Tell me about the CSB

[Reformed1689]

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.

The fact that you think that greatly alters the meaning of the passage tells me all I need to know. You aren't objective at all.

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you recommend it?

Is it an improvement over the HCSB?

I've heard it's as readable as the NIV but more accurate, is it?

Thanks, Joe.

If one wants to read a more dynamic translation, would recommend it over the 2011 Niv, as not nearly as many gender rendering issues with it!

 

[37818]

If one wants to read a more dynamic translation, would recommend it over the 2011 Niv, as not nearly as many gender rendering issues with it!

The NIV 2O11 has other issues. ". . . Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 6:19. Regarding the Body of Christ.

 

[Van]

The fact that you think that greatly alters the meaning of the passage tells me all I need to know. You aren't objective at all.

Yet another mindless post, attacking the poster, telling me nothing about the topic. What a waste

 

[Shoostie]

If the biggest complaint anti-ESV people can find is a verse that says "before the foundation" rather than "from the foundation", the ESV has got to be the best translation ever made!

If the KJV were produced today, it would be considered one of the worst English translations ever made. Instead of being seen as dated language, it would be considered just plain wrong on thousands of words. Instead of the TR text being seen as validated by the KJV using it, it would be be dismissed as late and unreliable and a poor source for a translation.

If the KJVO people were a little more mentally aware, it wouldn't be the insignificant use of "before" that had them crying in Revelation 13:8, it would be that the ESV changes the subject of the verse from the slayed lamb to the names written in the book -- except the ESV gets this right, and the KJV gets it wrong.

 

[McCree79]

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

What is the significance if από is taken as temporal? Based on the verb γέγραπται when did this writing take place (or not take place) in relation to the foundation of the earth?

The BDAG demonstrates a legitimate usage of από "to indicate the point from which someth. begins,... (b) of time."
With the lexical range of απο and the perfect passive verb γέγραπται, "before" is acceptable based on how almost all English translations have grammatically constructed their translations.

While the CSB did not follow the ESV, the Co-chair of the CSB (Schreiner) also supports the translation as "before".

From his commentary on Revelation
"Word order is not determinative, and, given the parallels, John probably speaks of those who were inscribed in the book of life before history began. After all, the death of Christ was predetermined before history began, but it is quite another thing to say he was actually slain before the world began, for the Lamb was slain in history, not before the world began. On the other hand, God decided before history began who would be inscribed in the book of life."

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[37818]

What is the significance if από is taken as temporal? Based on the verb γέγραπται when did this writing take place (or not take place) in relation to the ?

There is more than one issue here. One being, ". . . the foundation of the world . . ." can be understood to mean the creation of man, being the foundation of mankind. John 3:16, Luke 11:50, Hebrews 9:26. Which is my understanding.

 

[Van]

If the biggest complaint anti-ESV people can find is a verse that says "before the foundation" rather than "from the foundation", the ESV has got to be the best translation ever made!

If the KJV were produced today, it would be considered one of the worst English translations ever made. Instead of being seen as dated language, it would be considered just plain wrong on thousands of words. Instead of the TR text being seen as validated by the KJV using it, it would be be dismissed as late and unreliable and a poor source for a translation.

If the KJVO people were a little more mentally aware, it wouldn't be the insignificant use of "before" that had them crying in Revelation 13:8, it would be that the ESV changes the subject of the verse from the slayed lamb to the names written in the book -- except the ESV gets this right, and the KJV gets it wrong.

Did anyone say the biggest complaint concerning the ESV is the agenda driven mistranslation of Revelation 13:8? What was said?

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.

1) Does the change from "since" to "before" make the verse say the opposite of what it actually says?
2) Does adding "to be" make James 2:5 say the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. changing a conditional election into an unconditional election?
3) Does changing the noun "salvation" into the verb "saved" hide the teaching of a conditional election in 2 Thessalonians 2:13?

Trust me, no matter how many mistranslations in the ESV are identified, it will not slow down its Calvinist support.

 

[Reformed1689]

1) Does the change from "since" to "before" make the verse say the opposite of what it actually says?

No it does not. Honestly, the maximum difference is this: 1. They were chosen before the foundation of the world or 2. they were chosen at the creation (foundation) of the world. Either way, they were pre-determined. Does not change anything theologically.

2) Does adding "to be" make James 2:5 say the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. changing a conditional election into an unconditional election?

How does this change it from conditional to unconditional election? Both rendering say they were chosen. Both are unconditional election.

3) Does changing the noun "salvation" into the verb "saved" hide the teaching of a conditional election in 2 Thessalonians 2:13?

No, this does not change the meaning at all.

Trust me, no matter how many mistranslations in the ESV are identified, it will not slow down its Calvinist support.

You don't need to ESV to support Calvinism. The Greek/Hebrew do it just fine and so does the KJV.

 

[McCree79]

?


1) Does the change from "since" to "before" make the verse say the opposite of what it actually says?

Since and before are not opposites.

2) Does adding "to be" make James 2:5 say the opposite of what it actually says, i.e. changing a conditional election into an unconditional election?

"To be" is a natural inference from the text. The verb εξελξατο implies the beloved have been elected to something. The election is "to be" rich in faith (πλούσιους εν πιστει). The ASV, NASB, NKJB and WEB all make the same conclusion as the ESV.

3) Does changing the noun "salvation" into the verb "saved" hide the teaching of a conditional election in 2 Thessalonians 2:13?

There is no meaning difference between the NASB and ESV. "Chosen you....for salvation" and chose you ...to be saved"....same meaning.

Both used the aorist verb to set the tense of the phrase. The choosing for salvation happened in the past. The NASB chose a variant that makes its version of 2:13...way more "calvinistic"

Εις is being used as an adjectival preposition conveying result. You can translate the phrase as "chose you as first fruits with the result that you will be saved." Or "chose you as first fruits with the results of you being moved into salvation." Granted those are "Amplified" rendering, but they contain the essence of εις. Εις conveys movement into an area or goal. The verb ειλατο has the purpose of moving you into salvation.






Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Since and before are not opposites.
SNIP

Before creation and since creation are not opposite periods? Twaddle

The ESV alters the translation according to Calvinist doctrine.

To say "taint so" is absurd, which is what was claimed.

 

[Van]

SNIP.

Yet another denial of the obvious. Why bother to post "taint so?"

The ESV again and again alters the translation to better align the text with Calvinism.

Stick with the NKJV, WEB, CSB, and NASB95

 

[McCree79]

The ESV alters the translation according to Calvinist doctrine.

To say "is so" is absurd, which is what was claimed.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Reformed1689]

Before creation and since creation are not opposite periods? Twaddle

The ESV alters the translation according to Calvinist doctrine.

To say "taint so" is absurd, which is what was claimed.

Yet another denial of the obvious. Why bother to post "taint so?"

The ESV again and again alters the translation to better align the text with Calvinism.

Stick with the NKJV, WEB, CSB, and NASB95

More "Taint So" claims without anything to back it up. Typical @Van. In case you didn't notice, we said more than "Taint So" we backed it up with logic and reason.

 

[Van]

The ESV has been shown to systematically alter the translation to better fit with the bogus assertions of Calvinism.

1) Revelation 13:8 changed since creation to before creation but forgot to alter Revelation 17:8.

2) James 2:5 added "to be" to change the election from conditioned on being rich in faith, to not yet being rich in faith.

3) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 changed a noun (salvation) into a verb (saved) to hide the fact we are individually chosen for salvation through faith in the truth.

I could go on, but why bother, the rebuttal will be "taint so."

 

[Reformed1689]

The ESV has been shown to systematically alter the translation to better fit with the bogus assertions of Calvinism.

1) Revelation 13:8 changed since creation to before creation but forgot to alter Revelation 17:8.

2) James 2:5 added "to be" to change the election from conditioned on being rich in faith, to not yet being rich in faith.

3) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 changed a noun (salvation) into a verb (saved) to hide the fact we are individually chosen for salvation through faith in the truth.

I could go on, but why bother, the rebuttal will be "taint so."

@Van the only one saying taint so is actually you. You have been shown by multiple people how your three assertions are bogus yet you keep repeating them without giving any credible evidence as to how you are correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

@Van the only one saying taint so is actually you. You have been shown by multiple people how your three assertions are bogus yet you keep repeating them without giving any credible evidence as to how you are correct.

I have yet to save his credentials to be able to assert that those who made the Esv made bogus renderings!

 

[Yeshua1]

I

The ESV has been shown to systematically alter the translation to better fit with the bogus assertions of Calvinism.

1) Revelation 13:8 changed since creation to before creation but forgot to alter Revelation 17:8.

2) James 2:5 added "to be" to change the election from conditioned on being rich in faith, to not yet being rich in faith.

3) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 changed a noun (salvation) into a verb (saved) to hide the fact we are individually chosen for salvation through faith in the truth.

I could go on, but why bother, the rebuttal will be "taint so."

if non cals had made same translation, would you accept them?

 

[Shoostie]

The ESV has been shown to systematically alter the translation to better fit with the bogus assertions of Calvinism.

1) Revelation 13:8 changed since creation to before creation but forgot to alter Revelation 17:8.

2) James 2:5 added "to be" to change the election from conditioned on being rich in faith, to not yet being rich in faith.

3) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 changed a noun (salvation) into a verb (saved) to hide the fact we are individually chosen for salvation through faith in the truth.

All three verses in the KJV are Calvinistic, just as much so as in the ESV. It's laughable that you think there's a meaningful difference between "from" vs. "before" the foundation of the Earth n Rev 13:8. James 2:5 is simply botched in the KJV -- it's nonsense in English, "God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith."

 

[Van]

All three verses in the KJV are Calvinistic, just as much so as in the ESV. It's laughable that you think there's a meaningful difference between "from" vs. "before" the foundation of the Earth n Rev 13:8. James 2:5 is simply botched in the KJV -- it's nonsense in English, "God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith."

Why post obvious falsehoods?
1) Before creation and since creation of opposite periods of time. Revelation 13:8
2) Adding"to be" changes the message, from chosen as rich in faith and heirs, to chosen so they will become rich in faith and heirs. James 2:5
3) 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in the KJV, NKJV, NET, HCSB, CSB, WEB and YLT all leave salvation as a noun, whereas the ESV and several others alter it into a verb.

After being caught with the ESV hand in the Calvinist cookie jar, the usual suspects post "taint so."