Featured The Common English Bible

I have mixed thoughts about it. In other words, it has strengths and weaknesses.

I'll start with its strengths. The English flows well. But I wouldn't say it reads as smoothly as the CEV for instance. It's about on the same grade level as other mediating translations. Yes, it belongs in that category.

In the past I had gone through one of Philip Comfort's books --New Testament Commentary or something like that. I had lost the book in China years ago. Anyway, I had put in a lot of Comfort's notes in the margins of one of my NIVs. I found that a lot of the time that the New Testament text of the CEB had incorporated those Comfort findings. But Comfort wasn't one of the translators. The translation team might very well have found the information from other sources.

I like reading the narrative sections of the Old Testament and New in the CEB. I also appreciate how it handles the Psalms and wisdom Literature in general.

As far as weaknesses go: the 120 translators were overwhelmingly liberal. That doesn't diminish their scholarship though.

The main complaint from many is that the term human one is used instead of son of man. I get what the translators wanted to convey : son of humanity or child of humanity. Most of the time in most translations it refers to a human being or people. Jesus, of course, is referring to Himself in the New Testament when in most translations he calls himself 'the Son of man.' There is no easy solution to wording. I'd be content to keep the term Son of man when Jesus is speaking of himself. In the Old Testament there needs to be some continuity, but I'd be open to other terms that the CEB employs.

In 1 Timothy 3:1 the word 'supervisor' is used instead of the traditional 'elder.' In Titus 1:5,6 and 7 the words 'elder' and 'supervisor' are used. In 1 Timothy 3:8 deacons are called 'servants.' Both women and men are called servants.

In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 there is no clear line of demarcation between men and women holding the office of supervisor which is problematic. "They should be faithful to their spouse..." The male pronouns 'he' 'him' and 'his' is absent, so it could be readily understood to mean that women could hold the office of elder, or even pastor --elder/pastor. That is concerning. In those verses in the NIV 12 male pronouns are used.

As I said, it is a mediating translation; but I would trust my NLT more if I had access to only these two versions. Of course I have access to many English translations physically as well as through Biblegateway --not to mention many other Bible styu helps such as commentaries and sermons.

So I am on-guard when using the CEB and I would not advise a young person or new Christian to obtain this translation because they would not be able to discern things so readily.

Therefore, I give this version mixed reviews. In some mainline circles this translation has replaced the NRSV.

 

Stay away and get a decent translation

 

Said by someone who doesn't own it and learned more about it from my post than from any other source.

 

In looking at John 3:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and James 2:5 the CEB misrepresents the truth in my opinion. It seemed more toward the though for thought end of the spectrum than the NIV, so its use as a comparison bible to offer interpretations of the text seems to cover its "plus" side.

 

Its a more dynamic Niv

 

What's your issue with the way James 2:5 is rendered?

 

CEB James 2:5 5 My dear brothers and sisters, listen! Hasn’t God chosen those who are poor by worldly standards to be rich in terms of faith? Hasn’t God chosen the poor as heirs of the kingdom he has promised to those who love him? ​

1) While I agree with the interpretation, "by the worldly standards" is an inference.
2) "To be" is also an interpretation, but it alters the message, from God chose those rich in faith, to God chose those not yet rich in faith. My on line reference did not have "to be" in italics.
3) The last sentence again, alters the message, God chose those rich in faith as heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. Being poor according to worldly standards does not necessitate being rich in faith and loving God.

 

A junk bible, Genesis 1:16, ". . . the dome of the sky . . . ."

 

Oh my imputed righteousness! That rendering in the CEB is surely serious enough to warrant its condemnation....[sarcasm off]

First of all, the verse is Genesis 1:14. Secondly, other translations use the same term in that verse : CJB, NABRE and the NRSV. The LEB has "vaulted dome."

Most translations use the word 'expanse.' Some use 'vault.' Some use 'firmament.'

If the use of the word 'dome' in that verse is that problematic, you are roaming among molehills.

 

You are correct, "dome ot the sky" was in v.14. Verse 16, "God made the stars . . . ." LOL, on the 4th earth day. The text of Genesis 1:16 says no such thing regarding stars.

 

All versions indicate that God made the stars in that verse. It's just that the CEB put that at the start of the verse; just about all other translations put it at the end of the passage.

Again, what you see as dangerous are in reality non-essentials.

 

No, NRSV. And a few not explicitly, KJV, RV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV and some others. The text expllcitly teaches God made two lights on the fourth day. Being lights. And two.

 

I don't understand what your issue is. The NRSV says "and the stars" meaning that God made them.The KJV, NKJV, ASV and RSV explicitly say "he made the stars also."

 

I am not sure what the issue is. The phrase Hebrew וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים ("and the stars") comes at the end of the verse 16.

וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־שְׁנֵ֥י הַמְּאֹרֹ֖ת הַגְּדֹלִ֑ים אֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַגָּדֹל֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַיּ֔וֹם וְאֶת־הַמָּא֤וֹר הַקָּטֹן֙ לְמֶמְשֶׁ֣לֶת הַלַּ֔יְלָה וְאֵ֖ת הַכּוֹכָבִֽים

 

Read it carefully, ". . . to rule the night—and the stars." The night and the stars preceded the fourth day. Our own Galaxy the Milky Way has been measured to be some 100,000 light years across. The Andromeda galaxy has been measured to be some 2 and half million light years away. Now I believe day four was Earth's fourth solar day when the Sun and Moon which dominated the night sky with the stars became visible on earth.

 

The issue is simple, the text explcitly teaches God made two lights on the fourth day. We recognize them as our Sun and the Moon. It does not say God made the Sun and Moon on that day, but made them to then be lights seen on the Earth.

 

The Hebrew text states God made two lights (i.e. luminaries), one greater than the other, and the stars. The Hebrew noun for "stars" has the direct object marker which means it is the direct object of the same verb (i.e. עשׂה).

 

The night then the stars are together. The text as to what is made explicitly says two lights. The KJV, ASV, NASB and the NKJV have "he made" are in italics. The NRSV explicitly omits the phrase "he made" in regards to the stars. To insist that the stars were made that fourth Earth day reduces the account to a fable. Since stars are older than the Earth, just by their distances being seen.

 

I have no idea what they have in italics. Nevertheless the verb in verse 16 is עשׂה (i.e. made) and the direct objects of the verb are clearly marked. The phrase "and the stars" is a direct object of the verb עשׂה.

I don't believe that is correct. Note the hyphens.

"God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars."

The NRSV correctly separates the middle clause as a parenthetical description of the two great lights. If we remove that clause we have:

"God made the two great lights and the stars."

Give the direct object markers, the NRSV is correct.

The Hebrew text has what the Hebrew text has.