1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Thoughts on the CSB

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Martin Marprelate, Nov 29, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,446
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was at a Christian Conference two weeks ago, and if you bought a book at the bookstall, you got a free CSB Bible, so I am now the proud possessor of one. :) The publishers must be really keen to promote it in Britain.

    I haven't really looked at it much, but I note that it has failed two of my orthodoxy tests. It does not have 'propitiation' in Romans 3:25 etc., nor 'only begotten' in John 3:16 etc.

    However, what do brothers think of it? Is it reasonably accurate? Its predecessor never gained any popularity over here.
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,055
    Likes Received:
    3,459
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I received a free CSB for attending the annual meeting of the ETS. I too prefer "only begotten" and "propitiation" but neither is a deal breaker for me.

    As I am Byzantine Preferred and the CSB is Critical Text based I have some other issues with it, but it is very readable and has pretty good cross references and notes.

    My 17 year old grandson had worn his old bible out so I gave the CSB to him. He loves it, but he reads it with an open mind, not through the theological squint I have developed over the years. :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    7,748
    Likes Received:
    382
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Outside of religious circles I've never used or heard of "propitiation";
    same with "begotten". When do you hear those words outside of bible-speak?
    Are there are no better words to communicate meaning to the unchurched?

    I'm thoroughly enjoying the Christian Standard Bible!
    Sure there are some weaknesses, as with any translation,
    But IMO its most notable strength is its readability - it is very smooth and easy when read-out-loud.
    It communicates a clear and well-understood message.

    Rob
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  4. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,446
    Likes Received:
    1,202
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I hear what you say, but the fact is that the Lord Jesus is not the 'one and only Son.' 'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:26). He is the only begotten Son.
    Good. And it doesn't seem to be gender-neutral. Perhaps it will be a replacement for my church's 1984 NIVs when they wear out. For my personal use I think I shall stick to my trusty NKJV.
     
  5. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes Received:
    800
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I used the HCSB for quite a few years, switched to the CSB this year. Read through it completely in about 4 or 5 months. I picked up the study bible and a large print personal size, which is in my lap right now as I'm getting ready to teach our RAs.

    The footnote for Romans 3:25 says "Or a propitiation, or a place of atonement." I agree with their usual choice to make the text as readable as possible, and putting technical or idiomatic language in the footnotes.

    And it's readability and flow are what kept me a fan. Serious study will always involve multiple translations and glimpsing the original languages. But sometimes I just like to take a day and digest a larger portion, and read through an entire book.
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,055
    Likes Received:
    3,459
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are many words that have a unique meaning in Theology that either mean something different in secular usage or, as you noted, are seldom to never used outside their Theological context.

    I think such words are very valuable as they have been used for centuries, perhaps millennia, and thus have no ambiguity attached to them.

    Just look at μονογενη in John 3:16. Bible translators have been trying for quite a few centuries to find a different way to translate that word into English.

    The best they have come up with are: "one and only" which is the most often used as far as I can tell. Then "only" with The Complete Jewish Bible bringing up the rear with "only and unique Son."

    The problem is that Jesus is NOT the only son. Or the one and only son. We are all sons of God. He is the "one and unique" son. Good for the CJB.

    If translators would bite the bullet and translate the word as "only born son" or something of that nature, recognizing the last part of that word is γενη, a cognate of the word for "born" I think things would be a lot clearer.

    But until that happens I will stick to "only begotten" as it comes closer to "only born" than "one and only" or "only."

    Oh, and many of the modern text bibles in common use have stayed with "only begotten." (See ASV, NASV, NKJV.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Several interesting thoughts have been presented in this thread.

    Monogenes is best translated into English as "one of a kind." As noted, "only" is erroneous, as both Adam, and every born anew believer is a son of God.

    Now "Propitiation" refers to the act of turning aside God's wrath. At Romans 3:25 the Greek form of the underlying word refers to the place where the wrath is turned aside, specifically "in Christ." My updated choice is "means of salvation" but Martin blows a gasket when I point out that truth. "Whom God set forth as the means of salvation by His blood through faith...."

    While at John 3:16, "begotten" is a mistranslation and should read "one of a kind" plenty of other verses have the Greek word that was accurately translated "begotten" way back when. Today, of course, "fathered" is used to convey the idea in modern English.
     
    #7 Van, Dec 1, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2017
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    551
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And neither is the NIV.
     
  9. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Lets consider 1 Corinthians 7:1

    The actual text says it is good for a man not to "touch a woman." But the actual idea behind this idiom appears to be unclear. Since the following verses clearly indicate it is the responsibility of each spouse to satisfy the sexual needs of the other. Therefore the actual idea appears to be to not misuse a woman. Thus Al Franken clearly violated this Christian doctrine.

    Once again, it appears the best translations present the idiom in the main text, then provide a footnote to explain what the translators believe is the actual meaning. Here is the CSB "explanation"
     
  10. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes Received:
    800
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You appear to be presenting opinion as fact.
     
  11. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The fact is "use a women for sex" is a terrible translation. It does not reflect the actual words (touch a woman) nor the contextual meaning. Facts Sir!

    You appear to be disparaging my view without providing an alternate view. Nuff said. :)
     
  12. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes Received:
    800
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Then you appear to have missed post number 5, where I posted my preference.

    I can repost it if you like.

    But, I am not disparaging your preference. Just noting that it is a preference, and not a fact.
     
  13. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I stand corrected, you did indeed indicate you wanted the technical (literal?) or idiomatic language in the footnotes. And the best translations (NASB, NKJV and LEB) do reflect my preference.

    But the fact is your CSB readable text is a mistranslation any way you slice it.

    The idiomatic phrase "touch a woman" is also found in the LXX in the Old Testament, Genesis 20:6 and Proverbs 6:29. In both these examples of the idiomatic meaning sexual misconduct is in view.

    So the actual idea appears to be to not engage in sexual misconduct with any woman. But the CSB, and other "readability first translations" butchered the effort.
     
    #13 Van, Dec 3, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017
  14. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you look at the CSB translation of Genesis 20:6, and Proverbs 6:29, you will see they went with what it said, touch, rather than their idiomatic translation "use a woman for sex." And at Genesis 26:11, where the meaning clearly refers to violate or injure, the CSB does not substitute the "readability" translation, over the accurate but idiomatic "touch."

    As hopefully you can see, putting the "readability" translation inconsistently in the main text destroys the linkage between verses where the idiomatic meaning is found.

    The fact seems to be that we should all prefer an accurate and literal translation, and footnotes to explain the possible idiomatic meaning.
     
  15. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let us evaluate yet another verse, 1 Corinthians 1:30.

    A more literal translation would read:

    Yet out of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God besides righteousness, holiness and deliverance.​

    So first "out of Him" refers to an action or actions taken by God, thus the NASB reads "by His doing" and the NIV reads "because of Him." So it appears clarity was sacrificed for "readability."

    Second since "sanctification" has two meanings (to set apart or to make holy) neither readability nor clarity was served by that traditional choice.
     
  16. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let us evaluate John 1:18,

    Here we have several questionable calls, but the actual message is indeed presented in a very readable form.
    First, "No one has ever seen God" is accurate, and ending it with a "period" rather than a semi-colon is just fine.
    Next, we have "one and only" which is inaccurate, but "one of a kind" is not in any of the best translations, so hardly a fault of the CSB.
    Next, we get a variant reading, "Son" when "God" appears in other versions. But contextually, "Son" seem right, provided it is clear God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity is in view. The CSB provides (adds without italics) that support.
    Next, "at the Father's side" again is just fine as a more readable expression of "in the bosom of the Father.
    Last, "has revealed Him" is actually more accurate than other translation choices.

    In summary, the CSB did a fine job of rewriting the text to make the message clear and readable, but I would prefer presenting the actual text with an explanation in the footnote.
     
  17. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let's consider Hebrews 4:2:
    Here rather than the traditional "did not unite the message with faith" is presented as "were not united with those who heard it in faith." But the message is not that if you sit next to a believer, you will unite the message with faith.

    But in fairness, there does seem to be something in the Greek grammar that goes against the traditional translation. The actual message appears to be those who did not benefit were not united in how they believed with those who heard it in faith.

    In any event, I think they should do a better job of presenting the actual message.
     
  18. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Let's consider Hebrews 12:28:
    The problem here is that "By it" refers back to something but the something is not clear. Does the "it" refer to the unshakable kingdom, or to God's grace, or to our gratitude or thankfulness?

    Commentaries based on the KJV family of translations assert the it refers to holding on to the grace. But nearly all the modern translations have let us be thankful. Their idea is that by being thankful with modesty (or a sense of unworthiness) we might serve God in a way pleasing to God,

    What is the idea of an "unshakable kingdom" one that is everlasting, rather than one that would crumble in an earthquake?
     
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    34,119
    Likes Received:
    841
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It seems to be a more conservative version of the Niv 2011, not quite as gender based, and the interesting thing is that many find fault more with the Csb study bible, as being seen "too Calvinist"
     
  20. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Summary of verses that should be improved:
    Romans 3:25 atoning sacrifice should read means of salvation
    John 1:18 one and only Son should read one of a kind God the Son,
    John 3:16 one and only should read one of a kind
    1 Corinthians 1:30 from Him should read because of Him
    1 Corinthians 7:1 use a woman for sex should read touch a woman
    Hebrews 4:2 not united with those should read not united in how they believe with those
    Hebrews 12:28 By it should read by our thankfulness
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...