English Standard Version (ESV)

[alexander284]

How about the CSB? Is it half a step closer?

Yes, it is.

 

[JesusFan]

It was in better English than the 1977 edition. But you are losing the point. Lambeth does not support your illogical claims. Do not make false claims by puttting your own words in the mouths of others.
Did Purvey, Luther and Tyndale make blunders because they put the message of the Bible in the common vernacular?
Of course not. They 'modernized' the language (English in Wycliffe and Tyndale's versions and German in Luther's case). In Wycliffe 1 the language was too Latinized. Purvey modernized it into the common speech of his era.

The Lockman Foundation is now backing away from the nas being the most literal translation, as now heading more into the inclusive language of the Csb and Niv!

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, the 2020 NASB is one step closer to the 2011 NIV, I believe.

Lockman seems to be attempting to veer now off into more of the position of the Csb and the Niv!

 

[JesusFan]

How about the CSB? Is it half a step closer?

All 3 of them seem to now be in the same camp

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The Lockman Foundation is now backing away from the nas being the most literal translation, as now heading more into the inclusive language of the Csb and Niv!

The Lockman Foundation has not backed away, they are moving forward.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

All 3 of them seem to now be in the same camp

The CSB and NIV are still in the mediating camp, while the NASB is in the more formal end of the spectrum.

 

[JesusFan]

The Lockman Foundation has not backed away, they are moving forward.

Forward into what, inclusive language and away from being literal?

 

[JesusFan]

The CSB and NIV are still in the mediating camp, while the NASB is in the more formal end of the spectrum.

would say Niv liberal end, Csb center, Nas right side of same camp

 

[RipponRedeaux]

would say Niv liberal end, Csb center, Nas right side of same camp

Politics has nothing to do with Bible translations. The charts (which vary considerably) have the more form-oriented translations toward the left and the more functionally equivalent ones toward the right.

The CSB, NIV and NET occupy the central ground. The NASBs (both the 1995 and 2020 editions) are to the left of the mediating versions.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I wouldn't call the NASB2020 a mediating translating. It leans more to the left --whereas the Living Bible is at the extreme right.

A few of you are confused. The charts usually have the mediating translations in the center . That is, the CSB, NIV, NET, NAB, NJB etc. The more formal translations are on the left side of the charts. Those would include the NASB, NKJV etc. And the freer ones like the CEV, GNT etc. are to the far right.

 

[alexander284]

Due to its lack of gender inclusive language I think I'll be checking out the NKJV, next.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I am not as familiar with the ESV as probably I should be. I also approve of its position on 'Gender inclusion.'

You must not be as familiar with it as you said. If you had read some 131 footnote alternatives that may one day be put in the text you would rail against it; as is your habit.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Due to its lack of gender inclusive language I think I'll be checking out the NKJV, next.

Since you are going retro, check out the first and second Wycliffe N.T. translations. You will get so much exclusionary language that it will tickle your heart.

 

[alexander284]

Since you are going retro, check out the first and second Wycliffe N.T. translations. You will get so much exclusionary language that it will tickle your heart.

Lord Jesus, please help this man overcome his obsession with my every post!! Amen.

 

[Salty]

This thread is closed - while admin team discusses