Our church moved to the CSB more than two years ago and it has been invaluable to us making disciples for Christ. It’s accurate, relevant, and understandable for new and growing Christians.
The CSB is my main translation. I use it for Scripture reading, memory, and preaching and teaching. I use other translations / revisions on a regular basis for study comparison etc (NASB, ESV, LAB, NLT, NET, NIV). I read King James for its beauty occasionally. I tell folks the best translation for them is the one they will read and apply on a regular basis
Love it! And love Pastor Everhard as well. The CSB is something I got really excited about in 2017 when it first came out as an update to the HCSB. I think of it as a step between the ESV and NIV on the imaginary spectrum, but where it is more dynamic, it does so to prevent misapplication of the text. It looks far more formal in places where the words are clear to today's audience. It takes away the archaic mystique so to say.
I love both Matthew Everhard and Tim Frisch's channels. I agree it'd be good if Pastor Everhard could give more consideration to the CSB. Also, I think one irony is that Pastor Everhard had the CSB vs. the LSB, but the main reason he waived off the CSB in favor of the LSB was because he didn't really see a need for it or why it even exists. The irony is that the same criticism could be applied to the LSB! The LSB is in essence a revision to the NASB95 produced by scholars at The Master's Seminary (of John MacArthur's ministry). Now the LSB is a solid translation, and I have no major problems with the LSB, but one can also ask the same question that Pastor Everhard asks about the CSB about the LSB: is there really that much of a need for the LSB? I'm sure there are stalwart defenders of the LSB including John MacArthur and most at TMS, but for example see Mark Ward's article "A Rising Tide Sinks All Boats: The Legacy Standard Bible and Stewarding the Church's Trust" for a counterpoint. Again, I appreciate the LSB and the CSB, and both translations are solid, but all I'm saying is that the same criticism Pastor Everhard levels against the CSB could be leveled against the LSB too.
Greetings Tim and thank you so much for this much needed response video. A while back you made a video about the combination of the NKJV and the CSB (I tried to find it but it looks like it’s been removed) In it as far as I remember, that textus receptus manuscripts, the traditional renderings of the NKJV; along with the critical text manuscripts, the modern renderings of the CSB; as well as the footnotes on both of them, they make a strong combination. I couldn’t agree with you more. You definitely nailed it. For me personally is “a match made in heaven!!” The CSB does what it says is intended to do. It’s right between the ESV and the NIV; more clear than the former and somewhat more conservative than the latter. And just like the NASB, the messianic prophecies as well as the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are in bold letters. Plus for me personally if I’m short on time and need a good read of God’s word, the CSB delivers in clarity and up to the point. For those who haven’t tried it, I invite them to check it out. Again Tim, thank you and many blessings to you and yours ❤❤❤!!!
My wife and me were doing our readings through the Bible late last year. She loves her CSB bible. And I was using my NIV bible (it says 1984 version) along side. When we went through the readings, I found differences from the NIV compared to the CSB bible that were different to me. That is to say, the CSB , for me, had much more clarity and not as vague as the NIV. But that’s just my opinion. And, needless to say, I’m not a bible scholar, and this is how I felt reading in comparison.
The CSB is actually useful: a masterclass in using dynamic equivalence when necessary without rewriting the Bible. The LSB is totally redundant: it's the Divine Name NASB, nothing more. Easy match.
I like the Nasb and I read the LSB it is accurate translation as well i would prefer the more literal translations than dynamic like CSB in my opinion especially when alot of verses they don't have in the text. I just believe it's best just to leave them in the text because u don't have the original manuscripts so not going to know which text is right the majority text ,textus receptus or the critical text. Every translation has what u need to make through this life
@WordForursoul2 I really wish the LSB revision team would have practiced correspondence more. They don't really practice correspondence with the words for desire, often translating them as "lust" although th words for "desire" and "lust" (chamad in Heb. and epithumia in Grk.) are often the same words. Where it says "Flee youthful lust" the word used there is epithumia, which is the same word used by Paul to refer to his desire to see fellow believers or to be with Christ. A good way to maintain correspondance would be to translate the phrase as "Flee juvenile desires." Also, how the CSB translates John 3:16 is actually more literal than how the LSB translates it, so I don't think they're being that consistent. Now, I don't agree with everything done in the CSB translation, but that is one of the good things about this translation. I also prefer the CSB with how Exodus 20 is translated: "Do not..." is more straight forward in modern English than "You shall not..." To someone who doesn't understand the difference between "shall" and "will," it can be confusing. It also can come off as a bit pedantic. I prefer how the ESV translates 2 Tim. 3:16 because theopneustos refers specifically to God exhaling, not breathing in and out. And the NIV2011 gets closer to the meaning of Php. 4:13. Anyways, each of these translations have their own strengths. I haven't been able to find any unique to the LSB though. The CSB translates echad as "one" in Gen. 1:5, and LEB also uses Yahweh (one thing I wish the CSB would have retained from the HCSB).
I enjoy the LSB having God’s name restored. That said the NASB95 is good too. CSB, NIV, NLT, & NASB2020 is great if you don’t mind the gender neutral stuff that doesn’t match up at all with the original Hebrew or Greek. MacArthur had the LSB made to be a direct revision of the NASB95 to skip over the 2020 one he considers to be very inferior. Just a thought. Tbh I’m just glad ppl are reading Bibles. Prayer before reading and asking for discernment and help of the Holy Spirit does make things quite good no matter what version. We are blessed to have so many choices.
I love the NKJV, @@WordForursoul2... I just wish they'd do a revision wherein some antiquated words get updated. That's all. No more. There's so much to love about the NKJV!!
I cannot speak for Dr. Everhard , however; he has spent time explaining why he ended up supporting a majority text in translation philosophy. More especially given his Presbyterian background. And when Adhering to the Westminster confessional catechism, “ God’s word has been preserved throughout the ages” , and in this case the divine’s based the catechism on the AV. The CSB when compared to other translations on Blue letter Bible is a faithful translation. The translators were faithful people of God. The HCSB practically read as the ESV, when placed side by side. That said, I think the CSB can make inroads with other denominations if simply picked up and read. I use it in lesson preparation but always teach from the nkjv for the familiarity of my class. Thank you- I’m going to download the book you referenced.
Agree with you 100%. CSB is solid for clarity and understanding. Also, his off handed dismissal of the MEV surprised me. I am in a Bible study that uses the ESV and I compare the text to the MEV as we go. The MEV makes more sense. The updated and corrected version of the MEV should be out soon. Thanks for your observations.
@@Americanninjaman I can confirm that the plan is to release it by the end of the year. This information came from both the head of the translation committee and the publisher.
@@nobodyspecial1852There’s already print form available here in Australia but very few option. I only see one copy in small font size, I really hope it will come in more choices like NKJV with notes as well. It’ll be fantastic.
I attend a church that uses the ESV and for me personally it’s okay… I grew up on the KJV I have recently started reading the CSB and it has revived my desire for reading the Bible daily! What a blessing
@@cam82161 G'day Mate, thanks for the comment. I use the CSB with passages like Rev 3:14 "...(CSB) the originator of God’s creation:"instead of the JWs preferred Beginning of God's creation. Even though the KJV and others use "Beginning" which is correct, it is more ambiguous and is confusing to an English reader of the bible, the Greek is more precise. Also in Jude verse 5 the CSB uses "...(CSB) that Jesus saved a people out of Egypt..." instead of the KJV and some others "Lord". This verse in the New World Translation uses Jehovah, so I'm able to demonstrate Jesus is Jehovah from this verse. As you correctly pointed out Colossians 1 :15 -20 reads so beautifully with the CSB. I hope that helps. The CSB is a rock solid translation. The HCSB is also a great translation. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and God bless.
@@RowanTasmanian CSB - John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side-he has revealed him. Romans 9:5 The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen. In the "ancient christian commentary" you can see a citation that supports translating John 1:18 as the CSB has it. This is not some new way of citing this verse. Anyway, thought I would share these too!
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Thank you for the comment, however I never implied "This is not some new way of citing this verse." I use the CSB for Cults due to its rendering of certain verses that cause less confusion and ambiguity than some other translations. I also use the Nasb 95, KJV (sometimes)NKJV Nasb 2020 , ESV, NIV, NET NRSV, LSB, even the NLT. It all depends on the Cult member and their educational and cultural requirements. I own about 25 bibles and each one has their strengths The CSB is a great all rounder. It has great scholarship (along with the others mentioned.) BTW, I am getting into the NJV New Jerusalem Version, which uses the AV text but is done from a Messianic Jew perspective and uses Yeshua instead of Jesus and uses YHWH in Hebrew letters when using the Divine name amongst many other difference to standard English versions. Thank you.
I’ve been reading the HCSB on kindle for a couple of months. I think I actually prefer it to the CSB. Been reading the ASV 1901 on kindle too which is also great.
Hi Tim. Thank you SO MUCH for this video. I too watched Matthew's video, and was quite surprised that his "champion" was the KJV, when he tells the viewers that he uses the ESV daily and from the pulpit. Go figure! I have been a CSB Bible reader/user for 3 years now. I LOVE this translation. It is SO FRESH in its wording. Read Prov. 1:33. WOW! How very relatable (especially during the pandemic!). I use the CSB Study Bible daily, and while it is very good, it does lean towards Calvinism in its study notes. However, the WORD STUDIES included in this version are so very useful and helpful. It has a lot of great features going for it. The readability level is outstanding. I also own the ESV Study Bible, and find that both of them compliment one another, especially in the study notes. I often recommend the CSB to my brothers and sisters because I like its translational balance. And the fact that it is a NEW, rather than revised translation. Thanks again for all you do! d
Thanks Tim. This reminds me of the first time I read the NET Bible through. I was forced to pay attention because it was so very different from the NIV which I had been reading for 40 years. Sometimes I realize that I have unintentionally parked my brain in neutral due to extreme familiarity. For that reason alone I think it’s a good idea to read multiple (responsible) translations. CSB is one of my favorites.
I totally agree with you. The reason for reading different translations is to get new words in familiar places so that the text comes alive in a new way
I found a CSB Bible at a thrift store and picked it up. Other than Psalm 23’s translation, I rather like it. I had to get over my traditional bias, but the CSB is a good translation for widespread ministry.
I like the CSB, but for me, one of its strengths is also one of its weaknesses. It is so easy reading and so modern, it loses a lot of the Bible’s poetry and beauty. I think it is a good pairing with the NKJV. Great video.
I agree with you! In general I really like the CSB except in the poetic sections. The Psalms are the most obvious, but of course there are other poetics sections in the Bible too. 1. Depending on how one counts, my understanding is poetry does make up around 1/4th to 1/3rd of the Bible. If so, then it's not an insignificant matter. 2. I prefer the rhythms and cadences as well as the choice of words and ordering of words in the poetic sections of (say) the ESV to the CSB. After all, the Bible (or at least much of it) is meant to be heard as well as read. Or at least it was originally first heard, then read after it was transcribed onto scrolls and after enough people became sufficiently literate. And no more is this true than in the poems and songs of biblical Israel. I find the aural power or force of the CSB is quite diminished when I don't think the original biblical poetry necessarily is. 3. In fairness, I think the CSB is a highly accurate translation. I know most place the CSB at a mediating spot near the NIV, but I'd say it's closer to a formal equivalence translation like the ESV. Either that or if the CSB is in fact nearer the NIV, then the NIV ought to be considered closer to a formal equivalence translation than a mediating translation (I say cheekily)! In any case, I have no qualms about the CSB's accuracy or reliability or faithfulness to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. I'd even say it's one of the best in terms of accuracy. 4. But again, the CSB does so at the expense of the "music". True, it's never been easy to translate poetry from one language into another, but there are certainly better and worse translations, since, for one thing, there are many different ways to express the same idea in English. However I find the CSB does a pedestrian job with respect to the biblical poetry in English. I think even the NIV and the NLT are better, though of course there are other significant trade-offs or costs in these latter translations (e.g. it is likely easier to be more poetic if one plays faster and looser with structural or syntactic faithfulness to the text, if one isn't as strict with the parallelisms). To reiterate, the CSB is reliably serviceable but it simply lacks flavor. Its poetry comes across more like a translation with ears tuned to linguistic technicalities than to harp or lyre or other instruments the psalmists used to compose their praises and laments and so forth. This is somewhat ironic since I believe the musician and songwriter Michael Card is the CSB's main style consultant. 5. I say all this not because I wish (like Leland Ryken, the ESV's main style editor) to make the apparently viciously circular argument that the Bible ought to "sound like the Bible". (Indeed the ESV often sounds more like Yoda than any non-fictional person; at least the KJV sounds like Shakespeare or someone from the era. The ESV is more a mishmash or Duke's mixture. Though I like the ESV.) Nor because I was raised on the KJV. I wasn't. I'm a millennial and my first significant encounter with God's Word and my first readthrough of the entire Bible was in the NIV. Rather I wish to see what the biblical scholar Don Carson has said in his paper "The limits of functional equivalence in Bible translation - and other limits, too": "One thinks, by analogy, of the brilliant recent translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney. Within the constraints of terms and idioms that simply must be preserved, Heaney manages to bring to life an astonishingly ‘contemporary’ translation that nevertheless pulsates with the life of ancient Scandinavian mythological heroes.” So far, I don't believe such a translation exists in the English language. Alter's Hebrew Bible may come closest in English, or perhaps the NEB/REB, but theologically these are fairly liberal, whereas I'm a conservative evangelical and a Reformed Christian, which makes it harder to stomach. 6. I think the best case for eschewing literary beauty is in the Greek NT. Most of the NT isn't literarily beautiful, perhaps with the exceptions of Hebrews as well as parts of Luke-Acts, viz. the prologue of Luke. I think C.S. Lewis may have put it best: "The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is a sort of ‘basic’ Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language. Does this shock us? It ought not to, except as the Incarnation itself ought to shock us. The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman’s breast, and later an arrested field-preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that he should be preaching in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other. The Incarnation is in that sense an irreverent doctrine: Christianity, in that sense, an incurably irreverent religion. When we expect that it should have come before the Word in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorized Version we are as wide of the mark as the Jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly king. The real sanctity, the real beauty and sublimity of the New Testament (as of Christ’s life) are of a different sort: miles deeper or further in." Hence, if the original isn't written in a beautiful or elegant or elevated register, then why should our translations be? Indeed, it's quite arguable the NT in the KJV has a superior literary style to the style of the original NT! 7. However, I don't think this is necessarily the case for the biblical Hebrew, is it? For instance, see the work of the literary scholars Robert Alter and Harold Bloom on the biblical Hebrew. By and large, both men are secular Jews, but both are likewise highly sensitive to beautiful literary style, and as such are immensely helpful when speaking to the issue. They seem to argue much of the biblical Hebrew is quite beautiful in its own right. If so, then our translations should reflect that beauty. 8. All that said, perhaps my literary evaluation of the CSB's poetry is mistaken or sorely mistaken. Perhaps it is better or far better than I think it is. That's certainly a possibility, though I don't know if I'd say plausibility or probability. It could be I myself have a tin ear or poor palette for literary excellence. If this is the rejoinder to what I've said, then I suppose the best way to settle it is to go back and forth on what constitutes good literary style and, just as importantly, what constitutes good readers in contrast to poorer readers, by which I mean what C.S. Lewis, for one, meant in An Experiment in Criticism. And speaking of Lewis, these following words from his paper "Fern-seeds and elephants" are worth considering too: "First then, whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading. It sounds a strange charge to bring against men who have been steeped in those books all their lives. But that might be just the trouble. A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them. If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel." 9. Still, I don't wish to throw stones at the CSB - or at least not too many! It is an excellent translation in most other ways. I often use the CSB in my own reading and study. It is the translation I recommend to most people, especially new Christians. And if one major aspect of a Bible translation must be lost before losing others, then surely literary style ought to go before accuracy, clarity, naturalness. The Bible wasn't primarily written for the literati but for the plough boy. It was meant to be understood, first and foremost, so that it could be loved and lived (e.g. 1 Cor 14:19), not merely admired for aesthetics alone.
Thanks for recommending the CSB over the years, Tim! I recently bought a 2020 Thinline and love it! I think it's smoother and more familiar than the HCSB. I think they finally got it right!
In the July statistics of sales in Christian Book Expo, it comes in at #2 in sales, behind the NIV. I think it is a valuable rendering of Scripture, bridging the gap between formal equivalent and more of a thought for thought philosophy. It does convey very well the original texts in English.
We are in a rare time when we really have too many English versions to keep up with. I don’t know that they are all necessary but I am grateful for so many good choices. I’m elderly, so I started my life with the KJV, then the RSV, and then the NIV based on the churches I was attending. I eventually ended up in a Reformed/Presby church that used the ESV. As far as my favorites, I use the ESV primarily as it remains my church’s main text. I have a NKJV that I very much like. I recently purchased as LSB for it being a “revision” of the NASB and I like the use of the covenant name of God, Yahweh, in the OT along with the precision of translation. I use the 1984 NIV with my wife in study as she is not a native English speaker and it is the English version she can understand most easily, I have yet to use the CSB as I only have so much life!! 😄 Sounds like a solid translation. For a study Bible, I love the New Geneva in NKJV and the ESV study Bible.
After some initial skepticism I'm really fond of the CSB now and it's become my daily reading bible. And I saybthatbas someone who used to be very suspicious of everything apart from the KJV and ESV.
HCSB illistrated study Bible, in my opinion, one of the VERY BEST in its class. It's a great translation, reminds me of a mix of LSB and ESV. CBS Holy Lands illistrated Bible is also an incredible Bible. Highly recommend them.
Very informative. I have the CSB on Olive Tree but haven't given it much attention. I thought that, back in the day, the Southern Baptists developed the HCSB because of dissatisfaction with the NIV, in particular its then-upcoming revisions, and just wanted their own translation to support their publications. This video peaked my interest. I'll have to read the book and spend some time with the CSB. Thanks.
I honestly wish their was a way the csb and 84 niv could be put togethor. I love both. The csb for excellent readability but also the 84 niv for some of its translation ideas and sentence structure. The 84 niv to me is honestly the best in terms of sentence structure and of course it was the translation I used when I first trusted in Christ.
I thought the same thing when I watched that video of his. I happened to watch his video this morning on his three preferred translations and at the end he speaks briefly about others that he doesn’t have a problem with, but just doesn’t use. He spoke a bit more on csb and how he saw it as Holmans attempt to have an ESV equivalent and didn’t seem to have any issues with that. Interesting video if you haven’t seen it already.
When considering the gold-standard ESV Study Bible, the CSB Study Bible is outstanding -- definitely the Number Two spot. I actually prefer the CSB Study Bible over the NIV Study Bible! I can't believe I just wrote that sentence ... but it's true. You get a fantastic, in-depth study Bible along with the outstanding, optimal-translation CSB. You can't go wrong.
The CSB got me back to reading my Bible again. I've since moved to the NKJV, but still keep my CSB handy. Would like it better if it wasn't for the gender choices they made.
The difference in the source material available when the KJV was written compared to what is available with modern translations is significant. I am a fan of the HSCB and have a Kindle and leather version of that Bible. I also have a CSB study Bible that I've used the last three years. The church I attend use the ESV, so I have a copy of that as well. I just recently purchased a copy of the Legacy Standard Bible, but haven't had a chance to explore/compare it yet. When I do my Bible study I like to compare different translations because it gives me better perspective/insight. In my church study group, it's a mix of ESV and a few KJV, and me with my CSB. I'm often asked when we read scripture for discussion how the CSB words a particular scripture for that purpose. It isn't that one is more correct than another, it's more about fully grasping what is being said by comparing the differences. I also just received a copy of the Charles Spurgeon Study Bible you recently reviewed, so I'm anxious to dig into that as well. As far as translations go, I know people and churches that are KJV only, and others that encourage the use of one translation over another. I'm old enough that I grew up with the KJV. Then the NIV came out and the church my mom attended switched to that because they believed it was more relatable and would attract young people to the congregation. I've always preferred a more literal translation and used the NASB 1995 for many years. After watching channels like yours where different translations are discussed, I began to explore different translations. That's how I found the HSCB and It's a really good translation in my opinion.
Thank you for such a polite and balanced video, i really like you approach and attitude. I used to be KJV only but then had to swallow my pride&ego as i leaned more on the subject.
I'm just finishing up my second read through of the CSB in a year. I'm using the Chronological, and I will say that I LOVE the textblock - very nice typeface and font size, single column, and lovely wide margins! Keeping in mind that I am coming from a definite preference for the NKJV (yeah, I'm a bit of a traditionalist, sorta), I do like the CSB but find a few renderings jarring (TO ME!), most notably using "Lord of Armies" vs "Lord of Hosts." Again, I'm not a translation expert, and I am a bit of a stick in the mud for original-to-my-mind wording. Also - and AGAIN, it's a quibble! - I do wish that references to Deity were capitalized as in the NKJV, but I think that only happens with the NKJV and the LSB(?). Is there a video somewhere talking about when/why translators started adding that capitalization and why modern translators do/don't? Anywhoooo, the CSB is a nice translation, I like it well enough, but my heart is still with the NKJV ;-)
im right there with you. i was disappointed that he knocked it out so soon. also surprised how personal i took it to heart. i mean come on the csb is where its at. i have friends that are frustrated because they just dont understand what they are reading. i try pointing them to the csb and they will not listen to me. its frustrating
I love Pastor Everhard’s channel and remember watching his video. Personally, I didn't like the way he formed up the brackets in the first round. I do like the CSB by the way. My favorite is the NASB95 followed by the NKJV. I have been preaching from the CSB lately though.
What was wrong with the HCSB? It was a great translation I loved it. Very informative easy to understand. It had the difference’s in question of ancient manuscripts being used in translation. I loved the fact they used Yahweh! The Father’s true name “Learn Hebrew and you’ll understand why” cbs took out Yahweh and didn’t show the differences in scriptures. It’s not as good.
I think to see how they move away from traditional readings to more accurate translations, psalm 23 is a good example. At first your sad, because it's lost the phrases that mean enough to you, but whe I was preaching on it, it was amazing how much happier the commentaters would have been with CSB's translation. And the depth of meaning is still there to be meditated and preached on, just not with the (slightly innacurate) traditional way. I have now pretty much learnt the CSB psalm 23, and have been incredibly noursihed by it. ( I guess as you would be from any good translation! Thank you Holy spirit!)
The CSB is maybe the best all around translation. The NASB 2020 is a good all around bible as well. Having grown up with the RSV, it is very very close to the ESV.
I love both of your guy's channels and enjoyed Pastor Matt's latest video overall. His take on the CSB though was way off and made me a bit angry. Thanks for responding in a deeper and more articulate way than I could.
I really love the HCSB, I have been reading it for several years. I have most all of the popular translations and have read them all as well. But none of them 'fit' me like the old and discontinued HCSB which I Iove.❤
Yes. Fresh. CSB got my attention with "The Lord of ARMIES ...". Just what I needed in 2020 when I decided to start over and allow the Bible tell me what it is trying to say.
While I read οὕτως «in this way» both Jn 3:16 & 1 John 4:11. The adverb could be translated as: a marker of a relatively high degree = so greatly. In fact this is how BDAG renders the word οὕτως in a similar passage (1 Jn 4:11), which would read like this: Dear loved ones, if God «so intensely» loved us, we also must love one another. FYI: BDAG is an authoritative Greek lexicon (dictionary). All this to say that it is not 100% for sure to be understood as «in this way». Reading the Greek we have options and we're not always certain which direction we should go.
I was watching that video yesterday as well. I had to scratch my head a bit when Everhard said he wasn't sure we needed the CSB, considering it was going up against the LSB which is basically NASB95: The MacArthur Edition. Pastor Matt even mentioned that he didn't like the new NIV and the '84 is no longer in print. Wouldn't that be a good enough reason to have the CSB?
I've read quite a bit about NIV 1984 vs 2011 and I haven't read both cover to cover (simultaneous cross reference) in the last year but I probably have done 25-50% (aside from just cherry picking the contested verses or methodology) and honestly I think they did fine. If "they/their" is the only issue then I don't know what to say, I don't like calling women men either..... From the snippets of TNIV I've read it seems they really did force it, and the apprehension of a future attempt I get, but that's ANY UPDATE from any publisher. All organizations get infiltrated (publishers, churches, printing companies) and compromised, be vigilant and buy extra favored copies when you think you've struck gold. NKJV hasn't been updated since 1982, something to consider regarding stability.
@@nobodyspecial1852 Yeah, I think I agree with your assessment. I dig the NKJV for its language, accuracy, and textual notes (only translation that specifies the Majority text in the footnotes). I don’t hate NIV. My point is just that CSB is far more useful for us than the LSB.
@@christianchavez4086 I've tried parallel reading with the CSB occasionally but it's never clicked for me. I haven't tried LSB as I don't like NASB, both are highly regarded on principal but I can't sit and read NASB.
First question if you see this; of the HCSB or CSB, which do you think would be best to use, in your opinion? I do like both but each have just enough differences to make me needing to stick with one. Like you in a video a little while back, I pair my CSB with my NKJV. Both are great translations. I have been on the lookout for HCSB's with the last revsion of 2009 for a while. Really, almost too much. But if there is a good deal on one, I will snag it up. The HCSB copyright 2009 is the last one before the CSB 2017. So if you want the "best" edition of the HCSB, look for that year in the pub/copyright. I also have the HCSB Study Bible and it is very good.
Nearly the entirety of my reading is done view electronics. On both phone and laptop. This is due to the enormous amount of information i have access to with various bible programs. That said. On my phone the CSB version was default for the Blue Letter Bible app which is the device and app i most use for my personal reading. i routinely use several different apps and especially on the laptop tend to jump around in translations. Over all i have found the CSB to be in the top 3 favorite version for me. It might even be my favorite overall version. When i compare verses in various bible versions. More often than not. The CSB will be in the top 3 of what i think is the best compromise between likely accuracy and readability.
I got the full size coming today. For me, the ESV works great for single/chapter look up, but awful for "novel" type reading. The nlt is too liberal/loose. I was reading my NT only csb last night for fun randomly, and I actually really liked the readability. There's no fluff either, just the text pretty much, and not 800 foot notes. my ESV in buffalo leather is lovely but the paper is trash. Too thin. The csb type serif is also really nice on the eyes. I think it was this that steered me toward csb too. Kjv for example, reads awful cause the times new roman type is bleck on the eyes
The HCSB has been my favorite for many years. I thought the CSB was a revision, interesting to know it is a new translation. I hope they don’t stop printing HCSB.
The CSB is indeed a revision of the HCSB. Tim is saying that the (H)CSB is a new translation. In other words, he's counting all four editions (2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020) as the same translation.
He should have put it up against the NIV and the LSB against the NASB. The CSB is far better than the NIV and the LSB is better than the NASB. We have just started attending a church that uses the CSB as it’s primary. I have started using it and do enjoy it. I still personally use the LSB as my main. I also use the ESV and NKJV quite often. The CSB has really grown on me though. My wife loves it. Holman has created a bunch of great study Bibles in CSB. The quality of their printers for their Heirloom editions is very inconsistent in my experience though. I would love to see them either start using Royal Jongbloed or find better printers in China or Korea. Whoever Thomas Nelson and Zondervan use for their Premier Collection Bibles is far better than who Holman uses.
I use HCSB. It and the TLB “tree of life bible” are the best in my opinion both were translated from a committee, of 70 from the newish discovered manuscripts MMS TLB places the books of the OT in the Jewish order and is more messianic in focused both are great I study with the inner lateral and come up with my own translation
You're right. I misspoke in this video. I meant to say the ESV is a revision of the RSV. You can tell I meant the RSV because I said it was a revision of the ASV. I'll pin a note with the correction. Thanks!
So, Tim serious question. I don't mean to start any kind of controversy or anything, just looking for an honest thoughtful opinion. Once a bible has been revised, do you believe the older version has any continuing merit? What I mean is, for example, the NLT replaced the Living Bible, in the same way the CSB replaced the HCSB, so do the earlier versions retain any real value? I may not have phrased it completely right, but I'm sure you get what I'm asking. I would love your opinion on this issue. Thanks.
@@tonyb408 agreed. I think LifeWay wanted to compete with crossway. They needed a translation to use in material that they didn't have to pay licensing fees on. The HCSB didn't take off how they hoped, so they revised it.
@@45paisleyThe same goes for all other bible publishers as well cos it is a commercial world. Same for the different brands of practically everything under the Sun. But a lot of good came out of it. I read the NKJV and ESV for the literal beauty, the CSB for clarity, and NASB for literal accuracy. Thank God for all the faithful translations of His word 🙏
Thank you for a great video!...but I will like to know what software you used to switch between different translations...I will really appreciate if you can share to deepen my insight into the word of God...Thanks!
I don’t think I saw you speak on the differences between the HSCB and the CSB. They are somewhat different. I also believe there were different plans for the HCSB. The CSB is not what was hoped for. Hopefully I’ll see some of that in the book you highlighted.
I prefer the NKJV cause it uses the MT (MASORETIC TEX) and TR (TEXTUS RECEPTUS), why? Cause when God raised the Reformers to translate the Scripture into Spanish, English, German, French, Italian and Portuguese, God lead them to use these both soucers MT and TR, they have all the verses that the modern translations have omitted (NIV, LSB, NLT, NASB, CSB, HCSB, ESV, NCV, NET), these verses are mentioned by the Fathers of the Church, (centuries I, II, II, IV) in their works, so this is an evidence and prove that these omitted verses are without doubts part of the Scriptures, that's why I use the NKJV as my main bible translation.
I’m a southern Baptist that owns two copy’s of the CSB. But I agree with Matt. Another translation we really didn’t need. Every time I read it it just falls flat. Also tired of translations removing masculine words from versus of the Bible. Don’t believe me look up 1 Corinthians 16:13 and Ephesians 4:13 in the CSB. Funny how Men was mentioned in both them versus in the original HCSB and from what I understand it’s in the original language……….Only conservative literal translations will get my money from now on.
Correction: I meant to say the ESV is a revision of the RSV (not the RV).
Our church moved to the CSB more than two years ago and it has been invaluable to us making disciples for Christ. It’s accurate, relevant, and understandable for new and growing Christians.
That's great!
The CSB is my main translation. I use it for Scripture reading, memory, and preaching and teaching. I use other translations / revisions on a regular basis for study comparison etc (NASB, ESV, LAB, NLT, NET, NIV). I read King James for its beauty occasionally. I tell folks the best translation for them is the one they will read and apply on a regular basis
I watched Dr Everhart’s video and thought about you when he talked about the CSB😆. I’m not surprised that you comment on it. Great job 👍
As someone new to faith, the readability of the CSB has helped me consume more scripture. I love it
Love it! And love Pastor Everhard as well. The CSB is something I got really excited about in 2017 when it first came out as an update to the HCSB. I think of it as a step between the ESV and NIV on the imaginary spectrum, but where it is more dynamic, it does so to prevent misapplication of the text. It looks far more formal in places where the words are clear to today's audience. It takes away the archaic mystique so to say.
Thank you. I saw him dismiss the CSB yesterday and facepalmed. You have provided a much more mature response in this video.
I love both Matthew Everhard and Tim Frisch's channels. I agree it'd be good if Pastor Everhard could give more consideration to the CSB. Also, I think one irony is that Pastor Everhard had the CSB vs. the LSB, but the main reason he waived off the CSB in favor of the LSB was because he didn't really see a need for it or why it even exists. The irony is that the same criticism could be applied to the LSB! The LSB is in essence a revision to the NASB95 produced by scholars at The Master's Seminary (of John MacArthur's ministry). Now the LSB is a solid translation, and I have no major problems with the LSB, but one can also ask the same question that Pastor Everhard asks about the CSB about the LSB: is there really that much of a need for the LSB? I'm sure there are stalwart defenders of the LSB including John MacArthur and most at TMS, but for example see Mark Ward's article "A Rising Tide Sinks All Boats: The Legacy Standard Bible and Stewarding the Church's Trust" for a counterpoint. Again, I appreciate the LSB and the CSB, and both translations are solid, but all I'm saying is that the same criticism Pastor Everhard levels against the CSB could be leveled against the LSB too.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.
I agree totally. The LSB was not a necessary translation.
I had the same thought!
Well done Tim. HCSB is the translation I use the most. Thank you for telling us about the book about the HCSB as well.
You're welcome!
LOVE my CSB study bible! Have had it for a few months now in my circles lots of interest in CSB and folks purchasing a CSB as their go to study Bible.
Greetings Tim and thank you so much for this much needed response video. A while back you made a video about the combination of the NKJV and the CSB (I tried to find it but it looks like it’s been removed) In it as far as I remember, that textus receptus manuscripts, the traditional renderings of the NKJV; along with the critical text manuscripts, the modern renderings of the CSB; as well as the footnotes on both of them, they make a strong combination. I couldn’t agree with you more. You definitely nailed it. For me personally is “a match made in heaven!!” The CSB does what it says is intended to do. It’s right between the ESV and the NIV; more clear than the former and somewhat more conservative than the latter. And just like the NASB, the messianic prophecies as well as the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are in bold letters. Plus for me personally if I’m short on time and need a good read of God’s word, the CSB delivers in clarity and up to the point. For those who haven’t tried it, I invite them to check it out. Again Tim, thank you and many blessings to you and yours ❤❤❤!!!
Love your videos and am impressed by your information. Based on this, I bought the CSB and ❤ it. Thank you. 😊
Great video. My church uses the ESV, so I use it for church and Wednesday night study. But at home, for my own reading time, it's CSB! 😊😃
My wife and me were doing our readings through the Bible late last year. She loves her CSB bible. And I was using my NIV bible (it says 1984 version) along side. When we went through the readings, I found differences from the NIV compared to the CSB bible that were different to me. That is to say, the CSB , for me, had much more clarity and not as vague as the NIV. But that’s just my opinion. And, needless to say, I’m not a bible scholar, and this is how I felt reading in comparison.
The CSB is actually useful: a masterclass in using dynamic equivalence when necessary without rewriting the Bible. The LSB is totally redundant: it's the Divine Name NASB, nothing more. Easy match.
I like the Nasb and I read the LSB it is accurate translation as well i would prefer the more literal translations than dynamic like CSB in my opinion especially when alot of verses they don't have in the text. I just believe it's best just to leave them in the text because u don't have the original manuscripts so not going to know which text is right the majority text ,textus receptus or the critical text. Every translation has what u need to make through this life
@WordForursoul2 I really wish the LSB revision team would have practiced correspondence more. They don't really practice correspondence with the words for desire, often translating them as "lust" although th words for "desire" and "lust" (chamad in Heb. and epithumia in Grk.) are often the same words. Where it says "Flee youthful lust" the word used there is epithumia, which is the same word used by Paul to refer to his desire to see fellow believers or to be with Christ. A good way to maintain correspondance would be to translate the phrase as "Flee juvenile desires."
Also, how the CSB translates John 3:16 is actually more literal than how the LSB translates it, so I don't think they're being that consistent.
Now, I don't agree with everything done in the CSB translation, but that is one of the good things about this translation. I also prefer the CSB with how Exodus 20 is translated: "Do not..." is more straight forward in modern English than "You shall not..." To someone who doesn't understand the difference between "shall" and "will," it can be confusing. It also can come off as a bit pedantic.
I prefer how the ESV translates 2 Tim. 3:16 because theopneustos refers specifically to God exhaling, not breathing in and out. And the NIV2011 gets closer to the meaning of Php. 4:13.
Anyways, each of these translations have their own strengths. I haven't been able to find any unique to the LSB though. The CSB translates echad as "one" in Gen. 1:5, and LEB also uses Yahweh (one thing I wish the CSB would have retained from the HCSB).
I also do like the NKJV I think it is a good translation as well
I enjoy the LSB having God’s name restored. That said the NASB95 is good too. CSB, NIV, NLT, & NASB2020 is great if you don’t mind the gender neutral stuff that doesn’t match up at all with the original Hebrew or Greek.
MacArthur had the LSB made to be a direct revision of the NASB95 to skip over the 2020 one he considers to be very inferior.
Just a thought. Tbh I’m just glad ppl are reading Bibles.
Prayer before reading and asking for discernment and help of the Holy Spirit does make things quite good no matter what version.
We are blessed to have so many choices.
I love the NKJV, @@WordForursoul2... I just wish they'd do a revision wherein some antiquated words get updated. That's all. No more. There's so much to love about the NKJV!!
The HCSB/CSB is for me a balance point between the NASB/ESV to the NIV.
I cannot speak for Dr. Everhard , however; he has spent time explaining why he ended up supporting a majority text in translation philosophy. More especially given his Presbyterian background. And when Adhering to the Westminster confessional catechism, “ God’s word has been preserved throughout the ages” , and in this case the divine’s based the catechism on the AV.
The CSB when compared to other translations on Blue letter Bible is a faithful translation. The translators were faithful people of God. The HCSB practically read as the ESV, when placed side by side. That said, I think the CSB can make inroads with other denominations if simply picked up and read. I use it in lesson preparation but always teach from the nkjv for the familiarity of my class. Thank you- I’m going to download the book you referenced.
Agree with you 100%. CSB is solid for clarity and understanding. Also, his off handed dismissal of the MEV surprised me. I am in a Bible study that uses the ESV and I compare the text to the MEV as we go. The MEV makes more sense. The updated and corrected version of the MEV should be out soon. Thanks for your observations.
May I ask where you heard of this news? I hope it's true I've emailed them twice concerning the reprint of the large print MEV but they don't respond.
@@Americanninjaman I can confirm that the plan is to release it by the end of the year. This information came from both the head of the translation committee and the publisher.
@@MAMorenoI haven't followed it closely but AFAIK it was a dead project. I'm glad there is hope.
@@nobodyspecial1852There’s already print form available here in Australia but very few option. I only see one copy in small font size, I really hope it will come in more choices like NKJV with notes as well. It’ll be fantastic.
@@detellszone thanks, I'll look for it now so I have a specific lead to follow.
I attend a church that uses the ESV and for me personally it’s okay… I grew up on the KJV
I have recently started reading the CSB and it has revived my desire for reading the Bible daily! What a blessing
I Love the CSB: a fresh translation from the Critical Text, that really compliments my KJV and NKJV readings. Great job!
Thank you, Tim. The Christian Standard Bible has become a favorite of mine. I use it in my daily readings.
The CSB is one of my main translations I use against the Cults like JWs and Mormons. It's fantastic and thank you Tim for defending this translation.
What a great thought. Do you mean specifically Colossians ?
@@cam82161 G'day Mate, thanks for the comment. I use the CSB with passages like Rev 3:14 "...(CSB) the originator of God’s creation:"instead of the JWs preferred Beginning of God's creation.
Even though the KJV and others use "Beginning" which is correct, it is more ambiguous and is confusing to an English reader of the bible, the Greek is more precise.
Also in Jude verse 5 the CSB uses "...(CSB) that Jesus saved a people out of Egypt..." instead of the KJV and some others "Lord". This verse in the New World Translation uses Jehovah, so I'm able to demonstrate Jesus is Jehovah from this verse.
As you correctly pointed out Colossians 1 :15 -20 reads so beautifully with the CSB.
I hope that helps. The CSB is a rock solid translation. The HCSB is also a great translation.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and God bless.
The HCSB is one of my main translations. Others are ESV, NASB95, LEB (Lexham English Bible), and AMP!
@@RowanTasmanian CSB - John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side-he has revealed him.
Romans 9:5 The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.
In the "ancient christian commentary" you can see a citation that supports translating John 1:18 as the CSB has it. This is not some new way of citing this verse. Anyway, thought I would share these too!
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Thank you for the comment, however I never implied "This is not some new way of citing this verse."
I use the CSB for Cults due to its rendering of certain verses that cause less confusion and ambiguity than some other translations.
I also use the Nasb 95, KJV (sometimes)NKJV Nasb 2020 , ESV, NIV, NET NRSV, LSB, even the NLT.
It all depends on the Cult member and their educational and cultural requirements.
I own about 25 bibles and each one has their strengths
The CSB is a great all rounder.
It has great scholarship (along with the others mentioned.)
BTW, I am getting into the NJV New Jerusalem Version, which uses the AV text but is done from a Messianic Jew perspective and uses Yeshua instead of Jesus and uses YHWH in Hebrew letters when using the Divine name amongst many other difference to standard English versions.
Thank you.
Interesting talk about the CSB! I have recently picked one up myself and am enjoying it. (The Spurgeon Bible). I also enjoy Dr. Everhard’s videos.
I’ve been reading the HCSB on kindle for a couple of months. I think I actually prefer it to the CSB. Been reading the ASV 1901 on kindle too which is also great.
I think overall I like the 2009 HCSB better than the CSB. I liked the footnotes more and they made some bold moves I thought were cool.
You have done and are doing a fantastic job. Many thanks for drawing you distinction between a version and a translation. Good work!
Hi Tim. Thank you SO MUCH for this video. I too watched Matthew's video, and was quite surprised that his "champion" was the KJV, when he tells the viewers that he uses the ESV daily and from the pulpit. Go figure! I have been a CSB Bible reader/user for 3 years now. I LOVE this translation. It is SO FRESH in its wording. Read Prov. 1:33. WOW! How very relatable (especially during the pandemic!). I use the CSB Study Bible daily, and while it is very good, it does lean towards Calvinism in its study notes. However, the WORD STUDIES included in this version are so very useful and helpful. It has a lot of great features going for it. The readability level is outstanding. I also own the ESV Study Bible, and find that both of them compliment one another, especially in the study notes. I often recommend the CSB to my brothers and sisters because I like its translational balance. And the fact that it is a NEW, rather than revised translation. Thanks again for all you do! d
I believe Pastor Everhard has said that he uses ESV because it is easier for the congregation and new people in general.
Hi Tim, I found this video very helpful to help clear up the HCSB/CSB for myself. Great response to Pastor Everhard's video as well.
Thanks Tim. This reminds me of the first time I read the NET Bible through. I was forced to pay attention because it was so very different from the NIV which I had been reading for 40 years. Sometimes I realize that I have unintentionally parked my brain in neutral due to extreme familiarity. For that reason alone I think it’s a good idea to read multiple (responsible) translations. CSB is one of my favorites.
I totally agree with you. The reason for reading different translations is to get new words in familiar places so that the text comes alive in a new way
Thank you😍 Excellent teacher. Very calming/patient mentoring style/personality.
Love your videos man. Thanks for all you do.
I found a CSB Bible at a thrift store and picked it up. Other than Psalm 23’s translation, I rather like it. I had to get over my traditional bias, but the CSB is a good translation for widespread ministry.
Love the CSB , I read it daily along with NASB, ESV . Love the grammar and syntax
Now my main Bible translations are CSB and NKJV after watching Tim's videos.
They are absolutely the best translations to read and study side by side.
Same here 😊
I like the CSB, but for me, one of its strengths is also one of its weaknesses. It is so easy reading and so modern, it loses a lot of the Bible’s poetry and beauty. I think it is a good pairing with the NKJV. Great video.
The Bible translates into English, not biblish!
Yeah I love and pair my CSB with my NKJV as well. Beautiful combo!
I agree with you! In general I really like the CSB except in the poetic sections. The Psalms are the most obvious, but of course there are other poetics sections in the Bible too.
1. Depending on how one counts, my understanding is poetry does make up around 1/4th to 1/3rd of the Bible. If so, then it's not an insignificant matter.
2. I prefer the rhythms and cadences as well as the choice of words and ordering of words in the poetic sections of (say) the ESV to the CSB. After all, the Bible (or at least much of it) is meant to be heard as well as read. Or at least it was originally first heard, then read after it was transcribed onto scrolls and after enough people became sufficiently literate. And no more is this true than in the poems and songs of biblical Israel. I find the aural power or force of the CSB is quite diminished when I don't think the original biblical poetry necessarily is.
3. In fairness, I think the CSB is a highly accurate translation. I know most place the CSB at a mediating spot near the NIV, but I'd say it's closer to a formal equivalence translation like the ESV. Either that or if the CSB is in fact nearer the NIV, then the NIV ought to be considered closer to a formal equivalence translation than a mediating translation (I say cheekily)! In any case, I have no qualms about the CSB's accuracy or reliability or faithfulness to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. I'd even say it's one of the best in terms of accuracy.
4. But again, the CSB does so at the expense of the "music". True, it's never been easy to translate poetry from one language into another, but there are certainly better and worse translations, since, for one thing, there are many different ways to express the same idea in English. However I find the CSB does a pedestrian job with respect to the biblical poetry in English. I think even the NIV and the NLT are better, though of course there are other significant trade-offs or costs in these latter translations (e.g. it is likely easier to be more poetic if one plays faster and looser with structural or syntactic faithfulness to the text, if one isn't as strict with the parallelisms). To reiterate, the CSB is reliably serviceable but it simply lacks flavor. Its poetry comes across more like a translation with ears tuned to linguistic technicalities than to harp or lyre or other instruments the psalmists used to compose their praises and laments and so forth. This is somewhat ironic since I believe the musician and songwriter Michael Card is the CSB's main style consultant.
5. I say all this not because I wish (like Leland Ryken, the ESV's main style editor) to make the apparently viciously circular argument that the Bible ought to "sound like the Bible". (Indeed the ESV often sounds more like Yoda than any non-fictional person; at least the KJV sounds like Shakespeare or someone from the era. The ESV is more a mishmash or Duke's mixture. Though I like the ESV.) Nor because I was raised on the KJV. I wasn't. I'm a millennial and my first significant encounter with God's Word and my first readthrough of the entire Bible was in the NIV.
Rather I wish to see what the biblical scholar Don Carson has said in his paper "The limits of functional equivalence in Bible translation - and other limits, too": "One thinks, by analogy, of the brilliant recent translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney. Within the constraints of terms and idioms that simply must be preserved, Heaney manages to bring to life an astonishingly ‘contemporary’ translation that nevertheless pulsates with the life of ancient Scandinavian mythological heroes.”
So far, I don't believe such a translation exists in the English language. Alter's Hebrew Bible may come closest in English, or perhaps the NEB/REB, but theologically these are fairly liberal, whereas I'm a conservative evangelical and a Reformed Christian, which makes it harder to stomach.
6. I think the best case for eschewing literary beauty is in the Greek NT. Most of the NT isn't literarily beautiful, perhaps with the exceptions of Hebrews as well as parts of Luke-Acts, viz. the prologue of Luke. I think C.S. Lewis may have put it best:
"The New Testament in the original Greek is not a work of literary art: it is not written in a solemn, ecclesiastical language, it is written in the sort of Greek which was spoken over the eastern Mediterranean after Greek had become an international language and therefore lost its real beauty and subtlety. In it we see Greek used by people who have no real feeling for Greek words because Greek words are not the words they spoke when they were children. It is a sort of ‘basic’ Greek; a language without roots in the soil, a utilitarian, commercial and administrative language. Does this shock us? It ought not to, except as the Incarnation itself ought to shock us. The same divine humility which decreed that God should become a baby at a peasant-woman’s breast, and later an arrested field-preacher in the hands of the Roman police, decreed also that he should be preaching in a vulgar, prosaic and unliterary language. If you can stomach the one, you can stomach the other. The Incarnation is in that sense an irreverent doctrine: Christianity, in that sense, an incurably irreverent religion. When we expect that it should have come before the Word in all the beauty that we now feel in the Authorized Version we are as wide of the mark as the Jews were in expecting that the Messiah would come as a great earthly king. The real sanctity, the real beauty and sublimity of the New Testament (as of Christ’s life) are of a different sort: miles deeper or further in."
Hence, if the original isn't written in a beautiful or elegant or elevated register, then why should our translations be? Indeed, it's quite arguable the NT in the KJV has a superior literary style to the style of the original NT!
7. However, I don't think this is necessarily the case for the biblical Hebrew, is it? For instance, see the work of the literary scholars Robert Alter and Harold Bloom on the biblical Hebrew. By and large, both men are secular Jews, but both are likewise highly sensitive to beautiful literary style, and as such are immensely helpful when speaking to the issue. They seem to argue much of the biblical Hebrew is quite beautiful in its own right. If so, then our translations should reflect that beauty.
8. All that said, perhaps my literary evaluation of the CSB's poetry is mistaken or sorely mistaken. Perhaps it is better or far better than I think it is. That's certainly a possibility, though I don't know if I'd say plausibility or probability. It could be I myself have a tin ear or poor palette for literary excellence. If this is the rejoinder to what I've said, then I suppose the best way to settle it is to go back and forth on what constitutes good literary style and, just as importantly, what constitutes good readers in contrast to poorer readers, by which I mean what C.S. Lewis, for one, meant in An Experiment in Criticism. And speaking of Lewis, these following words from his paper "Fern-seeds and elephants" are worth considering too:
"First then, whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics. They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading. It sounds a strange charge to bring against men who have been steeped in those books all their lives. But that might be just the trouble. A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experience of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious thing about them. If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his palate is trained in detecting them by the flavour; not how many years he has spend on that Gospel."
9. Still, I don't wish to throw stones at the CSB - or at least not too many! It is an excellent translation in most other ways. I often use the CSB in my own reading and study. It is the translation I recommend to most people, especially new Christians. And if one major aspect of a Bible translation must be lost before losing others, then surely literary style ought to go before accuracy, clarity, naturalness. The Bible wasn't primarily written for the literati but for the plough boy. It was meant to be understood, first and foremost, so that it could be loved and lived (e.g. 1 Cor 14:19), not merely admired for aesthetics alone.
Thanks for recommending the CSB over the years, Tim! I recently bought a 2020 Thinline and love it! I think it's smoother and more familiar than the HCSB. I think they finally got it right!
Tim, great video! You make some excellent points here. If it's not broke don't change it, DOES have its downside.
I just read through it recently and love it, thx
Thanks Tim the CSB is one of the top of my Bibles
In the July statistics of sales in Christian Book Expo, it comes in at #2 in sales, behind the NIV. I think it is a valuable rendering of Scripture, bridging the gap between formal equivalent and more of a thought for thought philosophy. It does convey very well the original texts in English.
I like the CSB, I find it well balanced. The ESV is my prime translation, but I enjoy using the CSB & NIV for comparison in studying scripture. A
We are in a rare time when we really have too many English versions to keep up with. I don’t know that they are all necessary but I am grateful for so many good choices. I’m elderly, so I started my life with the KJV, then the RSV, and then the NIV based on the churches I was attending. I eventually ended up in a Reformed/Presby church that used the ESV. As far as my favorites, I use the ESV primarily as it remains my church’s main text. I have a NKJV that I very much like. I recently purchased as LSB for it being a “revision” of the NASB and I like the use of the covenant name of God, Yahweh, in the OT along with the precision of translation. I use the 1984 NIV with my wife in study as she is not a native English speaker and it is the English version she can understand most easily, I have yet to use the CSB as I only have so much life!! 😄 Sounds like a solid translation. For a study Bible, I love the New Geneva in NKJV and the ESV study Bible.
nice beard there
Tim yes i agree what you said about the CSB.i think the CSB is very good.
I’m really enjoying the book you recommended. Thanks for the suggestion.
First one of your videos that popped up in my feed in quite sometime
Thank you! I agree so much. The CSB is so good.
I’ve been reading the NKJV for 30 years. It’s hard for me to switch 😂. I may have to give the CSB a read and see.
Great video Tim. Thanks for sharing
After some initial skepticism I'm really fond of the CSB now and it's become my daily reading bible.
And I saybthatbas someone who used to be very suspicious of everything apart from the KJV and ESV.
Great job Tim! You edumacated me on multiple levels.
HCSB illistrated study Bible, in my opinion, one of the VERY BEST in its class. It's a great translation, reminds me of a mix of LSB and ESV. CBS Holy Lands illistrated Bible is also an incredible Bible. Highly recommend them.
Very informative. I have the CSB on Olive Tree but haven't given it much attention. I thought that, back in the day, the Southern Baptists developed the HCSB because of dissatisfaction with the NIV, in particular its then-upcoming revisions, and just wanted their own translation to support their publications. This video peaked my interest. I'll have to read the book and spend some time with the CSB. Thanks.
Another great balanced video. Thank you
I honestly wish their was a way the csb and 84 niv could be put togethor. I love both. The csb for excellent readability but also the 84 niv for some of its translation ideas and sentence structure. The 84 niv to me is honestly the best in terms of sentence structure and of course it was the translation I used when I first trusted in Christ.
Thank you for the response. I responded to his post, saying that LSB is translated because John MacArthur didn't like changes to NASB
Thanks for this video, love the CSB translation. Hoping to get a review of the reformation study bible soon!
I thought the same thing when I watched that video of his. I happened to watch his video this morning on his three preferred translations and at the end he speaks briefly about others that he doesn’t have a problem with, but just doesn’t use. He spoke a bit more on csb and how he saw it as Holmans attempt to have an ESV equivalent and didn’t seem to have any issues with that. Interesting video if you haven’t seen it already.
Although the NKJV is my favored translation, I love the CSB.
When considering the gold-standard ESV Study Bible, the CSB Study Bible is outstanding -- definitely the Number Two spot. I actually prefer the CSB Study Bible over the NIV Study Bible! I can't believe I just wrote that sentence ... but it's true.
You get a fantastic, in-depth study Bible along with the outstanding, optimal-translation CSB.
You can't go wrong.
The CSB got me back to reading my Bible again. I've since moved to the NKJV, but still keep my CSB handy. Would like it better if it wasn't for the gender choices they made.
Footnotes are so valuable in studying the Bible.
The difference in the source material available when the KJV was written compared to what is available with modern translations is significant. I am a fan of the HSCB and have a Kindle and leather version of that Bible. I also have a CSB study Bible that I've used the last three years. The church I attend use the ESV, so I have a copy of that as well. I just recently purchased a copy of the Legacy Standard Bible, but haven't had a chance to explore/compare it yet. When I do my Bible study I like to compare different translations because it gives me better perspective/insight. In my church study group, it's a mix of ESV and a few KJV, and me with my CSB. I'm often asked when we read scripture for discussion how the CSB words a particular scripture for that purpose. It isn't that one is more correct than another, it's more about fully grasping what is being said by comparing the differences. I also just received a copy of the Charles Spurgeon Study Bible you recently reviewed, so I'm anxious to dig into that as well. As far as translations go, I know people and churches that are KJV only, and others that encourage the use of one translation over another. I'm old enough that I grew up with the KJV. Then the NIV came out and the church my mom attended switched to that because they believed it was more relatable and would attract young people to the congregation. I've always preferred a more literal translation and used the NASB 1995 for many years. After watching channels like yours where different translations are discussed, I began to explore different translations. That's how I found the HSCB and It's a really good translation in my opinion.
Thank you for such a polite and balanced video, i really like you approach and attitude. I used to be KJV only but then had to swallow my pride&ego as i leaned more on the subject.
I'm just finishing up my second read through of the CSB in a year. I'm using the Chronological, and I will say that I LOVE the textblock - very nice typeface and font size, single column, and lovely wide margins!
Keeping in mind that I am coming from a definite preference for the NKJV (yeah, I'm a bit of a traditionalist, sorta), I do like the CSB but find a few renderings jarring (TO ME!), most notably using "Lord of Armies" vs "Lord of Hosts." Again, I'm not a translation expert, and I am a bit of a stick in the mud for original-to-my-mind wording.
Also - and AGAIN, it's a quibble! - I do wish that references to Deity were capitalized as in the NKJV, but I think that only happens with the NKJV and the LSB(?). Is there a video somewhere talking about when/why translators started adding that capitalization and why modern translators do/don't?
Anywhoooo, the CSB is a nice translation, I like it well enough, but my heart is still with the NKJV ;-)
Well said! This is a much-needed video!
Got the HCSB book, finding it immensely interesting.
im right there with you. i was disappointed that he knocked it out so soon. also surprised how personal i took it to heart. i mean come on the csb is where its at. i have friends that are frustrated because they just dont understand what they are reading. i try pointing them to the csb and they will not listen to me. its frustrating
I love Pastor Everhard’s channel and remember watching his video. Personally, I didn't like the way he formed up the brackets in the first round. I do like the CSB by the way. My favorite is the NASB95 followed by the NKJV. I have been preaching from the CSB lately though.
What was wrong with the HCSB? It was a great translation I loved it. Very informative easy to understand. It had the difference’s in question of ancient manuscripts being used in translation. I loved the fact they used Yahweh! The Father’s true name “Learn Hebrew and you’ll understand why” cbs took out Yahweh and didn’t show the differences in scriptures. It’s not as good.
I think to see how they move away from traditional readings to more accurate translations, psalm 23 is a good example. At first your sad, because it's lost the phrases that mean enough to you, but whe I was preaching on it, it was amazing how much happier the commentaters would have been with CSB's translation. And the depth of meaning is still there to be meditated and preached on, just not with the (slightly innacurate) traditional way. I have now pretty much learnt the CSB psalm 23, and have been incredibly noursihed by it. ( I guess as you would be from any good translation! Thank you Holy spirit!)
The CSB is maybe the best all around translation. The NASB 2020 is a good all around bible as well. Having grown up with the RSV, it is very very close to the ESV.
The NASB2020 replaced my ESV. It just reads smoother in my opinion.
Fantastic rebuttal Tim.
I love both of your guy's channels and enjoyed Pastor Matt's latest video overall. His take on the CSB though was way off and made me a bit angry. Thanks for responding in a deeper and more articulate way than I could.
He has an attitude unfortunately, not uncommon in his tradition.
I really love the HCSB, I have been reading it for several years. I have most all of the popular translations and have read them all as well. But none of them 'fit' me like the old and discontinued HCSB which I Iove.❤
Ty for this video. It was very helpful to me.
Yes. Fresh. CSB got my attention with "The Lord of ARMIES ...". Just what I needed in 2020 when I decided to start over and allow the Bible tell me what it is trying to say.
While I read οὕτως «in this way» both Jn 3:16 & 1 John 4:11. The adverb could be translated as: a marker of a relatively high degree = so greatly. In fact this is how BDAG renders the word οὕτως in a similar passage (1 Jn 4:11), which would read like this:
Dear loved ones, if God «so intensely» loved us, we also must love one another.
FYI: BDAG is an authoritative Greek lexicon (dictionary). All this to say that it is not 100% for sure to be understood as «in this way». Reading the Greek we have options and we're not always certain which direction we should go.
Thank you, God bless you.
I was watching that video yesterday as well. I had to scratch my head a bit when Everhard said he wasn't sure we needed the CSB, considering it was going up against the LSB which is basically NASB95: The MacArthur Edition. Pastor Matt even mentioned that he didn't like the new NIV and the '84 is no longer in print. Wouldn't that be a good enough reason to have the CSB?
I've read quite a bit about NIV 1984 vs 2011 and I haven't read both cover to cover (simultaneous cross reference) in the last year but I probably have done 25-50% (aside from just cherry picking the contested verses or methodology) and honestly I think they did fine. If "they/their" is the only issue then I don't know what to say, I don't like calling women men either..... From the snippets of TNIV I've read it seems they really did force it, and the apprehension of a future attempt I get, but that's ANY UPDATE from any publisher. All organizations get infiltrated (publishers, churches, printing companies) and compromised, be vigilant and buy extra favored copies when you think you've struck gold.
NKJV hasn't been updated since 1982, something to consider regarding stability.
@@nobodyspecial1852
Yeah, I think I agree with your assessment. I dig the NKJV for its language, accuracy, and textual notes (only translation that specifies the Majority text in the footnotes). I don’t hate NIV. My point is just that CSB is far more useful for us than the LSB.
@@christianchavez4086 I've tried parallel reading with the CSB occasionally but it's never clicked for me. I haven't tried LSB as I don't like NASB, both are highly regarded on principal but I can't sit and read NASB.
First question if you see this; of the HCSB or CSB, which do you think would be best to use, in your opinion? I do like both but each have just enough differences to make me needing to stick with one.
Like you in a video a little while back, I pair my CSB with my NKJV. Both are great translations. I have been on the lookout for HCSB's with the last revsion of 2009 for a while. Really, almost too much. But if there is a good deal on one, I will snag it up. The HCSB copyright 2009 is the last one before the CSB 2017. So if you want the "best" edition of the HCSB, look for that year in the pub/copyright. I also have the HCSB Study Bible and it is very good.
Nearly the entirety of my reading is done view electronics. On both phone and laptop. This is due to the enormous amount of information i have access to with various bible programs. That said. On my phone the CSB version was default for the Blue Letter Bible app which is the device and app i most use for my personal reading. i routinely use several different apps and especially on the laptop tend to jump around in translations. Over all i have found the CSB to be in the top 3 favorite version for me. It might even be my favorite overall version. When i compare verses in various bible versions. More often than not. The CSB will be in the top 3 of what i think is the best compromise between likely accuracy and readability.
I got the full size coming today. For me, the ESV works great for single/chapter look up, but awful for "novel" type reading. The nlt is too liberal/loose. I was reading my NT only csb last night for fun randomly, and I actually really liked the readability. There's no fluff either, just the text pretty much, and not 800 foot notes. my ESV in buffalo leather is lovely but the paper is trash. Too thin. The csb type serif is also really nice on the eyes. I think it was this that steered me toward csb too. Kjv for example, reads awful cause the times new roman type is bleck on the eyes
The HCSB has been my favorite for many years. I thought the CSB was a revision, interesting to know it is a new translation. I hope they don’t stop printing HCSB.
The CSB is indeed a revision of the HCSB. Tim is saying that the (H)CSB is a new translation. In other words, he's counting all four editions (2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020) as the same translation.
He should have put it up against the NIV and the LSB against the NASB. The CSB is far better than the NIV and the LSB is better than the NASB.
We have just started attending a church that uses the CSB as it’s primary. I have started using it and do enjoy it. I still personally use the LSB as my main. I also use the ESV and NKJV quite often. The CSB has really grown on me though. My wife loves it. Holman has created a bunch of great study Bibles in CSB. The quality of their printers for their Heirloom editions is very inconsistent in my experience though. I would love to see them either start using Royal Jongbloed or find better printers in China or Korea. Whoever Thomas Nelson and Zondervan use for their Premier Collection Bibles is far better than who Holman uses.
I use HCSB. It and the TLB “tree of life bible” are the best in my opinion both were translated from a committee, of 70 from the newish discovered manuscripts MMS
TLB places the books of the OT in the Jewish order and is more messianic in focused both are great I study with the inner lateral and come up with my own translation
Just one small error: The ESV is manifestly a revision of the Revised Standard Version (RSV), not the older Revised Version
You're right. I misspoke in this video. I meant to say the ESV is a revision of the RSV. You can tell I meant the RSV because I said it was a revision of the ASV. I'll pin a note with the correction. Thanks!
So, Tim serious question. I don't mean to start any kind of controversy or anything, just looking for an honest thoughtful opinion. Once a bible has been revised, do you believe the older version has any continuing merit? What I mean is, for example, the NLT replaced the Living Bible, in the same way the CSB replaced the HCSB, so do the earlier versions retain any real value? I may not have phrased it completely right, but I'm sure you get what I'm asking. I would love your opinion on this issue. Thanks.
The ASV is only a revision of the KJV in the OT. The NT, as you know, is not based on the same Greek Text.
Thanks, this book is really great
I agree with Everhard
Same!!! Not needed.
@@45paisley Most of the modern versions are not needed in the true sense of the word. It's money and marketing.
@@tonyb408 agreed. I think LifeWay wanted to compete with crossway. They needed a translation to use in material that they didn't have to pay licensing fees on. The HCSB didn't take off how they hoped, so they revised it.
@@45paisleyThe same goes for all other bible publishers as well cos it is a commercial world. Same for the different brands of practically everything under the Sun. But a lot of good came out of it. I read the NKJV and ESV for the literal beauty, the CSB for clarity, and NASB for literal accuracy. Thank God for all the faithful translations of His word 🙏
Thank you for a great video!...but I will like to know what software you used to switch between different translations...I will really appreciate if you can share to deepen my insight into the word of God...Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed the video! I usually use www.biblegateway.com/ to compare translations.
@@AFrischPerspective thanks so much....God bless you.....I will definitely give it a try
I mostly agree with these choices. I would have put the CSB and Geneva Bibles higher up on the list above the NASB.
I agree with Everhard.
He didn't think we needed the BSB either even though he likes the translation. I disagree because the BSB is free from copyright law.
The BSB has quickly moved up to my top 3 translations. It's a great daily reader!
I don’t think I saw you speak on the differences between the HSCB and the CSB. They are somewhat different.
I also believe there were different plans for the HCSB. The CSB is not what was hoped for. Hopefully I’ll see some of that in the book you highlighted.
I prefer the NKJV cause it uses the MT (MASORETIC TEX) and TR (TEXTUS RECEPTUS), why? Cause when God raised the Reformers to translate the Scripture into Spanish, English, German, French, Italian and Portuguese, God lead them to use these both soucers MT and TR, they have all the verses that the modern translations have omitted (NIV, LSB, NLT, NASB, CSB, HCSB, ESV, NCV, NET), these verses are mentioned by the Fathers of the Church, (centuries I, II, II, IV) in their works, so this is an evidence and prove that these omitted verses are without doubts part of the Scriptures, that's why I use the NKJV as my main bible translation.
Very well said.
I’m a southern Baptist that owns two copy’s of the CSB. But I agree with Matt. Another translation we really didn’t need. Every time I read it it just falls flat. Also tired of translations removing masculine words from versus of the Bible. Don’t believe me look up 1 Corinthians 16:13 and Ephesians 4:13 in the CSB. Funny how Men was mentioned in both them versus in the original HCSB and from what I understand it’s in the original language……….Only conservative literal translations will get my money from now on.
The ESV, CSB, NIV84, and NASB 2020 (but not LSB) were correct to remove "begotten" from John 3:16.
If the point is to actually understand our bibles , I think that the CSB is the best for reading .