Thoughts on the CSB

[Van]

There are some Greek/Hebrew terms that will have no direct equivalence into English, idioms will be hard to translate strich fashion like that, and at times a strictly literal translation could get like an interlinear, and not a real translation!

More assertions, but no verse given. It appears the empty sack has many holes.

 

[Van]

Van, you cannot read a word of Hebrew or a word of Greek.
[snip]
That is all for just ONE Greek verb, Van. And when you look it up in Strong's you get ONE word, λυω (luo).
So, Van, when you have memorized all of those charts, come back and we will talk about your expertise as a bible translator.

Yet another post directed at my character and qualifications, rather than providing even one verse that cannot be translated using the word for word philosophy method, as seen in the NASB.
And did I make a claim of translation expertise? Nope, so rather than support for the need to translate loosely, we get strawman arguments.

 

[Van]

From the article in my thread Recently Published NT Translation:

'On the basis of people I trust to make this decision, the ESV or the TNIV or the NRSV or the NLT is a reliable translation.'"

Yes, my view of the CSB was informed by study materials, lexicons, concordances and commentary. But I did not make any argument from authority. I provided examples and let them speak for themselves.

Here is an example:

John 1:5 "That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it". CSB

Here we are considering whether the CSB's choice of "overcome" should be translated comprehend, as in the NASB, LEB and NKJV. The CSB did footnote overcome with the alternate choices of grasp, comprehend or overtake.

Now we all should know that light overcomes darkness, because darkness is the absence of light. So right away we can clear the muddle away with picking between comprehend and overtake. If we look at verse 9, where the Light "enlightens" every person, the idea here is that the divine illumination was not grasped or fully understood by those exposed to the light.

Therefore, based on context, the best choice is "comprehend" (so NASB, LEB and NKJV).

All this to say that words or phrases may have more than one meaning, and using the word for word philosophy method, translators use context to choose between the possible historical word or phrase meanings. For example, in John 12:35 the same word translated comprehend here according to context, is translated overtake there.

Finally, lets consider 1 Thessalonians 5:4. Here the NASB and NKJV have overtake and the LEB has catch, but the CSB has surprise. Here the idea is to be caught unawares like we might be if a thief unexpectedly took something. So "surprise" is actually not a bad choice, just outside the historical range of meanings. Therefore, in a word for word philosophy version, surprise might be chosen, but then it would be footnoted "literally overtake."

 

[TCassidy]

Yet another post directed at my character and qualifications, rather than providing even one verse that cannot be translated using the word for word philosophy method, as seen in the NASB.
And did I make a claim of translation expertise? Nope, so rather than support for the need to translate loosely, we get strawman arguments.

Van, you are not fooling anyone. You have no idea what you are talking about. You don't know a thing about Greek nor what philosophy is used used where and why.

 

[TCassidy]

Therefore, based on context, the best choice is "comprehend" (so NASB, LEB and NKJV).

And what does that have to do with κατελαβεν? What part of speech is it?
What tense is it? What voice is it? What mood is it? What person is it? What number is it?

Those things are important because the same word can mean "to catch or hold on to" or "to understand."

So, What part of speech is it? What tense is it? What voice is it? What mood is it? What person is it? What number is it?

And how do you know?

 

[TCassidy]

More assertions, but no verse given. It appears the empty sack has many holes.

Your ignorance is showing again.

θεοπνευστος - translated as 5 words in most English bibles.

 

[Van]

Yet another pile of posts from TC questioning my character, intelligence and qualifications. But no example where loose translation is needed. Not one. Their sack is empty.

Folks, stick to the NASB, LEB or NKJV for your primary study bible and use the more loosely translated ones for comparison.
The CSB has been shown to be deeply flawed in some of its translation choices, but can be used as a comparison bible in my opinion.

 

[TCassidy]

Yet another pile of posts from TC questioning my character, intelligence and qualifications.

I didn't question your character. Nor did I question your intellect (in fact, as I remember you, you were, and presumably still are, a very intelligent man).

I did question your qualifications to question the word choices of learned men serving on translation committees of the various English bibles. The reason I questioned your qualifications is that you don't have any!

And check out my post #146 for an example disproving your thesis.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4 PM Pacific.