CSB?

[Rippon]

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.

This was from my #30 post. I reminded you again in post 60. You have been ignoring it. Why?

This thread is about the CSB. You claim to have read through it.

I'll ask you again: Do you have any problem about the way the CSB translated those 25 verses in James? This will require
you to actually read and digest the content.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This was from my #30 post. I reminded you again in post 60. You have been ignoring it. Why?

This thread is about the CSB. You claim to have read through it.

I'll ask you again: Do you have any problem about the way the CSB translated those 25 verses in James? This will require
you to actually read and digest the content.

Actually, It's your post #36 and Y1 answered in post #37.

 

[Rippon]

Actually, It's your post #36 and Y1 answered in post #37.

You are right. It was post 36, and as I said posted again in #60.

But you are quite wrong in saying he "answered" it. He certainly did not. He can't just say those 25 verses met some guidelines.
He has to actually read the verses and then comment. It's called interaction. He is averse to that.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus is not in that Psalm. You think that son of man in Ps. 8:4 refers to Christ. But it means people.

I will quote from the NLT :
"what are mere mortals that you should think about them, human beings that you should care for them,"

The first phrase in all translations of that verse means the very same thing as the second phrase.

Mortals = human beings
Mankind ==human beings
Man == son of man

It's not even Son of Man, but son of man. Humanity is being referenced.

Except that was known to be a Messianic Psalm, and the Spirit Himself testified to that!

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

Well, the CSB & NIV use different mss than the KJV & NKJV use. Wouldn’t those verses being debated be under the umbrella of textual variants?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well, the CSB & NIV use different mss than the KJV & NKJV use. Wouldn’t those verses being debated be under the umbrella of textual variants?

No. It's not a question of the texts.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

CEB...”Fellow believers...”
21st Century KJV...”Men and brethren...”
AMP...”Brothers...”
CSB...”Brothers and Sisters...”
CSV...”My friends...”
ESV...”Brothers...”
GNT...”My friends...”
ICB...”Brothers...”
ISV...”Brothers...”
LEB...”Men and Brothers...”
MSG...”Friends...”
NASB...”Brethern...”
NCV...”Brothers...”
NET...”Brothers...”
NIV...”Brothers...”
NLT...”Brothers...”

Personally, I don’t see anything technically wrong with Brothers and Sisters being used. James was addressing everybody there, just not the Jerusalem council. I figure women are there in the crowd, and if so, he was also addressing the women, Sisters, as he spoke.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

I am not seeing anything different in Psalm 24 in either the NIV2011 or NKJV. The NIV has footnotes **or You made him a little lower than the angels;/ you crowned him with glory and honor/ 8 and put everything under his feet.”

So, I think this is a textual variant, iirc.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not seeing anything different in Psalm 24 in either the NIV2011 or NKJV.

Psalm 24:3-5, NIV 2011.
'Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

If I were preaching from these verses, I would refer them to the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that. He has kept the law of God perfectly and has entered into the Holy Place as our forerunner (Hebrews 6:20; 9:12). But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured.

The NIV has footnotes **or You made him a little lower than the angels;/ you crowned him with glory and honor/ 8 and put everything under his feet.”

So, I think this is a textual variant, iirc.

You have shifted to Psalm 8/Hebrews 2 here. There are textual variants in Heb 2, but they don't affect singular and plural. Verse 7 has auton, 'him' and verse 8 has autou, 'his' in all MSS. I'm glad that the NIV gives the proper translation in the footnotes, but most readers will not consult those. 'Them' (v.7) and 'their' (v.8) appear in no ancient manuscripts and are a fabrication of the translators who should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

CEB...”Fellow believers...”
21st Century KJV...”Men and brethren...”
AMP...”Brothers...”
CSB...”Brothers and Sisters...”
CSV...”My friends...”
ESV...”Brothers...”
GNT...”My friends...”
ICB...”Brothers...”
ISV...”Brothers...”
LEB...”Men and Brothers...”
MSG...”Friends...”
NASB...”Brethern...”
NCV...”Brothers...”
NET...”Brothers...”
NIV...”Brothers...”
NLT...”Brothers...”

Personally, I don’t see anything technically wrong with Brothers and Sisters being used. James was addressing everybody there, just not the Jerusalem council. I figure women are there in the crowd, and if so, he was also addressing the women, Sisters, as he spoke.

It is wrong because it is a mistranslation. Andres adelphoi cannot mean 'brothers and sisters.' Is this the word of God or is it not? If we are agreed that it is, it must be translated humbly and accurately. Andres =man (member of the male sex). Adelphoi = brethren. 'Men and brethren' as per the NKJV. There is no possible reason to translate it any other way. I would say that undoubtedly there were no women at the Council of Jerusalem. Certainly none are mentioned and it was the 'apostles and elders' who met (Acts 15:6). Perhaps that's why it was concluded so quickly and amicably

As I pointed out before, there is another serious point here. If andres adelphoi can be translated 'brothers and sisters' in Acts 15:7 & 14, why not in Acts 2:37? '....and [they] said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers and sisters, what shall we do?"' And, Hey presto! You have female apostles.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Psalm 24:3-5, NIV 2011.
'Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord?
Who may stand in his holy place?
The one who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not trust in an idol
or swear by a false god.
They will receive blessing from the Lord
and vindication from God their Saviour.’

If I were preaching from these verses, I would refer them to the Lord Jesus Christ. Who among us can say, “Yes, my hands are clean and my heart pure. I can stand before God with absolute confidence”? No, no. It is only Christ who could say that. He has kept the law of God perfectly and has entered into the Holy Place as our forerunner (Hebrews 6:20; 9:12). But by switching from singular to plural in verse 5, not only does the reading jar horribly, but the reference to our Lord is obscured.

Is God the Saviour of the Christ? If we are in Christ, we have a pure heart and clean hands. So I see nothing wrong with the rendering in that passage.

Vs 7 to the end of the chapter is about God.

You have shifted to Psalm 8/Hebrews 2 here. There are textual variants in Heb 2, but they don't affect singular and plural. Verse 7 has auton, 'him' and verse 8 has autou, 'his' in all MSS. I'm glad that the NIV gives the proper translation in the footnotes, but most readers will not consult those. 'Them' (v.7) and 'their' (v.8) appear in no ancient manuscripts and are a fabrication of the translators who should be ashamed of themselves.

Psalm 8 is about God having given mankind dominion over the earth.

Hebrews 2 follows along that same path. Then in vs 9 we see the Christ becoming human, partaking of the flesh, in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet sinless. He was made lower for a little while, in that He tasted death. That’s the context of that chapter.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Is God the Saviour of the Christ? If we are in Christ, we have a pure heart and clean hands. So I see nothing wrong with the rendering in that passage.

Vs 7 to the end of the chapter is about God.



Psalm 8 is about God having given mankind dominion over the earth.

Hebrews 2 follows along that same path. Then in vs 9 we see the Christ becoming human, partaking of the flesh, in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet sinless. He was made lower for a little while, in that He tasted death. That’s the context of that chapter.

Oh boy! I'll try just once more and then I'm finished here. You are entitled to believe whatever you want about these passages. Being honestly wrong is OK, really. What no one is entitled to do is to change the Bible to prevent people from coming to a legitimate conclusion. That is what the JWs do. By turning singulars into plurals, the NIV translators have done just that. It no doubt brings pleasure and delight to extreme feminists, and to transgenderists who like to be referred to as 'they,' but it prevents the Christian from finding Christ in all the Scriptures, which is what we are supposed to do (John 5:37; Luke 24:27).

 

[Rippon]

By turning singulars into plurals, the NIV translators have done just that. It no doubt brings pleasure and delight to extreme feminists, and to transgenderists who like to be referred to as 'they,' but it prevents the Christian from finding Christ in all the Scriptures, which is what we are supposed to do (John 5:37; Luke 24:27).

The above is bogus junk.

 

[Rippon]

"Psalm 8, both in its Old Testament context and in its context in Hebrews, is about God's intention for humanity. Jesus fulfills this destiny by acting as the true human representative. The plural references in both Psalm 8:4 and Hebrews 2:6-8 capture this sense well." (Fee and Strauss)

 

[rsr]

M.M.: I would recommend D.A. Carson's "The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism" on both points you raise. Carson contends that aner (and variants) may, in fact, in some circumstances may not refer specifically to males (see pages 124-125). For consideration of Psalm 8, see pages 178-181.

"4. Yet some of the criticisms that have been advanced against inclusive-language renderings of Psalm 8 in Hebrews 2 have been, in my view, a tad unfair. The commentanes are divided on the point I am about to raise, but the majority of the major commentaries adopt this stance, and I am persuaded they are right-even though I could justify this view only by a lengthy exegesis for which there is neither time nor space here. Hebrews 2 (they argue) does not present Jesus as the "son of man" in some technical, messianic sense. Rather, it presents Jesus as a human being, a true human being. He did not become an angel (2:5, 16-and no redeemer has arisen for fallen angels). Jesus had to belong to the same "family" as those he came to redeem (2:11); he had to become their brother (2: 12). Since they have flesh and blood, that is, since they are human, he too shared in their humanity (2: 14). ThIS is the first necessary ingredient to his serving as a faithful high priest for them (2: 17). The author of Hebrews has already pointed out that along some axes human beings are "higher" than angels, for angels are "ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation" (1:14). After all, the world to come has been assigned not to angels, but to human beings: God has put everything under their feet: that is the point of the quotation from Psahn 8 (Heb. 2:5-8). The trouble, of course, is that we do not yet see everything under the feet of human beings. But what do we see? We see Jesus (2:9). He became one with us humans, and thereby brings many "sons" (NIV; "sons and daughters," NIVI-an entirely reasonable rendering) to glory."

The entire book is available as a downloadable PDF (for free) at https://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/carson/1998_inclusive.pdf.

 

[Rippon]

Adelphoi = brethren. 'Men and brethren' as per the NKJV.

Even in the CSG, it says in B1 : "...the plural adelphoi can be translated 'brothers and sisters' where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women."

 

[Rippon]

On another well-known board someone once said: " Hebrews 2 is often pointed to as compromising on Jesus by changing 'son of man' to 'human beings.' That translation is less literal. But even conservative complementarians point out that 'son of man' isn't being used Christologically there."

 

[SovereignGrace]

Oh boy! I'll try just once more and then I'm finished here. You are entitled to believe whatever you want about these passages. Being honestly wrong is OK, really. What no one is entitled to do is to change the Bible to prevent people from coming to a legitimate conclusion. That is what the JWs do. By turning singulars into plurals, the NIV translators have done just that. It no doubt brings pleasure and delight to extreme feminists, and to transgenderists who like to be referred to as 'they,' but it prevents the Christian from finding Christ in all the Scriptures, which is what we are supposed to do (John 5:37; Luke 24:27).

Brother, I am NOT saying I am right here, as I am very open to correction.

Now, let’s look at the NKJV rendering of Psalm 8:4-9...

4) What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?


The subject of this verse is ‘What is man that You are mindful of him’. Notice that they capitalized You when it was referencing God? Yet, son of man in the same verse wasn’t? In other places where Son of man was referencing the Christ, Son was capitalized. So the NKJV saw it referencing man, not the Christ. I will expound further. Man is the subject in view.



5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen-- Even the beasts of the field,
8The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas.

Now, who is the ‘him’ being referenced in these verses? Man who has been given dominion over sheep and oxen, beasts of the field, birds of the air, and the fish of the sea. God gave this dominion to Adam and all his posterity when He said to him, ”Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."[Genesis 1:28]

9 O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth!

Then we see the Psalmist praising God for what He has done.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

M.M.: I would recommend D.A. Carson's "The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism" on both points you raise.

Read it. Don't agree with it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Brother, I am NOT saying I am right here, as I am very open to correction.

Now, let’s look at the NKJV rendering of Psalm 8:4-9...

4) What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?


The subject of this verse is ‘What is man that You are mindful of him’. Notice that they capitalized You when it was referencing God? Yet, son of man in the same verse wasn’t? In other places where Son of man was referencing the Christ, Son was capitalized. So the NKJV saw it referencing man, not the Christ. I will expound further. Man is the subject in view.



5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen-- Even the beasts of the field,
8The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas.

Now, who is the ‘him’ being referenced in these verses? Man who has been given dominion over sheep and oxen, beasts of the field, birds of the air, and the fish of the sea. God gave this dominion to Adam and all his posterity when He said to him, ”Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."[Genesis 1:28]

9 O Lord, our Lord, How excellent is Your name in all the earth!

Then we see the Psalmist praising God for what He has done.

Brother, you are still missing my point. Please go back and read my post #112 again. I haven't time to post the same argument over and over again, but I must be doing it very badly because no one's taking any notice of it.

Even in the CSG, it says in B1 : "...the plural adelphoi can be translated 'brothers and sisters' where the context makes clear that the author is referring to both men and women."

For crying out loud, everybody knows that adelphoi can refer to both men and women, but andres adelphoi can only refer to men. Moreover the context makes it absolutely clear that the company was exclusively male. Acts 15:6-7. 'Now the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them.........' What did he say? Were there female apostles and female elders there? Yes or no?