflect and disparage.

Next, I am charged as a "self proclaimed translation expert." No quote will be forthcoming. The charge is totally bogus, invented to deflect and disparage, and change the subject from flaws in the CSB to insults directed toward me.

By what basis are you equipped and able to decide what makes Csb flawed though?

 

[Van]

On what basis are you allowed to post off topic insults, rather than address the flaws in the CSB?
Did I post some CSB flawed verses and explain the flaws? Yes.
Did you address any of the flaws? Nope
Your purpose is clear, to derail and disparage.

 

[Rippon]

I said "But because we should prefer word for word translation philosophy versions,
They indicated I said "word-for-word"

The ESV, for instance, claims to be essentially literal. That's the stated philosophy. However, what counts is the actual practice.

The NIV stated philosophy is the same as its actual practice.

Word-for-word translation is a myth. Whether someone calls it a philosophy doesn't matter a whit. It can't be done most of the time.

As I said, some translations are more form-oriented, but even they can't possibly employ word-for-word readings through a verse much less a pericope.

Next, I am charged as a "self proclaimed translation expert."

LOL! Of course you regard yourself as an expert translator.

You often castigate real translators as incompetent liberals who don't know what they're doing. I will gladly supply a number of quotes from your very own keystrokes to support my contention in the next few days to jar your faded memory.

You need to refresh your memory Van. Hundreds of times when you object to the rendering of a text in various translations in favor of your own (usually novel) reading your reasoning just asserts :"It should read." That's not very convincing, to say the least.

Yet you carry on your stale routine and appeal to your non-existent "folks" for support.

It's quite laughable.

 

[McCree79]

Add clarification on the ESV philosophy. From the preface of the ESV.....
"Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence."

The ESV team fully acknowledges that they are not word for word throughout the text.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Let's consider 1 Corinthians 15:58, "Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the Lord’s work, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain."

First, the text reads "brothers" so the addition and sisters could be italicized to let the read know the words have been added in the name of gender inclusiveness. Now steadfast might be considered antiquated so be firm and unwavering, might convey the idea with greater clarity. Now what is the idea of always excelling in the Lord's work. Is the idea quality, quantity, or just sustained effort? And what is the Lord's work? Work the Lord has done, or work the Lord has for us to do? How about always engaging in work for the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain. Now why would our labor not be in vain. Because we are in Christ a new creature, created for good works. So knowing your labor in the Lord is not in vain. But vain too may be a little old fashioned.
In summary, "Therefore my dear siblings, be firm and unwavering, always engaging in work for the Lord, knowing that your labor in the Lord is not wasted."

Now is this any better than the CSB version? Probably not. But by going over the verse, asking "what is this intended to mean" we engage in form of study, which can be utilized with any formal translation, and study of God's word is something the Lord has for us to do.

 

[Van]

Word-for-word translation is a myth.

Off topic absurdity designed to change the subject.

LOL! Of course you regard yourself as an expert translator

You can always tell when someone misrepresents my position, they claim the bogus view was derived by mind reading. Ascribing ulterior motives. More change the subject deflection.