# Christian Standard Bible: Good or Bad?



## Reformed Covenanter

Usually, I do not say a lot about translations, as such conversations usually generate more heat than light. Besides, not being a linguist I do not wish to pontificate about matters that I know nothing about. On this occasion, however, I will make an exception.

It is my practice to pray through the psalms in private worship. Over the last several months, I have used the Book of Common Prayer, the Geneva Bible, the NIV, and the RSV. I enjoyed using all of them (the NIV is a guilty pleasure of mine, but since David translated its psalms into Hebrew I think that I may be forgiven). I recently acquired an inexpensive, second-hand copy of the CSB and started using it once I had finished the psalms in the RSV. Thus far, I have to say that I have not been impressed. The use of the word "humans" instead of "men" makes me wonder if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was behind it? 

Still, I realise that Lane and others who know what they are talking about have spoken highly of the CSB. Do I just need to persevere and get used to it?


----------



## iainduguid

Hi Daniel,
As one of the original translators of the HCSB, and part of the revision committee of the CSB, I'll chime in. I'm surprised that "humans" is a problem for you if you like the NIV. Even the ESV uses gender neutral language from time to time. There are times when the translation "man" or "men" doesn't work very well, although we chose to retain it in key texts like Genesis 1:26. I can assure you that no one working on the project had a feminist agenda. 

Let me give you a couple of examples from the psalms that may help you understand our thinking. In Psalm 82:7, the KJV has "Ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes". This could easily be misunderstood, since in English, to die like a man implies dying bravely and boldly, whereas what the Psalm has in mind is dying like a mortal (_adam_), not living forever like a divine being. In context, "you will die like humans" is much clearer. In Psalm 9 and 10, we have chosen to translate _enosh_ as "mere humans" to bring out the aspect of human weakness that the word often contains. To translate it as "man" means that the distinct Hebrew vocabulary is flattened out a little, since that word normally indicates _ish_ or _adam_.

I hope that helps

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Thanks, Iain, that is useful; I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with respect to the humans comment. I should say that I use a nice 1978 edition of the NIV, which people in church often mistake for an AV. (Okay, I mostly use either the NKJV or the ESV, but I carry an NIV to church.)

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Jack K

I recently had to use the CSB on a project where the author I was editing used it as his primary translation. I expected not to like it (don't we already have enough translations), but ended up pleasantly surprised. It reads smoothly and clearly, as if writing good English was a priority for the translation team. It's clearly less word-for-word than some translations, yet I didn't find it suggesting many meanings that vary from the clunkier ESV, which has been my preferred choice for several years now. And I trust it more than I trust the also readable 2011 NIV.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## beloved7

It seems okay, though with the ESV, I don't see the need for it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake

Prime Minister Trudeau replaced "humankind" with "peoplekind" so I think "humans" would still not be good enough for him. 

I don't own the CSB, but I've used it from time-to-time. One of my elders is a big fan, and I was in a Bible study where he used it and often pointed out what he considered to be superior translations over the ESV, NASB, and KJV. I am a big fan of the CSB's renderings of John 3:16 for example

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Bill The Baptist

iainduguid said:


> Hi Daniel,
> As one of the original translators of the HCSB, and part of the revision committee of the CSB, I'll chime in. I'm surprised that "humans" is a problem for you if you like the NIV. Even the ESV uses gender neutral language from time to time. There are times when the translation "man" or "men" doesn't work very well, although we chose to retain it in key texts like Genesis 1:26. I can assure you that no one working on the project had a feminist agenda.
> 
> Let me give you a couple of examples from the psalms that may help you understand our thinking. In Psalm 82:7, the KJV has "Ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes". This could easily be misunderstood, since in English, to die like a man implies dying bravely and boldly, whereas what the Psalm has in mind is dying like a mortal (_adam_), not living forever like a divine being. In context, "you will die like humans" is much clearer. In Psalm 9 and 10, we have chosen to translate _enosh_ as "mere humans" to bring out the aspect of human weakness that the word often contains. To translate it as "man" means that the distinct Hebrew vocabulary is flattened out a little, since that word normally indicates _ish_ or _adam_.
> 
> I hope that helps



Thank you for your input Dr. Duguid. I can see where you are coming from, but I’m not sure that I’ve ever met someone who was confused as to the meaning of “die like men” from Psalm 82. In my opinion, the effort to make the translation understandable to the densest among us has only resulted in awkward sounding English, and is frankly a fruitless effort. If you are too dense to understand the meaning of Psalm 82, then the Bible is destined to be a mystery to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think the CSB is a solid translation, in many ways preferable to the ESV. Unfortunately, for the present, it seems to remain (unofficially) a Southern Baptist version and it is almost impossible to find materials that use it outside of those produced by Lifeway. If the CSB finds traction and other curriculum makers provide options for incorporating it in their material, then maybe I'd switch. But for now, it is something I use in my devotions and nothing more.


----------



## py3ak

Reformed Covenanter said:


> the NIV is a guilty pleasure of mine



I read through the NIV a few years ago. I never felt like I got less out of reading the Bible than I did on that occasion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> I read through the NIV a few years ago. I never felt like I got less out of reading the Bible than I did on that occasion.



I am quite happy to enjoy my guilty pleasure alone.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 1


----------



## iainduguid

SolaScriptura said:


> I think the CSB is a solid translation, in many ways preferable to the ESV. Unfortunately, for the present, it seems to remain (unofficially) a Southern Baptist version and it is almost impossible to find materials that use it outside of those produced by Lifeway. If the CSB finds traction and other curriculum makers provide options for incorporating it in their material, then maybe I'd switch. But for now, it is something I use in my devotions and nothing more.


I used the CSB as the base for my recent REC volume on Zephaniah, Haggai and Malachi, but your point is well-taken. Crossway has pretty much sewn up the market of secondary literature with the ESV (which I use in many of my books). The HCSB study bible (to which I contributed) isn't as useful to Reformed readers as the ESV Study Bible. I wish the CSB would be more widely used in Reformed circles because I think it has some unique qualities. But it's not surprising that Broadman and Holman would focus their attention on the (vast) Southern Baptist market because it is their home base.


----------



## SolaScriptura

iainduguid said:


> I wish the CSB would be more widely used in Reformed circles because I think it has some unique qualities.



As you are a contributor to that work, I thank you for your labors. I think it would be helpful if you would enumerate those unique qualities possessed by the CSB that would be useful to those in Reformed circles.


----------



## bookslover

I understand that there's a CSB study Bible in which all the notes are by Spurgeon - culled from his sermons, no doubt.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Yes...

https://www.amazon.com/Spurgeon-Study-Bible-Black-LeatherTouch®/dp/1586409727

http://csbspurgeonstudybible.com/


----------



## iainduguid

SolaScriptura said:


> As you are a contributor to that work, I thank you for your labors. I think it would be helpful if you would enumerate those unique qualities possessed by the CSB that would be useful to those in Reformed circles.


In the spectrum of translations from formal equivalence to functional equivalence, it's at a similar spot to the ESV. The ESV, I think under Leland Ryken's influence, seems committed to "sound like the Bible", which perhaps makes it easier for those raised on the cadences of the KJV to switch. However, it results in more complex sentences and paragraphs, along with extensive use of anachronisms, such as "Behold" and "Maiden". I can't remember ever saying to my wife, "I was at the grocery store and behold, I ran into Fred" or announcing that this week the young men's Bible Study would be at our house and the maidens would be meeting at the Jones. This can lead to a perception that the Bible is "special" in its linguistic style, something which is unique to the English text and not a feature of the Greek or Hebrew. The CSB strives to render the ordinary everyday Greek and Hebrew more straightforwardly into ordinary everyday English.

I don't want to be too critical of the ESV; it is an excellent translation in most ways, and there are times when its elevated style works really well. The task of translation is huge and enormously complex and everyone will think that translators captured some verses well and didn't do so well on others. Unlike in commentaries, you don't get five pages to explain why you chose your particular translation. We are enormously blessed in English to have a multiplicity of good translations to work with.

Footnote: one of the revision team members, Andy Steinmann, is an avid birdwatcher. As a result, I think we probably have the best rendering of the birds of the Bible in any English translation. But we don't have any hedgehogs (ESV Isa 14:23; Zeph 2:14).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan

I've been using the CSB in our family worship over the last 6 months or so. I have found it particularly helpful as we have worked through the minor prophets and it seems to make the meaning a good bit clearer than some other translations. I don't know if I'll run into some quibbles in other parts of the Old or New Testaments but so far I've found it refreshing and clear.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

I bought a CSB Reader's Bible for my wife. The first one came in a bit damaged and they kindly replaced it. I ended up claiming the damaged one. I am truly surprised at how much of a pleasure it has been to read. I predominantly use the ESV, on top of of the KJV, JPS translation of the Tanakh, and interlinears. I find myself reading the CSB the most now. I am honestly considering using it for the books I am writing. It has been great for family devotions and worship.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I will try to read more of it before making a judgment on the translation as a whole, but I have to say that I really do not like its translation of the Psalms. The fact that I started using it after the RSV's translation of the Psalter, one of outstanding literary beauty, probably has not helped matters.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

I haven't made it that far yet. I will read through some of the Psalms this Evening.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> I don't want to be too critical of the ESV; it is an excellent translation in most ways, and there are times when its elevated style works really well.


It is always helpful to use more than one translation and in many respects both the ESV and CSB go nicely together. I like reading the book of Proverbs in the CSB. Also think there is a lot to be said for an Optimum Equivalent translation.

But there are a number of times where I prefer the ESV:

I prefer the ESV in the Psalms. Perhaps it is my KJV and NKJV background, but the ESV follows the Tyndale tradition in the way it translates the Psalms which I find helpful.
The ESV translates 2 Tim 3:16 "breathed out by God" which conveys the original very clearly. I find the CSV "inspired" to be a strange translation.
I find it unfortunate the translators of the CSV did not use "propitiation" (in Romans, Hebrews, and 1 John) as they did in the HCSB. The HCSB was committed to retaining important theological words and propitiation more than any other word conveys the wrath of God against sin and the need for true atonement. In a day and age where the idea of the wrath of God against sin is minimised, we need to retain this truth.
I find the translation of the OT word Hesed - translated as steadfast love in the ESV to be a very helpful translation. Admittedly I am not an OT scholar but when reading a number of OT expository dictionaries and OT theological works, the concepts of "love", "steadfastness", and "strength" were emphasised. In a day and age where love is trivialised, the idea that Biblical love is steadfast, In my humble opinion, is very important.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is always helpful to use more than one translation and in many respects both the ESV and CSB go nicely together. I like reading the book of Proverbs in the CSB. Also think there is a lot to be said for an Optimum Equivalent translation.
> 
> But there are a number of times where I prefer the ESV:
> 
> I prefer the ESV in the Psalms. Perhaps it is my KJV and NKJV background, but the ESV follows the Tyndale tradition in the way it translates the Psalms which I find helpful.
> The ESV translates 2 Tim 3:16 "breathed out by God" which conveys the original very clearly. I find the CSV "inspired" to be a strange translation.
> I find it unfortunate the translators of the CSV did not use "propitiation" (in Romans, Hebrews, and 1 John) as they did in the HCSB. The HCSB was committed to retaining important theological words and propitiation more than any other word conveys the wrath of God against sin and the need for true atonement. In a day and age where the idea of the wrath of God against sin is minimised, we need to retain this truth.
> I find the translation of the OT word Hesed - translated as steadfast love in the ESV to be a very helpful translation. Admittedly I am not an OT scholar but when reading a number of OT expository dictionaries and OT theological works, the concepts of "love", "steadfastness", and "strength" were emphasised. In a day and age where love is trivialised, the idea that Biblical love is steadfast, In my humble opinion, is very important.


I'll address the two OT concerns at least.
First, if you remember my post above, I noted the ESV's concern for literary excellence, a "Bible that sounds like the Bible". This is likely to be most positively felt in the poetic sections, especially the psalms, which I agree the ESV does well. But of course for every virtue there is always a cost. Clarity can potentially be obscured a bit. The ESV scores three grade levels harder than the CSB (10th vs 7th). That's not a problem for most PB readers, but it is a concern for some.

Second, _hesed_ is notoriously difficult to translate into English. The ESV predominantly translates it by "steadfast love", though about 25% of the time it translates it with something else, such as kindness. The CSB most often renders it with "faithful love", though it has alternate translations in about 33% of uses. So it's not a big difference. I prefer both to the NIV's tendency to flatten it into "love", for which other Hebrew words are often used.


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> In the spectrum of translations from formal equivalence to functional equivalence, it's at a similar spot to the ESV. The ESV, I think under Leland Ryken's influence, seems committed to "sound like the Bible", which perhaps makes it easier for those raised on the cadences of the KJV to switch. However, it results in more complex sentences and paragraphs, along with extensive use of anachronisms, such as "Behold" and "Maiden". I can't remember ever saying to my wife, "I was at the grocery store and behold, I ran into Fred" or announcing that this week the young men's Bible Study would be at our house and the maidens would be meeting at the Jones. This can lead to a perception that the Bible is "special" in its linguistic style, something which is unique to the English text and not a feature of the Greek or Hebrew. The CSB strives to render the ordinary everyday Greek and Hebrew more straightforwardly into ordinary everyday English.
> 
> I don't want to be too critical of the ESV; it is an excellent translation in most ways, and there are times when its elevated style works really well. The task of translation is huge and enormously complex and everyone will think that translators captured some verses well and didn't do so well on others. Unlike in commentaries, you don't get five pages to explain why you chose your particular translation. We are enormously blessed in English to have a multiplicity of good translations to work with.
> 
> Footnote: one of the revision team members, Andy Steinmann, is an avid birdwatcher. As a result, I think we probably have the best rendering of the birds of the Bible in any English translation. But we don't have any hedgehogs (ESV Isa 14:23; Zeph 2:14).


Would you see the Csb s being in the same category as the Niv and the Esv then? I tend to see those 3 all very much alike, and would still see the more formal translations such as the NASB/NKJV as being more suited to those wanting more of a literalness in their versions.


----------



## iainduguid

The NIV is distinctly more in the direction of functional versus formal equivalence than the ESV and CSB, which are similar in that regard. The KJV would be more in the direction of formal equivalence and the NASB further still. The language of "literal" is imprecise and is best avoided.


----------



## JimmyH

iainduguid said:


> The NIV is distinctly more in the direction of functional versus formal equivalence than the ESV and CSB, which are similar in that regard. The KJV would be more in the direction of formal equivalence and the NASB further still. The language of "literal" is imprecise and is best avoided.


I realize it is not as popular as it once was, but an example of why I like the NIV and its functional equivalence is that it speaks the English I use. An example being ;
Job 31:1
NIV I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.
ESV I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?
CSB I have made a covenant with my eyes. How then could I look at a young woman?
NASB I Have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?
KJV I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?
To me the NIV nails the thought behind the verse. Virgin, maid, or even 'look upon a young women', without the specific context might by some be considered self explanatory. I suppose it could be argued that 'How then could I look upon a young women' is context enough, but I prefer the NIV speaking in plain English.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

JimmyH said:


> I realize it is not as popular as it once was, but an example of why I like the NIV and its functional equivalence is that it speaks the English I use. An example being ;
> Job 31:1
> NIV I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.
> ESV I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?
> CSB I have made a covenant with my eyes. How then could I look at a young woman?
> NASB I Have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?
> KJV I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?
> To me the NIV nails the thought behind the verse. Virgin, maid, or even 'look upon a young women', without the specific context might by some be considered self explanatory. I suppose it could be argued that 'How then could I look upon a young women' is context enough, but I prefer the NIV speaking in plain English.



I disagree. The NIV completely removes the anguish he feels at even the thought of breaking his covenant and reduces it to a simple matter of fact statement. The fact that all that all the other versions translate it very similarly should be your clue that the Hebrew is closer to how they phrase it rather than how the NIV phrases it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> Second, _hesed_ is notoriously difficult to translate into English. The ESV predominantly translates it by "steadfast love", though about 25% of the time it translates it with something else, such as kindness. The CSB most often renders it with "faithful love", though it has alternate translations in about 33% of uses. So it's not a big difference. I prefer both to the NIV's tendency to flatten it into "love", for which other Hebrew words are often used.


Given the doctrinal importance of Hesed, and given modern society to trivalise love, it seems to me that 'steadfast love' [ESV], or indeed 'faithful love' [CSB] emphasise that Biblical love is solid, not something sentimental.

As I said above, the ESV and the CSB both have unique strengths and we are blessed today with excellent translations of the Bible.


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> The NIV is distinctly more in the direction of functional versus formal equivalence than the ESV and CSB, which are similar in that regard. The KJV would be more in the direction of formal equivalence and the NASB further still. The language of "literal" is imprecise and is best avoided.


Agreed on the use of literal, should have stated more formal . So you would see the Niv as being more in line of Dynamic Equivalence than either Esv/CSB, and the nas as the most formal version available?
How do you view the issues regarding how to translate gender issues, as in when to translate as men/man, or as others?


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> Given the doctrinal importance of Hesed, and given modern society to trivalise love, it seems to me that 'steadfast love' [ESV], or indeed 'faithful love' [CSB] emphasise that Biblical love is solid, not something sentimental.
> 
> As I said above, the ESV and the CSB both have unique strengths and we are blessed today with excellent translations of the Bible.


I would much rather use either the esv/Csb then the Niv, as think the Niv went far too much into gender rendering issues, and is somewhat more dynamic a translation for my tastes.


----------



## ZackF

Since the start of this tread, I downloaded an electronic copy of this translation and have been impressed (not claiming any cash value to that). 

HT to Prof. Duguid for his labors and comments on this thread.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I have decided to give up on its psalms; I got to Psalm 68 and cannot take anymore of them. I usually pray 3-5 a day, but the CSB has made it a real chore to pray even one psalm a day. Maybe I just need to get used to the translation as a whole, but I really do not like the CSB's Psalter. I think I am going to use the ASV as the next translation for my prayers instead. Still, it is not right to judge a translation on account of one book. And it is only my subjective opinion.


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have decided to give up on its psalms; I got to Psalm 68 and cannot take anymore of them. I usually pray 3-5 a day, but the CSB has made it a real chore to pray even one psalm a day. Maybe I just need to get used to the translation as a whole, but I really do not like the CSB's Psalter. I think I am going to use the ASV as the next translation for my prayers instead. Still, it is not right to judge a translation on account of one book. And it is only my subjective opinion.


I do think that the Csb is a decent translation, prefer it to the Niv 2011. I also prefer to use on a regular basis more formal translations, such as the nas/NKJV


----------



## Dachaser

ZackF said:


> Since the start of this tread, I downloaded an electronic copy of this translation and have been impressed (not claiming any cash value to that).
> 
> HT to Prof. Duguid for his labors and comments on this thread.


I would see the Csb as being one of the best of the so called mediating versions.


----------



## Tom Cunliffe

I like to stick with the same Bible for years and years because I memorise chunks of it. If you memorise the Bible you really don't want to waste time memorising things which are someone's paraphrase - you want to get as close to the original text as you can. Over the years I've used KJV / RSV / ESV and am well pleased with all these versions because I can use a concordance like strongs and see a pretty much word-for-word equivalence. I do not always see this with the CSB. I will just give one very brief example

Psalm 24:1 ESV The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein
Psalm 24:1 CSB The earth and everything in it, the world and its inhabitants,
belong to the Lord;

Now, CSB is clearly missing the word "fulness" but a quick check with Strongs concordance shows that "fulness" is actually implied by the Hebrew - i.e. "that which fills". CSV completely misses that thought. The Lord has created the world in such a way that it produces things for our benefit which fill it. The verse speaks of God's bounty but you wouldn't glean that from it if you only use CSB.

Having said that, CSB is a lot better than NIV which has the ugly "in it" repeated twice. 
Psalm 24:1 NIV 
The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it

which has no resonance at all, particularly when read aloud!

Incidentally, I see no problem with the Bible being translated in a way which makes it a bit unique in its language. I know that the NT was written in common Greek but it is not difficult for anyone to get used to a text translated from an ancient language which uses some slightly unique English usages in order to express the full meaning of the original words.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Tom Cunliffe said:


> I like to stick with the same Bible for years and years because I memorise chunks of it. If you memorise the Bible you really don't want to waste time memorising things which are someone's paraphrase - you want to get as close to the original text as you can. Over the years I've used KJV / RSV / ESV and am well pleased with all these versions because I can use a concordance like strongs and see a pretty much word-for-word equivalence. I do not always see this with the CSB. I will just give one very brief example
> 
> Psalm 24:1 ESV The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,
> the world and those who dwell therein
> Psalm 24:1 CSB The earth and everything in it, the world and its inhabitants,
> belong to the Lord;
> 
> Now, CSB is clearly missing the word "fulness" but a quick check with Strongs concordance shows that "fulness" is actually implied by the Hebrew - i.e. "that which fills". CSV completely misses that thought. The Lord has created the world in such a way that it produces things for our benefit which fill it. The verse speaks of God's bounty but you wouldn't glean that from it if you only use CSB.
> 
> Having said that, CSB is a lot better than NIV which has the ugly "in it" repeated twice.
> Psalm 24:1 NIV
> The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
> the world, and all who live in it
> 
> which has no resonance at all, particularly when read aloud!
> 
> Incidentally, I see no problem with the Bible being translated in a way which makes it a bit unique in its language. I know that the NT was written in common Greek but it is not difficult for anyone to get used to a text translated from an ancient language which uses some slightly unique English usages in order to express the full meaning of the original words.



I think your objection is without merit. You write that the CSB "completely misses" the thought of fulness. Um, you think "and everything in it" completely misses? In this case, the translation of the CSB is actually very similar to that of the Geneva Bible - so it certainly has a historic precedent - and I think "and everything in it" brings clarity and makes the meaning more clear. 

By comparison: "fulness thereof?" What does that mean? That God is responsible for congested areas? What about barren places? Translate it "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it," and boom! Now it is immediately clear that the Lord's ownership extends to every single thing.

Really, I think your objection boils down to you like KJV language.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Cunliffe

SolaScriptura said:


> I think your objection is without merit - - - -



Well, that's one way of putting it. It seems to me, that "fulness" is not the same as "everything in it" . I think the Hebrew supports my view. 



SolaScriptura said:


> . . . Really, I think your objection boils down to you like KJV language.



The ESV is my Bible of choice. I like to see words like ἱλαστήριον translated as "propitiation" (ESV) rather than "atoning sacrifice" (CSB). 

I can see no point in the CSB - we already have a fine translation in the ESV (and others no doubt) and the CSB adds nothing as far as I can see. Except of course that its possibly more "readable" (see this article) - at the cost of course of "literalness".

Tom


----------



## iainduguid

Tom Cunliffe said:


> Well, that's one way of putting it. It seems to me, that "fulness" is not the same as "everything in it" . I think the Hebrew supports my view.
> 
> 
> 
> The ESV is my Bible of choice. I like to see words like ἱλαστήριον translated as "propitiation" (ESV) rather than "atoning sacrifice" (CSB).
> 
> I can see no point in the CSB - we already have a fine translation in the ESV (and others no doubt) and the CSB adds nothing as far as I can see. Except of course that its possibly more "readable" (see this article) - at the cost of course of "literalness".
> 
> Tom


You are certainly entitled to your personal preference for a more literal translation here, rather than what seems to me a clearer one. But if you are going to argue against the CSB on the basis of this rendering, then you also have to argue that the NASB is not a sufficiently literal translation (it translates it as "all it contains"), nor is the KJV since it translates the same word as "all that is in it" in Jeremiah 8:16. All translations (including the KJV and ESV) sometimes sacrifice literalness for clarity, which is a good thing. No translation is going to please everyone. I'm glad that you find the ESV helpful.

By the way if you look up "propitiation" in Merriam-Webster you find the following: 
1. The act of propitiating
2. something that propitiates, specifically an atoning sacrifice.

Since clearly it isn't meaning 1) in this case, the word propitiation means in normal contemporary English "an atoning sacrifice". You may prefer a more technical sounding word, but the contemporary English word does not intrinsically contain the meaning you are attributing to it.

Reactions: Informative 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Tom Cunliffe

OK - thanks for the elaboration.

I think my point remains that there seems to be little point in producing a translation like the CSB when one so similar already exists. However, no doubt publishing companies have their own commercial agendas and who am I to prevent them from constantly going over old ground to produce a bright shiny new translation. 

Incidentally I had the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible for a while and found it disappointing - there did not seem to be enough Spurgeon in it and the lost sermons were generally produced in facsimile form with first page only. I sold it on ebay as I have far too many books on my shelves already.


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Cunliffe said:


> Well, that's one way of putting it. It seems to me, that "fulness" is not the same as "everything in it" . I think the Hebrew supports my view.
> 
> 
> 
> The ESV is my Bible of choice. I like to see words like ἱλαστήριον translated as "propitiation" (ESV) rather than "atoning sacrifice" (CSB).
> 
> I can see no point in the CSB - we already have a fine translation in the ESV (and others no doubt) and the CSB adds nothing as far as I can see. Except of course that its possibly more "readable" (see this article) - at the cost of course of "literalness".
> 
> Tom


It is the standard translation for the SBC, so that alone would make it worthwhile to have as a translation in the marketplace.
I see it as being for reading and study use a better type of Niv, but would prefer more formal translations such as theNas/NKJV myself.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Dachaser said:


> It is the standard translation for the SBC



While it was commissioned by the SBC, the translation team came from multiple denominations, and to be honest, most Southern Baptists I know don’t use it.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> While it was commissioned by the SBC, the translation team came from multiple denominations, and to be honest, most Southern Baptists I know don’t use it.


I think that it is the only version used by their curriculum publishing branch though. I knew it as the HCSB, and thought was a better update then the Niv 2011, as not so gender issued.


----------



## ZackF

I wanted to swing by this thread and add a few remarks especially for those that haven't decided which translation to give a child or are considering something else.

Shortly after this thread began I started reading the CSB on my Ipad. I became taken with the flow of this translation. Logan posted that he was using the translation in family worship. A couple days later I went to Mardel's and picked up a copy for my 6yo daughter and myself. She's loved it. This morning we listened to the audio version (on YouVersion app) from several later chapters in Exodus. I was amazed at how she could follow the narrative. We had a nice discussion about Moses, the Ark, tabernacle, and establishment of the priesthood. Can't recommend it enough.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Ben Mordecai

How different is the HCSB from the CSB? I have a nice leather bound HCSB and I am wondering is the dropping of the H is just a branding move or a sign of extensive changes. I am considering integrating it into my normal Bible studies.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Mordecai said:


> How different is the HCSB from the CSB? I have a nice leather bound HCSB and I am wondering is the dropping of the H is just a branding move or a sign of extensive changes. I am considering integrating it into my normal Bible studies.


One difference would be that the HCSB I believe used Christ title and Messiah title at different times, based upon if a Jewish or Gentile audience was being addressed in the scriptures.


----------



## iainduguid

Hi Ben,
I was one of the translators for the HCSB and served on the revision committee for the CSB. It is a pretty significant revision; we worked through the whole text and made many changes. We removed some of the quirkier features (e.g. capitalized divine pronouns and use of Yahweh), so if you liked those then you'll want to stay with the HCSB. But the overall result is a step forward, though recognizably in the same direction.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Dachaser said:


> One difference would be that the HCSB I believe used Christ title and Messiah title at different times, based upon if a Jewish or Gentile audience was being addressed in the scriptures.





iainduguid said:


> Hi Ben,
> I was one of the translators for the HCSB and served on the revision committee for the CSB. It is a pretty significant revision; we worked through the whole text and made many changes. We removed some of the quirkier features (e.g. capitalized divine pronouns and use of Yahweh), so if you liked those then you'll want to stay with the HCSB. But the overall result is a step forward, though recognizably in the same direction.


Didn't the HCSB also use Christ and Messiah for Jesus depending on whether a Hebrew or a Gentile audience the scriptures?
I actually liked using the Hcsb, might give the Csb a try out now.


----------



## Ben Mordecai

iainduguid said:


> Hi Ben,
> I was one of the translators for the HCSB and served on the revision committee for the CSB. It is a pretty significant revision; we worked through the whole text and made many changes. We removed some of the quirkier features (e.g. capitalized divine pronouns and use of Yahweh), so if you liked those then you'll want to stay with the HCSB. But the overall result is a step forward, though recognizably in the same direction.


What was the idea behind removing Yahweh?


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Mordecai said:


> What was the idea behind removing Yahweh?


I thought that was the very name God gave to Himself?


----------



## Ben Mordecai

Dachaser said:


> I thought that was the very name God gave to Himself?


That is why I am wondering why the CSB reversed course.


----------



## iainduguid

The challenge for the translator is consistency. Unless you go all in and translate (transliterate) everywhere as Yahweh, you are faced with passages where the text alternates awkwardly between Yahweh and the LORD in the space of a few verses, even though the Hebrew is the same (see Gen 28:13-21 in the HCSB). But if you go with Yahweh consistently, you not only are faced with awkward sounding verses in some places, you create a mismatch between NT citations of OT verses and the OT originals. So we decided to follow the NT practice of translating Yahweh as "kurios" (Lord), with the traditional small caps to help people see where it is a reference to the divine name. If it's good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it is good enough for us. 
[Note: there were Greek translations of the OT that went with a transliteration of the divine name (pi-iota-pi-iota); the NT did not adopt that convention.]

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> The challenge for the translator is consistency. Unless you go all in and translate (transliterate) everywhere as Yahweh, you are faced with passages where the text alternates awkwardly between Yahweh and the LORD in the space of a few verses, even though the Hebrew is the same (see Gen 28:13-21 in the HCSB). But if you go with Yahweh consistently, you not only are faced with awkward sounding verses in some places, you create a mismatch between NT citations of OT verses and the OT originals. So we decided to follow the NT practice of translating Yahweh as "kurios" (Lord), with the traditional small caps to help people see where it is a reference to the divine name. If it's good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it is good enough for us.
> [Note: there were Greek translations of the OT that went with a transliteration of the divine name (pi-iota-pi-iota); the NT did not adopt that convention.]


Did you adopt the practice then of having LORD to reflect term for Yahweh, and Lord for Kurios?


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Mordecai said:


> That is why I am wondering why the CSB reversed course.


You would have to use Yahweh as the specific name for God in every time the name of God was used in the scriptures, and the translators probably thought that would be cumbersome.


----------



## iainduguid

Dachaser said:


> Did you adopt the practice then of having LORD to reflect term for Yahweh, and Lord for Kurios?


It's a bit more complicated than that; kurios is Greek, not Hebrew. 

In general we went for "LORD" in place of Yahweh and "Lord" for 'adonai . But there are places where you have 'adonai Yahweh in the Hebrew, which is vocalized by the masoretes to be read as 'adonai 'elohim; we followed their lead and rendered those "Lord GOD", since "lord LORD" sounds odd. Perhaps surprisingly, given its general preference for following the MT, the NIV follows the Septuagint in these cases, rendering "Sovereign LORD". Either way, these are different from "LORD God", which translates the composite form Yahweh Elohim.


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> It's a bit more complicated than that; kurios is Greek, not Hebrew.
> 
> In general we went for "LORD" in place of Yahweh and "Lord" for 'adonai . But there are places where you have 'adonai Yahweh in the Hebrew, which is vocalized by the masoretes to be read as 'adonai 'elohim; we followed their lead and rendered those "Lord GOD", since "lord LORD" sounds odd. Perhaps surprisingly, given its general preference for following the MT, the NIV follows the Septuagint in these cases, rendering "Sovereign LORD". Either way, these are different from "LORD God", which translates the composite form Yahweh Elohim.


So Paul took the Hebrew word used by God in the OT for Himself, and had it into Greek as Kurios, which than came over to us into English as being the Llord?


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> It's a bit more complicated than that; kurios is Greek, not Hebrew.
> 
> In general we went for "LORD" in place of Yahweh and "Lord" for 'adonai . But there are places where you have 'adonai Yahweh in the Hebrew, which is vocalized by the masoretes to be read as 'adonai 'elohim; we followed their lead and rendered those "Lord GOD", since "lord LORD" sounds odd. Perhaps surprisingly, given its general preference for following the MT, the NIV follows the Septuagint in these cases, rendering "Sovereign LORD". Either way, these are different from "LORD God", which translates the composite form Yahweh Elohim.


Does Elohim stand for God, or can it also refer to the angelic host?


----------



## iainduguid

Dachaser said:


> Does Elohim stand for God, or can it also refer to the angelic host?


Normally it refers to God or the gods; in Psalm 8:5, the Septuagint translates it as "angels." Compare the citation in Hebrews 2:7.


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> Normally it refers to God or the gods; in Psalm 8:5, the Septuagint translates it as "angels." Compare the citation in Hebrews 2:7.


Was that term used by Jesus when he was asking the Pharisees about how in the OT the judges were called gods?


----------



## iainduguid

Dachaser said:


> Was that term used by Jesus when he was asking the Pharisees about how in the OT the judges were called gods?


John 10:34 is citing Ps 82:6, where elohim is used, yes.


----------



## Dachaser

iainduguid said:


> John 10:34 is citing Ps 82:6, where elohim is used, yes.


Would you see it as being as "god" there, or as judges of Israel though?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

iainduguid said:


> I wish the CSB would be more widely used in Reformed circles because I think it has some unique qualities. But it's not surprising that Broadman and Holman would focus their attention on the (vast) Southern Baptist market because it is their home base.


Iain, perhaps one way that this translation could be better promoted among confessionally Reformed Churches would be if Reformed pastors (including yourself?) could produce a Reformed study Bible in the CSB. Also encourage Ligonier to produce a Reformation Study Bible in the CSB. The fact that the CSB was created using Optimal Equivalence, a translation philosophy, with an excellent balance of literalness and readability, should greatly appeal to Reformed christians. Maybe promotion is the key?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> Iain, perhaps one way that this translation could be better promoted among confessionally Reformed Churches would be if Reformed pastors (including yourself?) could produce a Reformed study Bible in the CSB. Also encourage Ligonier to produce a Reformation Study Bible in the CSB. The fact that the CSB was created using Optimal Equivalence, a translation philosophy, with an excellent balance of literalness and readability, should greatly appeal to Reformed christians. Maybe promotion is the key?


I thought that the study notes in the Csb sb though reflected a more Calvinistic stance on areas such as election and salvation?


----------

