• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

NASB2020 Head-To-Head With ESV

R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
With regard to post #12 of mine :

The CSB
Ro. 5:18 has everyone
Matt. 4:19 has people
1 Cor. 2:5 has human wisdom
Eph. 4:8 has people
Ro. 1:18 has people

You have given rave reviews of the CSB. Does the fact that it uses inclusive language in these references as did the 2020NASB give you pause? I daresay that the CSB uses more inclusive language than the 2020 NASB throughout the canon.
Just where do you land? You don't care for the inclusive language of the 2020NASB. To be consistent you must not like the much greater use of inclusive language in the CSB. So somehow you like the CSB generally despite its pervasive inclusive language?

The 1984 NIV used very little IL. The ESV used a lot more than the 84 NIV. The NET uses more IL than the ESV. I haven't checked (may that could be the subject of a future thread) but the NET and CSB probably use about the same amount of IL. Then the current NIV and NLT use more than the NET and CSB. What is the ideal amount of IL that you are comfortable with? Which translation of the ones I mentioned or some other is the correct proportion for you?
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
With regard to post #12 of mine :

The CSB
Ro. 5:18 has everyone
Matt. 4:19 has people
1 Cor. 2:5 has human wisdom
Eph. 4:8 has people
Ro. 1:18 has people

You have given rave reviews of the CSB. Does the fact that it uses inclusive language in these references as did the 2020NASB give you pause? I daresay that the CSB uses more inclusive language than the 2020 NASB throughout the canon.
Just where do you land? You don't care for the inclusive language of the 2020NASB. To be consistent you must not like the much greater use of inclusive language in the CSB. So somehow you like the CSB generally despite its pervasive inclusive language?

The 1984 NIV used very little IL. The ESV used a lot more than the 84 NIV. The NET uses more IL than the ESV. I haven't checked (may that could be the subject of a future thread) but the NET and CSB probably use about the same amount of IL. Then the current NIV and NLT use more than the NET and CSB. What is the ideal amount of IL that you are comfortable with? Which translation of the ones I mentioned or some other is the correct proportion for you?
Click to expand...

The ESV is my favorite Bible translation. I like it just the way it is.

I also like the CSB, despite its gender inclusive language.

I also like the NASB95.

There are certain things I like about the KJV, NKJV, NET, NIV84, NIV, and NLT.

If you like Chevy, and I like Ford, I have no problem with that.

If the same reviewer from Car & Driver gives Toyota a rave review one month, and gives Honda a rave review the next month, I have no problem with that, either.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
The ESV is my favorite Bible translation. I like it just the way it is.

I also like the CSB, despite its gender inclusive language.

I also like the NASB95.

There are certain things I like about the KJV, NKJV, NET, NIV84, NIV, and NLT.

If you like Chevy, and I like Ford, I have no problem with that.

If the same reviewer from Car & Driver gives Toyota a rave review one month, and gives Honda a rave review the next month, I have no problem with that, either.
Click to expand...
Yes. Just know that he or she is getting paid by Toyota and Honda who pay for those rave reviews. It's called adverti$ing.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
What is the ideal amount of inclusive language that you are comfortable with? Which translation of the ones I mentioned or some other is the correct proportion for you?
Click to expand...
Alex, again I ask, what Bible translation has the correct amount of inclusive language?

You like the CSB very much despite its inclusive language. The word despite means it's a negative factor for you. So does that mean you are comfortable with the ESV's use of inclusive language since that is your primary Bible translation?

The strength of the CSB is its use of generally clear, contemporary English. You are drawn to that. But that very strength of the CSB is the greatest weakness of the ESV.

Is the biblish of the ESV attractive to you? By that I mean the half Greek/half English it uses in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the same thing would apply to its form of biblish --half Hebrew/half English.

I'm in favor of Bible translations that use the current language of the people. John Purvey, Martin Luther and William Tyndale, to name a few noted translators, made this a guiding principle in their translating.

I'm also in favor of using common sense inclusive language. It's a natural way of speaking and writing.

Are you interested in English Bible translations that are usable to people who have English as a second or third language? Or do you prefer English Bible translations that are only suited for native English speakers? That is, the ESV is unsuitable for the former.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
I
RipponRedeaux said:
Alex, again I ask, what Bible translation has the correct amount of inclusive language?

You like the CSB very much despite its inclusive language. The word despite means it's a negative factor for you. So does that mean you are comfortable with the ESV's use of inclusive language since that is your primary Bible translation?

The strength of the CSB is its use of generally clear, contemporary English. You are drawn to that. But that very strength of the CSB is the greatest weakness of the ESV.

Is the biblish of the ESV attractive to you? By that I mean the half Greek/half English it uses in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the same thing would apply to its form of biblish --half Hebrew/half English.

I'm in favor of Bible translations that use the current language of the people. John Purvey, Martin Luther and William Tyndale, to name a few noted translators, made this a guiding principle in their translating.

I'm also in favor of using common sense inclusive language. It's a natural way of speaking and writing.

Are you interested in English Bible translations that are usable to people who have English as a second or third language? Or do you prefer English Bible translations that are only suited for native English speakers? That is, the ESV is unsuitable for the former.
Click to expand...

I like the ESV. I also like the CSB. I realize they are different.

I prefer the ESV, but I'm fond of the CSB, too.

I like Burger King. I like Taco Bell. I realize they are different.

Nevertheless, I like them both.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
I


I like the ESV. I also like the CSB. I realize they are different.

I prefer the ESV, but I'm fond of the CSB, too.

I like Burger King. I like Taco Bell. I realize they are different.

Nevertheless, I like them both.
Click to expand...
Alex, you did not address my questions. Before I introduce some more, please deal with the issues I raised.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
Alex, you did not address my questions. Before I introduce some more, please deal with the issues I raised.
Click to expand...

I would prefer a Bible translation not have gender inclusive language.

I realize that the CSB has gender inclusive language.

But I appreciate the CSB, nevertheless.
 
Last edited:
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
alexander284 said:
I would prefer a Bible translation not have gender inclusive language.

But I appreciate the CSB, nevertheless.
Click to expand...
Even the 1984 NIV had inclusive language, just not as much as the ESV, and certainly not as much as the CSB. The KJV had a bit of inclusive language now and then. So I'll ask again, in what translation or translations do you think is an appropriate amount of IL?
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
The strength of the CSB is its use of generally clear, contemporary English. You are drawn to that. But that very strength of the CSB is the greatest weakness of the ESV.

Is the biblish of the ESV attractive to you? By that I mean the half Greek/half English it uses in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the same thing would apply to its form of biblish --half Hebrew/half English.


Are you interested in English Bible translations that are usable to people who have English as a second or third language? Or do you prefer English Bible translations that are only suited for native English speakers? That is, the ESV is unsuitable for the former.
Click to expand...
Alex, the above are issues I wish you would address. They have nothing to do with the topic of inclusive language.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
Even the 1984 NIV had inclusive language, just not as much as the ESV, and certainly not as much as the CSB. The KJV had a bit of inclusive language now and then. So I'll ask again, in what translation or translations do you think is an appropriate amount of IL?
Click to expand...

KJV, NKJV, NASB95, ESV.
 
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
If around 130 or so alternatives in the ESV footnotes are eventually adopted in the text itself then you'd probably drop the ESV like a hot potato. That is because it would have the double whammy in your eyes of being too inclusive yet still using clunky English. The CSB on the other hand, has a lot of inclusive language in the text, but clear and more natural English grammar. So that would be just one hurdle for you instead of two.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
RipponRedeaux said:
If around 130 or so alternatives in the ESV footnotes are eventually adopted in the text itself then you'd probably drop the ESV like a hot potato. That is because it would have the double whammy in your eyes of being too inclusive yet still using clunky English. The CSB on the other hand, has a lot of inclusive language in the text, but clear and more natural English grammar. So that would be just one hurdle for you instead of two.
Click to expand...

I no longer mind the clunky English in the ESV, because I've come to like the ESV, and I've grown accustomed to it.
 
alexander284

alexander284

Well-Known Member
Due to its lack of gender inclusive language, I think I'll be checking out the NKJV, now.
 
Last edited:
R

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
Ecclesiastes

1:5
E : hastens to the place
N : hurrying to its place

2:2
E : It is mad
N : It is senseless

4:12
E : a threefold cord
N : A cord of three strands

5:2
E : nor let your heart be hasty
N : or impulsive in thought

5:20
E : he will not much remember
N : he will not often call to mind

6:3
E : the days of his years are many
N : lives many years

8:3
E : Be not hasty
N : Do not be in a hurry

8:8
E : There is no discharge from war, nor will wickedness deliver those who are given to it
N : there is no military discharge in the time of war, and evil will not save those who practice it

10:3
E : he says to everyone that he is a fool
N : he demonstrates to everyone that he is a fool

11:10
:E :for youth and the dawn of life are vanity
N : because childhood and the prime of life are fleeting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top