Featured CSB 2020 Update

You are correct, you must have the gift of interpreting tongues!

 

I found a lot of good sense in what Dr McArthur says here. If I liked the Critical Text, the NASB would be the version I would use. However, if someone brings out a new version and then discovers some errors in it, yes, he should have done better prof-reading, but there's no point in having the errors continue for another 30 years. Get it changed. Better yet, don't bring out a Bible version that is very similar to two or three others; there's no point.

 

I prefer to use the more formal translations such as nas/Nkjv, and think that bible versions should be revised when actually textual source has been updated/changed, as when the nas went from 23 edition of nestle to the 26th nestle greek text from the 1977 to the 1995!

 

I'm just interested in knowing whether the updated CSB will be more formal equivalence or more functional equivalence.

 

It is a mix. And personally, over all, I do not like it. I have the HCSB and the 2017 CSB.

1 Corinthians 7:1, ". . . Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

NASB, ". . . Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman."

1984 NIV, ". . . Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry."

CSB, ". . . It is good for a man not to use a woman for sex”

2020 CSB, ". . . It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

The problem was the instruction meant as a prevention against sexual immorality was being taken to mean not to have relations with one's wife. The modern translations loose that truth.

That is just one case example.

 

David, thank you for sharing. I’m not a big fan of the CSB, but this was informative. I prefer the Byzantine textform over-against the Alexandrian textform personally. This is why I primarily use the NKJV (as does the church I serve). I’m often baffled as to why we need so many translations, and ‘updates’.