# CSB verses HCSB



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 20, 2017)

I normally use the ESV as my main translation but also love my HCSB. I was wondering if it is worth getting a CSB. In other words are the changes in the CSB sufficient to warrent getting this translation rather than continuing with the HCSB?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 20, 2017)

Here is an earlier thread. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/csb-christian-standard-bible-hcsb-minus-the-h.91966/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 20, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here is an earlier thread. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/csb-christian-standard-bible-hcsb-minus-the-h.91966/


Chris, I had read through that thread with geat interest. But it really does not answer the question if it is worth getting a CSB when one already has a HCSB, and uses the ESV as their main trnslation.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Jun 21, 2017)

I've been using the CSB as a reading Bible recently. I'm quite enjoying it, which is a surprise as I wasn't a fan of the HCSB. I'd say give it a go.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 21, 2017)

This document outlines the major aspects of the HCSB that were changed in the CSB. https://csbible.com/ministry/hcsb-to-csb/


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I normally use the ESV as my main translation but also love my HCSB. I was wondering if it is worth getting a CSB. In other words are the changes in the CSB sufficient to warrent getting this translation rather than continuing with the HCSB?


The answer would be based upon how you view inclusive language, as the revision of the HCSB would seem to do much more inclusive then the Hcsb. I saw a chart that showed that if the 1984 Niv was zero for inclusive languages renderings, the Esv was about 30 %. and the Csb and new Niv both around 70%.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The answer would be based upon how you view inclusive language, as the revision of the HCSB would seem to do much more inclusive then the Hcsb. I saw a chart that showed that if the 1984 Niv was zero for inclusive languages renderings, the Esv was about 30 %. and the Csb and new Niv both around 70%.



Did the chart give a percentage on KJV? KJV has a lot of inclusive language.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 21, 2017)

David, you can't seriously put the CSB in the same category as the new NIV!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 21, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, you can't seriously put the CSB in the same category as the new NIV!



Lane, I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on this. Honestly, as I started perusing the CSB I was disappointed in how much of the changes I saw looked more like the NIV than the HCSB. Now I wasn't disappointed in that I have particular problems with the NIV 2011. I'm not bothered by it in the way your posts sound like you are. Why it bothered me was we already have the NIV! Why did so much of the HCSB that was unique get changed to match the NIV? We already have the NIV. Why do we need another translation that just made itself so much more like it?

So could you comment with some more details? I'm curious what you see.

I couldn't help but think of Al Mohler's critique of the TNIV and his praise for the HCSB. Made me think either people need to start critiqueing the CSB for consistency in their part or start issuing apologies to the CBT of the TNIV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 21, 2017)

Joe, I see a different set of translators than the NIV2011 who are not motivated by egalitarian concerns getting accused of being egalitarian in their translation practices. This is not the expressed intention of the CSB, and it has been explicitly disavowed by our own Iain Duguid, and yet people are still attacking the CSB as if it has given the egalitarian ballgame away. My understanding is that the NIV 2011 was expressly concerned with egalitarianism in its translation practices in a way that the CSB was not. For details, I would have to rely on Iain Duguid's far greater familiarity with the details. But I will say in reading the CSB that it doesn't read like the NIV to me. It is far more cautious in cases of ambiguity.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 21, 2017)

My understanding is the the CSB tends to translate masculine terms into more neutral terms when it is obvious that both males and females are in view. This is not the same as being strictly gender neutral, although many would argue that it is an unnecessary concession to the modern feminist movement that struck no one as being necessary prior to the last 50 years or so.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 21, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Joe, I see a different set of translators than the NIV2011 who are not motivated by egalitarian concerns getting accused of being egalitarian in their translation practices. This is not the expressed intention of the CSB, and it has been explicitly disavowed by our own Iain Duguid, and yet people are still attacking the CSB as if it has given the egalitarian ballgame away. My understanding is that the NIV 2011 was expressly concerned with egalitarianism in its translation practices in a way that the CSB was not. For details, I would have to rely on Iain Duguid's far greater familiarity with the details. But I will say in reading the CSB that it doesn't read like the NIV to me. It is far more cautious in cases of ambiguity.



I'd definitely be curious to hear Iain's thoughts. I enjoy his comments when he jumps in on translation discussions. If memory serves me, he provided the commentary on two or three OT books on Carson's NIV Zondervan Study Bible as I looked through the contributors.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, you can't seriously put the CSB in the same category as the new NIV!


I was just saying that the chart showed that the Csb had roughly the same amount of inclusive renderings as the Niv 2011 does, but I am wondering if they both would reflect the approach that God has no definite differences between males and females now as regarding teaching and leading in church and home?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I was just saying that the chart showed that the Csb had roughly the same amount of inclusive renderings as the Niv 2011 does, but I am wondering if they both would reflect the approach that God has no definite differences between males and females now as regarding teaching and leading in church and home?



I'm sure many do something that I do, use a reading program to read through the Bible.

Use a plan and read through them. When people were worked up about the TNIV, I took that year and use the TNIV for my plan. Do it for the 2011 and CSB and tell us what you find! I'm working through the CSB right now.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 21, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I'd definitely be curious to hear Iain's thoughts. I enjoy his comments when he jumps in on translation discussions. If memory serves me, he provided the commentary on two or three OT books on Carson's NIV Zondervan Study Bible as I looked through the contributors.


I think I have some insight into the differences between the NIV and the CSB. As an author published by Zondervan, I was invited to a number of dinners hosted by them at SBL in the early 2000's where their egalitarian agenda was not merely occasionally visible but front and center. My experiences with the translation team for the CSB have been in sharp contrast with that: the goal for which everyone was striving was clear, accurate renditions of the original language into modern English. In some cases, we may have independently come to the same conclusion as the NIV 2011 about the best translation, but in other cases there are important differences. It is not something you can evaluate simply by counting numbers; context is critical.

To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do. If you find any examples like that in the CSB, please point them out to me and, if I agree, I will take them with the committee.

On the other hand, where Paul is addressing the entire church as "brothers", and it is generally agreed that by that term he is including an entire mixed audience of "brothers and sisters", we have rendered it "brothers and sisters" since that is actually what it _means _ in this context. This is exactly the same translational practice that the KJV follows when it consistently renders "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" (except in a few places where men only seem to be in view). Not everyone will agree that this is a necessary step, but please do not confuse this translational choice with some kind of feminist agenda.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 21, 2017)

Thanks, Iain, I was hoping you would weigh in on this matter.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 21, 2017)

Josh Williamson said:


> I'm quite enjoying it, which is a surprise as I wasn't a fan of the HCSB.


Thanks Josh. I was wondering why you enjoy the CSB when you said were not a fan of the HCSB.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 21, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> I think I have some insight into the differences between the NIV and the CSB. As an author published by Zondervan, I was invited to a number of dinners hosted by them at SBL in the early 2000's where their egalitarian agenda was not merely occasionally visible but front and center. My experiences with the translation team for the CSB have been in sharp contrast with that: the goal for which everyone was striving was clear, accurate renditions of the original language into modern English. In some cases, we may have independently come to the same conclusion as the NIV 2011 about the best translation, but in other cases there are important differences. It is not something you can evaluate simply by counting numbers; context is critical.
> 
> To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do. If you find any examples like that in the CSB, please point them out to me and, if I agree, I will take them with the committee.
> 
> On the other hand, where Paul is addressing the entire church as "brothers", and it is generally agreed that by that term he is including an entire mixed audience of "brothers and sisters", we have rendered it "brothers and sisters" since that is actually what it _means _ in this context. This is exactly the same translational practice that the KJV follows when it consistently renders "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" (except in a few places where men only seem to be in view). Not everyone will agree that this is a necessary step, but please do not confuse this translational choice with some kind of feminist agenda.


Dr. Duguid,
I am curious as to the changes that were implemented from the Lutherans that I recall you said in a previous thread on this. Were they that significant?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 21, 2017)

I echo Lane. Thank you, Dr. Duguid, for jumping in with your insight.


----------



## Beezer (Jun 21, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do.



I looked the verse up on BibleGateway to see how the other major translations have it and see that the NIV includes a foot note with the alternative translation "_that you, a man of God._" The ESV has a footnote that reads "_a messenger of God_" as a meaning.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 22, 2017)

Beezer said:


> I looked the verse up on BibleGateway to see how the other major translations have it and see that the NIV includes a foot note with the alternative translation "_that you, a man of God._" The ESV has a footnote that reads "_a messenger of God_" as a meaning.


The full ESV footnote has "That is, a messenger of God (the phrase echoes a common Old Testament expression)". I don't think there is any gender motivation to the footnote: the ESV is rightly pointing out the fact that the phrase "man of God" in the OT is regularly used to denote someone who is a prophet; "that you, a man of God" loses this overtone. It is this overtone that the phrase also has in 1 Tim 6:11, which the NET Bible flattens out into "as a person dedicated to God".

All translation is complex; someone might argue that 2 Tim 3:16 applies equally to all Christians; we are all to pursue holy perfection, and are equipped for that task by the Scriptures (note that Paul has in view here the OT!). However, for me the mention of reproof, correction and training in righteousness, together with the OT prophetic overtones of the phrase "man of God" connects it with Timothy's pastoral role and make it important to retain the gender specific term here, as we did.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 22, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Dr. Duguid,
> I am curious as to the changes that were implemented from the Lutherans that I recall you said in a previous thread on this. Were they that significant?


We had two Lutherans on the revision committee, Andrew Steinmann and Andrew Das, and we received more than 600 suggestions from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), one of the more conservative Lutheran groups. Most of these were minor refinements. here is one example: "Gen 12:5 reads [in the HCSB] “and the people he had acquired in Haran.” The pronoun should be “they”" Many of these we had picked up independently; many others were helpful suggestions; a few we chose not to use. Working with Lutherans did make us careful about "must", "ought" and "should" language, which is of course tricky in Hebrew, where all of these modal verbs are expressed by the imperfect. Lutherans tend to be very alert for "law", which led to some excellent discussions. I felt our final translation was significantly better for their input (not least Andy's encyclopedic knowledge of birds! I believe the CSB sets the new standard for translation of the birds of the OT, even if the romantic side of me wishes we could have endorsed the ESV's rather creative discovery of hedgehogs in the Bible - Isa 14:23; Zeph 2:13). Our OT revisions were also significantly helped by Dorian Coover-Cox from Dallas, whose English grammar and phrasing skills often resulted in a much better turn of phrase.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 4


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 22, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> All translation is complex; someone might argue that 2 Tim 3:16 applies equally to all Christians; we are all to pursue holy perfection, and are equipped for that task by the Scriptures (note that Paul has in view here the OT!). However, for me the mention of reproof, correction and training in righteousness, together with the OT prophetic overtones of the phrase "man of God" connects it with Timothy's pastoral role and make it important to retain the gender specific term here, as we did.



Dr. Duguid, I appreciate your tone so much. After reading your thoughts on 2 Timothy last night. I was thinking about why the NIV CBT would render anthropos as servant giving as much benefit of the doubt as I could to these brothers and sisters that I don't doubt are doing their best and I don't assume any hidden agenda on their part. 

I was thinking something similar to what you said here. Surely the Word isn't profitable for doctrine, rebuke, correction and instruction in righteousness to males only. So I was thinking perhaps they were wanting to avoid anyone making such a conclusion from their translation. 

Your explanation of why the CSB reads as it does makes perfect sense. It sounds "safer" to me to translate it that way. I understand what the CSB translators did and why and it's reasonable. While not having spoke anyone of the NIV CBT I can imagine a reason that is not motivated by feminist agenda and that a complementarian might use to justify their translation. 

I'm a high school graduate. However, I have read much on this subject. I've read quite a bit from D.A. Carson. A book that helped me understand the task in front of men like yourself was _The Challenge of Bible Translation_ edited by Scorgie, Strauss & Voth. 

I'm amazed at the graciousness of the scholars with each other on these issues and how dogmatic and unkind non-scholars can be despite their lack of expertise in the subject. 

Again, thank you for being accessible in answering questions for us.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 22, 2017)

'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism' by D.A. Carson is beneficial to those who have ears to hear it. Until I read it I couldn't accept the 2011 NIV, but have come to terms with it since then.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 22, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> 'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism' by D.A. Carson is beneficial to those who have ears to hear it. Until I read it I couldn't accept the 2011 NIV, but have come to terms with it since then.



I thought it was a very good book. It's from 1998 so it's pre-TNIV. But he gives examples from the NIVI even showing where some examples of inclusion were overboard to the point of being silly despite Carson generally being ok with inclusive readings.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 22, 2017)

Below are some thoughts forwarded to me by a friend on this subject. This is from someone with quite a bit of clout when it comes to Greek but I'm not sharing his name because he shared this with me by way of private correspondence...

"Regarding gender-neutral or (in reality) gender-inclusive renderings in the CSB:

One of my biggest pet peeves is their decision to render ADELFOI as "brothers and sisters" in most locations, even when the context is clearly addressing males as primary.

Example: compare CSB at Ac 13.16, 26, where the Greek clearly uses ANHR (which is exclusive to males, unlike the at times generic ANQRWPOS); further, these words are being addressed in the synagogue and clearly to the males present, leaving no room for the politically correct concept of "brothers and sisters" let alone "fellow Israelites" as a gender-inclusive concept:

Ac 13.16 "Fellow Israelites, and you who fear God, listen!"
Greek = ANDRES ISRAHLITAI...
Literally = "Men, Israelites"

Ac 13.26 "Brothers and sisters, children of Abraham’s race, and those among you who fear God"
Greek = ANDRES ADELFOI UIOI GENOUS ABRAAM...
Literally = "Men, brothers, sons of the family of Abraham"

Ac 15.7 " “Brothers and sisters, you are aware..."
Greek = ANDRES ADELFOI UMEIS EPISTASQE
Literally = "Men, brothers, you understand"
-- This one is particularly egregious, since the those being addressed are clearly "The apostles and the elders" who had "gathered to consider this matter" in what was obviously a direct address to the males of the Jerusalem Council (15.5), with no hint of Peter playing to or appealing to any females in the audience who might (?-highly unlikely) have been witnessing the discussion. And even when the decision of the council is made (15.13), "Brothers and sisters" is still clearly wrong in view of ANDRES ADELFOI AKOUSATE MOI.

And this is hardly the end of that particular problem. The phrase ANDRES ADELFOI occurs 14x in Acts -- and in almost every case the CSB has "brothers and sisters", totally neglecting and refusing to translate ANDRES in the process of making ADELFOI appear purely generic (many other translations do the same, and CSB is merely following their lead). Something is severely wrong with that picture.

Exceptions in Acts regarding the phrase are the following:

Ac 2.37 (because of the context addressing "Peter and the rest of the apostles") -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 7.2 and 22.1 (partial exception; CSB "Brothers and fathers" when the Greek actually says ANDRES, ADELFOI, KAI PATERES, "Men, brothers, and fathers" -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 7.26 "Men, you are brothers" (only because of the context)

Ac 13.15 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 23.1,6 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Ac 28.17 "Brothers" (again only because of the context) -- but why not render ANDRES instead of skipping it entirely?

Something absurd this way comes from Nashville, it seems."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 23, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> Below are some thoughts forwarded to me by a friend on this subject. This is from someone with quite a bit of clout when it comes to Greek but I'm not sharing his name because he shared this with me by way of private correspondence...
> 
> "Regarding gender-neutral or (in reality) gender-inclusive renderings in the CSB:
> 
> ...


I'm not a Greek expert and I wasn't part of the discussions in the NT committee. However, they have reasonable grounds for their translation. 

1) Standard Greek reference grammars give "brothers and sisters" as an option for translating adelphoi. For example, "the plural is sometimes used in the collective sense brothers and sisters – a. lit. Lk 21:16. – b. in extended community sense Ro 8:29; Eph 6:23." (Danker). 

2) regarding the compound phrase "andres adelphoi" this seems to be simple apposition, in which the second term more narrowly defines the first, making the first often unnecessary in translation. Hebrew does something similar: an "ishah almanah" is "a woman, a widow" but whereas the KJV translates this "a widow woman" the ESV regards "a widow" as better contemporary English style (see 1 Kings 17:9). This is not "skipping it entirely": it is translating it properly.

3) According to FF Bruce, andres is a classical Greek idiom: "the word is otiose and does not necessarily exclude women". D.A. Carson observes that the term andres likely includes women in Matthew 14:35; James 1:20 and 3:2. According to David Peterson on Acts 1:21 "the context suggests that both andres and adelphoi refer to males and females together." 

4) In Acts 17:34, andres explicitly includes a woman. This provides a great example of the CSB's policy. The HCSB read: "However, some men joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them." The CSB translates: "However, some people joined him and believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

I understand that not everyone agrees with the translation policy, but it is neither absurd nor driven by a feminist agenda.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> I think I have some insight into the differences between the NIV and the CSB. As an author published by Zondervan, I was invited to a number of dinners hosted by them at SBL in the early 2000's where their egalitarian agenda was not merely occasionally visible but front and center. My experiences with the translation team for the CSB have been in sharp contrast with that: the goal for which everyone was striving was clear, accurate renditions of the original language into modern English. In some cases, we may have independently come to the same conclusion as the NIV 2011 about the best translation, but in other cases there are important differences. It is not something you can evaluate simply by counting numbers; context is critical.
> 
> To give just one example, in 2 Timothy 3:17, we rightly retained "man of God" since Paul's words here have in view the ministry of the Word, which we believe is for men only. The NIV rendered "man of God" with a gender-neutral "servant of God" here; I wasn't part of their committee so I'm not in a position to know their motives, but that seems the kind of thing that an egalitarian agenda would do. If you find any examples like that in the CSB, please point them out to me and, if I agree, I will take them with the committee.
> 
> On the other hand, where Paul is addressing the entire church as "brothers", and it is generally agreed that by that term he is including an entire mixed audience of "brothers and sisters", we have rendered it "brothers and sisters" since that is actually what it _means _ in this context. This is exactly the same translational practice that the KJV follows when it consistently renders "sons of Israel" as "children of Israel" (except in a few places where men only seem to be in view). Not everyone will agree that this is a necessary step, but please do not confuse this translational choice with some kind of feminist agenda.


The main difference seems to be that the Csb does want to keep the principle of male leadership in the church and home, while the new Niv seems to want to shift that more both sexes can lead equally well.


----------



## tangleword (Jun 23, 2017)

One thing I don't love about the change is having Lalein+glossa be tongues again to appease the charismatic views. I liked how the HCSB translated it as languages, not keeping the old tongues word that has been misused so much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jun 24, 2017)

I found an email in my inbox this morning where my friend (he actually is a Greek expert, and I say that without exaggeration) sent me his thoughts on this point. Here it is...

"Notably his experts arppear to be those who already support a more generic rendering; further, he fails to note that the passages appealed to can be interpreted differently, e.g., Ac 17.34 which easily can be understood as "But some men (ANDRES)...believed, among who also [was] Dionysius the Areopagite; also [i.e. in addition, as a *separate* category] a woman named Damaris" etc.

More important is his own self-refutation regarding the phrase ANDRES ADELFOI: "this seems to be simple apposition, in which the second term more narrowly defines the first, making the first often unnecessary in translation" -- and yet he and the CBS and other similar translations are taking the second term as more *broadly* defining the first! What is going on? On the face of it, the *first* term defines and restricts the *second*, and not the other way around.

Further, "Standard Greek reference grammars give "brothers and sisters" as an option for translating adelphoi" -- perhaps, but that claim totally ignores the implications and force of the full phrase ANDRES ADELFOI, thereby solving nothing.

Also self-condemnatory is this: "Hebrew does something similar: an "ishah almanah" is "a woman, a widow" but whereas the KJV translates this "a widow woman" the ESV regards "a widow" as better contemporary English style (see 1 Kings 17:9). This is not "skipping it entirely": it is translating it properly." -- precisely! Even if assuming, therefore, that if ANDRES precedes ADELFOI, but is not translated, its very presence on the basis of the example given should have identified the second term as clearly representing a specific gender.

Even more to the point, this is a clear cop-out: "According to David Peterson on Acts 1:21 'the context suggests that both andres and adelphoi refer to males and females together'" -- yet in that particular context it is obvious that a *male* was intended to replace Judas Iscariot. Does Peterson (or Duguid) *seriously* think that Peter was suggesting selection of Mary Magdalene or another of the women who had accompanied Jesus and the apostles? Not only is such *not* reflected by the candidates selected, but neither Peterson nor anyone else should read into the context something that simply is not there.

One also must ask why, assuming ADELFOI and/or ANHR is supposedly so generic, one finds *clear* Lukan distinctions in Acts separately specifying men and women by use of ANHR in conjunction with GUNH (Ac 5.14; 8.3, 12; 9.2; 17.12; 22.4). Was Luke or Peter or Paul somehow missing the point when stating ANDRES ADELFOI -- or did they know *precisely* what was intended?

The most obvious refutation of the current gender-inclusive claims is that, prior to modern politically correct concepts, *all* English versions seemed to have no problem whatever in rendering ANDRES ADELFOI as (at least) "brothers", and often as the more literally correct "Men, brothers". So a definite shift in policy clearly is involved, and hardly for the better in these cases."



iainduguid said:


> I'm not a Greek expert and I wasn't part of the discussions in the NT committee. However, they have reasonable grounds for their translation.
> 
> 1) Standard Greek reference grammars give "brothers and sisters" as an option for translating adelphoi. For example, "the plural is sometimes used in the collective sense brothers and sisters – a. lit. Lk 21:16. – b. in extended community sense Ro 8:29; Eph 6:23." (Danker).
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 24, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> I found an email in my inbox this morning where my friend (he actually is a Greek expert, and I say that without exaggeration) sent me his thoughts on this point.



I don't have a dog in this fight, but perhaps your friend could come out of the shadows and engage in a more proper way than doing so through an intermediary.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 24, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I thought it was a very good book. It's from 1998 so it's pre-TNIV. But he gives examples from the NIVI even showing where some examples of inclusion were overboard to the point of being silly despite Carson generally being ok with inclusive readings.


I think that it is becoming pretty clear that the Csb translators appeared to be more cautious and conservation in regards to what they changed in order to be more inclusive, as the Niv translators did seem to be advocating more radical an agenda in regards to how the roles of men and women are now under the New Covenant.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 24, 2017)

tangleword said:


> One thing I don't love about the change is having Lalein+glossa be tongues again to appease the charismatic views. I liked how the HCSB translated it as languages, not keeping the old tongues word that has been misused so much.


They should have kept the term as languages , and not changed, as that would indeed be catering to those who view the tongues as an angelic one.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 24, 2017)

I don't want to spin this out, but a couple of comments are in order.

On Acts 17:34: "which easily can be understood as "But some men (ANDRES)...believed, among who also [was] Dionysius the Areopagite; also [i.e. in addition, as a *separate* category] a woman named Damaris" etc." This seems to me to neglect the last part of the verse. If there are a group of MEN, who believed (including Dionysius), and, a separate category, a WOMAN named Damaris, to what category do the "and others with them" belong? "With them" links these others in a single group: those who believed.

That's certainly the most straightforward understanding of the KJV translation here: "Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them". The "which" in "Among the which" is the "men" who clave to Paul and believed. In other words, the KJV is using "men" here in its generic sense, which potentially includes women.

On apposition, I think you have misunderstood my point. The second term more narrowly defines the first and so becomes unnecessary (and incorrect English style) to translate when the second term contains that information. So an _isha almanah_ is not "a woman, a widow" but (in contemporary English) simply a widow. So even on your view, the proper translation of _andres adelphoi_ is not "Men, brothers" (and still less the KJV's "Men and brothers", which erroneously suggests that two distinct groups are in view) but simply "Brothers", since brothers are by definition men. If however as I have sought to demonstrate above, _andres _can refer inclusively to both genders and (as all the reference grammars agree) _adelphoi_ can (in some cases) be used inclusively of men and women, then the translator needs to seek to determine whether in this case the terms are being used inclusively in context. If not, he should translate "Brothers." If so, "Brothers and sisters" is probably better English style, since we do not use "Brothers" inclusively. 

I am not saying that _aner, andres and adelphoi _are always inclusive. That would be ridiculous. However, in at least one other place _aner _is used by Paul inclusively: Romans 4:8, quoting Psalm 32:2 "How joyful is the person that the Lord does not charge with iniquity" (CSB). Clearly Paul here is not intending to say something about men in distinction from women. Indeed, the Hebrew has _'adam_, not _'ish_. But even _'ish _ can be used in a gender-inclusive way, as the KJV recognizes when it translates _'ish _ as "Whosoever" in (Lev. 22:21, among other places).

Gender language is tricky to translate. This is not an easy topic where there is an obvious "right" answer. Some will prefer to retain the traditional language and explain, where appropriate, that "brothers" actually means "brothers and sisters" here. That is a defensible position, but it isn't the only responsible position that people who are wholeheartedly committed to complementarianism can take.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Josh Williamson (Jun 25, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thanks Josh. I was wondering why you enjoy the CSB when you said were not a fan of the HCSB.



This podcast deals with some of my dislike of the HCSB, and the improvement of the CSB - http://thomrainer.com/2017/03/691790/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 25, 2017)

Josh Williamson said:


> This podcast deals with some of my dislike of the HCSB, and the improvement of the CSB - http://thomrainer.com/2017/03/691790/


Thanks Josh. In the main it was helpful. A pity it did not address the Gender issue; that said I acknowledge the helpful discussion of earlier posts.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

"Man" is generic in the sense that it can refer to a male or a female or both, but it is not merely generic. The inclusion of women under the designation of "man" indicates that "by God’s design the woman’s identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the prior identity of the male." (Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, p. 84.) To alter this word as if it merely intended a generic referent is to lose the full import and impact of the word.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

MW said:


> "Man" is generic in the sense that it can refer to a male or a female or both, but it is not merely generic. The inclusion of women under the designation of "man" indicates that "by God’s design the woman’s identity as female is inextricably tied to and rooted in the prior identity of the male." (Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood, p. 84.) To alter this word as if it merely intended a generic referent is to lose the full import and impact of the word.


God had some legitimate reasons to have masculine terminology placed in the scriptures,for while male can and does refer also to females, there are still some times God meant men/man/males, such as when He laid out male headship/leadership within the scriptures. many in modern culture though think that is old fashioned and now obsolete.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> God had some legitimate reasons to have masculine terminology placed in the scriptures,for while male can and does refer also to females, there are still some times God meant men/man/males, such as when He laid out male headship/leadership within the scriptures. many in modern culture though think that is old fashioned and now obsolete.



Yes, that is touching on the representative principle. The generics are masculine because it is fitting for men to represent mankind in general. The progress of biblical revelation manifests this principle and upholds it from beginning to end. The two Adams are literally two men.

Another reason for retaining "man" over "one" is the fact that biblical revelation is intrinsically concerned with the nature and destiny of man who has been made in the image of God. Replacing "man" with "one" weakens the continuity of thought and the moral implications which resonate with the word "man."


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

MW said:


> Yes, that is touching on the representative principle. The generics are masculine because it is fitting for men to represent mankind in general. The progress of biblical revelation manifests this principle and upholds it from beginning to end. The two Adams are literally two men.
> 
> Another reason for retaining "man" over "one" is the fact that biblical revelation is intrinsically concerned with the nature and destiny of man who has been made in the image of God. Replacing "man" with "one" weakens the continuity of thought and the moral implications which resonate with the word "man."


I think that much of the gender issues reflect towards a desire to have roles changed and leadership pf the male ignored, due to modern cultural views.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think that much of the gender issues reflect towards a desire to have roles changed and leadership pf the male ignored, due to modern cultural views.



You're talking motive. Do you have quotes from translators that substantiate that?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> You're talking motive. Do you have quotes from translators that substantiate that?


http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.2011.html


I skimmed it and I still agree with Joe. Can this be substantiated?
He quoted the preface and basically called it hogwash and proceeded to try and find motives not asking those who actually worked on it. Rather he went to those with an axe to grind (i.e. CBMW).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> I skimmed it and I still agree with Joe. Can this be substantiated?
> He quoted the preface and basically called it hogwash and proceeded to try and find motives not asking those who actually worked on it. Rather he went to those with an axe to grind (i.e. CBMW).


I do not think the Niv team was evil, but do see them as being to PC in how much of the inclusive renderings they decided to go with, as to me, it was and still pretty much the 2005 TNIV, that many rejected.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I do not think the Niv team was evil, but do see them as being to PC in how much of the inclusive renderings they decided to go with, as to me, it was and still pretty much the 2005 TNIV, that many rejected.


Again substantiate your claims. They all specifically say their concerns are the growing illiteracy of the average person (not us confessional folk on the PB) and the evolution of English language usage. They have a number of complementarians on the CBT and reading the major texts that support complementarian positions, nothing has changed to support the tortured egalitarian renderings.

It is weird textual arguments like this in the thread and elsewhere from CBMW or the Baylys (granted I am no linguist) that make me distance myself from complementarianism any more (while agreeing that yes wives submit to your husbands and don't be church officers) . I agree more and more with Trueman and his defenses from all the flack he got a few years ago. Its just silly.
Just my two cents.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 28, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Again substantiate your claims. They all specifically say their concerns are the growing illiteracy of the average person (not us confessional folk on the PB) and the evolution of English language usage. They have a number of complementarians on the CBT and reading the major texts that support complementarian positions, nothing has changed to support the tortured egalitarian renderings.
> 
> It is weird textual arguments like this in the thread and elsewhere from CBMW or the Baylys (granted I am no linguist) that make me distance myself from complementarianism any more (while agreeing that yes wives submit to your husbands and don't be church officers) . I agree more and more with Trueman and his defenses from all the flack he got a few years ago. Its just silly.
> Just my two cents.


I am just saying that there are places where we can use terms such as brothers/sisters, mankind in general, but that when we are speaking about specific areas such as Jesus, or leadership in the church and home, need to stay masculine terminology.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am just saying that there are places where we can use terms such as brothers/sisters, mankind in general, but that when we are speaking about specific areas such as Jesus, or leadership in the church and home, need to stay masculine terminology.



I still find this lacking evidence. I've read the TNIV multiple times. I don't get answers. Point out the egalitarian commentaries that are capitalizing on so-called compromises on this in the newest revisions of the NIV. 

What I see, in my opinion, was an overreaction on Jim Dobson's and others' parts that World magazine jumped on and Evangelicals read World and their heros instead of the TNIV. Lots of my "heros" were anti-TNIV. Many were pro-TNIV. So I read it several times. 

Hebrews 2 is often pointed to as compromising on Jesus by changing "son of man" to "human beings". That translation is less literal. But even conservative complementarian point out that "son of man" isn't being used Christologically there. 

In MacArthur's Study Bible he writes...

_*man … son of man.* Both refer to mankind, not to Christ. The passage asks why God would ever bother with man. As the following verses demonstrate (vv. 9, 10), the incarnation of Christ is the greatest proof of God’s love and regard for mankind. Christ was not sent in the form of an angel. He was sent in the form of a man._

It's obvious looking at Psalm 8 in context in any formal translation that it's referring to humanity. 

So while it's less literal, it is accurate in meaning. And it prevents the Christian from jumping to a false conclusion when they see "son of man" of automatically making it Messianic in reference. 

Is that the best solution? Probably not. The best solution is Christians reading context correctly. Reading context can make it clear "son of man" is a reference to human beings and not Jesus. However, many aren't careful. 

As for the authority of the husband.....Ephesians 5 still seems pretty clear to me in the TNIV and 2011. Here's the TNIV...

_22Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything._

Wives still are to submit to husbands. So I'd like to see proof of the charge.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I still find this lacking evidence. I've read the TNIV multiple times. I don't get answers. Point out the egalitarian commentaries that are capitalizing on so-called compromises on this in the newest revisions of the NIV.
> 
> What I see, in my opinion, was an overreaction on Jim Dobson's and others' parts that World magazine jumped on and Evangelicals read World and their heros instead of the TNIV. Lots of my "heros" were anti-TNIV. Many were pro-TNIV. So I read it several times.
> 
> ...


This is a well written critique from a respected reformed author
https://frame-poythress.org/tnivs-altered-meanings-an-evaluation-of-the-tniv/


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is a well written critique from a respected reformed author
> https://frame-poythress.org/tnivs-altered-meanings-an-evaluation-of-the-tniv/


Blomberg, one of the translators and a complementarian took him to task on a review in a book Poythress authored.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/resources/news-and-articles/the-gender-neutral-bible-controversy/
We just need to be sure we are not impugning people's motives and retreating into bizarre Catholic-esque traditionalism with regard to translations. I am not sure what you are arguing for any more...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

I did not know that, but do think his points are still valid.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I did not know that, but do think his points are still valid.


Carson has a free book titled The Genderl Inclusive Language Debate a plea for realism in pdf form. I encourage you to read it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is a well written critique from a respected reformed author
> https://frame-poythress.org/tnivs-altered-meanings-an-evaluation-of-the-tniv/


While the TNIV was an egregious example of PC influence the 2011 NIV corrected that verse, Proverbs 13:1, to read the same as the 1984 NIV. 


arapahoepark said:


> Carson has a free book titled The Genderl Inclusive Language Debate a plea for realism in pdf form. I encourage you to read it.


I've read a lot of this and it is extremely informative. Chapter 3, Translation And Treason : An Inevitable and Impossible Task is a must read for understanding the complexities involved. 
In the preface D.A. Carson writes, 


> I was exposed to the challenges of translation from my earliest days: I was born in Montreal and reared in French Canada. My father was pastor of a bilingual church, and all of us grew up with both English and French. Of my first two experiences as a pastoral intern, one was in a French church, the other in an English church; of my first two attempts at church planting, one was in an English-speaking suburb, the other in a French-speaking city. I grew up memorizing the King James Version in English and the Louis Segond in French.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Carson has a free book titled The Genderl Inclusive Language Debate a plea for realism in pdf form. I encourage you to read it.


Thanks, I will read that, but do you think that all of those inclusive renderings such as in the Tniv were all valid and good?
I have no problem when using examples such as brother and sisters, or when being called sons of God also would have females in mind, but do think that at times the Niv went over into trying to force an agenda.
Good discussion on this issue found here:
http://www.equip.org/article/the-inclusive-language-debate/


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> While the TNIV was an egregious example of PC influence the 2011 NIV corrected that verse, Proverbs 13:1, to read the same as the 1984 NIV.
> 
> I've read a lot of this and it is extremely informative. Chapter 3, Translation And Treason : An Inevitable and Impossible Task is a must read for understanding the complexities involved.
> In the preface D.A. Carson writes,


I think that the Csb and Niv are alike in how they handle this issue in part, but also think the niv kept too much of the Tniv 2005 renderings.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 30, 2017)

Its like arguing a circle here...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 30, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Its like arguing a circle here...


We need a Tardis.


----------

