I used the CSB for like 2 years & have then switched back to the NKJV because of textual preference. I’ve always said, the CSB is what the NIV should be. So, if you want an NIV just get a CSB.
I would love to hear your take on the Berean Study Bible. It's a public domain Bible affiliated with Bible Hub that is like the CSB but more of a cross between the NIV '84, NASB '95, and the NKJV. It's very familiar sounding and is one I choose for memory work.
The BSB translation is great in that you can quote all day from it and they're pretty much okay with that, but I have not found it nearly as elegant as the other major translations nor as accurate as the ESV, which is my favorite and so the one with which I am most familiar. I don't believe I encountered any false doctrine or anything like that, though. All other Bible versions limit the amount that a publication will allow you to quote without paying them, and so I'm cobbling together a book with a half dozen or so different translations because I just really need to quote the Bible a ton.@@sam_burke
A few notes about the CSB's tendencies: 1. It is less likely than the NIV to harmonize passages (see Genesis 2.8, 19; 12.1; 2 Samuel 21.19; Jeremiah 7.22), but it does so more often than the NASB does. 2. It is less likely than the NIV or NLT to "Protestantize" certain passages that Catholics appeal to in their arguments, sticking with words such as "tradition" (2 Thessalonians 2.15; 3.6) and "works" (James 2.14-26) rather than "teachings" and "deeds," respectively. 3. It is much more complementarian than the NIV (see Romans 16.1, 7) and slightly more than the NASB (see 1 Timothy 3.11), but a little less so than the ESV or NET (see Genesis 3.16). 4. It is oddly literal when it translates נְאֻם־יְהוָ֔ה (traditionally, "saith the LORD"). Since נְאֻם is a noun and not a verb, the CSB instead translates the phrase as "This is the LORD's declaration." It can feel a little awkward in verses that repeat the phrase more than once (such as Isaiah 52.5). Compare the NABRE with its jarring repetition of "oracle of the LORD." 5. It is one of the few translations to break from the traditional opening of John 3.16, instead beginning with the words, "For God loved the world in this way" (cf. NLT 2013, NET).
@@sam_burke All editions of the NASB (from the initial 1963 release of the New Testament up to the 2021 LSB) use the word "women" in 1 Timothy 3.11 instead of "wives" (KJV, TEV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, NET, CSB), leaving an inch of wiggle room for female deacons. Of course, the NASB editions also use "servant" in Romans 16.1 instead of "deacon," so the difference with the CSB on this issue is minimal. You're right that the NASB 2020 and CSB are comparable in their use of "brothers and sisters," contrary to the "brethren" of earlier NASBs. They notably stick simply with "brothers" in any contexts that may refer to church authority (see, for instance, 2 Corinthians 8.23; cf. James 3.1). The one place I found where the NASB 2020 was more inclusive in this matter was Philippians 1.14, where the CSB assumed that only men could gain confidence to speak the word, while the NASB assumed that women could as well. (The NASB also assumes that women can be slave masters in 1 Timothy 6.2, while the CSB does not.)
@@MAMoreno And.... in the changes between the CSB2017 to CSB2020 the the reading goes from the NASB1995 to something different 23 out of 40 times..... so if you don't like the NASB1995, you are safe with the CSB.
My dislike of the CSB (and the HCSB before it) is in its English style. It doesn't flow consistently. It's as if they locked each translator in a separate room with one sentence each & refused to let them collaborate. The result is a technically correct, but stilted translation that was quite pronounced in the HCSB and somewhat improved in the CSB. The awkwardness of its English style is too glaring for me to enjoy using it myself. To this day, these versions are the only ones to actively grate my sense of English style 🤷♂️
I just bought the ESV Men's Study Bible as my first Bible ever. Would you recommend I switch to a CSB version over the ESV? I was originally trying to choose between the 2. I've read things that are making me second guess my choice.
It really depends on how comfortable you are with the ESV study bible’s portrayal of gender, complimentarianism, male headship, etc… the CSB is still complementarian, but not to the degree that the ESV is. I don’t want to assume everyone approaches gender from the same perspective that I do, so I guess I can say… it depends. Personally, I don’t recommend the ESV because I ascribe to an egalitarian approach to gender, based on Christ’s finished work on the cross eradicating and overturning the curse, and it is in the curse where we find the first mention of dominance, male authority, etc… (Gen. 3:16). I also know that not everyone ascribes to that, so it depends.
I guess I'm too young in my understanding to know how I feel. Overall I do believe that men and women are of equal value. I think that men should be leaders, but women are also capable. I don't like the notion that men are meant to be rulers over their wives, but I do believe in a head of household.
@@Tony2Sweet I actually did 2 videos on this… 3 if you count my initial “which translation do I recommend” video. I don’t usually want to be the one to tell someone else how to think about something, I just give my opinion on how I operate… but I would not recommend the ESV. I do recommend the CSB and even the NASB, though. My favorite is the NRSV for personal study… and I preach out of the NIV because that is the Bible or our church has chosen to use.
But the ESV study bible, no matter what denomination you are, is clearly one of the best study bibles out there; in spite of what you think of the translation.
🤷🏼♂️. I don’t think we should try to assume and assign that slanderous motive to any team… I tend to try and believe the best unless they show us the worst.
It would be helpful if you could be specific about passages in which Baptist theology influenced the way in which a text was translated in the CSB. My background is Reformed/mainline, so I'm not familiar with what a Baptist "bent" would look like.
I only have the 2017 version in front of me… And in that version every time they would talk about speaking in tongues… Instead of translating glossai as tongues… it was translated “languages”… this was how I heard it growing up and in my undergrad and at the first church I worked at… so it felt very cessasionist and “baptist” to me. There were a couple of other minor things… but that is the one that stood out. My understanding is they have corrected that in the update though.
No... and It may just be my growing up and hearing Baptist interpretations of things so I am sensitive to it. I just got that intuitive feeling about it in spots when reading through the Gospels and Acts. Most people may not even think that or read that in it... And I know it wasn't only southern Baptists who translated and updated it... It was more of an intuitive thing.
Did Jesus fall from Heaven? Isaiah 14:12 • CSB Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations, you have been cut down to the ground. • KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Jesus is the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16 • CSB I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. So who fell from Heaven Jesus or Lucifer?
@@barryjtaft neither. The KJV renders “Lucifer” because of church tradition.. but it is nowhere in the Hebrew text. The idea that Isaiah 14 is about Satan is a post Biblical conflation that “sounded right.” It’s definitely not about Jesus… even if the “morning star” title is used in both places in the CSB. So who is Isaiah 14 about? Simply, the unnamed king of Babylon. The early church (while conflating a deeper meaning of this somehow being Satan (probably based on 2nd temple period apocalyptic literature)) posited that this king was Nebuchadnezzar. This has been pretty much rejected by scholars as well. It may just be a generic place holder for the wickedness of Babylon and its rulers. So the CSB renders the Hebrew best.
@@sam_burke Which Hebrew text? The Masoretic or Kittle's Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? They rendered him Lucifer because his name had permeated the entire culture and everyone knew how Lucifer was. Now with the CSB (and many others) Lucifer magically vanishes. I recall seeing a posting from a Pastor who lost his faith. He was convinced that he had been deceived into thinking that Jesus Christ the bright and morning star was God. Now he believes that Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same. Where do you suppose he got that notion? I submit that it is from this verse.
As far as the NIV I wouldn't recommend any version after 1984. I would take the CSB over the current NIV versions.
I used the CSB for like 2 years & have then switched back to the NKJV because of textual preference.
I’ve always said, the CSB is what the NIV should be.
So, if you want an NIV just get a CSB.
I would love to hear your take on the Berean Study Bible. It's a public domain Bible affiliated with Bible Hub that is like the CSB but more of a cross between the NIV '84, NASB '95, and the NKJV. It's very familiar sounding and is one I choose for memory work.
I will have to take a look at that. I see it pop up on Bible hub every once in a while, but haven’t really looked at it too much.
The BSB translation is great in that you can quote all day from it and they're pretty much okay with that, but I have not found it nearly as elegant as the other major translations nor as accurate as the ESV, which is my favorite and so the one with which I am most familiar. I don't believe I encountered any false doctrine or anything like that, though. All other Bible versions limit the amount that a publication will allow you to quote without paying them, and so I'm cobbling together a book with a half dozen or so different translations because I just really need to quote the Bible a ton.@@sam_burke
@@sam_burkeIt’s called the Berean Standard Bible now, and they have several versions now. I prefer this than the CSB
A few notes about the CSB's tendencies:
1. It is less likely than the NIV to harmonize passages (see Genesis 2.8, 19; 12.1; 2 Samuel 21.19; Jeremiah 7.22), but it does so more often than the NASB does.
2. It is less likely than the NIV or NLT to "Protestantize" certain passages that Catholics appeal to in their arguments, sticking with words such as "tradition" (2 Thessalonians 2.15; 3.6) and "works" (James 2.14-26) rather than "teachings" and "deeds," respectively.
3. It is much more complementarian than the NIV (see Romans 16.1, 7) and slightly more than the NASB (see 1 Timothy 3.11), but a little less so than the ESV or NET (see Genesis 3.16).
4. It is oddly literal when it translates נְאֻם־יְהוָ֔ה (traditionally, "saith the LORD"). Since נְאֻם is a noun and not a verb, the CSB instead translates the phrase as "This is the LORD's declaration." It can feel a little awkward in verses that repeat the phrase more than once (such as Isaiah 52.5). Compare the NABRE with its jarring repetition of "oracle of the LORD."
5. It is one of the few translations to break from the traditional opening of John 3.16, instead beginning with the words, "For God loved the world in this way" (cf. NLT 2013, NET).
This is great stuff. Thanks
Also.. if it is more complementarian than the NASB… are you talking about the 2020? B/c it felt less than the 95… but more than the NIV for sure.
@@sam_burke All editions of the NASB (from the initial 1963 release of the New Testament up to the 2021 LSB) use the word "women" in 1 Timothy 3.11 instead of "wives" (KJV, TEV, NKJV, NLT, ESV, NET, CSB), leaving an inch of wiggle room for female deacons. Of course, the NASB editions also use "servant" in Romans 16.1 instead of "deacon," so the difference with the CSB on this issue is minimal.
You're right that the NASB 2020 and CSB are comparable in their use of "brothers and sisters," contrary to the "brethren" of earlier NASBs. They notably stick simply with "brothers" in any contexts that may refer to church authority (see, for instance, 2 Corinthians 8.23; cf. James 3.1). The one place I found where the NASB 2020 was more inclusive in this matter was Philippians 1.14, where the CSB assumed that only men could gain confidence to speak the word, while the NASB assumed that women could as well. (The NASB also assumes that women can be slave masters in 1 Timothy 6.2, while the CSB does not.)
@@MAMoreno And.... in the changes between the CSB2017 to CSB2020 the the reading goes from the NASB1995 to something different 23 out of 40 times..... so if you don't like the NASB1995, you are safe with the CSB.
@@casey1167what are those changes? I only have the 2017 one they gave out for free.
The only thing that threw me off a bit is the occasional contraction in the CSB text. Wasn't used to that.
TBH… I didn’t even notice that 🤣
My dislike of the CSB (and the HCSB before it) is in its English style. It doesn't flow consistently. It's as if they locked each translator in a separate room with one sentence each & refused to let them collaborate. The result is a technically correct, but stilted translation that was quite pronounced in the HCSB and somewhat improved in the CSB. The awkwardness of its English style is too glaring for me to enjoy using it myself. To this day, these versions are the only ones to actively grate my sense of English style 🤷♂️
@@zachbattles9762 I can see that.
I just bought the ESV Men's Study Bible as my first Bible ever. Would you recommend I switch to a CSB version over the ESV? I was originally trying to choose between the 2. I've read things that are making me second guess my choice.
It really depends on how comfortable you are with the ESV study bible’s portrayal of gender, complimentarianism, male headship, etc… the CSB is still complementarian, but not to the degree that the ESV is. I don’t want to assume everyone approaches gender from the same perspective that I do, so I guess I can say… it depends. Personally, I don’t recommend the ESV because I ascribe to an egalitarian approach to gender, based on Christ’s finished work on the cross eradicating and overturning the curse, and it is in the curse where we find the first mention of dominance, male authority, etc… (Gen. 3:16). I also know that not everyone ascribes to that, so it depends.
I guess I'm too young in my understanding to know how I feel. Overall I do believe that men and women are of equal value. I think that men should be leaders, but women are also capable. I don't like the notion that men are meant to be rulers over their wives, but I do believe in a head of household.
If the ESV version has gone out of its way to use gendered language where it isn't needed then I don't think it's the version for me
@@Tony2Sweet I actually did 2 videos on this… 3 if you count my initial “which translation do I recommend” video. I don’t usually want to be the one to tell someone else how to think about something, I just give my opinion on how I operate… but I would not recommend the ESV. I do recommend the CSB and even the NASB, though. My favorite is the NRSV for personal study… and I preach out of the NIV because that is the Bible or our church has chosen to use.
But the ESV study bible, no matter what denomination you are, is clearly one of the best study bibles out there; in spite of what you think of the translation.
Are the revision committees changing any text for copyright profits for them and publishers?
🤷🏼♂️. I don’t think we should try to assume and assign that slanderous motive to any team… I tend to try and believe the best unless they show us the worst.
It would be helpful if you could be specific about passages in which Baptist theology influenced the way in which a text was translated in the CSB. My background is Reformed/mainline, so I'm not familiar with what a Baptist "bent" would look like.
I only have the 2017 version in front of me… And in that version every time they would talk about speaking in tongues… Instead of translating glossai as tongues… it was translated “languages”… this was how I heard it growing up and in my undergrad and at the first church I worked at… so it felt very cessasionist and “baptist” to me. There were a couple of other minor things… but that is the one that stood out. My understanding is they have corrected that in the update though.
Which Greek and Hebrew texts do you use?
I use the Masoretic for Hebrew (JPS Tanakh) and the Nestle/Aland Novum Testamentum Graeca. (I also use the TR from time to time)
I prefer the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. :)
By Baptist do you mean Dispensational?
No... and It may just be my growing up and hearing Baptist interpretations of things so I am sensitive to it. I just got that intuitive feeling about it in spots when reading through the Gospels and Acts. Most people may not even think that or read that in it... And I know it wasn't only southern Baptists who translated and updated it... It was more of an intuitive thing.
@@sam_burke Sure enough, the two co-chairs of the translation team are Southern Baptists.
Why don't these versions agree with each other?
Different translator teams, different theologies and different denominations of the translation team…
God disagrees with Himself?
Did Jesus fall from Heaven?
Isaiah 14:12
• CSB Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations, you have been cut down to the ground.
• KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Jesus is the bright and morning star.
Revelation 22:16
• CSB I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
So who fell from Heaven Jesus or Lucifer?
@@barryjtaft neither. The KJV renders “Lucifer” because of church tradition.. but it is nowhere in the Hebrew text. The idea that Isaiah 14 is about Satan is a post Biblical conflation that “sounded right.” It’s definitely not about Jesus… even if the “morning star” title is used in both places in the CSB.
So who is Isaiah 14 about? Simply, the unnamed king of Babylon. The early church (while conflating a deeper meaning of this somehow being Satan (probably based on 2nd temple period apocalyptic literature)) posited that this king was Nebuchadnezzar. This has been pretty much rejected by scholars as well. It may just be a generic place holder for the wickedness of Babylon and its rulers. So the CSB renders the Hebrew best.
@@sam_burke Which Hebrew text? The Masoretic or Kittle's Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia?
They rendered him Lucifer because his name had permeated the entire culture and everyone knew how Lucifer was.
Now with the CSB (and many others) Lucifer magically vanishes.
I recall seeing a posting from a Pastor who lost his faith. He was convinced that he had been deceived into thinking that Jesus Christ the bright and morning star was God. Now he believes that Jesus and Lucifer are one and the same.
Where do you suppose he got that notion? I submit that it is from this verse.
It _literally_ is a Southern Baptist translation, in that Holman is literally owned by the SBC.
While it is published by the SBC, the translation committee on the original HCSB was comprised of scholars from 17 denominations.