Thoughts on the CSB

The more you study the ESV the more you realize the version has less formal equivalence than advertised.

 

Regarding the Preface to the ESV and how it's not entirely honest in its actual translation practice :

The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on 'word-for-word' correspondence....

As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language.

 

No, you're wrong as usual Van.

That says it all, right there. LOL!

You have to lose "siblings" --it doesn't flow well at all and is rather jarring.

I see you borrowed "is not wasted" from the ISV.

 

Pay no attention to how Mr. Rippon characterizes others, ascribing unchristian thoughts and deeds. He is not a mind reader.

Consider that there is no difference between male and female in Christ. To draw that distinction was not the intent of scripture, therefore siblings is a superior translation choice, in my very humble opinion.

Folks, another study approach is to see how the same version translated the same Greek word in other verses, review the Lexical meanings, and consider the translation choices of other translations.

Philippians 2:16 has "labor for nothing" in the HCSB. Note that Philippians 2:16 expresses a similar thought as 1 Corinthians 15:58.

 

Text actually reads "ἀδελφοί"-- brothers is not the automatic correct translation-- since the range greek usage of this word can mean brothers and sisters. So using 3 English words for the 1 Greek is not "adding" to the text but translating the text. If you were addressing both male and female, in the Greek you would use ἀδελφοί. Context would decide if women are being addressed by Paul as well. In another post you said there is no male or female in regards to salvation and inheritance(paraphrase). That is true, but is Paul addressing that here? Paul clearly recognizes the existence of two sexes in other passages. While Paul does talk about the resurrection; is equality of the inheritance in view here? No, the resurrection body is being discussed. Paul is using ἀδελφοί in the vocative case here. So it is the "who" that he is addressing here decides the correct translation. Since the church no doubt contained women who could look forward to the resurrection body, brothers and sisters is a completely acceptable form of direct address here.

V.58 alone is not sufficient for establishing context. You have to look at the complete passage. Who is being addressed in the passage. Seems clear, male and female.

*I will add that therefore in v.58 implies a practical application for the resurrection Paul speaks of. The work that Paul speaks of would include things like evangelism that Christians do for the kingdom. To eliminate "sisters" from the equation would be to excuse them from sharing the gospel.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

Thanks McCree79 for actually addressing the topic. There is no difference between male and female in Christ. So when Paul is addressing male and female believers, siblings is addressing their spiritual connection to Christ, rather than their biological differences. Sameness is the theme, not differences. See Galatians 3:28.

The idea is those born anew are all from the same (spiritual) womb. Siblings is far better than brothers and sisters in my opinion.

But I do agree with you "brothers and sisters" as a translation of G80, is not "adding to scripture" so I missed the mark on that point.

 

Another choice from brothers or brethren, to brothers and sisters or siblings would be "fellow believers" if born anew children of God are in view. Thus we would have, therefore my fellow believers, be firm and unwavering, always engaging in work for the Lord, knowing that your labor in the Lord is not wasted.

 

That would be viable due to context, but a highly dynamic rendering. Very NLT like.....if not full on paraphrase--actually it would likely be considered paraphrase. I would be very cautious translating ἀδελφοί as fellow believers. If Paul wanted to say "believers" he could have used πιστεύοντες.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

So you too believe the CSB sometimes goes with a full on paraphrase. We agree! Merry Christmas.

Ditto for the NIV (believers) NET (fellow Christians) NRSV (one believer and another) to parallel the CSB (fellow believers.) See 1 Corinthians 6:5

Siblings meaning from the same (spiritual) womb is looking like a viable word for word philosophy choice, better than brothers and sisters given the context. No need to rewrite scripture to be politically correct. Now if blood relatives (family members) or even fellow Jews are in view, then brothers and sisters works for me. Two different word meanings for G80 should be translated distinctively.

 

Yes, I would never translate ἀδελφοί as "believers" or "fellow believers".I am not comfortable with that. I would use brothers and sisters providing thr right context. Like I said previously, it maybe be accurate within the context....but it is highly dynamic, if not paraphrasing. The philosophy is to functional for me at that point. Others who favor a more dynamic philosophy will find it full acceptable.

I will not cast the CSB or NIV to the side because they get more functional at times verses other translations. That is not somthing they hide. They are great mediating translations. I just prefer a more formal transaltion.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

You have used that exact line and applied it to me scores of times. You have used it on others easily another score or two. You have to retire that gimmick.

Rereading my post #63 I have found nothing to support your falsehood Van.

 

"So while formal equivalent translators try to proceed with a method of formal equivalence (word-for-word replacement), their decisions are in fact determined by a philosophy of functional equivalence (change the form whenever necessary to retain the meaning).(p.28 of How To Choose A Translation For All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee and Mark L. Strauss)

 

I agree, word for word translation philosophy versions do exist, where the word or phrase meaning in the source language, is translated into the target language distinctively as the preferred methodology. The historical word meaning or meanings provide the range of options, but context determines the choice when source language words or phrases have more than one meaning. For example, siblings when born anew believers are in view. Another feature of note is that the original grammatical setting of the source word (noun, verb, modifier) is preserved in the translation. The NASB does a good job preserving the grammatical expression of the word meaning. Nouns remain nouns, verbs verbs and so forth.

 

You have poor reading comprehension skills Van.

You actually disagree with the quote I provided and you're lost in a jumble of words.

 

Yet another off topic post, full of insults, and change of subject bait. And folks, note how liberals like to define the meaning of an opponents words. Methods of translation in accordance with a philosophy of translation provide a mosaic, not a jumble. His versions are full of functional non-equivalence. Such as 1 Corinthians 6:5.

 

Rippon is right on this, as NO translation in English is literally word for word from the Greek/Hebrew, but some are more so than others, such as the ones you listed here!

 

Wonder what the "optimal equivalency" of the Nkjv refers to!

 

More so than the Csb though!

 

You seem to know somewhat the Greek Koine language, but don't know if Van does though.

 

Your definition of word for word does not comport with truth. The observation is off topic, calculated, it appears, to change the subject. Do you have any knowledge of problem verses in the CSB?