Tell me about the CSB

I think either the HCSB or the updated CSB would make a fine comparison bible. However, because both contain "novel" translation choices I would not recommend either as a primary study bible. Stick with the NKJV (using the WEB for comparison) or the NASB95.

Notice only the slight change in capitalization,

Christian Standard Bible
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.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
"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.

 

Here is a pretty good link to a HCSB -CSB comparison:
A Review of the Christian Standard Bible

 

Tim Bayly was Executive Director of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and was one of the dozen or so men who drafted 'Colorado Springs Guidelines' for Bible translation, in 1997. He's concluded that "the CSB is exactly the kind of translation that the Colorado Springs Guidelines were written to oppose."

baylyblog.com/blog/2017/06/christian-standard-bible-atlantic-got-it-right

"Denny Burk informs his readers that...his denomination's Bible translation honors the Colorado Springs Guidelines....Burk is wrong....Burk wasn't at the Colorado Springs meeting and didn't write or sign the Colorado Springs Guidelines. I was and I did, so now let me say that the CSB is exactly the kind of translation that the Colorado Springs Guidelines were written to oppose."

"four Bible texts [are] explicitly mentioned in the Guidelines as needing to be translated a particular way....Christian Standard Bible changes two of them to a gender-neutered form"

 

I use the Christian Standard Bible (CSB). I also use other translations.

Lately, as I age, I find type font size is important to my personal Bible study. My preferred size Bible is 14-point, giant size text Bible with few cross references. Using a 14-point Bible slows down my reading speed; but it also increases my comprehension of God's Word.

I may go down to 10-point, or even 8-point compact type when I carry a Bible around with me. But there is a big difference between carrying 1-pound, as compared to 4-pounds.

But I digress.

As I look at my personal Bible bookcase, I notice I have the following translations in 12-point to 14-point type: CSB, NIV, NKJV, KJB, NASB, NRSV, GNT, and CEB.

On the various Bible Translation Charts, I prefer the middle of the charts--the section usually labeled "mediating."

And that is how I see cultural theology. At my age I prefer to mediate between the extremes of cultural issues like gender, age, race, ethnicity, type of home, and the current forms of entertainment: politics and sports. I find that I just don't get worked up over cultural theology anymore. There is more important stuff to bear in mind: When to cut the grass, is there water in my dog's water bowl, what's for supper?

Oh, there was a time when I did get worked up about cultural stuff. But today, when I look in the mirror at my changing body type, hair color, and the growing wrinkles in my skin--I get daily reminders that others rarely listen to what I have to say.

Maybe that is what the Manhood and Womanhood issues are all about--at the root, at the center.

 

The CSB is an awful Bible. It is more biased than most translations this side of the New World Version. And, it's penchant for novel translations results in a lot of ridiculous translation choices. Also, this Baptist-commissioned version is an odd translation for Baptist churches because it's such a big jump from the KJV.

The ESV is the best choice if easy-to-read is highly important. NKJV is easy enough for most elementary school graduates to read, and it is somewhat close to the KJV, except with modern language. The NASB is modern and a good study Bible. There's really nothing wrong with a church choosing the KJV, so that the people know when the Bible is being read!

 

I chose to read the CSB this year for my yearly Bible reading plan. It's been a blessing to me so far. That is all .

 

Ok I have seen two different members reference "novel translation choices" without any examples....

 

Why doesn't anyone praising it and putting their time into reading it tell us about the novel translation choices, or lack thereof? I really don't like getting into details because it calls out the idiots and cultists to defend the nonsense. You know, there are people who say they like the CSB.

I'll give you an example that the CSB abandoned. In Acts 6, the Greek-speaking widows in Jerusalem complained that they were being discriminated in favor of the Hebrew-speaking windows in the daily food serving. The Apostles handled the issue by appointing the first deacons.

Acts 6:2:

HCSB: Then the Twelve summoned the whole company of the disciples and said, “It would not be right for us to give up preaching about God to handle financial matters."

CSB: The Twelve summoned the whole company of the disciples and said, “It would not be right for us to give up preaching the word of God to wait on tables."

In the HCSB, they changed the daily food to a daily money allowance. When they revised the HCSB to create the CSB, they dropped the nonsensical daily money payouts to widows. The verse literally refers to waiting on tables, but the HCSB translators had decided that "tables" was a figure of speech for financial transactions.

 

Ok earlier you said the CSB (not the HCSB) was an awful translation because of its "penchant for novel translations" yet in your example you cited an example where it went BACK to the traditional translation. So this is not helpful. What novel translations are in the CSB that makes it awful.

You made a pretty big claim, so did @Van but then gave zero examples of why this is true. That means it is up to you two, the ones making the claim, to provide some evidence for review. Not go and ask CSB readers to provide evidence.

 

The CSB is awful for its bias, and a joke for its novel translations. I don't want to use an example that would lead a CSB fan to defend it. They can't defend something the CSB itself abandoned. Why don't you ask one of those CSB fans why they like it?

 

Why can't you just give an example instead of just running your mouth about how bad it is without evidence? Seems like you just heard someone say it is bad so you are just parroting that without cause. Ever heard of the phrase, "put up or shut up"?

 

Because instead of this conversation we're having now, I'd be dealing with some idiot who insists the examples I gave are good translations. I'd prefer this conversation to that one. Let one of them tell you what's so good about the CSB vs. other modern, popular translations. Why not badger them and ask them how it's been a blessing?

 

So, as I said, you have nothing. You are just parroting things with no evidence. Seriously, I'm not interested in what conversation you prefer, I am interested in evidence of your claims. Apparently you have none or you would have been able to provide it the first few times I asked for it.

 

I often hear works-salvationists quote John 3:36 in the NASB - ..but he who does not obey the Son.. and "stress" the word "obey" to imply that we are saved by "obedience/works" that "follow" believing, but that is not what is being taught here.

*The CSB translation does a good job of clarifying what is being taught in John 3:36 - ..but the one who refuses to believe in the Son.. The KJV renders this same verse as "believeth not the Son" and the NIV says "rejects the Son." The Greek word translated in that verse is "apeitheo" and it means: "not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving." Strong’s definition of apeitheo is "to disbelieve willfully and perversely." So in John 3:36, to "not obey the Son" means to reject the Son by refusing to believe in the Son.

 

No, CSB now reads "rejects the Son", same as NIV2011!

Are you perhaps quoting from the discarded HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)?

 

Discarded? Apparently it is the HCSB -
John 3:36 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him. - John 3:36 HCSB - The one who believes in the Son has - Bible Gateway

 

"Refuse" is one of those "novel translation" choices that are false. John 3:36 carries not the slightest suggestion that disbelief, or disobedience, is willful, or limited to will. "Refuse" implies will, but will isn't an issue here. This false interpretation, which you've praised, is the HSCB injecting their Armenian doctrine into the verse. The CSB waters down that flagrant corruption a bit, but is still corrupt. The CSB uses "rejects" which still implies will, which doesn't belong in the verse.

"Not believe" or "not obey" are both fair translations, but I prefer "not believe".

 

By refusing to believe we have not obeyed, just as we see in Romans 10:16. I also prefer “not believe” but I’m fine with “not obey” in John 3:36 as long as it does not turn into salvation by works.