Thoughts on the CSB

So your position is that those on the Csb/Esv translation teams sat around and discussed how to play loose and fast with word of God?

 

Yet another off topic post by the posters that do not offer any verse to discuss. Tell me again Yeshua1, why is it that the CSB translators rewrote scripture, as in 1 Cor. 6:5, yet other equally qualified translators did not see the necessity?

 

Were they wrong in their rendering, or was a viable way that you just don't like?

 

Yet another off topic post from the posters that do not present CSB verses to discuss. Words have meanings, and when translators depart from their historical meanings, then the message of the Bible is altered. Still waiting for one of these loose translation advocates to present a verse that cannot best be presented by a word for word translation philosophy method. Me thinks they are holding an empty sack.

 

Folks, behold the empty sack. They just repeat the mantra, but no verse is cited to show how word for word methodology could not provide an accurate, and readable translation.

I provided several CSB verses where a more word for word methodology would have actually improved the translation.

In post #7, I provided "one of a kind" as a phrase that best translated the meaning of monogenes. The CSB used "one and only" which is misleading because Jesus is not the only Son of God, every born anew believer is a son of God.

In post #9, I provided the CSB "use a woman for sex" as being unfaithful to the source text which literally translated says "touch a woman." Additionally the CSB translated the same or a similar idiom as touch you (i.e. literally) at Ruth 2:9, but made an effort at translating it idiomatically at 1 Cor. 7:1.

The word translated sanctify also refers to holiness or being made holy. 1 Thessalonians 4:7, "7 For God has not called us to impurity but to live in holiness. (CSB) Here the CSB correctly renders G38 "holiness." However, as a matter of improved clarity and readability, they could have translated the verse "For God has not called us to impurity but to holiness. So this verse provides an example where an improved word for word methodology results in improved clarity and readability.

Verse after verse was presented with specifics of the actual flaws. It is time for the naysayers to present more than unsupported assertions.

 

You assume that equal evidence exists for that idiom in Hebrew and Greek, when we have much more surviving Koine Greek literature than classical Hebrew. Are the translators being more conservative in their approach in Ruth due to differing levels of evidence? We are dealing with two different languages and a separation of composition by several centuries. Saying this is an apples to apples comparison is untrue.

But it's easier to do a drive by post than investigate, I reckon.

 

Rob, How do you know what I assume? Are you too claiming to be a mind reader? Is there evidence the idiom exists in both Hebrew and Greek? Yes. In my opinion the translators made the right choice in Ruth and the wrong choice in 1 Corinthians.

And you too did not offer any evidence for the need to not stick with the more literal word for word methodology and footnote the idiomatic meaning, like the CSB did in Ruth 2:9.

And I did provide four verses where the idiom appears, thus I provided evidence of some investigation. But you chose to disparage, belittle and cast yourself in a holier than thou role. It is time for the naysayers to present more than unsupported assertions.

 

One of the meanings of the Hebrew word translated "touch" means to harm or molest. Imagine of the CSB translators had put "touch a woman" in the main text and footnoted "molest a women" in the 1 Cor. 7:1 footnote.

 

I am sorry that you feel so abused. I will leave you to your beliefs.

As for me, I see translation as more art than science. Just as language is incredibly nuanced, and slight variations for stylistic or contextual reasons do not triggger me.

 

Laugh out loud, did you see an effort to translate John 3:16 with accuracy and clarity? Lets back up and look at the functional equivalent version.:

Here is the CSB,
16 For God loved the world in this way He gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

In the TC version, he kept the Greek word order, rather than rearranging the word order to express the verse in English. Does the word for word method of translation rearrange the words? Yes. So yet another redefinition of the method to justify shoddy translation.

Also, where the Greek might read "the God" the meaning in English is expressed "God. So some omission of Greek words occurs to provide the same meaning in English.

Next note the tense of "loves" in the TC version. The word is in the Greek tense indicating the action was already a done deal. Thus the more accurate word for word methodology would translate it "loved."

Which brings us to our choices within the historical word meanings, such as "thus" in TC's translation. Traditionally the Greek word has been translated "so" but more modern translations render it "in this way." Both fall within the word meaning for word meaning methodology.

So we are again left without a verse that cannot be translated using the word for word methodology with accuracy and clarity.
Here is a version of John 3:16, For in this way God loved fallen mankind: He gave His one of His kind Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life. Now this version would need to footnote "fallen mankind" as literally "the system."

 

You have not clearly demonstrated and proven that the perfect and clear meaning of every verse of Scripture can be presented by a completely consistent word-for-word translation method so perhaps your sack is empty.

Perhaps you attempt to use the fallacy of reversing the burden of proof since you have not proven your own positive assertions about word-for-word translation to be true.

Have you demonstrated that you are infallible and perfect in your understanding of the original-language Scriptures so that your suggested translations are to be assumed perfect?

 

When did Van, who claimed no ability in the languages become a self proclaimed authority?

Btw, Van, you ask about “brethren” used in 1 Corinthians 6:5, look here: Strong's Greek: 80. ἀδελφός (adelphos) -- a brother

 

Lets consider, many word for word philosophy versions exist, such as NASB, LEB, NKJV, which are far more literal than the NIV, NLT or CSB.

I have proved that not one poster has shown any verse that cannot be translated using the word for word philosophy. My view is that loose translation is unnecessary. You did not say whether you thought a word for word philosophy method could not be used on any verse. And if so what verse.

I stated my view, I supported it with examples of needless loose translation from some of the more thought for thought translations.
I did not use any fallacy to support my claim, I supported it with examples. Those maintaining that the thought for thought versions are needed have not provided any examples, thus they are presenting an empty sack.

Rather than perfect, my view is that versions using word for word methodology are better than less formal translations. This is a mainstream view held my many people.

I made no claim of infallibility or that my understanding of translation methodology is perfect. so you are misrepresenting my view. I have no idea why?

 

The issue is not that fellow believers (and the like) are not indicated in 1 Cor. 6:5, the issue is the translators in the loose versions did not stick to the historical word meaning, and then did not footnote that the verse literally read brothers or brothers and sisters or siblings. The idea we share a common kinship - from the same (spiritual) womb - was lost in translation.

And no quote will be forthcoming where I claimed to be an authority on translation or languages. But truth stands on its own without the need of credentials.

 

Don't be naive Van. It's not a black or white choice.

There is no such thing as a word-for-word translation as many have stated or w-f-w translation philosophy method. (The word "method" is redundant).

As someone with no actual translation expertise (except in your mind) you sure do a lot of fronting.

Go to your "helps" and see if you can do the first 13 verses of John word-for-word. You'll have to cheat a lot --but give it a go. Then present your "translation" for all BBers to see. Your English will be nonsensical. Then you will have proven that your proposition is false.

You need to bag it Van.

 

Each of the above translations has to rearrange words and alter the form of the original to make the readers understand the message. Many times there is no word-for-word correspondence.

I really doubt that you can prove that the LEB is "far more literal than the NIV and CSB." (The NLT is a different sort).
You can point to passages where the LEB is more form-oriented, but not far more literal than the NIV and CSB.

You have proven that you make unsupportable claims.

Do as I say。 As I said in a previous post --do the first 13 verses of the Gospel of John in word-for-word philosophy.
Your end product will look absurd.

The Message is loose. But most English translations are actually using phrase-for-phrase and clause-for-clause style.

Van, many posters think you exalt yourself and pretend to know more than you do. You view your "translations" as superior to those of real translators. Your condemnations of translations and translators is well-known in these parts.
Scores of times you have "corrected" various translations and said that particular passages "should read...". As if you had the authoritative inside scoop. It's rather off-putting.