-
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!
Contrasting The Csb with the Niv 2011
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
I felt pity for your little lonesome thread. Almost a solid month and no replies.
You have interesting ways of wording things. You said it seems to "to be a better version of the NIV itself." 1)So do you see it as a version of the NIV? 2) Did you mean to say :"It's a better version than the NIV."
Of course your opinion of things seems to alter radically at times. You have said in the past that it uses too much inclusive language. Then you change up and say it's just fine in that department.
You have been saying utterly untrue things about the NIV for eight years running now. You have said outrageous things without a scintilla of proof.
You've said the NIV advocates a blurring of the sexes. You have insisted that it advocates women as heads of homes. You have insisted that it promotes women as apostles, elders and pastors. I have always challenged you to produce verses in the NIV to back up your reckless claims. Yet all you do is offer stupid links that you haven't read yourself because they contradict your contentions or they don't even mention the specifics first presented.
Let's get factual and compare the NIV to the CSB in certain areas.
In the whole canon the CSB has the word elders 191. So does the NIV.
In the N.T. the CSB uses that word 62 times. The NIV uses it 64 times.
In the N. T. the CSB and NIV both use the word elders 68 times.
In the N.T. the CSB uses the term brothers and sisters 154 times. The NIV uses it 128 times.
In the N.T. the CSB uses the word man 703 times. The NIV uses it 731 times.
Last edited:
And yet the Csb observes the Guidelines, while the Niv did not
The Csb was acceptable to the SBC, while the Niv was not!
Not the same gender Inclusive for both!
Speak in understandable English.
I will list some verses from both the NIV and CSB.
Numbers 23:19a
CSB : God is not a man, that he might lie, or a son of man, that he might change his mind.
NIV : God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.
The term 'son of man' here just means a person --not God.
Psalm 146:3
CSB : Do not trust in nobles, in a son of man, who cannot save.
NIV : Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.
The CSB renders it as son of man. And it clearly means a human being.
Isaiah 51:12
CSB : Who are you that you should fear humans who die, or a son of man who is given up like grass.
NIV : Who are you that you fear mere mortals, human beings who are but grass.
Need I repeat that the term son of man is referencing people not Jesus?
The wording of the CSB is a bit awkward "given up like grass."
I like the NLT wording: So why are you afraid of mere humans, who wither like the grass and disappear?
Psalm 144:3
CSB : Lord, what is a human that you care for him, a son of man that you think of him?
It has a footnote saying :Or a mere mortal.
NIV : Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?
That verse should remind you of Psalm 8:4. Yes, it is speaking of people --not Jesus. Psalm 8:4 and Psalm 144:3
speak of human beings --not Jesus. Don't get hung up on the term 'son of God' -- don't think it applies to Jesus every time.
Numbers 23:19a
CSB : God is not a man, that he might lie, or a son of man, that he might change his mind.
NIV : God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.
The term 'son of man' here just means a person --not God.
Psalm 146:3
CSB : Do not trust in nobles, in a son of man, who cannot save.
NIV : Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.
The CSB renders it as son of man. And it clearly means a human being.
Isaiah 51:12
CSB : Who are you that you should fear humans who die, or a son of man who is given up like grass.
NIV : Who are you that you fear mere mortals, human beings who are but grass.
Need I repeat that the term son of man is referencing people not Jesus?
The wording of the CSB is a bit awkward "given up like grass."
I like the NLT wording: So why are you afraid of mere humans, who wither like the grass and disappear?
Psalm 144:3
CSB : Lord, what is a human that you care for him, a son of man that you think of him?
It has a footnote saying :Or a mere mortal.
NIV : Lord, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?
That verse should remind you of Psalm 8:4. Yes, it is speaking of people --not Jesus. Psalm 8:4 and Psalm 144:3
speak of human beings --not Jesus. Don't get hung up on the term 'son of God' -- don't think it applies to Jesus every time.
Both transaltion use Gender inclusive language at times, but the Csb did it much better!
Ppl are getting hung up on ‘son of man’ too much. God called Ezekiel that numerous times. When the Christ called Himself that, He was counting Himself among His creation. He became flesh(son of man) and lived among us. He was, and is, always the Son of God), the second Person in the Trinity.
Yeah, like people will believe you. You lost credibility long ago y1.
Interesting that the SBC, conservative Lutheryns, Dr Grudem and others agreed with me though!
Think about your nonsense claims. It is just as absurd saying those phony things about the NIV as it would be to say the same regarding the NASB, ESV, NKJV, CSB, NET and NLT. It would be just as ridiculous and shameful.
My biggest complaint (other than I still believe the reason behind the CSB is financial rather than a need for another translation) is the the lack of consistency with the CSB. There are verses where the CSB does a better job than the NIV, ESV, and NASB (John 3:16, for example) but some of the choices they used do not make sense to me. Your example here is a good example. They do the same with "happy" and "blessed".
I don't think the CSB poor translation, but I do believe it an unnecessary one,
Jesus was not using that term to referto his own humanity, but to identify Himself with the Son of Man messianic being in Daniel!
The "hang up" on that term is that Psalms indeed has Jesus as its focal point, as the divine Son of Man!
Or the times Rippon curt down the Kjv perhaps?
My poin t was that comparing the Csb and the Niv as being Inclusive language versions, the Csb meets the Guidelines, while theNiv did not, and thta is why the SBC for example allowed for the Csb and not Niv!
I disagree. I believe the SBC often goes for the CSB because it is their translation.
You just can't admit your guilt. Stop deflecting. That's what cowards do. I don't make up stuff
as you have for the last eight years.
You need to fess up or get out of Dodge.
Speaking of Dodge --that's your M.O. --always dodging --never addressing my pointed, and direct questions.
You have made utterly false claims about the NIV that you have never bothered to back up with evidence. You have never produced facts -- citing passages from the NIV that support your infantile claims.
Show verses from the NIV which promote a blurring of gender distinctions.
Show verses that promote women as heads of households.
Show verses that promote women as apostles.
Show verses that promote women as elders.
Show verses that promote women as pastors.
It is long past time for you to put up or shut up.
Lies do not advance the kingdom of God. Truth-telling is a missing commodity in your posts.
No, rather its due to the Csb translating per those Colorado Springs Guidelines, while the Niv chose not to do that!
I have sent to you a boatload of people who agree with me, but you always just claim that they are bogus!
Brother Martin understood me well!
Your evasions are at an historic level. You are the essence of bogus.
How dare you quote my post #17 and not deal with any of its content. You throw mud constantly and then run to hills when told to back up your evil accusations.
Man up and back up your absurd charges. Give proof by way of quoting verses that demonstrate that the NIV promotes women as heads of households. Give proof that the NIV promotes women as apostles. Give proof that the NIV promotes women as elders and pastors. Give proof that the NIV obscures gender distinctions. Give proof that the "NIV seems to want equal roles for male/female." (6/23/17)
You can't just make wild assertions and have people believe you. Your track record of fibs is a long and shameful one.
You remind me of Dr. Ford. She just threw out a ton of lies about Judge K. and thought that was enough. Proof? Not a smidgeon. You also are a false accuser.
You are incapable of owning up to your barrage of evil charges lasting the past eight full years.
As TC said of you on 7/18/17 : "Apparently he is just blowing smoke --throwing out accusations that he is unwilling to defend or prove."
In the real world, at least the Christian one, people either demonstrate the truthfulness of their claims or own up to their sin.
How would you like it if someone lied about your wife -- just made up wicked things just to tarnish her reputation? The attacker just spouts off with nothing to back up his evil designs. Well, you are the guy who has done the same kind of thing. And it is serious. You have constantly demeaned the NIV and its translators. Hundreds of times I have challenged you to back up your assertions with proof. Show from the text of the NIV that it does what you claim. Your lack of doing so is evidence of your continual falsehood. Any other person would either never make his face seen again or admit that he just makes things up and doesn't know how to stop.
YOU don't know how to stop. You have no off button. Falsehoods just flood from your pores. And you show no shame.
Another thing. In any forum you shy away from quoting Scripture. But it's especially true in this particular forum. It's virtually impossible for most of us to discuss Bible translations without offering specifics --actual verses from translations. But you are totally unique --you are not in the habit of doing that. Strange.
I challenge you to cite verses from the NIV --not just their references. Prove that your assertions are reinforced with facts. Is that impossible for you? I'm afraid it is. You can't do it. It's too comfortable for you to lob mud on the wall. You don't think of owning up to your responsibilities. Is that kind of conduct honorable? Is that showing a good testimony? No the very antithesis of that.