Featured CSB review

There are some aspects to the CSB I like. I purchased a few just to try it out.

However, I don't believe it is a completely mature translation at the moment and reads a little too clunky for me to use it as a primary reader for my style of reading the Bible - a full book at a time. The translators don't seem to be on the same page as far as style and philosophy. Like the 1996 NLT, I believe they released the translation a bit too early.

I haven't read the 2020 version.

I don't think that translations can be judged quantitatively in any manner other than distribution. Even that is not an absolute judgement. It is just an indicator.

 

If a am reading this right, the Niv did not do that well!

 

looks like its the better of the mediating versions!

 

In the Niv?

 

The whole literalness issue is flawed. It's a fallacy. As was admitted by Wu, "The scores may be different when a sense-based evaluation system is used...We are not able to base our results on word senses rather than words."

Further "Exact lexical equivalence between languages is rare." So some reverse interlinear was devised. It's all so bogus. Even the most form-driven translations can't maintain a word-for-word methodology, so these translations revert to sense-for-sense a lot more often than is generally supposed.

It was said that Brown's Corpus of 1961 was used "representing current English usage." A nearly 60 year old source is used to determine that! There is no indication that it was updated.

Question,was the entire Bible canvassed, or was it just the New Testament? No information was given about that.

In three categories the NIV and CSB were extremely close; .56%, .22% and .45%.

In the Final Scoring the CSB was given 70.3%. The NIV scored 63.6%. The NLT scored 56.6%. So the NIV was closer to the CSB than to the NLT.

The CSB was ranked third in readability and 5th in literalness.

The term 'literal' should be banished from discourse. It is a fictional construct. Read Fee,Strauss, Moo and Mounce for helpful insights.

 

For your unenlightened information, isolated words is what this analysis was based upon. But a sense-based approach would be a better way of addressing the various translations. There is no indication that the NIV would "fall further in the ratings." Your emotional hatred of the translation has blinded your mind.
Mr. Wu was hired by the CSB to do the analysis. Do you think that had anything to do with the CSB coming out on top?

 

Ok, so use Formal instead!

 

he is just mad that both the Nas and Esv ranked ahead of the Niv!

 

What have I told you repeatedly? Do not quote a long post and then give a brief line of reply.

 

The 'analysis' was biased toward the CSB. This Mr. Wu was hired by the CSB team. And in my original post I gave my other reservations.

 

Your regurgitated chart that you recycle year after year exemplifies why you have no common sense, no training as a translator, and in fact, follow heterodox beliefs. You are not the kind of person that is an example of rectitude when it comes to anything biblical. Your translation choices fail because of the aforementioned liabilities.

 

You are certainly not the kind of individual to read anything correctly. "If a am reading this right..."

 

Biased, or just giving forth the truth?

 

The Csb looks like it will be the mediating translation of choice going forward!