The Holman Christian Standard Version

[rlvaughn]

Is there REALLY that big of a need to update a solid translation every 20 years, or is it mainly for marketing reasons, here is the new and improved?

While the need to correct mistakes, typographical errors, etc. along the way seems fitting, rolling out a renamed "new edition" in less than 20 years sounds more like marketing to me.

I mentioned above that I like their explanation about not capitalizing pronouns referring to God. On the other hand, it seems to me that the answer to "What is the Christian Standard Bible approach on translating gender language?" shows a move in the direction of pacifying current PC ideas. While they note that the "Christian Standard Bible retains a traditional approach to translating gender language," they also "avoid being unnecessarily specific in passages where the original context did not exclude females." So, "When Scripture presents principles or generic examples that are not restricted to males, the CSB does not use “man,” “he,” or other masculine terms." To me it seems here they are doing some of the "making unnecessary judgments" that they chose not to do with divine pronouns. IOW, why not let the reader decide whether the original context is gender specific or is not?

 

[rlvaughn]

I distinctly recall that the early promotional literature about the HCSB way back when (late 1990s) referred to it as the "CSB".
There may have been a trademark problem, as there is a Churches of Christ magazine named the Christian Standard.
Its owner Standex Co. eventually broke up, with its Berean retail division eventually being acquired by Lifeway, and the Sunday School division of Standard Publishing by David C. Cook (new curriculum partner of CSB).
Perhaps some sort of agreement was reached regarding use of the name?

That's very interesting, and could explain a lot.

 

[Yeshua1]

While the need to correct mistakes, typographical errors, etc. along the way seems fitting, rolling out a renamed "new edition" in less than 20 years sounds more like marketing to me.

I mentioned above that I like their explanation about not capitalizing pronouns referring to God. On the other hand, it seems to me that the answer to "What is the Christian Standard Bible approach on translating gender language?" shows a move in the direction of pacifying current PC ideas. While they note that the "Christian Standard Bible retains a traditional approach to translating gender language," they also "avoid being unnecessarily specific in passages where the original context did not exclude females." So, "When Scripture presents principles or generic examples that are not restricted to males, the CSB does not use “man,” “he,” or other masculine terms." To me it seems here they are doing some of the "making unnecessary judgments" that they chose not to do with divine pronouns. IOW, why not let the reader decide whether the original context is gender specific or is not?

Sounds like they are traveling the same bad path the Niv did when the 2011 revision came out!

 

[Rippon]

Is there REALLY that big of a need to update a solid translation every 20 years, or is it mainly fot[sic] marketing reasons, here is the new and improved?

Did see my favorite, Nasb, revising again this tear[sic],

In the first paragraph you expressed your displeasure that solid translations need to be updated every 20 years or so. Then, you mention your favorite, the NASB being revised 22 years after the last revision.

So the revision wasn't worth the trouble?

 

[Rippon]

Sounds like they are traveling the same bad path the Niv did when the 2011 revision came out!

You are one mixed-up dude.

 

[Yeshua1]

In the first paragraph you expressed your displeasure that solid translations need to be updated every 20 years or so. Then, you mention your favorite, the NASB being revised 22 years after the last revision.

So the revision wasn't worth the trouble?

All depends on the reason why!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are one mixed-up dude.

How so? Many would agree with me that the 1984 superior to the 2011 revision!

 

[Rippon]

All depends on the reason why!

As I said, in the first paragraph of that post of yours that I was responding to --you expressed doubt that there was a need to update or revise a translation every 20 years or so.

Then you contradicted yourself in your next paragraph when you cited your "favorite" --the NASB --which is doing the very thing you object to. I just note your inconsistency.

 

[banana]

Updates should be done whenever necessary. If an update should be done in less than 20 years then go ahead and update it. Time limits are arbitrary

 

[Rippon]

How so? Many would agree with me that the 1984 superior to the 2011 revision!

That's not the point. You are charging the CSB with the same kind of things you have constantly harped on regarding the NIV. You need to put a lid on it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Updates should be done whenever necessary. If an update should be done in less than 20 years then go ahead and update it. Time limits are arbitrary

I think that most updates though are really not necessary, but fit the marketing promotions, especially if a new study bible!

 

[Rippon]

I think that most updates though are really not necessary, but fit the marketing promotions, especially if a new study bible!

So does the NASB revision also meet with your disapproval? Be consistent.

 

[Yeshua1]

So does the NASB revision also meet with your disapproval? Be consistent.

No, because they updated it for the right reason, not for inclusive language, but to update the NT grammar, and the new update this year will address the OT Grammar!

 

[Rippon]

No, because they updated it for the right reason, not for inclusive language, but to update the NT grammar, and the new update this year will address the OT Grammar!

The NIV reduced the amount of inclusive language and updated some antiquated TNIV language. They tweeked some other things also to improve the translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

The NIV reduced the amount of inclusive language and updated some antiquated TNIV language. They tweeked some other things also to improve the translation.

They did improve that really bad Tniv version, but went still too far in my opinion!
They should have just updated grammar without altering and adding inclusive to the 1984 one!

 

[Rippon]

They did improve that really bad Tniv version, but went still too far in my opinion!
They should have just updated grammar without altering and adding inclusive to the 1984 one!

You never learn Y-Guy.

 

[Yeshua1]

You never learn Y-Guy.

Think most would agree that the Tniv was a bad revision, and the 2011 was a better one compared to that, but not as good overall as the 1984 edition!

 

[Rippon]

Think that most would agree you make false claims which are unsubstantiated. You don't do homework, you avoid specifics, you don't read posts that you quote... The list could go on and on.

 

[The Parson]

Gee, not sure I'd ever trust a version that omits the titles of God. ie; (HCSB) 1st John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
Where is: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."? How can it be a good study bible at all if keys like this are missing. Just asking folks.

 

[Rob_BW]

Gee, not sure I'd ever trust a version that omits the titles of God. ie; (HCSB) 1st John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
Where is: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."? How can it be a good study bible at all if keys like this are missing. Just asking folks.

Missing? It's right there in the footnotes, next to the explanation that the text was missing to the GNT manuscripts from the 1st Millennium AD.