# Considering CSB as my Main Translation



## 1689theologychick (Apr 13, 2020)

Historically, I have been a NASB95 devotee through and through. However, the recent 2020 update, followed by the news of MacArthur getting rights to the '73('77? - can't remember the year), has made me question my loyalty to the NASB. I understand that the 95 is going to continue to be published by Zondervan, but I have concerns that they will eventually pollute it with a revision at some point or discontinue it to make their own new translation (probably more likely). I'm concerned my beloved NASB is not going to be a longterm option and I want something I can continue to use until I'm old and gray(er). (I'm currently mid-forties)

I have been using the CSB since it came out for my daily reading, but not for deeper study. I very much enjoy it as well but have always understood formal equivalence to be better for deep study when it comes to word studies and such. I am an English-only student. I have no knowledge of original languages, other than to look up transliterations, and I have an entry-level lay-person's understanding of Greek tenses/moods/voices. 

I'm looking to get one of my Bibles re-bound over the summer to a more sturdy and upgraded leather and more long-lasting binding. My current NASB95 is about 13 years old and I love my crinkly pages and the time I've spent marking it up and taking notes. But I also want a translation I can recommend to others as I teach and write most of the Bible studies our ladies do at my church. ESV has not been a winner for me. I just can't love it no matter how hard I try.

So, to my questions:
1. Am I making too much of an issue of formal equivalence for deeper Bible study?
2. Do you think the CSB has more potential longevity than NASB95?
3. Which one of these two would you get re-bound if you were teaching and looking for a translation you could confidently recommend to your students?

Thanks in advance! I've already poured through all the forum discussions on the CSB and benefitted greatly from your wisdom - especially that of Dr. Duiguid. I know many of you will suggest ESV as an alternate, but I would rather go down with the NASB95 ship than use that translation. I've already been down the ESV road enough to know it's a no-go for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Apr 13, 2020)

I personally am fine using multiple translations for where they fit best instead of making a big deal about a change. Just mix in some reading of the CSB to your daily reading and see how you like it and how it fits with other translations. You can of course read on-line if you don't want to buy the Bible first.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 13, 2020)

Kim, the CSB is my favorite as well. Formal equivalence as a principle can be applied too rigidly. I believe that actually happened with the NASB. There can be no doubt that the NASB is an excellent resource for those who, like yourself, don't know the original languages. It can be a window to the original. I wouldn't get rid of your NASB for Bible study. There is no reason to limit yourself to just one translation for study. In fact, for anyone who doesn't know Hebrew and Greek, I recommend using more than one translation for Bible study. Noticing differences in translation can alert you to potential issues to be resolved in Bible study. As formal equivalence goes, the KJV used it more flexibly. 

As a translation philosophy, however, I find the formal equivalence principle incomplete. It has a very important element of truth, that we use words to mean things. The dynamic equivalence principle has an equally strong element of truth to it, that context determines what words mean. However, each principle is also missing something. The formal equivalence philosophy misses some of the more contextual aspects of translation, and that meaning does not reside only at the word level. The dynamic equivalence philosophy downplays the word level too much, in my estimation. That is one of the reasons the CSB is my favorite translation. It has the best articulated translation philosophy of any Bible translation. Optimal equivalence is the idea that meaning is present on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, canon level. All of these need to be taken into account and weighed in order to come up with a translation. 

As to whether the CSB will last longer than the NASB95, I am not sure anyone can answer that question with any degree of certainty. I, too, have reservations about the ESV. Its translation of Hebrew _vav_ and Greek _de_ and _kai_ is absolutely deplorable (a problem shared by the NASB in places, and the KJV; the NKJV is far better on this score). 

I would recommend both the NASB and the CSB. I think there are five dependable translations that people can confidently use: KJV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, and ESV.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 4


----------



## Jonathco (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I would recommend both the NASB and the CSB. I think there are five dependable translations that people can confidently use: KJV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, and ESV.



Well said Lane. I've come to enjoy the CSB over the last few years as a cross-reference to my normal studies (ESV). 

Kim, to answer your questions regarding the longevity of the CSB, that's hard to say. I was a die hard fan of the HCSB (published in 2004), which was the pre-cursor to the CSB. In 2017, the CSB hit the shelves as a major revision and replacement to the HCSB. With that said, the CSB is really only 3 years old, so I guess time will tell. 

Folks who stood by the 77' and 95' NASB over the years would probably never have guessed that it would be revisioned into what The Lockman Foundation is releasing with the 2020 edition. Similarly, the 1985 NIV was a decent translation, but was destroyed with the 2011 revision that tied in major pieces of the TNIV. The NKJV has retained a solid following due to it's literalness and unchanging text (no revisions since the early 1980's). 
I say that to say this: I think the CSB's longevity will be directly tied to it's commitment to staying true to it's translation philosophy of "optimal equivalence", assuming there are future updates. For now, it's not my favorite translation, but definitely one I cross-reference often, due to it's readability.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I wouldn't get rid of your NASB for Bible study.


I definitely wasn't planning to get rid of it. I have too much of my blood, sweat, and tears staining the pages. (Okay, maybe not blood and sweat, but definitely tears). Just trying to decide if I should take the leap and change my "home base" translation. I agree with you on the word studies.

In addition, I have Accordance's English Discoverer package, so I do have several translations to consult, plus scads of resource materials to do original language studies, in transliterations, of course.




Jonathco said:


> Kim, to answer your questions regarding the longevity of the CSB, that's hard to say. I was a die hard fan of the HCSB (published in 2004), which was the pre-cursor to the CSB. In 2017, the CSB hit the shelves as a major revision and replacement to the HCSB. With that said, the CSB is really only 3 years old, so I guess time will tell.


Alas, I realize that none of us can see the future. I actually hated the HCSB, but was a huge fan of the CSB, so there are a few of us who actually enjoyed the change. I'm not as open to change on the NASB95, though. ;-) 

I wish there was a way to design your own Bible with all the custom elements you want. Translation from any era, paper style, leather, margins, font size...I know that's a publishing impossibility. And even if it were possible, I can't imagine what the cost would be for something like that. I certainly don't have such disposable income.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 13, 2020)

I went down a similar decision trail recently while getting carry Bibles for my youngest boys. They now have NASB. I share your antipathy for the ESV. Except for a bit of modernizing in '95, the NASB has been unchanged since I started with it in the early '80s. Its footprint has grown smaller in the faithful churches, so it took me some time to decide.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## B.L. (Apr 13, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> I went down a similar decision trail recently while getting carry Bibles for my youngest boys. They now have NASB. I share your antipathy for the ESV. Except for a bit of modernizing in '95, the NASB has been unchanged since I started with it in the early '80s. Its footprint has grown smaller in the faithful churches, so it took me some time to decide.



Not to distract too much from the OP, but what other translations were you considering for your boys?

I too recently went down this route with my kids and settled on the NKJV after considering the KJV, ESV, and even the NIV.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 13, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> I share your antipathy for the ESV.


It's nice to have someone commiserating in my misery 

I'm in a "reforming" church that was KJVO until about 5 years ago when the pastor who had been with them for 10 years up to that point moved them to the ESV. It is my understanding that some left the church over that. The ones that remain are generally gracious about translations, but many are still a little hesitant to trust anything "new." When I came in with my NASB, the hesitant ones were initially suspicious, but they've come to enjoy it. Lots still use their KJVs. Most use the ESV to follow the pastor. I have referenced the CSB in class when teaching and most are open to it, but they prefer not to have to change anymore. I understand. I feel the same way about my NASB95. As long as I don't mention the NIV, I don't think I'll have a mutiny. ;-)


----------



## Jack K (Apr 13, 2020)

As for staying power, I suspect the CSB will do okay and stick around, for two reasons: (1) it is a good translation and the "experts" tend to speak well of it, and (2) it is supported by one of the largest and most influential evangelical publishers, with strong ties to the largest evangelical denomination. I would think it should especially continue to attract some ESV readers who find the ESV too wooden or have other specific concerns, and some NIV readers who worry about whether Zondervan is still evangelical enough. That's my guess, for what that's worth.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Kim, the CSB is my favorite as well.



I admit I didn't give the CSB a fair shake, but it seemed so different to me than the rest of the versions in your list that I put it down soon after I began. But hearing someone I respect, like you Lane, I will give it a once through, which means a cover to cover reading. I don't much like the ESV (I mean aesthetically--not critically) but I'm on my third time through it for the corrections I get here and there. I wish the KJV were all I needed, though I know I need more--at least for now.

I mentioned it once before, but your smiling face always makes me smile too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 13, 2020)

Hi, I went back to NASB myself after valiantly trying to like the ESV but not succeeding. 

One thing I would add is that if you have children with a Christian school curriculum or work with them in Sunday school, you probably need to use whatever curriculum bible they use at least while they are young. Mine were in Christian school in the late 80s and 90s and first half of 2000s, and the school materials were NIV. All bible memory was NIV. So we used NIV in family devotions. My current church has ESV as the pew bible and if there is any bible memory going on I think it helps to do the church pew bible translation if your kid stays in the service for the sermon. 

My brother went to a two year bible/missionary school in the late 70s, and had to memorize tons of scripture in KJV for the reason that a lot of bible translations at that time on foreign fields were based on the KJV, as opposed to original languages or even latin. They found it was easier to learn the bible in another language if you had memorized it in KJV. They were not the KJV only types at all, it was a simple concession to the syntax and flow of foreign translations. I don't know if that is the case now but it is something to consider for some people. 

I remember going to church maybe 78-79 and we all had the big orange NASB. When the text was being read hundreds of people all turned the page at the same time. I think maybe I love it the best because it was what I started with as a true believer.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 13, 2020)

lynnie said:


> One thing I would add is that if you have children with a Christian school curriculum or work with them in Sunday school, you probably need to use whatever curriculum bible they use at least while they are young.


That's a good point to bring up! My children are older (18 and 12) and have been using the CSB since it came out. But I am the person at the church responsible for ordering and maintaining the children's Sunday School curriculum, so that's an important thing for me to keep in mind. We switched to The Gospel Project last year and they have the memory verses printed out in 4 different translations for the room posters. KJV, ESV, CSB, and NIV. I just let each classroom decide which to use within their classes. I may need to check with our pastors and see if they'd prefer we be more unified. I think I asked when we first received the materials, but I can't remember at this point.

I would think the CSB would be best for the kids, especially since we have a pretty large bus ministry and those children aren't generally being discipled at home with parents who can lead them through understanding the more advanced reading levels of the other translations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Kim, the CSB is my favorite as well. Formal equivalence as a principle can be applied too rigidly. I believe that actually happened with the NASB. There can be no doubt that the NASB is an excellent resource for those who, like yourself, don't know the original languages. It can be a window to the original. I wouldn't get rid of your NASB for Bible study. There is no reason to limit yourself to just one translation for study. In fact, for anyone who doesn't know Hebrew and Greek, I recommend using more than one translation for Bible study. Noticing differences in translation can alert you to potential issues to be resolved in Bible study. As formal equivalence goes, the KJV used it more flexibly.
> 
> As a translation philosophy, however, I find the formal equivalence principle incomplete. It has a very important element of truth, that we use words to mean things. The dynamic equivalence principle has an equally strong element of truth to it, that context determines what words mean. However, each principle is also missing something. The formal equivalence philosophy misses some of the more contextual aspects of translation, and that meaning does not reside only at the word level. The dynamic equivalence philosophy downplays the word level too much, in my estimation. That is one of the reasons the CSB is my favorite translation. It has the best articulated translation philosophy of any Bible translation. Optimal equivalence is the idea that meaning is present on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, canon level. All of these need to be taken into account and weighed in order to come up with a translation.
> 
> ...



Lane - I concur. The only thing keeping me from advocating strongly to my Session that we switch to the CSB as our church Bible is that it is not readily available in curricula and other resources outside of those produced by Lifeway. (And I happen to believe there is value to use having a standard version we use in our church.)


----------



## bookslover (Apr 13, 2020)

Jack K said:


> As for staying power, I suspect the CSB will do okay and stick around, for two reasons: (1) it is a good translation and the "experts" tend to speak well of it, and (2) it is supported by one of the largest and most influential evangelical publishers, with strong ties to the largest evangelical denomination. I would think it should especially continue to attract some ESV readers who find the ESV too wooden or have other specific concerns, and some NIV readers who worry about whether Zondervan is still evangelical enough. That's my guess, for what that's worth.



"Too wooden"! I've never seen that term applied to the ESV, a translation I've been reading since shortly after it was published. "Too wooden" is NASB territory.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BRK (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I think there are five dependable translations that people can confidently use: KJV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, and ESV.



This is pretty much how I see things. The CSB is new to me and I have not looked at it much, but I have my Cambridge Clarion, single column, paragraph style NASB '95 as well as an ESV Study Bible from which I do my devotional readings. In Logos I have the five translations you mentioned which I will reference in parallel when I come across hard texts. The NASB, ESV, and CSB serve as strong critical text translations and the KJV and NKJV as strong majority text translations that are less dynamic in their philosophy as others. This way I have covered nearly all bases, excepting knowledge of the original languages, when it comes to textual and translational variation.

I should add that we English speakers are blessed to have so many resources available to study the Word of God. It is easy to forget the privilege that we have in this regard compared to other peoples. I pray that the Lord would continue to bless the nations in bringing his Word into their native tongues so they too can receive knowledge of the glory of God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 13, 2020)

I've been reading the CSB lately - taking it out for a spin, so to speak. I think it's OK, generally speaking, although I don't like the way it, in my opinion, "flattens out" the poetry in the psalms. As a rule, the CSB seems quite prosaic to me. The translation doesn't have a lot of "color" to it, that is, it doesn't seem very expressive to me. I'm still reading it, though, although I know I'll eventually go back to my beloved ESV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 13, 2020)

bookslover said:


> I don't like the way it, in my opinion, "flattens out" the poetry in the psalms. As a rule, the CSB seems quite prosaic to me.



This has been my main complaint with the CSB, as well. I have no doubt it is probably the best translation available in terms of the combination of accuracy and readability. However, I find that when I read the Psalms in it, I am left largely unaffected by it. On the other hand, when I read the KJV's rendering of the Psalms, I am awestruck by the majesty and grandeur contained therein. Even if I don't quite understand some of the vocabulary and word order _on a first read_, the text actually _moves_ me.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 13, 2020)

bookslover said:


> although I don't like the way it, in my opinion, "flattens out" the poetry in the psalms. As a rule, the CSB seems quite prosaic to me. The translation doesn't have a lot of "color" to it, that is, it doesn't seem very expressive to me.


I don't even notice the Psalms being flattened out. One of the first things I studied when I got mine was Psalm 119 (my favorite one). I tend to lean a little analytical in my reading preferences, though (which is probably why I don't find the NASB95 "wooden" as I've often heard it accused to be). I have always hated poetry, so the less "flowery" something is, the more I can engage with it. I can certainly see what you're saying, but I think for a brain like mine, it's actually a benefit for it to be flattened out.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 13, 2020)

bookslover said:


> "Too wooden"! I've never seen that term applied to the ESV, a translation I've been reading since shortly after it was published. "Too wooden" is NASB territory.



Well, now you have. Certainly, NASB is even more awkward. But if I put the ESV (which is still what I use primarily) beside the CSB, most often the CSB will flow more smoothly. Its natural, everyday English is one of its biggest advantages.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Kim, the CSB is my favorite as well. Formal equivalence as a principle can be applied too rigidly. I believe that actually happened with the NASB. There can be no doubt that the NASB is an excellent resource for those who, like yourself, don't know the original languages. It can be a window to the original. I wouldn't get rid of your NASB for Bible study. There is no reason to limit yourself to just one translation for study. In fact, for anyone who doesn't know Hebrew and Greek, I recommend using more than one translation for Bible study. Noticing differences in translation can alert you to potential issues to be resolved in Bible study. As formal equivalence goes, the KJV used it more flexibly.
> 
> As a translation philosophy, however, I find the formal equivalence principle incomplete. It has a very important element of truth, that we use words to mean things. The dynamic equivalence principle has an equally strong element of truth to it, that context determines what words mean. However, each principle is also missing something. The formal equivalence philosophy misses some of the more contextual aspects of translation, and that meaning does not reside only at the word level. The dynamic equivalence philosophy downplays the word level too much, in my estimation. That is one of the reasons the CSB is my favorite translation. It has the best articulated translation philosophy of any Bible translation. Optimal equivalence is the idea that meaning is present on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, canon level. All of these need to be taken into account and weighed in order to come up with a translation.
> 
> ...



Do y'all use the CSB at your church?


----------



## bookslover (Apr 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> On the other hand, when I read the KJV's rendering of the Psalms, I am awestruck by the majesty and grandeur contained therein. Even if I don't quite understand some of the vocabulary and word order _on a first read_, the text actually _moves_ me.



That's the problem with the KJV - after 409 years, the language is far too archaic to be useful. With an English Bible translation, you _should_ be able to understand the vocabulary and word order on a first read.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 13, 2020)

bookslover said:


> That's the problem with the KJV - after 409 years, the language is far too archaic to be useful. With an English Bible translation, you _should_ be able to understand the vocabulary and word order on a first read.



I certainly agree. I'm just saying that with the 95% of the KJV Psalms I can understand on a first read, I am left quite moved by it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> That is one of the reasons the CSB is my favorite translation. It has the best articulated translation philosophy of any Bible translation. Optimal equivalence is the idea that meaning is present on every level: word level, phrase level, clause level, sentence level, paragraph level, chapter level, book level, canon level. All of these need to be taken into account and weighed in order to come up with a translation.


Lane, I agree a good case can be made for Optimal Equivalence. The only caution I would add is that when it comes to context and readability, there is a danger when Bible translations are used in multiple countries. Each cultural context is different. New Zealanders sometimes grumble about the "American English" used in most translations, and that weights and measures are not metric. I say this because a good translation should aim to be culturally neutral as much as practical. 

I have found some places though where the CSB is less than Optimal. Eg, I cringe at the translation at 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God" Is not the word *in*spired theologically problematic? It seems to me the ESV captures this more precisely and incorporates BB Warfield's insights regarding the Inspiration of the scriptures "All scripture is breathed *out* by God". 


greenbaggins said:


> I, too, have reservations about the ESV. Its translation of Hebrew _vav_ and Greek _de_ and _kai_ is absolutely deplorable (a problem shared by the NASB in places, and the KJV; the NKJV is far better on this score).


Lane, can you please expand on this? The NKJV is broadly similar to the ESV in style and translation philosophy so I am curious. 


greenbaggins said:


> I think there are five dependable translations that people can confidently use: KJV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, and ESV.


I appreciate the good choice. I am not a fan of the NIV. I try to tell NIV advocates to switch to the CSB  It has the strengths of a readable translation as well as being more accurate than the NIV. 

Personally I prefer translations in the Tyndale tradition, hence I use the ESV. I like the CSB in the book of Proverbs. But I think the ESV is more poetical in the Psalms (I groan at the CSB translation of Psalm 23). 

All in all I agree with Lane. If one makes use of the KJV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, and ESV they are using solid and reliable Bible translations.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 13, 2020)

bookslover said:


> That's the problem with the KJV - after 409 years, the language is far too archaic to be useful. With an English Bible translation, you _should_ be able to understand the vocabulary and word order on a first read.





Taylor Sexton said:


> I certainly agree. I'm just saying that with the 95% of the KJV Psalms I can understand on a first read, I am left quite moved by it.


Use the NKJV. You get much of the poetic richness of the KJV in more modern English.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Apr 13, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, can you please expand on this? The NKJV is broadly similar to the ESV in style and translation philosophy so I am curious.



He is saying that the NKJV often chooses not to render the Hebrew _vav_ and the Greek _kai_ at the beginning of many sentences and clauses as "and." Not only is it many times a bad translation (the _vav_ in Hebrew narrative is most of the time a _vav consecutive_, indicating narrative progression rather than a conjunction; this is mirrored in Greek by the writers who were Hebrews), it's just generally poor English to begin every sentence with "and."


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> He is saying that the NKJV often chooses not to render the Hebrew _vav_ and the Greek _kai_ at the beginning of many sentences and clauses as "and." Not only is it many times a bad translation (the _vav_ in Hebrew narrative is most of the time a _vav consecutive_, indicating narrative progression rather than a conjunction; this is mirrored in Greek by the writers who were Hebrews), it's just generally poor English to begin every sentence with "and."


Taylor, one reason I asked for clarification is because I do not have formal training in the Biblical languages. So I don't know much about a 'vav consecutive' or a 'conjunction'  


Taylor Sexton said:


> it's just generally poor English to begin every sentence with "and."


I understand this and can see your point in this respect


----------



## Josh Williamson (Apr 14, 2020)

That is a good question, as a church and family we use the NKJV, but if we were going to change I'd probably lean towards the CSB. That being said, the CSB is about to be updated, and I'm not overly happy with some of the changes which are being made.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 14, 2020)

Josh Williamson said:


> That is a good question, as a church and family we use the NKJV, but if we were going to change I'd probably lean towards the CSB. That being said, the CSB is about to be updated, and I'm not overly happy with some of the changes which are being made.



The CSB actually just went through a fairly hefty revision, which has already been released in the electronic versions. Are you talking about that? Which changes didn’t you like? I have a master list of every single edit made to the text, and I haven’t found a single one that I thought wasn’t a good or necessary improvement.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The CSB actually just went through a fairly hefty revision, which has already been released in the electronic versions.


Really? Already? It just came out in 2017! Are they more subtle and nuanced sort of changes that wouldn't be noticeable to the average reader? Do you know the reason they felt changes were needed again so soon? (Thanks in advance. I know that was a lot of questions all at once)


----------



## Adam Olive (Apr 14, 2020)

1689theologychick said:


> Really? Already? It just came out in 2017! Are they more subtle and nuanced sort of changes that wouldn't be noticeable to the average reader? Do you know the reason they felt changes were needed again so soon? (Thanks in advance. I know that was a lot of questions all at once)











2020 Revision of the CSB Text - CSB


The CSB translation committee has made several improvements to the 2017 edition of the CSB. The adjustments are neither radical nor extensive because we are happy with the work that was carried out beforehand. Further, we do not intend to regularly update the text with minor revisions such as...




csbible.com


----------



## Josh Williamson (Apr 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The CSB actually just went through a fairly hefty revision, which has already been released in the electronic versions. Are you talking about that? Which changes didn’t you like? I have a master list of every single edit made to the text, and I haven’t found a single one that I thought wasn’t a good or necessary improvement.



I think the changes seem to be accurate, however, I in some cases they are going from accurate translation to another accurate translation. For instance, I really liked how the CSB translated Romans 5:1, but am disappointed that they have reverted to a more traditional rendering in the 2020 update. It seems like the updates were needless, and in some cases take away the uniqueness of the CSB.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Apr 14, 2020)

1689theologychick said:


> Really? Already? It just came out in 2017! Are they more subtle and nuanced sort of changes that wouldn't be noticeable to the average reader? Do you know the reason they felt changes were needed again so soon? (Thanks in advance. I know that was a lot of questions all at once)



Yes, they are updating the text already. I think some of the changes will be noticed by the average reader. See for a list of some of the changes: https://csbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/CSB-Improvements-2020-v5.pdf


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 14, 2020)

Adam Olive said:


> 2020 Revision of the CSB Text - CSB
> 
> 
> The CSB translation committee has made several improvements to the 2017 edition of the CSB. The adjustments are neither radical nor extensive because we are happy with the work that was carried out beforehand. Further, we do not intend to regularly update the text with minor revisions such as...
> ...


Thanks Adam! I figured there was a link somewhere.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 14, 2020)

Hamalas said:


> Do y'all use the CSB at your church?



No, we use the old NIV. It's not a change the church is interested in at this time, despite the fact that the old NIV is no longer available. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, I agree a good case can be made for Optimal Equivalence. The only caution I would add is that when it comes to context and readability, there is a danger when Bible translations are used in multiple countries. Each cultural context is different. New Zealanders sometimes grumble about the "American English" used in most translations, and that weights and measures are not metric. I say this because a good translation should aim to be culturally neutral as much as practical.
> 
> I have found some places though where the CSB is less than Optimal. Eg, I cringe at the translation at 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God" Is not the word *in*spired theologically problematic? It seems to me the ESV captures this more precisely and incorporates BB Warfield's insights regarding the Inspiration of the scriptures "All scripture is breathed *out* by God".
> 
> ...



Stephen, as for 2 Tim 3:16, while I agree with Warfield wholeheartedly about the meaning of the passage, theologians still use the word "inspiration" to speak about the Scriptures, and what they mean is "breathed out by God." So the translation is not inaccurate, as long as it is understood in a Warfieldian way. The preacher must make it plain what the word means in its context. The ESV chose a more literalistic way to express the Greek, which is fine. The CSB used a more familiar way of expression. Admittedly, the CSB rendering is more open to misunderstanding. However, we always have to leave room, as it were, for the preacher to make it clear. 

As for the Hebrew and Greek, what Taylor said is exactly what I meant. To expand a tiny bit: Hebrew _vav_ (as well as Greek _de_ and _kai_) has a range of meaning. It can mean something as small as "I am continuing the narrative," in which case printing in paragraph form is perfectly adequate as a translation of the _vav_. It can also mean "also," "and," "but," "therefore," "then," and several other things. Context determines which of these many meanings the _vav_ has. The ESV defaults to "and" for the vast majority of occurrences. For a particularly hideous example, look at the second table of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5. There is hardly anything more ugly in English than starting 4 very short sentences in a row with the word "and." It is completely clunky. The NKJV still uses too many "ands" for my comfort, but of the ones which use it regularly, the NKJV is the least intrusive in this regard. The ESV is still one of the five best English translations out there, so my criticism of it should not be taken as a dismissal or even as saying that I don't like it. I do like it in general. When I wind up reading aloud from it, I usually just leave off the "ands."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 14, 2020)

Josh Williamson said:


> I think the changes seem to be accurate, however, I in some cases they are going from accurate translation to another accurate translation.


I just looked at the pdf. I absolutely LOVE the decision to translate 'atoning sacrifice' as 'mercy seat.' Every time I teach a passage with the word 'propitiation' in the NASB, I always take a minute to discuss the meaning 'mercy seat' and draw the student back to the imagery of the Old Testament ark of the covenant and how the mercy seat foreshadowed Christ. Making that connection to the OT through the translation is really helpful for the average reader. 

Some of the others are hit or miss, but that one is really good, in my very humble lay-person/women's Bible study leader opinion.


----------



## B.L. (Apr 14, 2020)

The recent 2020 revision of the CSB text that was pointed out is one reason why I've grown a bit weary of modern translations. Even if the changes are minor it seems like it's never ending. It's one reason why I soured to the ESV after multiple revisions trickled out in such a short period of time. Reminds me of a cook in the kitchen who takes a pie out too early and has to keep putting it back in the oven to cook longer. I understand if over time a revision is needed due to developments in the English language, but to unveil a new revision that to the layman appears like a bunch of "happy" to "glad" changes is rather annoying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 14, 2020)

BLM said:


> The recent 2020 revision of the CSB text that was pointed out is one reason why I've grown a bit weary of modern translations. Even if the changes are minor it seems like it's never ending. It's one reason why I soured to the ESV after multiple revisions trickled out in such a short period of time. Reminds me of a cook in the kitchen who takes a pie out too early and has to keep putting it back in the oven to cook longer. I understand if over time a revision is needed due to developments in the English language, but to unveil a new revision that to the layman appears like a bunch of "happy" to "glad" changes is rather annoying.



It can certainly be frustrating, but I think it's just an inevitable part of a process as monumental and involved as producing a new translation. The exact same thing happened with the KJV back in the day.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 14, 2020)

Josh Williamson said:


> I think the changes seem to be accurate, however, I in some cases they are going from accurate translation to another accurate translation. For instance, I really liked how the CSB translated Romans 5:1, but am disappointed that they have reverted to a more traditional rendering in the 2020 update. It seems like the updates were needless, and in some cases take away the uniqueness of the CSB.



Are you talking about them changing “declared righteous” to “justified”? If so, I think that was a good change. I was actually frustrated with the fact that the 2017 CSB rendered δικαιόω in Romans two different ways, most of the time without a footnote. This gives the impression to the reader who doesn’t know Greek that there are two different words being translated, but there’s not. I actually had an email exchange with Dorian Coover-Cox, who is on the committee, about that very issue in Romans. They ended up receiving that complaint and changing it. Maybe you can blame me for it. 



BLM said:


> The recent 2020 revision of the CSB text that was pointed out is one reason why I've grown a bit weary of modern translations. Even if the changes are minor it seems like it's never ending. It's one reason why I soured to the ESV after multiple revisions trickled out in such a short period of time. Reminds me of a cook in the kitchen who takes a pie out too early and has to keep putting it back in the oven to cook longer. I understand if over time a revision is needed due to developments in the English language, but to unveil a new revision that to the layman appears like a bunch of "happy" to "glad" changes is rather annoying.



To be fair, they’re not just changing things for the sake of changing them. Many of the edits were errors in the original. Some of the changes are serious improvements. I was very thankful for the revision.

Frankly, I don’t envy these translators. I find so often that they can never do anything right in the eyes of many in the Church. If they keep changing the text, they are scolded for being novel or flippant. But if they, like the ESV tried to do, make the text permanent, they are mercilessly mocked by major Christian media outlets. I feel like for these people who have devoted their lives to Biblical scholarship in the area of Bible translation, they can’t win for losing.


----------



## B.L. (Apr 14, 2020)

Hamalas said:


> It can certainly be frustrating, but I think it's just an inevitable part of a process as monumental and involved as producing a new translation. The exact same thing happened with the KJV back in the day.



True, the KJV underwent many rounds of editing, etc. but it remained a single translation in the hands of the English speaking church. While I agree the process of producing a new translation is monumental and involves much labor, the question I have is this: how many different Bible translations do we need? Our cups are full my friend.

I've drawn attention away from the OP and am sorry for that. The CSB is certainly the "hot" translation today...time will tell whether it has any staying power.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 14, 2020)

BLM said:


> ...the question I have is this: how many different Bible translations do we need? Our cups are full my friend.



With that, I completely agree.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 14, 2020)

BLM said:


> I've drawn attention away from the OP and am sorry for that.


No problem at all! I've really enjoyed the discussion!


----------



## Jack K (Apr 14, 2020)

Frequent translation updates are a scourge to a Christian book editor like me. They mean that every time an author quotes the Bible and has a word wrong, or even a bit of punctuation out of place, I have to check to make sure it's really wrong and not just an older or newer edition of the translation. Happily, texts are available online to make this easier, but it's still a pain.

However, despite this, I can appreciate the desire to get the translation right. That's important when we're talking about the Bible, and it probably outweighs what's easiest for me personally. The CSB is still rather new, so tweaks should be expected.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Josh Williamson (Apr 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Are you talking about them changing “declared righteous” to “justified”? If so, I think that was a good change. I was actually frustrated with the fact that the 2017 CSB rendered δικαιόω in Romans two different ways, most of the time without a footnote. This gives the impression to the reader who doesn’t know Greek that there are two different words being translated, but there’s not. I actually had an email exchange with Dorian Coover-Cox, who is on the committee, about that very issue in Romans. They ended up receiving that complaint and changing it. Maybe you can blame me for it.



I liked the translation of "declared righteous", which I must admit was one of my main reasons for considering moving to the CSB. I guess if we don't change now I know who to blame.


----------



## Taylor (Apr 14, 2020)

Josh Williamson said:


> I liked the translation of "declared righteous", which I must admit was one of my main reasons for considering moving to the CSB. I guess if we don't change now I know who to blame.



I like both "justify" and "declare righteous." What I _don't_ like is translating δικαιόω two different ways within the same book with no explanation as to why.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 15, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> Admittedly, the CSB rendering is more open to misunderstanding.


That is why, in light of BB Warfield's insight, I would have thought an Optimal Equivalent for "*in*spired" would be "breathed *out*" - the emphasis being on an outward action, not an inward one. 


greenbaggins said:


> The ESV defaults to "and" for the vast majority of occurrences. For a particularly hideous example, look at the second table of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5. There is hardly anything more ugly in English than starting 4 very short sentences in a row with the word "and." It is completely clunky.


Thank you. I looked at the passage and I see your point. The 'and' is rather onerous.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 15, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> But I think the ESV is more poetical in the Psalms (I groan at the CSB translation of Psalm 23).



That's a good example of what I'm talking about when I mentioned that the CSB tends to flatten out the poetical sections: Psalm 23.1b - "I have what I need." Really guys? That's the best you could do? That sounds like David just left Stater Brothers with everything on his shopping list checked off. It might be accurate, but it's had all the poetry drained out of it. In my opinion, the ESV does a far better job with Hebrew poetry than does the CSB.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## bookslover (Apr 15, 2020)

1689theologychick said:


> Thanks Adam! I figured there was a link somewhere.



I realize it's not a complete list of revisions, but I noticed that Psalm 23.1 is not listed as needing a change. It should be.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 16, 2020)

Kim, if you are happy with the CSB go ahead and use it. As Lane said it is one of the very good translations. No translation is perfect so it is good to consult a variety of translations while using your favourite translation as your main one.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 16, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> No translation is perfect so it is good to consult a variety of translations while using your favourite translation as your main one.


Precisely. I’m definitely not throwing out my beloved NASB. I’ve spent 13 years in it studying, marking, praying, crying. We have history.

I have Accordance 13 and study with it, so I have several translations that I consult when I study, both personally and when and preparing to teach. I had a good friend of mine who’s a pastor recommend I just have my Accordance software pulled up with the ESV and NASB paralleled on my computer/tablet when I teach (or print out a copy before class). I thought that was also a brilliant suggestion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 16, 2020)

I was put off the CSB when I tried to pray through its translation of the Psalter a couple of years ago, which I found wholly underwhelming. I see from previous comments that I am not the only person to have this complaint. I should, nevertheless, try to read through the whole thing in order to give it a fair hearing. I instantly liked the NKJV and ESV as soon as I started reading them; the NIV was more of an acquired taste. I never really liked the NASB that much, and have barely touched my copy of it in the last ten years. In fact, I prefer the AV, Geneva, RV, and RSV to the NASB.

Okay, I am about to start Robert Rollock's commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians and so I will use the CSB to begin with and see how it goes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 20, 2020)

The CSB's translation of 1 Thessalonians does read pretty well. One thing that I do not like is its use of verbal contractions such as didn't. We should never employ these in formal writing; in fact, I try to avoid them even in speech. I may try and sit down and read the whole translation at some point, though, at present, I am struggling to see why we needed the CSB when we already have the ESV, NKJV, and NIV.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 20, 2020)

Daniel, a quick comparison of the style of the Bible and formal writing of the time shows that the Bible communicates, most of the time, in normal everyday speech, not formal style. That is even the meaning of the name "Koine" Greek. There are parts of Scripture written in more formal style (the Psalms and the prophets come to mind as being poetic, which is certainly more formal). However, Paul's letters, while certainly deep in content, are written in normal everyday Greek, not formal style. The histories are written in normal everyday speech. To translate the normal everyday parts of the Bible into today's everyday style of speech seems to me to be quite acceptable, though I think slang generally would go too far, as I don't see much, if any, slang in the Bible. 

The thing the CSB does which the ESV, NKJV, and NIV do not do is the optimal equivalence translation philosophy. That is why I think the CSB was a justifiable new translation.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 20, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> The thing the CSB does which the ESV, NKJV, and NIV do not do



Surely, you mean don't. 

Joking aside, Lane, would you fault other translations for not using verbal contractions? I think that is a bit of a stretch. By "formal" I just meant serious writing. Translating the Bible is not like writing text-messages. 

Anyway, it is just my opinion. If you like the CSB and are blessed through using it, by all means, do not allow my pedantry to put you off using it.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 20, 2020)

Unsolicited personal opinion, but I like including the parataxis (the "and"s) in English, if for no other reason than I think it reflects that we are living in the tents of Shem.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 20, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Surely, you mean don't.
> 
> Joking aside, Lane, would you fault other translations for not using verbal contractions? I think that is a bit of a stretch. By "formal" I just meant serious writing. Translating the Bible is not like writing text-messages.
> 
> Anyway, it is just my opinion. If you like the CSB and are blessed through using it, by all means, do not allow my pedantry to put you off using it.



Contractions, while abundant in English, are rare in other languages. I'm only aware of two in Spanish. I'd, no pun intended, hadn't, still no pun intended, considered this observation about translations. Fascinating discussion.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 20, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Contractions, while abundant in English, are rare in other languages. I'm only aware of two in Spanish. I'd, no pun intended, hadn't, still no pun intended, considered this observation about translations. Fascinating discussion.



Don't comment if you can't say anything sensible. Anyway, I didn't ask for your opinion. Haven't you got better things to do? I'm sure you didn't see this reply coming! Isn't it weird what triggers people?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 20, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Isn't it weird what triggers people?


Not if y'all weird to begin with!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Logan (Apr 21, 2020)

If'n he's a Texan, he'd better start speakin' like one!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 21, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Surely, you mean don't.
> 
> Joking aside, Lane, would you fault other translations for not using verbal contractions? I think that is a bit of a stretch. By "formal" I just meant serious writing. Translating the Bible is not like writing text-messages.
> 
> Anyway, it is just my opinion. If you like the CSB and are blessed through using it, by all means, do not allow my pedantry to put you off using it.



I wouldn't fault a translation for either practice necessarily. It depends on the effect, and which part of the canon is being translated. I do think, however, that a judicious use of contractions helps a translation to feel like normal everyday English. Not having any contractions whatsoever can make it sound a bit stilted (though the skill of the translation can mitigate this problem).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Apr 21, 2020)

Logan said:


> If'n he's a Texan, he'd better start speakin' like one!


With Daniel it’s an Irish brogue of sorts.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 22, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Don't comment if you can't say anything sensible. Anyway, I didn't ask for your opinion. Haven't you got better things to do? I'm sure you didn't see this reply coming! Isn't it weird what triggers people?


Y'all. I like the contractions in the CSB. Also, I missed this whole contraction discussion. It was worth the price of the post to have this little chuckle today.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 22, 2020)

I have started quickly reading through Ezekiel in the CSB, and I have to say that, thus far, I do quite like it. I usually read Ezekiel in the NIV as it is the only translation of that book that I find comprehensible. We will see how things go with the CSB.


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 22, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I usually read Ezekiel in the NIV as it is the only translation of that book that I find comprehensible.


I've been listening to Ezekiel on the Dwell app in NIV for the exact same reason. The more I use the CSB, the more I enjoy it. Maybe it's because it's a fresh perspective after 15 years of NASB (with an occasional CSB reading sprinkled throughout), but I'm delighting in my studies just a little more these days.


----------



## bookslover (Apr 22, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> I wouldn't fault a translation for either practice necessarily. It depends on the effect, and which part of the canon is being translated. I do think, however, that a judicious use of contractions helps a translation to feel like normal everyday English. Not having any contractions whatsoever can make it sound a bit stilted (though the skill of the translation can mitigate this problem).



Hey, Lane! Since you're social-isolating, how come we're not getting 1,000-word posts at Green Baggins _every single day_ now? LOL


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 23, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One thing that I do not like is its use of verbal contractions such as didn't.


I am wondering, does this translation (or any other one that uses contractions) have members of the Godhead speaking with contractions?


----------



## bookslover (Apr 23, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am wondering, does this translation (or any other one that uses contractions) have members of the Godhead speaking with contractions?



Wouldn't make any difference, if that's the case. Contractions are just spelling shorthand. Every language uses them, I'm sure. I don't think it would be less "dignified" for God to say "can't" instead of "cannot." I can't remember offhand, but it would be interesting to know if Hebrew or Greek use spelling contractions.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 23, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am wondering, does this translation (or any other one that uses contractions) have members of the Godhead speaking with contractions?



The RPCI's Psalter frequently uses contractions, which makes sense from the point of view of translating into metre. I cannot remember if Scottish Metrical Version or the Bay Psalter does likewise. Actually, I just checked and I see that the SMV does; here are a couple of examples: 

But thou art holy, thou that dost
inhabit Isr'el's praise. (Psalm 22:3)

Moab's my washing-pot; my shoe
I'll over Edom throw;
And over Palestina's land
I will in triumph go. (Psalm 60:8)​
I personally do not like contractions, but that is a stylistic issue, not a theological one. To oppose them from some misplaced notion that they are less holy is superstitious - not that anyone here has done so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 1689theologychick (Apr 23, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am wondering, does this translation (or any other one that uses contractions) have members of the Godhead speaking with contractions?


I haven’t read every verse in this translation, but I can speak to Genesis most recently. In the creation account it says “let us make man in our image” rather than “let’s.” So there’s an example of the non-use of contractions. I’ve noticed them in the more conversational language that happens in dialogue between two persons. Contractions aren’t used at every possible opportunity, just in dialogue, it seems to me. Someone who’s more familiar with the translation method could probably speak to the rules they used to determine when to use them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 23, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am wondering, does this translation (or any other one that uses contractions) have members of the Godhead speaking with contractions?



I think I remember Jesus using contractions. I can't remember if God ever does in the OT or not.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 24, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have started quickly reading through Ezekiel in the CSB, and I have to say that, thus far, I do quite like it. I usually read Ezekiel in the NIV as it is the only translation of that book that I find comprehensible. We will see how things go with the CSB.



I remember the Prophets being rather vivid and well done (In my humble opinion) in the HCSB. Perhaps it is the same with the CSB as well. 

I've also thought about making the CSB my main translation, in part because it is probably preferable for use in family worship with small children. (And I may still use it for those purposes if nothing else.) But I haven't made it my main translation for three reasons. First, the Psalms, for the reasons mentioned here before. Second, because I tend to just plow through more "common speech" translations the way I would a news article and end up reading it way too quickly, missing a lot of important things in the text. I get to the end of a chapter and sometimes have to read it again. If I use the NASB, KJV (especially) or NKJV, this is less likely. Third, because I lean toward the Byzantine text. Now that you can actually buy a NKJV in black letter, I'm leaning toward switching back to that as my main translation. I got to where red letters, no matter how dark, caused me so much eye strain that I had to abandon the NKJV about 10 years ago.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Harrison (Apr 24, 2020)

Here's some potentially useful insight on how the CSB compares to other translations: https://csbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Quantitative-Translation-Evaluation-by-GBI.pdf .

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Apr 24, 2020)

That was very interesting, thank you for sharing. I'm sure it's hard to measure some of those somewhat subjective categories, but it's nice to know that the ESV, CSB, and KJV are all roughly high-scorers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Harrison (Apr 24, 2020)

Logan said:


> That was very interesting, thank you for sharing. I'm sure it's hard to measure some of those somewhat subjective categories, but it's nice to know that the ESV, CSB, and KJV are all roughly high-scorers.



It certainly makes me think I need to reconsider using the ESV and consider the CSB. My preferred translations did not fare as expected.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 25, 2020)

First post on the puritan board.. 

I was converted approx ten years ago at the age of 35 I just started reading the Bible and now after a long journey attend the FPC of Scotland.. Anyways to cut a long story short its KJV all the way and being Biblical English and so is a different language than we would normally use means i need to think and at times use a concordance. God has preserved His Word see Psalm 12 v6 to v9 and is preserved in the Received Text.. 

It's interesting in this thread how many translations are mentioned, imagine if all Christians were using one Bible and the witness of that to the lost, power in unity..


----------



## Logan (Apr 25, 2020)

James Marr said:


> First post on the puritan board..
> ...to cut a long story short its KJV all the way and being Biblical English...God has preserved His Word...in the Received Text..



Yup. Definitely new here! 
What is "biblical English"?

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## James Marr (Apr 25, 2020)

Logan said:


> Yup. Definitely new here!
> What is "biblical English"?


Biblical English is the language of the AV aka KJV.. It was a very kind and humble minister of the Gospel that pointed out to me that God is One and should be addressed in prayer as being One therefore to speak to God as 'we thank You....' is irreverent to say the least when He could and should be addressed as thee, thou or thine this being singular in the KJV.. Blessed be the Lord for His Word...

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 25, 2020)

James Marr said:


> First post on the puritan board..


*Moderating*:
James, good to see you on the Puritan Board. Like you I love the powerful Reformed witness in Scotland. I am presently reading the diary of Kenneth MacRae and his godly ministry in the Highlands.

Please can you create a signature per the Puritan Board's rules. Thank you. https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 26, 2020)

bookslover said:


> Hey, Lane! Since you're social-isolating, how come we're not getting 1,000-word posts at Green Baggins _every single day_ now? LOL



Richard, it is largely because I have taken to doing a Facebook devotional every single day.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 27, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Biblical English is the language of the AV aka KJV.. It was a very kind and humble minister of the Gospel that pointed out to me that God is One and should be addressed in prayer as being One therefore to speak to God as 'we thank You....' is irreverent to say the least when He could and should be addressed as thee, thou or thine this being singular in the KJV.. Blessed be the Lord for His Word...





James Marr said:


> Biblical English is the language of the AV aka KJV.. It was a very kind and humble minister of the Gospel that pointed out to me that God is One and should be addressed in prayer as being One therefore to speak to God as 'we thank You....' is irreverent to say the least when He could and should be addressed as thee, thou or thine this being singular in the KJV.. Blessed be the Lord for His Word...


Yes, there are often two ways to respond when we are called to do something different its either mock that something different or actually do it..


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 27, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Yes, there are often two ways to respond when we are called to do something different its either mock that something different or actually do it..


*Moderating*: Hi James, I’m sympathetic with your basic premise and am also a KJV fan and user for many reasons. But this thread isn’t really the place to defend the KJV’s distinctives. It’s about the CSB and you’re welcome to discuss or debate its distinctives, keeping to PB guidelines for discussion (You can click on “Board Rules” under my signature and starting at number 7 see etiquette for edifying dialogue.)

If you want to start a new thread on the qualities of the KJV it’s fine, but these things have been discussed a lot over the years on the PB and using the search feature to look through them might be helpful before launching a discussion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## James Marr (Apr 27, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> *Moderating*: Hi James, I’m sympathetic with your basic premise and am also a KJV fan and user for many reasons. But this thread isn’t really the place to defend the KJV’s distinctives. It’s about the CSB and you’re welcome to discuss or debate its distinctives, keeping to PB guidelines for discussion (You can click on “Board Rules” under my signature and starting at number 7 see etiquette for edifying dialogue.)
> 
> If you want to start a new thread on the qualities of the KJV it’s fine, but these things have been discussed a lot over the years on the PB and using the search feature to look through them might be helpful before launching a discussion.


Im making an observation concerning the thread, many have mentioned many different versions.


Jeri Tanner said:


> *Moderating*: Hi James, I’m sympathetic with your basic premise and am also a KJV fan and user for many reasons. But this thread isn’t really the place to defend the KJV’s distinctives. It’s about the CSB and you’re welcome to discuss or debate its distinctives, keeping to PB guidelines for discussion (You can click on “Board Rules” under my signature and starting at number 7 see etiquette for edifying dialogue.)
> 
> If you want to start a new thread on the qualities of the KJV it’s fine, but these things have been discussed a lot over the years on the PB and using the search feature to look through them might be helpful before launching a discussion.


Im making an observation regarding the thread which isnt just about the CSB and my defence of the KJV was a response although I will always defend the AV in any circumstance. Etiquette and edifying are subjective what one may find edifying and within the bounds of etiquette another may not. The Lord Jesus Christ was often pushing against the subjective notions of etiquette and edifying.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 27, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Im making an observation concerning the thread, many have mentioned many different versions.
> 
> Im making an observation regarding the thread which isnt just about the CSB and my defence of the KJV was a response although I will always defend the AV in any circumstance. Etiquette and edifying are subjective what one may find edifying and within the bounds of etiquette another may not. The Lord Jesus Christ was often pushing against the subjective notions of etiquette and edifying.


Mr. Marr, moderation on the Puritanboard is vital to the success of the board and respect for moderation, even when you don’t agree with it, requires a different response than you have given. If you disagree with moderation you can private message any of the moderators or admins of the board in order to discuss, and are invited to do so.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## James Marr (Apr 27, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Mr. Marr, moderation on the Puritanboard is vital to the success of the board and respect for moderation, even when you don’t agree with it, requires a different response than you have given. If you disagree with moderation you can private message any of the moderators or admins of the board in order to discuss, and are invited to do so.





Jeri Tanner said:


> What have i disagreed with? Im happy to discuss here. Throughout the thread many different translations have been mentioned including the KJV.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 27, 2020)

James, you are free to disagree, but not to disregard a moderator's opinion which is not up for discussion. Please end now. Jeri made the determination based on board experience with extensive AV discussions, that your posts would detract from the OP and subject. Please abide by her determination or pursue the remedy suggested if this is so egregious to abide, of asking the moderators to review the matter.


Jeri Tanner said:


> Mr. Marr, moderation on the Puritanboard is vital to the success of the board and respect for moderation, even when you don’t agree with it, requires a different response than you have given. If you disagree with moderation you can private message any of the moderators or admins of the board in order to discuss, and are invited to do so.





James Marr said:


> Im making an observation concerning the thread, many have mentioned many different versions.
> 
> Im making an observation regarding the thread which isnt just about the CSB and my defence of the KJV was a response although I will always defend the AV in any circumstance. Etiquette and edifying are subjective what one may find edifying and within the bounds of etiquette another may not. The Lord Jesus Christ was often pushing against the subjective notions of etiquette and edifying.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## James Marr (Apr 27, 2020)

NaphtaliPress said:


> James, you are free to disagree, but not to disregard a moderator's opinion which is not up for discussion. Please end now. Jeri made the determination based on board experience with extensive AV discussions, that your posts would detract from the OP and subject. Please abide by her determination or pursue the remedy suggested if this is so egregious to abide, of asking the moderators to review the matter.


I haven't diagreed with anything just an observation regarding the subjective nature of etiquette and edifying.. It would be helpful to know where it is felt I have diagreed.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 27, 2020)

James Marr said:


> I haven't diagreed with anything just an observation regarding the subjective nature of etiquette and edifying.. It would be helpful to know where it is felt I have diagreed.


Then take it up with Jeri [via the conversation feature] to discuss in full and if that doesn't resolve things, she can take it to the moderating team to review. Continuing to reply to the thread when told to drop it is disrespecting the direction given. Please respect the rule of the house.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 27, 2020)

James Marr said:


> I haven't diagreed with anything just an observation regarding the subjective nature of etiquette and edifying.. It would be helpful to know where it is felt I have diagreed.


Disagreed not diagreed... Anyway i had made some observations and i have not disregarded anyone's opinion and to say a moderators opinion is not up for discussion means i am not able to disagree.. So im all confused now..


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 27, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Disagreed not diagreed... Anyway i had made some observations and i have not disregarded anyone's opinion and to say a moderators opinion is not up for discussion means i am not able to disagree.. So im all confused now..


As I said, take it up with Jeri via private conversation. If you don't know what that is, click on her avatar which brings up a box and click conversation and go from there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Apr 27, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I am wondering, does this translation (or any other one that uses contractions) have members of the Godhead speaking with contractions?



It does when Jesus is speaking casually. For example, "Let's cross over to the other side of the lake" (Luke 8:22).


----------



## TomVols (May 13, 2020)

It


Jack K said:


> Frequent translation updates are a scourge to a Christian book editor like me. They mean that every time an author quotes the Bible and has a word wrong, or even a bit of punctuation out of place, I have to check to make sure it's really wrong and not just an older or newer edition of the translation. Happily, texts are available online to make this easier, but it's still a pain.
> 
> However, despite this, I can appreciate the desire to get the translation right. That's important when we're talking about the Bible, and it probably outweighs what's easiest for me personally. The CSB is still rather new, so tweaks should be expected.
> [/Quot





Jack K said:


> Frequent translation updates are a scourge to a Christian book editor like me. They mean that every time an author quotes the Bible and has a word wrong, or even a bit of punctuation out of place, I have to check to make sure it's really wrong and not just an older or newer edition of the translation. Happily, texts are available online to make this easier, but it's still a pain.
> 
> However, despite this, I can appreciate the desire to get the translation right. That's important when we're talking about the Bible, and it probably outweighs what's easiest for me personally. The CSB is still rather new, so tweaks should be expected.



If you think YOU'RE frustrated by the numerous updates to the ESV, think about the churches and pastors who buy cases of pew Bibles (I know, we are a dying breed) only to have it change months or years later. No kidding, one day, just for fun, I checked: the sermon was read from the minister's ESV (one early edition). Our pew bible is the 2011 edition. I had the 2016. A gentleman in my pew had the Gideon ESV. That's four different ESVs! UGH! Crossway has just made a mess of this...an absolute mess.


----------



## Jonathco (May 13, 2020)

TomVols said:


> A gentleman in my pew had the Gideon ESV. That's four different ESVs! UGH! Crossway has just made a mess of this...an absolute mess.


Interesting. I heard the Gideon's had started using the ESV, but I had _not _heard their translation of the ESV was any different from the 2016 ESV currently being published. Does anyone have more information on this?


----------



## TomVols (May 13, 2020)

Jonathco said:


> Interesting. I heard the Gideon's had started using the ESV, but I had _not _heard their translation of the ESV was any different from the 2016 ESV currently being published. Does anyone have more information on this?


It's the ESV 2012. It's basically a NKJV ESV  Any verses that are not found in the ESV due to their lack of presence in the earlier mss are included. Kind of an ESV from the TR/Byzantine family

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (May 13, 2020)

Jonathco said:


> Interesting. I heard the Gideon's had started using the ESV, but I had _not _heard their translation of the ESV was any different from the 2016 ESV currently being published. Does anyone have more information on this?



The Gideon ESV retains the pericope of the woman caught in adultery (John 7-8) and the longer ending of Mark, though it does not have the _comma Johanneum_.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## 1689theologychick (May 13, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> The Gideon ESV retains the pericope of the woman caught in adultery (John 7-8) and the longer ending of Mark, though it does not have the _comma Johanneum_



Well, that IS utterly confusing. I’m so far behind, I thought the Gideons were still using KJV, so what do I know? I don’t keep up with much of the Gideons work. I have a lady in my Bible study who is heavily involved in their auxiliary (I think that’s what they call the women’s section of the ministry).


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 25, 2020)

If your main concern is the constant revision process that seems to be going on in the Bible publishing industry, the Authorized Version is really the only version you can grow old with without being concerned about what the next update will be doing to the text.

This is one of the key reasons I adopted the KJV as my standard and church text as I have little desire to have my standard text in a constant state of fluctuation.

This doesn't mean that I believe there are not places in any particular translation that cannot be improved. Rather, I believe that a good translation is "good enough" and improvements are to be made in the realm of exegesis, not these never ending revision cycles.

This does not mean that there is not a place for the use of these other translations. I consult a number of them in my studies to see how the various translation committees handled a particular reading.

I could say more (regarding some of the particular problems one has to be on the look out for in contemporary versions, especially after the turn of the century) but want to keep my reply focused on the question of the OP.


----------



## Georgiadis (May 28, 2020)

1689theologychick said:


> I'm concerned my beloved NASB is not going to be a longterm option and I want something I can continue to use until I'm old and gray


I imagine the CSB will get updated again, but not for awhile. It’s already a revision of the HCSB which provided the translation team with a lot of constructive feedback to start with and the 2020 changes were a final pass through, or a “sheen” that “sharpened it up a bit”. Trevin Wax mentioned that they are happy with the translation and it won’t need to be revisited again “for quite a few years, perhaps 8 to 10 years”. Now, 8-10 may sound like a lot of time or too little depending on your views, but it’s a good sign that they’re hearing people’s desire for a stable text.

You can watch the full video here (discussion about the 2020 update starts at 36:25):






Personally, I love the CSB. I have spent far too many hours trying to poke holes in the translation and to no avail. I just couldn’t accept that it was truly as accurate as it was clear until I finally gave in and made it my primary reader. I’m very glad that I did! I also think that the CSB’s excellent use of footnotes makes it a real contender for deep study. I’ve even come across footnotes so particular that they flag plural forms of the word “you”, which always appeals to my appreciation of older translations.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Hamalas (May 28, 2020)

I just posted my review of the CSB's excellent little edition of the Bible called *One Hour With the Bible* over at my blog: https://befranksblog.wordpress.com/2020/05/28/review-reflection-one-hour-with-the-bible/


----------



## bookslover (May 28, 2020)

Robert Truelove said:


> If your main concern is the constant revision process that seems to be going on in the Bible publishing industry, the Authorized Version is really the only version you can grow old with without being concerned about what the next update will be doing to the text.
> 
> This is one of the key reasons I adopted the KJV as my standard and church text as I have little desire to have my standard text in a constant state of fluctuation.



Must be hard, though, when you go to church, to have to also have to lug a thesaurus and a dictionary with you so that you can figure out what the KJV actually says. Heh.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 31, 2020)

Georgiadis said:


> I imagine the CSB will get updated again, but not for awhile.



My printed copy of the CSB has Peter addressing the Jerusalem Council with "Brothers and sisters" which is an appalling error, especially considering the CSB's constituency and the Southern Baptist motivation for taking on the project over 20 years ago. The NIV 2011, the NLT (also gender neutral) and even the liberal NRSV have "Brothers" here. This appears to have been fixed since the CSB on Bible Gateway now has "Brothers." My guess is that the TNIV has "Brothers" too. (I couldn't even access the TNIV on the Internet Archive, so I don't know that there is a way to look that up online.) The HCSB has "brothers", so "Brothers and sisters" was introduced with the CSB, which has gone further with the gender-neutral or gender-accurate renderings than the HCSB did.

Now, what would the CBMW have said if the NIV had Peter addressing the Jerusalem Council as "Brothers and sisters?" Hopefully, the CSB editors have gone over it with a fine-tooth comb before issuing this update.


----------



## Taylor (May 31, 2020)

Pilgrim said:


> My printed copy of the CSB has Peter addressing the Jerusalem Council with "Brothers and sisters" which is an appalling error



Yes, they fixed this in the 2020 update.


----------

