I do think that the Csb is a decent translation, prefer it to the Niv 2011. I also prefer to use on a regular basis more formal translations, such as the nas/NKJV
Christian Standard Bible: Good or Bad?
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
I would see the Csb as being one of the best of the so called mediating versions.
Tom Cunliffe
Puritan Board Freshman
I like to stick with the same Bible for years and years because I memorise chunks of it. If you memorise the Bible you really don't want to waste time memorising things which are someone's paraphrase - you want to get as close to the original text as you can. Over the years I've used KJV / RSV / ESV and am well pleased with all these versions because I can use a concordance like strongs and see a pretty much word-for-word equivalence. I do not always see this with the CSB. I will just give one very brief example
Psalm 24:1 ESV The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein
Psalm 24:1 CSB The earth and everything in it, the world and its inhabitants,
belong to the Lord;
Now, CSB is clearly missing the word "fulness" but a quick check with Strongs concordance shows that "fulness" is actually implied by the Hebrew - i.e. "that which fills". CSV completely misses that thought. The Lord has created the world in such a way that it produces things for our benefit which fill it. The verse speaks of God's bounty but you wouldn't glean that from it if you only use CSB.
Having said that, CSB is a lot better than NIV which has the ugly "in it" repeated twice.
Psalm 24:1 NIV
The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it
which has no resonance at all, particularly when read aloud!
Incidentally, I see no problem with the Bible being translated in a way which makes it a bit unique in its language. I know that the NT was written in common Greek but it is not difficult for anyone to get used to a text translated from an ancient language which uses some slightly unique English usages in order to express the full meaning of the original words.
Psalm 24:1 ESV The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein
Psalm 24:1 CSB The earth and everything in it, the world and its inhabitants,
belong to the Lord;
Now, CSB is clearly missing the word "fulness" but a quick check with Strongs concordance shows that "fulness" is actually implied by the Hebrew - i.e. "that which fills". CSV completely misses that thought. The Lord has created the world in such a way that it produces things for our benefit which fill it. The verse speaks of God's bounty but you wouldn't glean that from it if you only use CSB.
Having said that, CSB is a lot better than NIV which has the ugly "in it" repeated twice.
Psalm 24:1 NIV
The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it
which has no resonance at all, particularly when read aloud!
Incidentally, I see no problem with the Bible being translated in a way which makes it a bit unique in its language. I know that the NT was written in common Greek but it is not difficult for anyone to get used to a text translated from an ancient language which uses some slightly unique English usages in order to express the full meaning of the original words.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I think your objection is without merit. You write that the CSB "completely misses" the thought of fulness. Um, you think "and everything in it" completely misses? In this case, the translation of the CSB is actually very similar to that of the Geneva Bible - so it certainly has a historic precedent - and I think "and everything in it" brings clarity and makes the meaning more clear.
By comparison: "fulness thereof?" What does that mean? That God is responsible for congested areas? What about barren places? Translate it "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it," and boom! Now it is immediately clear that the Lord's ownership extends to every single thing.
Really, I think your objection boils down to you like KJV language.
Tom Cunliffe
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, that's one way of putting it. It seems to me, that "fulness" is not the same as "everything in it" . I think the Hebrew supports my view.
The ESV is my Bible of choice. I like to see words like ἱλαστήριον translated as "propitiation" (ESV) rather than "atoning sacrifice" (CSB).
I can see no point in the CSB - we already have a fine translation in the ESV (and others no doubt) and the CSB adds nothing as far as I can see. Except of course that its possibly more "readable" (see this article) - at the cost of course of "literalness".
Tom
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
You are certainly entitled to your personal preference for a more literal translation here, rather than what seems to me a clearer one. But if you are going to argue against the CSB on the basis of this rendering, then you also have to argue that the NASB is not a sufficiently literal translation (it translates it as "all it contains"), nor is the KJV since it translates the same word as "all that is in it" in Jeremiah 8:16. All translations (including the KJV and ESV) sometimes sacrifice literalness for clarity, which is a good thing. No translation is going to please everyone. I'm glad that you find the ESV helpful.
By the way if you look up "propitiation" in Merriam-Webster you find the following:
1. The act of propitiating
2. something that propitiates, specifically an atoning sacrifice.
Since clearly it isn't meaning 1) in this case, the word propitiation means in normal contemporary English "an atoning sacrifice". You may prefer a more technical sounding word, but the contemporary English word does not intrinsically contain the meaning you are attributing to it.
Tom Cunliffe
Puritan Board Freshman
OK - thanks for the elaboration.
I think my point remains that there seems to be little point in producing a translation like the CSB when one so similar already exists. However, no doubt publishing companies have their own commercial agendas and who am I to prevent them from constantly going over old ground to produce a bright shiny new translation.
Incidentally I had the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible for a while and found it disappointing - there did not seem to be enough Spurgeon in it and the lost sermons were generally produced in facsimile form with first page only. I sold it on ebay as I have far too many books on my shelves already.
I think my point remains that there seems to be little point in producing a translation like the CSB when one so similar already exists. However, no doubt publishing companies have their own commercial agendas and who am I to prevent them from constantly going over old ground to produce a bright shiny new translation.
Incidentally I had the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible for a while and found it disappointing - there did not seem to be enough Spurgeon in it and the lost sermons were generally produced in facsimile form with first page only. I sold it on ebay as I have far too many books on my shelves already.
Last edited:
It is the standard translation for the SBC, so that alone would make it worthwhile to have as a translation in the marketplace.
I see it as being for reading and study use a better type of Niv, but would prefer more formal translations such as theNas/NKJV myself.
Bill The Baptist
Puritan Board Graduate
While it was commissioned by the SBC, the translation team came from multiple denominations, and to be honest, most Southern Baptists I know don’t use it.
I think that it is the only version used by their curriculum publishing branch though. I knew it as the HCSB, and thought was a better update then the Niv 2011, as not so gender issued.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
I wanted to swing by this thread and add a few remarks especially for those that haven't decided which translation to give a child or are considering something else.
Shortly after this thread began I started reading the CSB on my Ipad. I became taken with the flow of this translation. Logan posted that he was using the translation in family worship. A couple days later I went to Mardel's and picked up a copy for my 6yo daughter and myself. She's loved it. This morning we listened to the audio version (on YouVersion app) from several later chapters in Exodus. I was amazed at how she could follow the narrative. We had a nice discussion about Moses, the Ark, tabernacle, and establishment of the priesthood. Can't recommend it enough.
Shortly after this thread began I started reading the CSB on my Ipad. I became taken with the flow of this translation. Logan posted that he was using the translation in family worship. A couple days later I went to Mardel's and picked up a copy for my 6yo daughter and myself. She's loved it. This morning we listened to the audio version (on YouVersion app) from several later chapters in Exodus. I was amazed at how she could follow the narrative. We had a nice discussion about Moses, the Ark, tabernacle, and establishment of the priesthood. Can't recommend it enough.
Ben Mordecai
Puritan Board Freshman
How different is the HCSB from the CSB? I have a nice leather bound HCSB and I am wondering is the dropping of the H is just a branding move or a sign of extensive changes. I am considering integrating it into my normal Bible studies.
One difference would be that the HCSB I believe used Christ title and Messiah title at different times, based upon if a Jewish or Gentile audience was being addressed in the scriptures.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Ben,
I was one of the translators for the HCSB and served on the revision committee for the CSB. It is a pretty significant revision; we worked through the whole text and made many changes. We removed some of the quirkier features (e.g. capitalized divine pronouns and use of Yahweh), so if you liked those then you'll want to stay with the HCSB. But the overall result is a step forward, though recognizably in the same direction.
I was one of the translators for the HCSB and served on the revision committee for the CSB. It is a pretty significant revision; we worked through the whole text and made many changes. We removed some of the quirkier features (e.g. capitalized divine pronouns and use of Yahweh), so if you liked those then you'll want to stay with the HCSB. But the overall result is a step forward, though recognizably in the same direction.
Didn't the HCSB also use Christ and Messiah for Jesus depending on whether a Hebrew or a Gentile audience the scriptures?
I actually liked using the Hcsb, might give the Csb a try out now.
Ben Mordecai
Puritan Board Freshman
What was the idea behind removing Yahweh?
I thought that was the very name God gave to Himself?
Ben Mordecai
Puritan Board Freshman
That is why I am wondering why the CSB reversed course.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
The challenge for the translator is consistency. Unless you go all in and translate (transliterate) everywhere as Yahweh, you are faced with passages where the text alternates awkwardly between Yahweh and the LORD in the space of a few verses, even though the Hebrew is the same (see Gen 28:13-21 in the HCSB). But if you go with Yahweh consistently, you not only are faced with awkward sounding verses in some places, you create a mismatch between NT citations of OT verses and the OT originals. So we decided to follow the NT practice of translating Yahweh as "kurios" (Lord), with the traditional small caps to help people see where it is a reference to the divine name. If it's good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it is good enough for us.
[Note: there were Greek translations of the OT that went with a transliteration of the divine name (pi-iota-pi-iota); the NT did not adopt that convention.]
[Note: there were Greek translations of the OT that went with a transliteration of the divine name (pi-iota-pi-iota); the NT did not adopt that convention.]
Did you adopt the practice then of having LORD to reflect term for Yahweh, and Lord for Kurios?
You would have to use Yahweh as the specific name for God in every time the name of God was used in the scriptures, and the translators probably thought that would be cumbersome.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
It's a bit more complicated than that; kurios is Greek, not Hebrew.
In general we went for "LORD" in place of Yahweh and "Lord" for 'adonai . But there are places where you have 'adonai Yahweh in the Hebrew, which is vocalized by the masoretes to be read as 'adonai 'elohim; we followed their lead and rendered those "Lord GOD", since "lord LORD" sounds odd. Perhaps surprisingly, given its general preference for following the MT, the NIV follows the Septuagint in these cases, rendering "Sovereign LORD". Either way, these are different from "LORD God", which translates the composite form Yahweh Elohim.
So Paul took the Hebrew word used by God in the OT for Himself, and had it into Greek as Kurios, which than came over to us into English as being the Llord?
Does Elohim stand for God, or can it also refer to the angelic host?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Normally it refers to God or the gods; in Psalm 8:5, the Septuagint translates it as "angels." Compare the citation in Hebrews 2:7.
Was that term used by Jesus when he was asking the Pharisees about how in the OT the judges were called gods?
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
John 10:34 is citing Ps 82:6, where elohim is used, yes.
Would you see it as being as "god" there, or as judges of Israel though?
Iain, perhaps one way that this translation could be better promoted among confessionally Reformed Churches would be if Reformed pastors (including yourself?) could produce a Reformed study Bible in the CSB. Also encourage Ligonier to produce a Reformation Study Bible in the CSB. The fact that the CSB was created using Optimal Equivalence, a translation philosophy, with an excellent balance of literalness and readability, should greatly appeal to Reformed christians. Maybe promotion is the key?
I thought that the study notes in the Csb sb though reflected a more Calvinistic stance on areas such as election and salvation?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
