CSB?

[Yeshua1]

The CSB made a substantial number of improvements over its predecessor, as did the 2011NIV over the 1984 product. In both cases the newer editions were needed and necessary.

Both greatly erred though in the gender inclusive department, as that was not really needed to get done!

 

[Yeshua1]

I picked up a free copy at a conference last year. I found what I felt was a serious error in it and was going to chuck it out, but I have given it a reprieve and glance at it from time to time. It is better than the 2011 NIV but is still too gender-inclusive for me. I shall stick to my trusty NKJV.

I've forgotten what the error was, but I'm sure @Rippon will tell you if you ask him.

They aimed for a translation that was less gender inclusive than Niv 2011, but still had many of it there, and also better reading than the Esv.

 

[Yeshua1]

The CSB made a substantial number of improvements over its predecessor, as did the 2011NIV over the 1984 product. In both cases the newer editions were needed and necessary.

The Csb diud it les than the Niv in Gender inclusive, so is better translation..

 

[Rippon]

Both greatly erred though in the gender inclusive department, as that was not really needed to get done!

You've aimed your feeble squirt gun at the NIV for eight years.

I want you tell me how the CSB has "greatly erred" with respect to its use of inclusive language.

I'd like you to furnish at least twenty examples of such passages without resorting to your ill-founded links.

You've claimed you have read it through. So here's your opportunity to display your knowledge.

 

[Rippon]

The Csb diud it les than the Niv in Gender inclusive, so is better translation..

Do you speak like you type?

 

[Rippon]

I picked up a free copy at a conference last year. I found what I felt was a serious error in it and was going to chuck it out, but I have given it a reprieve and glance at it from time to time.

I called you out a while back for going against Gideon's International principles.

Perhaps there's hope that a bite of conscience wore on you.

I've forgotten what the error was, but I'm sure @Rippon will tell you if you ask him.

Spoken like a man of shaky convictions. You claim there was serious error, but apparently it wasn't that much of a deal since you forgot.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you speak like you type?

I have a measured IQ of 140, but sometimes hard to articulate myself in a proper fashion!

 

[Yeshua1]

You've aimed your feeble squirt gun at the NIV for eight years.

I want you tell me how the CSB has "greatly erred" with respect to its use of inclusive language.

I'd like you to furnish at least twenty examples of such passages without resorting to your ill-founded links.

You've claimed you have read it through. So here's your opportunity to display your knowledge.

was wrong concerning the Csb, as it appears to have done this gender inclusibe renderins much better fashion than the new Niv did!
ps://cbmw.org/public-square/is-the-csb-really-gender-neutral/
Have Southern Baptists embraced gender-inclusive Bible translation? Not by a longshot.

The Csb followed the established guidelines of the Colorado Springs, but the new Niv did not!

 

[Rob_BW]

I picked up a free copy at a conference last year. I found what I felt was a serious error in it and was going to chuck it out, but I have given it a reprieve and glance at it from time to time. It is better than the 2011 NIV but is still too gender-inclusive for me. I shall stick to my trusty NKJV.

I've forgotten what the error was, but I'm sure @Rippon will tell you if you ask him.

If I recall correctly, it was inclusive language pertaining to the Jerusalem Council. Acts 15:13.

Andres Adelphoi in the Greek does not seem to support inclusive language in that passage.

 

[Rippon]

was wrong concerning the Csb, as it appears to have done this gender inclusibe renderins much better fashion than the new Niv did!



ps://cbmw.org/public-square/is-the-csb-really-gender-neutral/
Have Southern Baptists embraced gender-inclusive Bible translation? Not by a longshot.

There was not a single reference to any errors in the NIV. The only passage shown to be wrong was in 1 Timothy 3:2, from the NRSV.

You will have to demonstrate passages from the NIV that were wrongly translated in an inclusive manner whereas the CSB translated them correctly. Of course that alone would not settle anything. The CSB is not "the standard" by which other translations need to be measured.

Since you have read through the CSB, and profess to know the NIV, you should be able to offer proof. But of course we know that you cannot do that --never have and never will. You just rely on silly links that you don't bother to read.

You were wrong about the CSB though insisting that you read through it. Earlier you claimed it "greatly erred" --now you maintain it's fine. Something tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Yeshua1]

There was not a single reference to any errors in the NIV. The only passage shown to be wrong was in 1 Timothy 3:2, from the NRSV.

You will have to demonstrate passages from the NIV that were wrongly translated in an inclusive manner whereas the CSB translated them correctly. Of course that alone would not settle anything. The CSB is not "the standard" by which other translations need to be measured.

Since you have read through the CSB, and profess to know the NIV, you should be able to offer proof. But of course we know that you cannot do that --never have and never will. You just rely on silly links that you don't bother to read.

You were wrong about the CSB though insisting that you read through it. Earlier you claimed it "greatly erred" --now you maintain it's fine. Something tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.

I do not think the Csb eliminated Jesus as the Son of Man in Psalm 8!

 

[Rippon]

I do not think the Csb eliminated Jesus as the Son of Man in Psalm 8!

I have given you ample proof for the legitimacy of the NIV's rendering there. I have posted it dozens of times. D.A. Carson and John MacArthur, among others say it is not necessary to translate it as Son of Man in that chapter.

But that is beside the point. How about addressing the specific issue of inclusive language? Refer to my post #30. Do not do your vanishing act.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If I recall correctly, it was inclusive language pertaining to the Jerusalem Council. Acts 15:13.

Andres Adelphoi in the Greek does not seem to support inclusive language in that passage.

Thank you, Rob! That was the very thing. And an egregious error it is too. However, limited further inspection has not revealed many similar abominations. The CSB translations of Psalms 24 and Hebrews 2:6-9 are altogether better than the NIV 2011.

So my CSB still lives and is occasionally wheeled out for comparison purposes, but there is no chance of it becoming my version of choice.

 

[Rippon]

So my CSB still lives and is occasionally wheeled out for comparison purposes, but there is no chance of it becoming my version of choice.

That was just about the most reasonable, non-emotive, mature things you have ever said in this forum with no lies and venom.

 

[Rippon]

was wrong concerning the Csb, as it appears to have done this gender inclusibe renderins much better fashion than the new Niv did!

So says the man with a 140 IQ.

 

[Rippon]

The Csb diud it les than the Niv in Gender inclusive, so is better translation..

I was wondering if you approve of the CSB's inclusive language in the book of James.

These are the 25 verses in which it does not use male-specific language:

1:7, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 25
2:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 20, 24
3:7, 8, 9, 10, 12
4:11
5:9, 10, 12, 16, 17.

I didn't add 2:15 because all versions use the term "brother or sister" there.

Something else, the word "humankind" is used in 3:7. That's the only time it's used in the CSB. It's an awkward word. The NIV doesn't use it at all.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was wondering if you approve of the CSB's inclusive language in the book of James.

These are the 25 verses in which it does not use male-specific language:

1:7, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20, 25
2:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 20, 24
3:7, 8, 9, 10, 12
4:11
5:9, 10, 12, 16, 17.

I didn't add 2:15 because all versions use the term "brother or sister" there.

Something else, the word "humankind" is used in 3:7. That's the only time it's used in the CSB. It's an awkward word. The NIV doesn't use it at all.

the main deal between the Csb and the Niv 2011 in regards to gender Inclusive language is that the Csb follows the guidelines established in regards to how that shoudl be done, and the Niv did not!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you, Rob! That was the very thing. And an egregious error it is too. However, limited further inspection has not revealed many similar abominations. The CSB translations of Psalms 24 and Hebrews 2:6-9 are altogether better than the NIV 2011.

So my CSB still lives and is occasionally wheeled out for comparison purposes, but there is no chance of it becoming my version of choice.

How about how the Csb and Niv handles Psalm 8?

 

[SovereignGrace]

the main deal between the Csb and the Niv 2011 in regards to gender Inclusive language is that the Csb follows the guidelines established in regards to how that shoudl be done, and the Niv did not!

What are these guidelines?

 

[Yeshua1]

What are these guidelines?

Colorado Springs Guidelines
The Csb abided by them, the Niv did not!