Tell me about the CSB

[Reformed1689]

"Refuse" is one of those "novel translation" choices that are false. John 3:36 carries not the slightest suggestion that disbelief, or disobedience, is willful, or limited to will. "Refuse" implies will, but will isn't an issue here. This false interpretation, which you've praised, is the HSCB injecting their Armenian doctrine into the verse. The CSB waters down that flagrant corruption a bit, but is still corrupt. The CSB uses "rejects" which still implies will, which doesn't belong in the verse.

"Not believe" or "not obey" are both fair translations, but I prefer "not believe".

Does not believe is not a good translation of the actual word in use. But your preferred translations are in a footnote of the CSB. Try again. This is not exactly a "novel" translation. I guess I would like to know your definition of "novel" translation.

 

[Shoostie]

Does not believe is not a good translation of the actual word in use. But your preferred translations are in a footnote of the CSB. Try again. This is not exactly a "novel" translation. I guess I would like to know your definition of "novel" translation.

I'm not aware of any translations (other than an all-out paraphrase) that uses the word "refuse" in John 3:36. Of course, nothing it totally novel. There's no bad idea someone hasn't had before. BTW, bravo on ignoring the important point, that the verse doesn't in the least suggest that the non-belief is an act of personal will, as the HCSB and CSB inject.

 

[37818]

The big change is the rendering "brothers" HCSB to "brothers and sisters" CSB. The NASB 2020 edition is reportedly doing the same thing.

 

[Shoostie]

The big change is the rendering "brothers" HCSB to "brothers and sisters" CSB. The NASB 2020 edition is reportedly doing the same thing.

I can cross the NASB off my short list of recommended translations.

 

[37818]

I can cross the NASB off my short list of recommended translations.

Note, the NASB 1995 edition is what is currently available. 2020 edition has not been published yet.

Lockman will allow the continued publication of the NASB 95 even after NASB 2020 is made available. New American Standard Bible - About

 

[The Lamb Rescued Me]

Thanks for the input everyone.

From what I've seen here I think I'll stay with my trusty NKJV and use the NASB for reference. Sounds like the CSB isn't what I need.

Joe

 

[Shoostie]

From what I've seen here I think I'll stay with my trusty NKJV and use the NASB for reference. Sounds like the CSB isn't what I need.

The NASB is a good compliment, for now. But, I've crossed it off my list because of where it's headed. The ESV is the best complement to the NKJV.

 

[Van]

The NASB is a good compliment, for now. But, I've crossed it off my list because of where it's headed. The ESV is the best complement to the NKJV.

And I thought everyone had crossed the ESV off their list due to Revelation 13:8, where they mistranslated "apo" meaning out of or out from or since as "before?"

 

[Shoostie]

And I thought everyone had crossed the ESV off their list due to Revelation 13:8, where they mistranslated "apo" meaning out of or out from or since as "before?"

I agree that "from" is better than "before", in Revelation 13:8. There's no perfect translation (no apologies to KJVO folk). The ESV is one of the best translations available, and is a great compliment to KJV/NKJV.

 

[37818]

I agree that "from" is better than "before", in Revelation 13:8. There's no perfect translation (no apologies to KJVO folk). The ESV is one of the best translations available, and is a great compliment to KJV/NKJV.

The ESV follows the RSV in Revelation 13:8. The NRSV correctly reads "from" in that place.

 

[Shoostie]

The ESV follows the RSV in Revelation 13:8. The NRSV correctly reads "from" in that place.

Before vs. From in Revelation 13:8 is insignificant. The KJV has thousands of words that are either wrong or are misunderstood to a degree that makes them wrong. The word "corn" appears in the KJV over a 100 times. The Hebrew word dagan means wheat, not corn.

It's a really misguided for KJVO folk to scream about legitimate translation choices. The ESV's use of "before" is legitimate. The ESV translators are not pushing any false doctrine, worldly values, or anything wrong by using "before."

The reason to use different translations is precisely to see how else something might be translated.

 

[37818]

The ESV's use of "before" is legitimate. The ESV translators are not pushing any false doctrine, worldly values, or anything wrong by using "before."

No. "Before" does not mean "from." It is a false teaching to change "from" to "before!" It is a type of opposite!

 

[Shoostie]

No. "Before" does not mean "from." It is a false teaching to change "from" to "before!" It is a type of opposite!

Why don't you just stick to the KJV, because everything else that is not identical to the KJV is wrong, in your thinking.

How is "before" opposite from "from", in this context? What damage is done by the ESV's choice of "before"?

 

[37818]

Why don't you just stick to the KJV, because everything else that is not identical to the KJV is wrong, in your thinking.

How is "before" opposite from "from", in this context? What damage is done by the ESV's choice of "before"?

The Greek word meaning "after" does not mean "before.". See, Hebrews 9:26.

 

[mailmandan]

I have an ESV and was using it during a small group Bible study once and the Pastor asked me to read Proverbs 23:7, which in the ESV reads - for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, heart is not with you.

The Pastor, along with others in the group looked puzzled and were all instead waiting to hear these words from these other translations below.

Proverbs 23:7 (KJV) - For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
Proverbs 23:7 - (NASB) For as he thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, “Eat and drink!” But his heart is not with you.
Proverbs 23:7 - (NKJV) - For as he thinks in his heart, so is he. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, But his heart is not with you.

 

[Reformed1689]

The ESV is one of the best translations available, and is a great compliment to KJV/NKJV.

This idea that KJV/NKJV is the most solid and therefore translations like the ESV are a COMPLEMENT to them is just nonsense. KJV doesn't have the most reliable material and is outdated in language. So it should be the other way around. The KJV/NKJV can be a complement to things like the ESV but should not be primary.

 

[Shoostie]

I have an ESV and was using it during a small group Bible study once and the Pastor asked me to read Proverbs 23:7, which in the ESV reads - for he is like one who is inwardly calculating. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, heart is not with you.

The Pastor, along with others in the group looked puzzled and were all instead waiting to hear these words from these other translations below.

Proverbs 23:7 (KJV) - For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
Proverbs 23:7 - (NASB) For as he thinks within himself, so he is. He says to you, “Eat and drink!” But his heart is not with you.
Proverbs 23:7 - (NKJV) - For as he thinks in his heart, so is he. “Eat and drink!” he says to you, But his heart is not with you.

"Thinks in his heart" vs. "inwardly calculating" are both translations of the same Hebrew text.

The word for "thinks" is defined by Strong's concordance as calculating. It's the word that would be used if a merchant is deciding what price to sell something for. The ESV is more literal than the KJV, NASB, and NKJV in this verse. The verse means that a person is trying to manipulate you. But, these other translations just suggest a lack of enthusiasm, which misses the mark.

The word for "heart" is the word normally translated soul. "Heart" is a figure of speech, as the literal organ is not meant. So, other translations use a figure of speech, which essentially means the same as "inwardly."

The ESV does a better job here than the KJV, NASB, NKJV, even if it feels a bit jarring. This is the point of using the ESV as a complementary Bible to one of the KJV/NKJV, to better round out your understanding of a verse.

 

[Van]

I agree that "from" is better than "before", in Revelation 13:8. There's no perfect translation (no apologies to KJVO folk). The ESV is one of the best translations available, and is a great compliment to KJV/NKJV.

Our opinions differ.

The more you use the ESV, the more you will grow to dislike it, is my opinion.

 

[Reformed1689]

Our opinions differ.

The more you use the ESV, the more you will grow to dislike it, is my opinion.

Based on?

 

[Van]

Based on?

The fact that the ESV does not live up to its "literal" hype is well known. Revelation 13:8 is an example where even the dreaded NIV fixed the error, but the ESV didn't.

One error does not render a version worthless for study, it takes a systemic problem with the truth. Choosing less than the best word is not the problem, translating verse after verse such that it says the opposite of what the underlying text says is the problem.

To say there is no difference between before creation and since creation reveals a systemic problem with the truth.