This is my choice of translations. I also am a fan of the CSB Study Bible as well. It is an excellent piece of work. And you have done a wonderful job of presenting the CSB rext.
I’m surprised that no one has done this in the comments yet. For anyone who’s interested in knowing what the referenced translations are; here you go. Exodus 1:5 - ESV Amos 4:6 - ESV Ecclesiastes 12:13 - NIV Psalm 14:1 - Options 1: HCSB; Option 2: NIV, ESV, and others John 14:21 - NIV Romans 7:25 - NIV Psalm 147:10 - ESV Romans 8:29 - ESV It’s clear to me where they wanted to sit in the spectrum of translations. Somewhere between the two most popular of their class. :)
One thing I would love to see in the CSB is to make sure the translators use italics when the text is not in the original. The NAS20 is one perfect example that helps the reader understand what words the translator used to help the text make sense.
I find the ESV a cold translation although I have the ESV study bible which I use for look up and I love the articles . I love the KJV/NKJV and the CSB for me is a more careful and accurate & dynamic than the NIV which I like.
I just recently purchased the Rainbow Study Bible in the CSB translation, its the prettiest bible in my collection with all the wonderful colors of the rainbow.
I just bought the CSB Spurgeon Study Bible black brown leathertouch, and i got to say i never heard of C.H. Spurgeon , but its seems he was a giant of the faith kinda of a Smith Wigglesworth of his era, i love the 2 tone black brown , even has 2 ribbon marker one black and one brown to match the two tone cover, a serious study bible for anyone.
Fantastic that you discovered C H Spurgeon through the CSB! Spurgeon is nicknamed The Prince of Preachers, and with good reason. Be sure to find his devotions Morning & Evening. They're available free online, or even in the YouVersion Bible App. Sermon Audio even has the readings in audio form daily.
Carl, yeah, what Senen said was puzzling. Charles Spurgeon was thoroughly biblical, in stark contrast to Wigglesworth. It's like saying Charles Finney was the Dr. M-L-J of his era.
Its a good modern, readable translation that stays fairly close to the oldest manuscripts. I do really enjoy it. And this @12:03 means so very much to me, because that is what its about. Thank you!
I find it hard to find a Bible with the features I want. Large text (8.5-9pt+) Large margins enough for small notes (not lined) Line-by-line verse style Translator notes References Book intros Chapter intros/outlines Topical reference People reference Multiple ribbons Old testament quotes stand out. Red letter Paper not too thin or bleedy. The size and weight of this is less important since it's a study Bible or family heirloom Bible.
Hi CSB! I love and appreciate this translation of the Holy Bible. I hope you will not frequently update your 2017 text, which is an update itself. I hope CSB will not be like the ESV and the NLT that frequently updates their version. Because, for me it means that the translators (including reviewers) were not confident in their final work, and it gives us the impression that it cannot be the Christians "Standard" Bible. As a consequence, we will not be confident too, and if we aren't confident enough, we will not be able to use CSB text as a memory verse for all ages. It will just be like some translations that we only use as an alternative translation, not as the main version (e.g. KJV) that the church can officially endorse or use. I hope you will be like the NIV, NASB and the NRSV that only after several decades it was updated because of the advances in scholarship and development in the English language. Lastly, it is expensive in our part to purchase your products again, because there's a new version and the 2017 is out of print and unusable already like the ESV 2011. Kindly update it if there's a significant change in the meaning of the English language or advances in scholarship, or archeologists discovered another ancient manuscripts (like the Dead Sea scrolls) that is earlier and authoritative. Congratulations to all!
Can you review the apparent conflict in at Gen 30:32-40. It appears that the dark-colored sheep that were to be given to Jacob (v 32) were later assigned to Laban by Jacob (v 40). Is dark-colored sheep == completely dark sheep? The CSB seems to be the only modern translation that identifies the dark animals as sheep in verse 40.
One note on Amos 4:6 is that saying "I gave you ... a shortage of food" is different than "I gave you ... lack of [food]". I am not sure which bent the original Hebrew had, but I would consider not interchanging lack and shortage.
For who heard and rebelled? Wasn’t it all who came out of Egypt under Moses? Heb.3.16 CSB Does this mean Joshua and Caleb fell by the wayside in the wilderness and did not enter the promised land?
It's leaning toward political correctness, which is understandable in today's climate. But my personal preference will always be the KJV, ESV, and NASB. When I was taught proper English in school from the early 50's through the mid 60's, we knew that the collective "he" or "man" was inclusive for both sexes. But then, gay and lesbian people were still in the closet, and transgender wasn't even a word back then. God created us male and female, and the English language was formed around that concept. Jesus Christ is the Judge over all mankind, so I don't disparage new translations. If God can touch the heart of anyone through another translation, wonderful! If that person truly becomes born again and accepts Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, then the Holy Spirit will guide whomever into The Truth, The Way, and The Light.
"But then, gay and lesbian people were still in the closet, and transgender wasn't even a word back then. God created us male and female, and the English language was formed around that concept. You say you attended school in the early 50s. The early 1850s? What does the LGBTQ community have to do with the CSB Bible? Why even mention it?
While I agree that the CSB is much more readable, I find some of the committee's decisions a bit odd. For example, Jeremiah 50:37, reads "A sword is against his horses and chariots". Jeremiah, in referring to Babylon previously and subsequently uses the adjective "her" yet, for some reason, the CSB uses the adjective "his" in this verse. The text is clearly referring to Babylon. God's words to Jeremiah refer to Babylon as "she" and thus every reference to something of Babylon (in this case, her horses and chariots) should also be feminine. In English it is improper grammar to refer to something as both masculine and feminine. In this case, the choice to use "his" does not improve the word choice or style but makes the text read awkwardly. So, either all of the references to Babylon should be feminine or all of them should be masculine. I raised this issue to the committee and was told by the senior editor that they remained true to the Hebrew Bible which has the masculine singular pronoun on the horses and chariots and the feminine singular pronoun on the other nouns. I noted that if they are going to create an "English language version that they must remain true to English grammar rules and not mix genders when referring to a common subject. Nah! I also found other times where they have rewritten text yet the literal translation provided in the footer is actually clearer and more accurate. Sometimes they make decisions to change wording for the sake of making change rather than for clarity. I'm hoping that, given time, they will improve their translation.
I think his response is very helpful! I think, perhaps Jeremiah has the line that follows in mind by using the male posessive. To contrast with "that they may become women!" Seems like it's a purposeful decision from the author to use the male possessive for that line, and ESV hides it. So CSB wants to show us it, so we can see the thing Jeremiah was trying to show to his readers (for whatever debateable purpose). It would have been clunky and odd in the Hebrew too- for a reason!
@@heidibrown4255 sometimes it does put things with the proper force! I agree! But my problem is that you never quite know if you're understanding the text correctly, as we don't speak 17th century english.
I do like "cleanness of teeth"(it not that hard to understand, right?) or even the NIV "empty stomachs". CSB "nothing to eat" is too clear it makes it like kids wordings. I prefer there's a note of "nothing to eat" than actually put it into the sentence.
Cleanness of teeth is hard to understand. we talk about that all the time, and it a sign of good health (and hints at prosperity). I definitley agree with the CSB's choice. The meaning of the text is clear to the reader, as it would have been to the hebrew reader (or listener).
You are in error when you speak of word-for-word translations and say that in places that the CSB has word-for-word renderings. In reality the CSB follows the translation principles of the NIV, phrase-by-phrase. Or as John Wycliff's associate said :sense-for-sense. The NET, NIV and CSB are all standing on middle ground -- mediating translations. My personal opinion is that aside from the HCSB itself -the version it comes closest to is the NIV (of 2011 of course). The CSB's wordsmiths drew "inspiration" (not the theological kind) from the NIV.
The CSB is not near as "dynamic" as the NIV, and is considerably more accurate. Your slander is unfounded and easily seen as such by anyone who reads and compares for themselves.
You use the word accuracy and yet 620 times you deliberately and knowingly change the gender context. The hcsb was a superior translation to what you are now producing. I was profoundly disappointed as I began to read it boasting that you changed languages to the incorrect term tongues the use of brothers and sisters does not bother me the fact that however you want me to so much trouble to hide the context of man or men does not reflect accuracy it does reflect cowing down to the both feminazi camp and lbgt the disregard for historical accuracy and context is self-evident. Yet in many cases you did a brilliant job in your translation work. I hope sometime soon the southern baptist repent of this and put truly God-fearing translators on this committee and correct this debacle. This is not a translation I could use a church it is not a translation I would recommend very quickly to anyone.
I think the Nasb will be going gender neutral and it is the more literal I think all modern translations will be going that way after the nasb I don't think there is anything wrong 5he better we can get the message across the better or maybe I missing something Godbless
It is very dangerous to read the CSB translation. People who who have drunk Bud Light (tranny juice) and read the CSB have turned gay! (I know this is true because I heard it on FOX News and they would never lie.)
