I now like the CSB

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
When I attempted to pray through the CSB's translation of the Psalms a couple of years ago, I really did not like it that much. More recently, however, I have attempted to give the translation a fair hearing after reading several of Lane's @greenbaggins comments on the CSB. Having read through the prophetic books, some of the epistles, and now I am currently reading its translation of Matthew's gospel, I can certainly see why some people who know what they are talking about think so highly of it. While there are a few oddities that get on my goat - I don't like the contractions ;) - still, the CSB does appear to be a very useful tool for Bible readers.
 
Last edited:

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
My church switched to the CSB as the primary preaching/teaching translation a few years ago. It has not grown on me at all, but perhaps in due time.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
I've been reading it for the last several months in my devotions. I'm enjoying it and think the contractions are fine. I still think (having read it some earlier) that the translation tends to flatten out the poetry somewhat. But, overall, I'm happy with the translation.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
I prefer the HCSB to the CSB, but it's not that big of a deal.
I am probably the same. I don't know if your reasons are the same as mine, but I thought the HCSB was less prone to gender neutral language, and I appreciated the fact that the HCSB retained important theological words such as propitiation. Also not a big deal with me - I know the CSB has made some helpful improvements, but not enough for me to invest in a CSB :)
 

Georgiadis

Puritan Board Freshman
I’ve been using the CSB as my primary reader for 2020 and have really enjoyed it! I’m also glad to see that it is getting more attention lately. Schuyler is even planning to release a CSB Quentel. I know that simply wrapping a Bible in goatskin doesn’t strengthen the translation itself, but I would think that these recent premium versions are an indicator of wider adoption.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
I have read from it off and on for a couple of years. In general, I like it, although “This is the Lord’s declaration” in place of “Thus saith the Lord” or even something like “This is what the Lord says” still grates on me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have read from it off and on for a couple of years. In general, I like it, although “This is the Lord’s declaration” in place of “Thus saith the Lord” or even something like “This is what the Lord says” still grates on me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for your comment, Chris. First, "This is the Lord's declaration" (ne'um yhwh) is not the same as "Thus saith the Lord" (koh 'amar yhwh). For the latter, CSB has "This is what the Lord says..."
For the former, "This is the Lord's declaration" reflects that fact that ne'um yhwh is, properly speaking, a nominal interjection: there is no verb, literally it is "the Lord's declaration" and it often disrupts the flow of speech in Hebrew (see twice in Hag. 2:23 for a good example). Translating it "declares the Lord" (ESV) or "saith the Lord" (KJV) is definitely smoother, but it is much less literal: if you were translating from English into Hebrew, that would be quite a different construction. For that reason, we think it is a more accurate rendition of the Hebrew text into contemporary English.
I hope that helps it not to grate quite as much - or at least to see that the "grating" effect is part of the inspired Word of God!
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks for your comment, Chris. First, "This is the Lord's declaration" (ne'um yhwh) is not the same as "Thus saith the Lord" (koh 'amar yhwh). For the latter, CSB has "This is what the Lord says..."
For the former, "This is the Lord's declaration" reflects that fact that ne'um yhwh is, properly speaking, a nominal interjection: there is no verb, literally it is "the Lord's declaration" and it often disrupts the flow of speech in Hebrew (see twice in Hag. 2:23 for a good example). Translating it "declares the Lord" (ESV) or "saith the Lord" (KJV) is definitely smoother, but it is much less literal: if you were translating from English into Hebrew, that would be quite a different construction. For that reason, we think it is a more accurate rendition of the Hebrew text into contemporary English.
I hope that helps it not to grate quite as much - or at least to see that the "grating" effect is part of the inspired Word of God!
Thank you for responding, Dr. Duguid. Someone on Facebook had recently said that they thought that in the original, this phrase would be equally arresting or jarring as it is in English. It is interesting that a version that is generally considered to be "less literal" is often as "literal" or more as in this case. But I think that whatever is in the KJV or NASB or whatever equals "literal" for a lot of people. Thus, the NASB 2020 is causing a good bit of indigestion for some longtime NASB fans. (I see that the NASB 2020 retains "declares the Lord" in Hag. 2:23 but has "Lord of Armies" instead of the traditional "Lord of hosts.")

The biggest issue I've seen with the CSB is "brothers and sisters" in Acts 15:7, but this has been fixed in the 2020 update. (If that would have been the NIV, there would have been no end to the uproar.) I wonder if Holman will give me a refund for these defective Bibles I have that have female elders and apostles at the Jerusalem Council? I keep saying that Bible publishers should issue factory recalls when they have mistakes in the first printing, but no one has taken me up on it yet.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
The NIV actually has just "brothers" there.
Even the NRSV just has "brothers" there, and they'd have an agenda if any translation committee would. That is why it was such an appalling error in a version that is the result of a project that the publisher acquired at least in part as a reaction against the impending "gender neutral" NIV. I can only assume that the translator(s) and the editors weren't paying attention to the context there?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
I think that I like the NIV because it upsets so many people. :stirpot: :p
I don't know why everyone rags on it. It's a fantastic translation. Furthermore, I haven't really found any egalitarian bias in it, at least not anything to match the fire constantly breathed over it. On the contrary, the NIV teaches very clearly that...

"...a woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I [Paul] do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Tim. 2:11-12);

"...the head of the woman is man" (1 Cor. 11:3);

"...[man] is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man" (1 Cor. 11:7);

"...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says...for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Cor. 14:34-35).

I am as biblically patriarchal as they come, and I am not bothered by the NIV, even its 2011 iteration. I find the hoopla around changing "man" to "person" in some places and "man" to "mankind" in others to be frankly wasted time and breath. My only real complaint against it is the removing of some of the more technical language (e.g., "propitiation"). Other than that, I use the NIV with great profit.

But, I digress, this thread is about the CSB... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top