CSB?

Y-1 said the following on 12/19/17:
"That is my main concern with some of the latest translations such as CSB and NIV, as they at times seem to go into adding feminine [sic] material into their renderings, such as making it seem like women can teach and even be apostles!"

 

I agree. He has continually made false accusations against the NIV over the years, but here he lumps in the CSB as well.

 

You have had my opinion in posts #20, #31 and #41. There is one place Iknow of (thanks Rob!) where it forces women into the text where they are definitely not, and I get a bit fed up with reading 'human beings' constantly instead of 'men' or 'people.' But it is a whole lot better than the new NIV or the NRSV in that it doesn't pluralize, and the bits I've read seem to be quite well translated.

I would still prefer the ESV, NRSB or NKJV though.

 

Well he's wrong, but since he uses the NASB SFAIK, he cannot be blamed for the 2011 NIV.

 

I heard some pics from the 2020 NASB update have leaked, and that the update translates adelphoi as "brothers and sisters."

 

The Nrsv seems to follow the same agenda also!

 

My son had a Gideon had him while on Camous a NT with Psalms, and thatone was Esv, but also was parts retranslated as per the TR itself!

 

Since the Holy Spirit Himself saw Jesus in that Psalm, it really does not matter what Spurgeon, MacArthur, me,or you think about this, as His view trumps all others!

 

it always starts when anyone dares to question the Niv 2011!

 

Holy Spirit is right, and Dr Mac here is wrong!

 

Do you agree that the Csb followed the Guidelines, while the Niv did not?

 

Right translation, with wrong interpretation!

 

Which does not violate the Gender Inclusive as adapted by the SBC!

 

The Niv was transalted in order to have evengelical feminist views creep in, as in the areas of women being equal to men in all areas, even as pastors/elder, I was wrong in regard sto the Csb though, as I assumed just because it has Gender inclusive language , had to be in the same boat as the Niv 2011. but the Csb followed the Guidelines, while the Niv did not.

 

If one has to have a Gender Inclusive Bible for some reason, the Csb is only way to go, and I think that you meant Nasb as a preferred translation, not the Nrsv!

 

Yet you seem to be speaking for the Holy Spirit.

 

It starts when you say absolutely false things about it, as well as the CSB and NLT.

 

I don't have a problem with that. Adelphoi is not necessarily gender-specific and the reader can see from the italics that 'and sisters' is not in the original. Where I have a problem is with the CSB translating andres adelphoi as 'brothers and sisters in Acts 2:29.' Aner (plural andres) is gender-specific. If you do it in verse 29, you are suggesting that there were female apostles since verse 37 also has andres adelphoi. Why should it not be 'brother and sisters' there?

I hope it should be obvious by now that my real beef is not with changing anthropos from 'man into 'person' but with using the plural to obliterate the possibility of finding the Lord Jesus in the text. I accept that not everyone may agree with me that Psalm 8 is, partially at least, about Christ-- that's OK-- but a translation should not unilaterally take away the ability of the reader to find Him there.

 

The Holy Spirit speaks for Himself and saw the Lord Jesus in Psalm 8. We know that because He says so in Hebrews 2.