HCSB to the CSB

The article by Merritt and Robinson is utter trash. It reminds me of the junk that World Mag put out regarding the TNIV years ago.

An example of their trashiness:
"The denomination has affirmed that the Bible commands wives to submit to their husbands and that modern notions of transgender identity blur the line between God-ordained masculine and femine roles."

What a bunch of bunkum. That kind of "Christian writing" needs to be rebuked at once.

 

Have Southern Baptists embraced gender-inclusive Bible translation? Not by a longshot.

 

There is no doubt that the article by Merritt and Robinson is a hit piece. I don't know anything about Robinson, but Merritt has struck me as a wolf in sheep's clothing -- or at the least a sheep sporting wolf fangs. He seems always on the prowl to find something to knock biblical Christianity. Nevertheless, I think there is some "merritt" in this article. It raises a question that honest seekers will have, and that Southern Baptists (and particularly the translators and publishers) will need to be ready to give an answer rather than howl at Merritt and Robinson. For better or worse, right or wrong, folks will question the condemnation of the NIV while wondering that the CSB has done much the same. Looks like Denny Burk's article goes a long way toward answering some of the questions (Thanks, Rob).

 

That answers it pretty clearly. Thanks, Jerome.

Bible Gateway, which is my main go-to site, still has both -- which makes it nice when you want to compare changes. It will be interesting to see whether this goes away after 2017. I hope not!

 

Indeed it is.

What merit do you find in trash? A diamond in the rough or something? It was a stupid piece.

I can agree with you on this part of your post. The CSB has done much the same as the TNIV and 2011 NIV. All the trashy reviews that were made against it by a motley crew of people are giant hypocrites if they don't come down hard on the CSB too. Of course if they don't lambast the CSB they will be seen as fools. The choice is theirs.

 

Explained in post # 23, whether or not you agree.

And that was my point. It seems to me, from my limited perspective of the CSB at this time, that they have done much the same, even if perhaps not as much. So that calls for an explanation of why condemn in one instance what people may perceive you are doing in the other.

 

What do you think of it?

 

Is that translation into that as much as the Niv 2011 is though?

 

Still would be a slightly more formal version of the Niv 2011 it would seem....

 

I had asked you to give me a reason(s) why you think the article of Merrit and Robinson has any merit --and all you came up with is the above?

"It raises a question honest seekers will have" you say. Spell it out. What is the question?

 

If the revision has gone the way of the Nib 2011 in rergards to that much inclusive language, SBC should not be supporting it!

 

As usual, you speak from a vantage point of ignorance.

You had already concluded a month ago that the CSB went too far with respect to its use of inclusive language. I had asked you about a dozen times to please cite passages where it has done so. You ignored my repearted request. That is your typical conduct. You freely throw out out accusations and never back up your charges with facts.

 

Did you read the Denny Burk article that was posted? What verse did the CSB go to far with inclusive language?

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The CSB web site has a Verse Comparison Chart that compares the CSB translation of about 18 different verses with 5 other translations (including the HCSB). I found four verses there that seem related to the discussion of inclusive language, Psalms 56:4, Psalms 62:9, Romans 3:28, Romans 8:29 -- which explanations mention gender usage or gender-specific language.

Obviously, this page only intends to give representative samples of some of the work that was done.

 

Another response to Merritt and Robinson (by two who were on the Translation Oversight Committee of the CSB):
Is the CSB Really Gender-Neutral?

 

Thanks for posting the article.

It reminds me, this spring, I went through the book of Revelation with Dr. Schreiner. While he read for the Greek text, he keep the CSB up on the screen with the Greek. I did not notice any inclusive language misuse in the letter.

Dr. Schreiner did speak of his work on the CSB a little. He would not allow for any "collapse" on PC issues. He has a very high view of Scripture and would do everything he could to accurately present God's word.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

The same goes for Dr. Moo head of the NIV team.

 

They did seem to try to not make it nearly as Gender inclusive as the Niv 2011 team did...

 

Reading thru that link on it being gender neutral, would support it over the Niv 2011, as did not seem to be going too much into it...