• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

CSB?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Y-1 said the following on 12/19/17:
"That is my main concern with some of the latest translations such as CSB and NIV, as they at times seem to go into adding feminine [sic] material into their renderings, such as making it seem like women can teach and even be apostles!"
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Y-1 said the following on 12/19/17:
"That is my main concern with some of the latest translations such as CSB and NIV, as they at times seem to go into adding feminine [sic] material into their renderings, such as making it seem like women can teach and even be apostles!"

I don't think either version makes that leap.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Alright Brothers, I started this thread to gain ppl’s opinion on the CSB. Please stop going at each other’s throat.
You have had my opinion in posts #20, #31 and #41. There is one place Iknow of (thanks Rob!) where it forces women into the text where they are definitely not, and I get a bit fed up with reading 'human beings' constantly instead of 'men' or 'people.' But it is a whole lot better than the new NIV or the NRSV in that it doesn't pluralize, and the bits I've read seem to be quite well translated.

I would still prefer the ESV, NRSB or NKJV though.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Those quoted verses from Psalm 8 refer to mankind, not to the Messiah, who is not mentioned in the Hebrews passage until verse 9. In verses 6-8 we see God's planned destiny for mankind in general." John MacArthur
Well he's wrong, but since he uses the NASB SFAIK, he cannot be blamed for the 2011 NIV.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It would be helpful if you checked your facts before making claims that are incorrect.

Spurgeon on Psalm 8:5-8. 'These verses may set forth man's portion among the creatures before he fell; but as they are, by the apostle Paul* appropriated to man as represented by the Lord Jesus, it is best to give most weight to that meaning. In order of dignity, man stood next to the angels, and a little lower than they; in the Lord Jesus this was accomplished for He was made a little lower than the angels by the suffering of death. Man in Eden had the full command of all creatures, and they came before him to receive their names as an act of homage to him as the viceregent of God to them. Jesus, in His glory, is now Lord, not only of all living, but of all created things, and with the exception of Him who put all things under Him, Jesus is Lord of all, and His elect, in Him, are raised to a dominion wider than that of the first Adam, as shall clearly be seen at His second coming.' [from Spurgeon's 'Treasury of David']
*Spurgeon believed that Paul wrote the Letter to the Hebrews.

And you are disingenuous in your quotation of Edward Young's poem, because you know perfectly well that he also quoted another poem on the facing page, part of which reads,

'Lord, what is man that thou
So mindful art of him? Or what's the son
Of man, that thou the highest heaven didst bow,
And to his side did runne?

Baser than clay is he,
For sin hath made him like the beasts that perish,
Though next the angels he was in degree;
Yet this beast thou dost cherish.
He is not worthy of the least
Of all thy mercies, he's a beast.

Worse than a beast is man,
Who after thine own image made at first,
Became the devil's sonne by sin. And can
A thing be more accurst?
Yet thou they greatest mercy hast
On this accursed creature cast.

Thou didst thyself abase,
And put off all thy robes of majesty,
taking his nature to give him that grace,
To save his life didst dye.
He is not worthy of the least
Of all thy mercies; one's a feast.

Lo! Man is made now even
With the blest angels, yea, superior farre,
Since Christ sat down at God's right hand in heaven.
And God and man one are,
Thus all thy mercies man inherits,
Though not the least of them he merits.'
[Thomas Washbourne]

Yet this is not really the point. The point is that the translator does not have the right to prevent his readers from finding Christ in the text by turning singulars into plurals. If Carson and MacArthur are so wilfully blind that they cannot find Christ in Psalm 8 (something I find very hard to believe), that is their choice and their loss. But they don't have the right to deny to the reader the opportunity to obey the exhortation of his Saviour and find Him in all the Scriptures.
Since the Holy Spirit Himself saw Jesus in that Psalm, it really does not matter what Spurgeon, MacArthur, me,or you think about this, as His view trumps all others!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Those quoted verses from Psalm 8 refer to mankind, not to the Messiah, who is not mentioned in the Hebrews passage until verse 9. In verses 6-8 we see God's planned destiny for mankind in general." John MacArthur
Holy Spirit is right, and Dr Mac here is wrong!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Y-1, you have not addressed the above. Have you checked the 25 verses cited above in the CSB? Do you agree or disagree with the renderings? You'll have to read the verses yourself to check. Are you up to the task?
Do you agree that the Csb followed the Guidelines, while the Niv did not?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree. He has continually made false accusations against the NIV over the years, but here he lumps in the CSB as well.
The Niv was transalted in order to have evengelical feminist views creep in, as in the areas of women being equal to men in all areas, even as pastors/elder, I was wrong in regard sto the Csb though, as I assumed just because it has Gender inclusive language , had to be in the same boat as the Niv 2011. but the Csb followed the Guidelines, while the Niv did not.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have had my opinion in posts #20, #31 and #41. There is one place Iknow of (thanks Rob!) where it forces women into the text where they are definitely not, and I get a bit fed up with reading 'human beings' constantly instead of 'men' or 'people.' But it is a whole lot better than the new NIV or the NRSV in that it doesn't pluralize, and the bits I've read seem to be quite well translated.

I would still prefer the ESV, NRSB or NKJV though.
If one has to have a Gender Inclusive Bible for some reason, the Csb is only way to go, and I think that you meant Nasb as a preferred translation, not the Nrsv!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Since the Holy Spirit Himself saw Jesus in that Psalm, it really does not matter what Spurgeon, MacArthur, me,or you think about this, as His view trumps all others!
Yet you seem to be speaking for the Holy Spirit.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I heard some pics from the 2020 NASB update have leaked, and that the update translates adelphoi as "brothers and sisters."
I don't have a problem with that. Adelphoi is not necessarily gender-specific and the reader can see from the italics that 'and sisters' is not in the original. Where I have a problem is with the CSB translating andres adelphoi as 'brothers and sisters in Acts 2:29.' Aner (plural andres) is gender-specific. If you do it in verse 29, you are suggesting that there were female apostles since verse 37 also has andres adelphoi. Why should it not be 'brother and sisters' there?

I hope it should be obvious by now that my real beef is not with changing anthropos from 'man into 'person' but with using the plural to obliterate the possibility of finding the Lord Jesus in the text. I accept that not everyone may agree with me that Psalm 8 is, partially at least, about Christ-- that's OK-- but a translation should not unilaterally take away the ability of the reader to find Him there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top