My thoughts about the CSB: 1. In general, I'm an ESV guy, but I've been reading through the CSB since so many people recommend it. I'm enjoying it, but I think I still prefer the ESV - at least so far, but I haven't finished reading the CSB in its entirety. But the CSB might be a good secondary translation for me. As best as I can tell, the CSB seems like it's somewhere between the ESV and the NIV. 2. Most scholars use 3 or 4 criteria to assess translations: a. Accuracy. The CSB is more formally equivalent (aka "literal" or "word for word") than the NIV. However, being more formally equivalent doesn't necessarily imply being more accurate. Often people falsely assume that more "literal" means more "accurate" but that is easily disproven. For instance, the literal translation of the French phrase "pomme de terre" would be "apple of earth". But it'd be inaccurate in English to say I want an "apple of earth" with cream and chives please when the real meaning of "pomme de terre" is "potato". That said, my impression on reading the CSB is that the CSB does indeed seem more accurate than the NIV in the places I've been able to look and compare with the original biblical languages. Nevertheless I haven't established objective criteria to define what I mean by "accurate" so my impression is potentially a more subjective impression than objective impression. Finally, the CSB seems better to me on the controversial gender issues than the NIV 2011 (e.g. Rom 16:1-2; Rom 16:7; 1 Tim 2:12), though I think the NIV 2011's translation choices are defensible even where I disagree. b. Clarity. The CSB and the NIV are both clear. Both receive high marks for clarity. The CSB escapes from the Tyndale-KJV tradition in many places, whereas the NIV is still indebted to the Tyndale-KJV tradition to a not insignificant degree (as are many other English translations, especially the ESV which in my view is the most reasonable heir to the Tyndale-KJV tradition today). Hence, if someone finds the style, cadences, phrasing, and overall language of the Tyndale-KJV tradition more familiar and even euphonic, then they may prefer the NIV to the CSB; by contrast, if someone prefers to break away from the Tyndale-KJV tradition, then they may prefer the CSB to the NIV. c. Naturalness. The CSB is far more natural sounding than the ESV; the ESV often sounds like Yoda is speaking, i.e., it is filled with Biblish. The CSB is more or less equal to the NIV in terms of naturalness. Also, in my opinion, the CSB sounds more "American" in its English, whereas the NIV sounds more Anglo-American in its English; the English of the NIV is more "international" in that respect. To take an obvious example, the CSB uses American weights and measures, whereas most other English speakers around the world use metric measurements. In addition, I find the CSB is more plainspoken in terms of literary style, even in sections where there is and should be a higher register (e.g. the prologue to Luke, Hebrews, poetic sections), which I think is a weakness of the CSB. The CSB is lacking in literary style. It's not bad, just not great. It doesn't really stand out, at least to my ears, whereas thanks in large part to the Tyndale-KJV tradition the ESV and even the NIV are often stylistically beautiful in an understated way and as such can be quite memorable in their turns of phrase and suchlike, which, naturally, is an aid to memorization. Of course, the best natural-sounding modern English translation is the NLT, but it is more loose in terms of faithfulness to the form and structure of the biblical languages. d. Audience appropriateness. The CSB is quite appropriate to most English speakers and readers. It is appropriate to the average English speaker and reader, those who speak English as a second language, young and old including little children, even those who favor the KJV but want something more readable and/or up-to-date (since the CSB was originally initiated by Arthur Farstad who chaired the NKJV translation committee and the CSB honors Farstad in indirect or subtle ways such as by frequently placing the Majority Text in the CSB's footnotes), and so on. In short, the CSB can serve a wide audience. Of course, this is true of many other translations as well. Such as the NIV and especially the NLT. The ESV isn't as easily comprehensible by as many different groups. In fact, the ESV requires a higher degree of facility with the English language. 3. Anyway, this is just my two cents' worth about the CSB, which may be all it is worth! :)
I am a user of the CSB, and can comment. I generally use three translations, and it is my number three (my first two are the KJV and NKJV). The first thing I would say about it is that I believe it is the most under rated and under appreciated translation. What I think is good about it: it does the best job of any translation when it comes to attaining both high readability and high accuracy. It is almost as word for word as the ESV, but is even MORE readable than the NIV. It is a readable option for new believers and young adults that is not very dynamic in translation philosophy. What I think is not so good about it: Actually, I think one of its strengths is also its weakness. The language is so modern, so simple, and so readable... First, it sacrifices almost all literary beauty for simplicity and readability. Second, it’s so easy reading that I don’t have to read slowly and think about what I’m reading. I get something like “highway hypnosis” where I find myself paragraphs ahead and not remembering, realizing, or digesting what I had just read. Great video!
I know what you mean about getting paragraphs ahead like that, that's why I switched from the NIV, but literal translations like the ESV were sometimes too literal and I wouldn't understand what I was reading. The CSB's modern language helps me to understand what I'm reading, but it's more literal than the NIV so I don't lose focus.
That last sentence is brilliant. A problem with high readability is exactly that - you're not forced to think due to the awkward English. That's why reading in a different language is helpful (eg Spanish or French if your first language is English, etc). I can read both NT Greek (almost as well as English), OT Hebrew with help, but not Aramaic. For most purposes, this CSB looks just what I need to replace a very worn out NRSV. I heard about it from a UK source announcing an anglicized version with bendy covers and large print with plenty of white space for highlights and note taking at just £14.50. It also looks excellent for giving away and for leading studies with folk who are not used to reading awkward English. To those who speak of accuracy: that's often an inappropriate term. All translation involves interpretation and compromises relevant to the target readership and, especially across millennia, sometimes we simply don't know what a word means. Hebrew itself evolved over the 2,000 years or so that the OT covers from Abram to Malachi so words and phrases from one author and era to another are not an exact match, even in Hebrew. I don't know what Christians mean by 'literary beauty' today. I know what I and my circle meant by it in the mid 1960s. I did a lot of Bible reading in our school chapel - superb training in voice projection, pacing, ensuring the lectern was at the perfect height for me, no microphones then. I disliked the New English Bible, which was new at the time and generally thought to be awkward and academic. I preferred the 'beauty' of the King James but, back then, I wasn't a Christian and neither was anyone in my circles. KJV was, as much as anything, a product of politics. It was largely based on Tyndale's translation of the early 16th century when it was deeply seditious. It was more accurate, eg in how it translated ekkleesia, than the monarchy permitted. He, and others, died for it. KJV was both more tame and deliberately used English of early 16th century to appear old at a time when English was evolving very rapidly. It was the sound and sense of history that appealed to us unbelievers. Modern examples include Richard Dawkins who likes the sound and atmosphere of an old church but rejects the faith they represent. To be fair, those olde-world chapel services did have an effect: Magnificat, Psalm 95 , etc roared out by 600+ male voices gave me a core that, later, helped me appreciate the Gospel, "He has scattered the proud and has exalted the humble and meek"; Micah 6:8, "He has shown you O man what is good: it's to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God".
Thanks for the review. I agree with all that you say about the CSB. To be honest, I find the CSB refreshing and invigorating to read alongside other translations and I take it to church to read along while listening to the sermon. In face, I have also bought a CSB Study Bible, Everyday study bible, chronological bible and restoration bible. I am convinced it will only grow in popularity.
If you don't want to spend a lot of money on an expensive CSB, remember you can get a larger print paperback CSB Bible, either at your local Bible Store, or order online. Less than $8.00, plus a minor shipping fee. It's best to order at least two for the same minor shipping fee. You can gift the extra one ordered like I did.
I’ve been going down a translation rabbit hole lately. See, I’m reconnecting with my faith after decades of being astray. When I attended church as a kid and teen of the 80s and 90s, the “mainstream” (the ones you could easily find at, say, Waldenbooks), were the KJV, NKJV, and NIV84. The NIV84 was what I lived out of for almost a decade. Returning to Christ all these years later, I knew nothing of all the revisions, controversies, and new translations. I bought a NIV expecting it to be the same and was shocked when it read so differently (NIV2011). I then bought a NKJV, which I really like, but it still wasn’t quite right. I recently found a CSB Apologetics Study Bible at a thrift store and picked it up. I really like it… EXCEPT for Psalms (especially Psalm 23; “I have what I need.”?🤢). Overall I find it to be a good translation and if I were teaching, I’d probably use it to ensure maximum compatibility with a wide range of English speakers. Like you, I think I’m going to be using the NKJV and CSB in tandem going forward.
I really like a lot of the translation choices the CSB uses. For instance, Romans 3:25 reads “mercy seat” instead of “propitiation” , which is what the Greek is literally referring to. The Old Testament imagery is lost in almost every other traditional translation. John 3:16 in the CSB more accurately gives us “God loved the world in this way” instead of “God so loved the world”, which makes the modern reader think “This is how much God loved the world”. The CSB goes against the traditional phrasing in several places and much more accurately captures the meaning of the original. My first reaction to seeing the word “beer” (e.g., Lev. 10:9) in the CSB was that they were going the same route as “The Message” and trying to adapt the Bible to a modern audience. But after doing a little study into the findings of Biblical archaeology , it seems that the drink the Bible writers were describing actually was what we would call beer (“strong drink” always made me think liquor which didn’t even really exist until the Middle Ages). That being said, sometimes they go a little too far. Some variations seem to be chosen just for the sake of being different and standing out from other Bible versions. It’s kinda like if you went through a Biblical Greek dictionary and intentionally chose the third or fourth possible English word and went with it whether it fit the context or not. Psalm 23 in the CSB is a great example of this. All of those weirdly translated verses are, in fact, “acceptable” translation choices but, wow, it literally hurts my ears to read it out loud! I get that they wanted us to see the Psalms in a new and fresh way, but “valley of the shadow of death” is not only more poetic than “darkest valley”, it’s more accurate. And I understand the CSB’s approach to gender related pronouns and terms. Their policy is stated as being “Not gender-inclusive but gender-accurate.” But I agree with you, the whole “brothers and sisters” thing is really unnecessary. And their use of “humans” and, worse yet, “human beings” is comical in some places and kind of annoying in others. “What is a human being that you remember him?” (Ps. 8:4). Really? I get you don’t wanna use “man” but this is supposed to be a modern translation. Nobody talks like that! Finally, there’s that pesky tendency among all translations that don’t use a formal, word-for-word approach: interpreting instead of just translating. Rom. 16:7 reads “in the eyes of the apostles” instead of the more accurate but ambiguous “among the apostles.” And the phrase “who is himself God” in John 1:18 is entirely supplied with no basis in the original language. While I definitely agree with the CSB’s theology in both of these examples, it is a slippery slope to change the Bible’s wording to fit our viewpoint. We can add our interpretations in a commentary or footnotes but it is a dangerous practice to do so in the text itself. So, I agree with you completely. I really enjoy the CSB for the most part but would only ever use it as a supplement. Great video, thanks!
Dwayne, you're awesome man I love you. I've never spent much time in the CSB but have been thinking about it lately, I'm more of a NKJV / ESV reader. I appreciate your videos so much, I've watched everyone with gratitude. Keep up the good work Brother!
I used to use the ESV as my daily translation, but have been using the CSB instead for the past year or so and it's really grown on me. One thing I really like is the CSB will often render a contrasting reading for passages that have more than one possible meaning. This makes it an excellent pairing with more "traditionally worded" translations so you can see a wide range of possibilities and come to your own conclusion. Plus, they usually include the alternative, more traditional renderings in the footnotes, so it's still there in some sense. I love the readability, it's my go-to recommendation for people who might be new to Scripture. And it works well enough for me as a word-for-word to get the job done, and I can always reference a few other translations if needed. Thanks for this video!
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
Enjoyed your review. I think CSB is a great all around Bible that works well for study, preaching, and more casual reading. One small disagreement I have is that I don't think "accuracy" is a good way to describe word for word. For example, what is the most accurate way to translate ¿Cómo te llamas? from Spanish to English? Word for word: "how you called?" dynamic equivalence: "what's your name?" I think that the more dynamic is a more accurate translation because it captures the meaning of the question more accurately in a way an English speaker would know how to respond by sharing their name. Still, I can see how a word for word translation works great for study and preaching, especially when your goal is to explain or understand the underlying Hebrew or Greek text! Typically I prefer an interlinear Bible for a truly word for word translation.
Yeah, I'm typically careful with how I use the word Accurate... And of course, this is a long debated topic. lol... For me, I think I mentioned this in the video, is that the Bible is a book written at a specific time IN a specific culture. Ultimately, I think a good way to define an 'accurate' translation is one which maintains clarity, when the text is clear, and maintains ambiguity, when the grammatical construction is ambiguous (like certain usages of the genitive for example). Admitedly, this is a tough balance, and for me, the more dynamic a translation becomes, the more interpretive it HAS to be, and in that sense, the CSB would be less 'accurate' than something like the ESV or NKJV. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and it's certain there will be no consensus! lol
I use the CSB, HCSB, and NIV mainly. Working on using the ESV. Glad to know your thoughts. I love the CSB and HCSB because they are both very accurate and very easy to understand. I think a shortfall is that it doesn’t put the “missing verses” in brackets like the HCSB did.
Great review Dwayne, as I mentioned over on the CSB Facebook group, I do use the CSB to preach from. I fill that over all it is a solid translation and reads better outload than some of the other translations. However, I admit the reality of those differences may be small. I use the ESV and at times other translations as part of my sermon prep.
Oh man i love it. I wish there was a hybrid of csb and NKJV. Leave most of it csb but put it in psalm 23,27, Isaiah 9. And the Lord’s Prayer from the NKJV. But other than that, the csb has been really well for me to understand and connect with.
Thank you for this informational video with Biblical sound doctrine in mind! I ordered a CSB Spurgeon Study Bible and like you mentioned, it won’t be my main Bible, but one as a nice reference! Thank you and God bless!!🙏🏼
'Brothers & sisters' in NRSV I use. It's much better as the default unless specifically to a group of men. Only last week I saw a passage in Acts where the instruction was given to a group of men and women so 'brosis' is a better translation of the generic adelphoi
Thank you for sharing. I have used NKJV for 30+ years as my main study Bible and for scripture memorization. But I also reference a few other translations when digging in to study. I just became aware of the CSB and ESV last week while looking for a good note taking Bible. (Where have I been?!) 😮 After searching and checking people's reviews, I've decided to buy the CSB Hosanna Revival journal Bible (wide margins for notes!) and I'm looking for the best copy of the CSB study Bible; some complaints on the hardback binding falling apart quickly😢).
Good, honest and fair review of the CSB Dwayne! I've been a fan of this translation since it was the HCSB but only recently started using it more regularly. The CSB is my main devotional translation. So, when I'm reading during my personal time in the morning/evening I use the CSB. Whereas the ESV has long been the translation I use for preaching/teaching. Although I have used the CSB to preach from on occasion. For newer Christians and anyone who has trouble reading, I always recommend the CSB and they are better able to connect with the bible and maintain a regular practice of reading scripture. Off topic: You're lighting is on point and looks great!
The thing you said about the CSB for those that have english as their second language is so true. I'm dutch, so english is not my mother tongue, but I thought I would be able to read it. And it was true. I bought the CSB study bible. (dutch study bibles are pretty expensive, simply because there are not that many who speak dutch. So they can't print like hundreds of thousands of study bibles).
I agree that the CSB is quite readable, and the accuracy is quite good. My major problem with most modern versions is I think they are too prone to updates! I also am not ultimately a fan of the Critical Text, upon which these modern versions are based.
I just discovered this translation and I also enjoy it. I will say on the "brethren" topic, I think the term "brethren" could easily mean "people" not just "dudes". So to me, using "brothers and sisters" or "folks" is perfectly fine to be. I don't feel like the CSB is going liberal or anything because of it.
I love the csb! I have a compact reference version of it to take with me from place to place (I also have a esv NT I take sometimes) and a Holy land illustrated Bible in csb to use for study at home. I read the Hebrew Greek Bible so it’s great to take a look at when I, as you said, need to supplement in a difficult area.
That's great stuff! The Hebrew and Greek are soooo important if you have the aptitude to learn it :) I always pull out the original languages when I prepare stuff!
I really like the csb..... but I started into the NKJV and now it’s a struggle! Lol I have used ESV for 10 yrs or so. The struggle is real. 😊 Great video.
My go-to NT translation every time is the DBH Revised. IMO it’s the most accurate (both formal and dynamic) NT translation since the original autographs.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
I agree with you about the CSB and poetry: it's not as good as other translations like the NKJV as you mentioned. For more detail: 1. I like the CSB except in the poetic sections like the Psalms. 2. Depending on how one counts, poetry does make up around 1/4th to 1/3rd of the Bible, so it's not an insignificant matter. (Tangentially, the most literary of most cultures until the modern age typically considered verse or poetry, not prose like novels or even plays like Oedipus Rex or Shakespeare, the height of verbal expression. See the epics of a culture or civilization such as Gilgamesh, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Virgil's Aeneid, Beowulf, Dante's Divine Comedy, etc. Not at all suggesting the Bible is mere literature, of course it is God-breathed Scripture, but arguably the Bible is not less than literature either, however one might best define literature.) 3. In any case, 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 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 suchlike and enough people became sufficiently literate - and no more is this likely true than in the poems and songs of biblical Israel. 4. Granted, I think the CSB is syntactically accurate. Yet it seems to do so at the great expense of the "music" of the underlying Hebrew. For instance, see the work of the literary scholars Robert Alter and Harold Bloom on this point. By and large, both men are secular Jews, though Bloom called himself a secular Jew as well as a Gnostic Jew, but both are likewise highly sensitive to literary merit and demerit, and ad such are immensely helpful when speaking to the issue. Continuing, it's never been easy to translate poetry from one language into another, but there are cetainly better and worse translations, given there are many different ways to express the same idea in English; however I find the CSB does a more pedestrian job than most other translations with respect to the biblical poetry. I think even the NIV and the NLT are better, though there are other significant costs in these latter translations. The CSB is reliably serviceable, but it has lost much of the flavor. The poetry comes across more like a translation by a committee with ears tuned more toward linguistic technicalities than to harp or lyre or other instruments the psalmists used to compose their praises and laments and so forth. 5. I say all this not because I wish (perhaps like Leland Ryken, the ESV's main style editor) to make the apparently circular argument that the Bible ought to "sound like the Bible" since I was raised on the KJV. I wasn't. I'm a millennial and my first real encounter with God's Word was in the NIV. Rather I'm very much on board with what the biblical scholar Don Carson has said about Bible translations: "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.” 6. Still, I don't wish to throw stones at the CSB - or at least not too many! It is a good translation in most other ways. It is the translation I usually recommend to most people, especially new Christians. And arguably, 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. Edit. Perhaps my literary evaluation of the CSB's poetry is mistaken. Perhaps it is better than I think it is. That's certainly a possibility. In that case I suppose we'd have 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."
I will start by saying that I use the CSB in the pulpit and when I teach. In saying that, I was very hesitant in using it because of the HCSB. I found the HCSB to be very "forced" in it's translation. I have a congregation that is mixed with new and experience Christians. I also have some from other countries. The CSB really fills that gap and makes it easy to preach from. As a long time reader of the NASB and ESV, I have found that the transition has been very easy. I also found that, as it is not a word for word, it still retains the that format enough to used in word studies while maintaining the readability.
I'm glad i found this video.. I've been trying out various translations trying to find the perfect one to pair with my NKJV..i thought maybe the ESV but i feel the ESV reads very similar to the NKJV and often the NKJV just is even more straightforward and easier to understand then the ESV so i dropped the ESV out of the race.. NIV I've tried a few times but it just does not do it for me so i tried CSB and been leaning towards that one a lot as it just reads so easily.. This solidifies my decision... I dont want to use so many translations that i lose regularity and the NKJV/CSB go so well together.. Aside from that i read the KJV every now n then.
My main is the NKJV as well which I often pair with the CSB! I've got another video where I talk about the benefits of the NKJV. ua-cam.com/video/K3cuAOd0DwI/v-deo.html
Every so often I read the CSB and love that it is a 'Smooth Read' and accurate. I have read the Bible many times through cover to cover. I switch translations to refresh myself and to see it differently. I have been reading the Bible for 50 years. I own every version. I especially enjoy the NLT for that novel type reed when going to sleep, and NKJV for my second translation. I have found the NLT sometimes falls short on accuracy for me. The CSB conveys more clarity for me as a stronger translation than the NLT. The NLT is paraphrased, which is like reading a novel and its good. The NKJV Bible and its language trys to translate word for word, it lacks refinement in conveying the spirit and clarity of the message. It had no impact for me. CBS is more accurate than the NLT and probably the NKJV for me because it reaches deeper for me. The idea of a translation being more accurate if it is a word for word translation is utterly rediculous. Much of the NT was recorded in the paraphrases of the time and recorded. The writters went to people asking what they saw or experienced and they spoke in the common language of the day, many were uneducated, so paraphrase would more accurate. Look at the gammar of learning another language where the verb is before the subject noun is located in the sentence and the predicate which dont even exist in the Hebrew texts. Beleive me there is no word for word translation possible from one language to another. I like the easy read bibles more as I get older. Im 70 now. And the CSB is a good smooth read with Clarity that produces impact for me. it is a Strong Translation. The Gender specific grammar corrrection is long overdue. Reading ' Brothers and Sisters' is fine with me, and it gets away from the patriachal pretense of leadership, where men control the church and the household by rights of their gender thereby reducing women to lesser slave vassles of lesser valued than a man. People have to read what appeal to them. The Very Best Translation for anyone, is the Bible they are holding in thier hand for sure no matter what it is. If its in your hand God put it there. For the first time reader, I would recommend the NLT Application Bible by Tyndal. if you do get it be sure to get the Giant print version as the print is small even in the large print. To me this NLT Application Bible is a masterpiece, I read it and all its notes 3 times. I think its the best selling Study Bible of all time. Good for the newbees. I did read the NKJV 3 times before I came upon the NLT Application Bible which i also read 3 times and before that the Bible of the day was the NIV which I dont like either. Now when I study I hope around thru all the versions as I like. Get the one that works for you. If its the KJV, get that. I do reaad the KJV for meditation because it is so beautiful. God Speed on your journey Brothers and Sisters. Be blessed.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
Thank you, this was very useful for this french christian woman. I have an old KJV, with the combined difficulties of ancient language and small print. I am looking for a more readable, kind of help-bible. I have my french bible but when listening to a sermon given by an american pastor I love to take notes and quotes on a bible of same language. I believe a CSB will be very comfortable. God bless you.
I own a Large Print references Bible from CSB and a Study CSB Bible. Everything you sound true to me. I did not like a lot of the way they translated somethings, like in Luke with what Mary said and John 2 Wedding of Cana using headwaiter. Both are not wrong, they are just not poetic but I am getting over that. Mark Smith recommended reading the whole Bible in the CSB and I might try it. CSB my be my go to Bible and I can't go wrong with it. Thank you for your video.
The CSB is one of the surprises in bible translation. For one, I use the nkjv , KJV, Nasb and ESV. But when the Hcsb came out, I found it a wonderful alternative to the NIV. That said, I was a bit put off by the changes in the CSB . But, when using it as a Sunday school class, the CSB does shine. But as for poetry, my goodness, can a stylist from Holman , please , soak up the linguistics from the Textus Receptus and be brave and not culturally relevant? Enough rant , my apologies. Very good review.
Excellent comment about people with English as a second language. It was amusing to have people who loved the KJV do a Cloze test on KJV and a more recent trranslation. They always resulted in revealing that they had not properly understood the text from KJV
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
@@Dwayne_Green appreciate your reply. We tried ESV and NKJV then I found the reading required too much of other study material just to read the bible. my friends "secretly" were reading NLT so we looked into it at the store and finally could read it without outside help. But when we listened to the audio it sounds hard to listen but CSB was more flowing then NLT. so looking into getting a CSB hence watching your video maybe better for my bible studies :)
No. modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
It's the same way with Spanish. If it's a mixed group, the masculine form is always used. It doesn't if it's 100 females and just 1 male. The masculine form is still used.
I love this Bible. I am confused why they dropped the name of God from its predecessor. “Lord” is a title and Yahweh is a name. Is it really so hard to read God’s name? Thank you for your vlog! Blessings.
Excellent video really enjoyed it. KJV & NKJV are my choice although I read the CSB all the way through in chronological order and enjoyed it. I felt it fell flat in Psalms. For me the CSB & NIV tie for 3rd place. I have the ESV as a study bible which is excellent and a NSAB which is great for study but I find the ESV horrible to just read it’s to flat and dead.
The NLT is more on the thought-for-thought side of the translation spectrum. I wouldn`t call it a paraphrase, but it`s really close. I find the CSB hovers right in the middle between Word-for-word and thought-for-thought.
NLT is a really good translation but very different than CSB as it is a much looser translation. It came out of a desire to update the Living Bible but ended up becoming a full on translation. I think it can be a bit lacking for in-depth Bible study but is my top choice for an easy to read devotional Bible.
I have found that - as far as modern translations since 1950 - the NASV & the NKJV are very formal and literal (though based upon slightly differing texts). The ESV is slightly less formal and literal than them. The CSB is SLIGHTLY less word-for-word than the ESV, but far more literal than the NIV. The NLT is far more ‘thought-by-thought’ and a looser translation (not as formal / word-for-word) than even the NIV.
@@pastor-josh, I agree. It is great for getting the ‘big picture’ - especially in the Old Testament narrative sections, as well as getting the main idea. When it comes to the ‘teaching’ sections, I would stick with a more word-for-word translation (or at least always compare the NLT with one).
What if someone took various books of the Bible from different translations and mixed them... Use CSB, KJV, NASB, and the Amplified Bible and assembled a book. Each has strengths and weaknesses... what would happen?
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.
For me personally, I will not be purchasing the CSB. After reviewing Romans 10:10 from the NKJV and CSB, the doctrinal error contained in the CSB threw me off. I appreciate your review, however!
2 Samuel 21 verse 21 foot note says ads brother of in the foot note. So I don't know. If you could help explain. I'm reading from the color csb color study bible. Thank you
Poetry: just read the Hebrew. That way you get the parallelism, puns, etc. Don't let the 'poetry' of KJV get in your way. One way to translate is to do two translations of poetry: one interlinnear like and one in English poetry form on opposite pages
I agree with you. I do not care for this verse in the CSB. However, it is apparently a viable option. Translation Note: The CSB translates this verse with the phrase ‘ I have not changed’ instead of the usual ‘I do not change.’ Why? The Hebrew is the exact parallel construction with the phrase ‘you have not been destroyed.’ According to Douglas Stuart, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey (Baker, 1998 - 3 vols. ; single volume from Baker Academic, 2009 ; On Logos Bible Software) Most versions translate the Hebrew as a perfect with a gnomic present (hence ‘I do not change’)
Let's get away from calling Kings 'historical'. Kings and Samuel may contain historical data but they are classified as 'former prophets' in Tanach. They are in the Hebrew scriptures in their present form to have prophetic impact of the original readers of the exilic and post exilic eras. They refer to other source material that has been lost. The texts we have are there for us to learn lessons from, and are mostly about how not living appropriately as the people of God (Deuteronomy 4 as exemplar of a good community that others admire) results in the consequence curses of Deuteronomy 28. They omit a lot of history such that many Christians flip from one page to another thinking one thing followed another but, in reality, 50 to 100 years passed by with plenty of time to forget lessons learned, new kings and administrations to arise, new great powers to affect economies and alliances
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.
This is what I call the "Worst possible translation". Did you know that it's possible to interpret the CSB here in a way that isn't heresy, or are you purposely leaving that out?
@@Dwayne_Green Is it possible? Yes! Is it harder, in my opinion, yes! As you well know, Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse in scripture where the evil one is actually named. Recall that the Jehovah's Witness cult was the result of a one word change in 1 John 5:7. Charles Taze Russell in his own words says that it was, in his view, the proof that Jesus was not God. Is it possible to interpret 1 John 5:7 in a way that implies that Jesus is God? Yes! Is the argument harder to make? In my opinion, yes!
@@barryjtaft There are many places, even in the KJV (especially due to false friends) where someone is more likely than not to twist the scriptures. The branch Davidians are KJVo, yet we don't blame the translators for their heresy...
Thats the thing about the bible. It really isnt meant to be understood by the human brain, rather the soul and spirit is to digest this information. The brain only confuses and disrupts this. Flesh
I don't believe that there are any perfect translations. some details is always lost when you shift from one language to another. Translation is not an exact science, and words from one language don't usually match 1 to 1.
My thoughts about the CSB:
1. In general, I'm an ESV guy, but I've been reading through the CSB since so many people recommend it. I'm enjoying it, but I think I still prefer the ESV - at least so far, but I haven't finished reading the CSB in its entirety. But the CSB might be a good secondary translation for me. As best as I can tell, the CSB seems like it's somewhere between the ESV and the NIV.
2. Most scholars use 3 or 4 criteria to assess translations:
a. Accuracy. The CSB is more formally equivalent (aka "literal" or "word for word") than the NIV. However, being more formally equivalent doesn't necessarily imply being more accurate. Often people falsely assume that more "literal" means more "accurate" but that is easily disproven. For instance, the literal translation of the French phrase "pomme de terre" would be "apple of earth". But it'd be inaccurate in English to say I want an "apple of earth" with cream and chives please when the real meaning of "pomme de terre" is "potato". That said, my impression on reading the CSB is that the CSB does indeed seem more accurate than the NIV in the places I've been able to look and compare with the original biblical languages. Nevertheless I haven't established objective criteria to define what I mean by "accurate" so my impression is potentially a more subjective impression than objective impression. Finally, the CSB seems better to me on the controversial gender issues than the NIV 2011 (e.g. Rom 16:1-2; Rom 16:7; 1 Tim 2:12), though I think the NIV 2011's translation choices are defensible even where I disagree.
b. Clarity. The CSB and the NIV are both clear. Both receive high marks for clarity. The CSB escapes from the Tyndale-KJV tradition in many places, whereas the NIV is still indebted to the Tyndale-KJV tradition to a not insignificant degree (as are many other English translations, especially the ESV which in my view is the most reasonable heir to the Tyndale-KJV tradition today). Hence, if someone finds the style, cadences, phrasing, and overall language of the Tyndale-KJV tradition more familiar and even euphonic, then they may prefer the NIV to the CSB; by contrast, if someone prefers to break away from the Tyndale-KJV tradition, then they may prefer the CSB to the NIV.
c. Naturalness. The CSB is far more natural sounding than the ESV; the ESV often sounds like Yoda is speaking, i.e., it is filled with Biblish. The CSB is more or less equal to the NIV in terms of naturalness. Also, in my opinion, the CSB sounds more "American" in its English, whereas the NIV sounds more Anglo-American in its English; the English of the NIV is more "international" in that respect. To take an obvious example, the CSB uses American weights and measures, whereas most other English speakers around the world use metric measurements. In addition, I find the CSB is more plainspoken in terms of literary style, even in sections where there is and should be a higher register (e.g. the prologue to Luke, Hebrews, poetic sections), which I think is a weakness of the CSB. The CSB is lacking in literary style. It's not bad, just not great. It doesn't really stand out, at least to my ears, whereas thanks in large part to the Tyndale-KJV tradition the ESV and even the NIV are often stylistically beautiful in an understated way and as such can be quite memorable in their turns of phrase and suchlike, which, naturally, is an aid to memorization. Of course, the best natural-sounding modern English translation is the NLT, but it is more loose in terms of faithfulness to the form and structure of the biblical languages.
d. Audience appropriateness. The CSB is quite appropriate to most English speakers and readers. It is appropriate to the average English speaker and reader, those who speak English as a second language, young and old including little children, even those who favor the KJV but want something more readable and/or up-to-date (since the CSB was originally initiated by Arthur Farstad who chaired the NKJV translation committee and the CSB honors Farstad in indirect or subtle ways such as by frequently placing the Majority Text in the CSB's footnotes), and so on. In short, the CSB can serve a wide audience. Of course, this is true of many other translations as well. Such as the NIV and especially the NLT. The ESV isn't as easily comprehensible by as many different groups. In fact, the ESV requires a higher degree of facility with the English language.
3. Anyway, this is just my two cents' worth about the CSB, which may be all it is worth! :)
I am a user of the CSB, and can comment. I generally use three translations, and it is my number three (my first two are the KJV and NKJV). The first thing I would say about it is that I believe it is the most under rated and under appreciated translation.
What I think is good about it: it does the best job of any translation when it comes to attaining both high readability and high accuracy. It is almost as word for word as the ESV, but is even MORE readable than the NIV. It is a readable option for new believers and young adults that is not very dynamic in translation philosophy.
What I think is not so good about it: Actually, I think one of its strengths is also its weakness. The language is so modern, so simple, and so readable... First, it sacrifices almost all literary beauty for simplicity and readability. Second, it’s so easy reading that I don’t have to read slowly and think about what I’m reading. I get something like “highway hypnosis” where I find myself paragraphs ahead and not remembering, realizing, or digesting what I had just read.
Great video!
This is the reason I go back to the NKJ and the KJV…..when I need a “beautiful” word. Fits like an old comfy shoe…..so to speak….
I know what you mean about getting paragraphs ahead like that, that's why I switched from the NIV, but literal translations like the ESV were sometimes too literal and I wouldn't understand what I was reading. The CSB's modern language helps me to understand what I'm reading, but it's more literal than the NIV so I don't lose focus.
I always read and like zone out and have to constantly re-read. It’s a part of ADD.
@@vickyburton2434id rather have understanding then beauty.
That last sentence is brilliant. A problem with high readability is exactly that - you're not forced to think due to the awkward English. That's why reading in a different language is helpful (eg Spanish or French if your first language is English, etc). I can read both NT Greek (almost as well as English), OT Hebrew with help, but not Aramaic. For most purposes, this CSB looks just what I need to replace a very worn out NRSV. I heard about it from a UK source announcing an anglicized version with bendy covers and large print with plenty of white space for highlights and note taking at just £14.50. It also looks excellent for giving away and for leading studies with folk who are not used to reading awkward English.
To those who speak of accuracy: that's often an inappropriate term. All translation involves interpretation and compromises relevant to the target readership and, especially across millennia, sometimes we simply don't know what a word means. Hebrew itself evolved over the 2,000 years or so that the OT covers from Abram to Malachi so words and phrases from one author and era to another are not an exact match, even in Hebrew.
I don't know what Christians mean by 'literary beauty' today. I know what I and my circle meant by it in the mid 1960s. I did a lot of Bible reading in our school chapel - superb training in voice projection, pacing, ensuring the lectern was at the perfect height for me, no microphones then. I disliked the New English Bible, which was new at the time and generally thought to be awkward and academic. I preferred the 'beauty' of the King James but, back then, I wasn't a Christian and neither was anyone in my circles. KJV was, as much as anything, a product of politics. It was largely based on Tyndale's translation of the early 16th century when it was deeply seditious. It was more accurate, eg in how it translated ekkleesia, than the monarchy permitted. He, and others, died for it. KJV was both more tame and deliberately used English of early 16th century to appear old at a time when English was evolving very rapidly. It was the sound and sense of history that appealed to us unbelievers. Modern examples include Richard Dawkins who likes the sound and atmosphere of an old church but rejects the faith they represent.
To be fair, those olde-world chapel services did have an effect: Magnificat, Psalm 95 , etc roared out by 600+ male voices gave me a core that, later, helped me appreciate the Gospel, "He has scattered the proud and has exalted the humble and meek"; Micah 6:8, "He has shown you O man what is good: it's to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God".
Thanks for the review. I agree with all that you say about the CSB. To be honest, I find the CSB refreshing and invigorating to read alongside other translations and I take it to church to read along while listening to the sermon. In face, I have also bought a CSB Study Bible, Everyday study bible, chronological bible and restoration bible. I am convinced it will only grow in popularity.
love the restoration bible Holman has a great selection of specialty bibles
I share Scriptures from the CSB almost daily. It has a good balance between literal and dynamic, but it still tilts more to the literal side.
If you don't want to spend a lot of money on an expensive CSB, remember you can get a larger print paperback CSB Bible, either at your local Bible Store, or order online. Less than $8.00, plus a minor shipping fee. It's best to order at least two for the same minor shipping fee. You can gift the extra one ordered like I did.
100% Bible don't have to be expensive! Even a nice pew Bible has a pretty decent build quality these days!
Where online please!?
I love it. I also enjoy the BSB and yes, the NASB2020.
Thanks for the video.
I’ve been going down a translation rabbit hole lately. See, I’m reconnecting with my faith after decades of being astray. When I attended church as a kid and teen of the 80s and 90s, the “mainstream” (the ones you could easily find at, say, Waldenbooks), were the KJV, NKJV, and NIV84. The NIV84 was what I lived out of for almost a decade.
Returning to Christ all these years later, I knew nothing of all the revisions, controversies, and new translations. I bought a NIV expecting it to be the same and was shocked when it read so differently (NIV2011). I then bought a NKJV, which I really like, but it still wasn’t quite right.
I recently found a CSB Apologetics Study Bible at a thrift store and picked it up. I really like it… EXCEPT for Psalms (especially Psalm 23; “I have what I need.”?🤢). Overall I find it to be a good translation and if I were teaching, I’d probably use it to ensure maximum compatibility with a wide range of English speakers.
Like you, I think I’m going to be using the NKJV and CSB in tandem going forward.
The CSB is a solid translation. I have the CSB single-column wide-margin bible, and wow.
nice!
Where did you buy it please? Can you share the ISBN (usually inside somewhere near publisher info)
I really like a lot of the translation choices the CSB uses. For instance, Romans 3:25 reads “mercy seat” instead of “propitiation” , which is what the Greek is literally referring to. The Old Testament imagery is lost in almost every other traditional translation. John 3:16 in the CSB more accurately gives us “God loved the world in this way” instead of “God so loved the world”, which makes the modern reader think “This is how much God loved the world”. The CSB goes against the traditional phrasing in several places and much more accurately captures the meaning of the original.
My first reaction to seeing the word “beer” (e.g., Lev. 10:9) in the CSB was that they were going the same route as “The Message” and trying to adapt the Bible to a modern audience. But after doing a little study into the findings of Biblical archaeology , it seems that the drink the Bible writers were describing actually was what we would call beer (“strong drink” always made me think liquor which didn’t even really exist until the Middle Ages).
That being said, sometimes they go a little too far. Some variations seem to be chosen just for the sake of being different and standing out from other Bible versions. It’s kinda like if you went through a Biblical Greek dictionary and intentionally chose the third or fourth possible English word and went with it whether it fit the context or not. Psalm 23 in the CSB is a great example of this. All of those weirdly translated verses are, in fact, “acceptable” translation choices but, wow, it literally hurts my ears to read it out loud! I get that they wanted us to see the Psalms in a new and fresh way, but “valley of the shadow of death” is not only more poetic than “darkest valley”, it’s more accurate.
And I understand the CSB’s approach to gender related pronouns and terms. Their policy is stated as being “Not gender-inclusive but gender-accurate.” But I agree with you, the whole “brothers and sisters” thing is really unnecessary. And their use of “humans” and, worse yet, “human beings” is comical in some places and kind of annoying in others. “What is a human being that you remember him?” (Ps. 8:4). Really? I get you don’t wanna use “man” but this is supposed to be a modern translation. Nobody talks like that!
Finally, there’s that pesky tendency among all translations that don’t use a formal, word-for-word approach: interpreting instead of just translating. Rom. 16:7 reads “in the eyes of the apostles” instead of the more accurate but ambiguous “among the apostles.” And the phrase “who is himself God” in John 1:18 is entirely supplied with no basis in the original language. While I definitely agree with the CSB’s theology in both of these examples, it is a slippery slope to change the Bible’s wording to fit our viewpoint. We can add our interpretations in a commentary or footnotes but it is a dangerous practice to do so in the text itself.
So, I agree with you completely. I really enjoy the CSB for the most part but would only ever use it as a supplement. Great video, thanks!
Dwayne, you're awesome man I love you. I've never spent much time in the CSB but have been thinking about it lately, I'm more of a NKJV / ESV reader. I appreciate your videos so much, I've watched everyone with gratitude. Keep up the good work Brother!
The CSB has been my favorite translation for a few years now. 😊
I used to use the ESV as my daily translation, but have been using the CSB instead for the past year or so and it's really grown on me. One thing I really like is the CSB will often render a contrasting reading for passages that have more than one possible meaning. This makes it an excellent pairing with more "traditionally worded" translations so you can see a wide range of possibilities and come to your own conclusion. Plus, they usually include the alternative, more traditional renderings in the footnotes, so it's still there in some sense. I love the readability, it's my go-to recommendation for people who might be new to Scripture. And it works well enough for me as a word-for-word to get the job done, and I can always reference a few other translations if needed. Thanks for this video!
Thanks for your post. I read multiple translations daily, including the CSB.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
I’m listening to the NKJV on audio while following along in CSB to understand easier
Enjoyed your review. I think CSB is a great all around Bible that works well for study, preaching, and more casual reading. One small disagreement I have is that I don't think "accuracy" is a good way to describe word for word. For example, what is the most accurate way to translate ¿Cómo te llamas? from Spanish to English? Word for word: "how you called?" dynamic equivalence: "what's your name?" I think that the more dynamic is a more accurate translation because it captures the meaning of the question more accurately in a way an English speaker would know how to respond by sharing their name. Still, I can see how a word for word translation works great for study and preaching, especially when your goal is to explain or understand the underlying Hebrew or Greek text! Typically I prefer an interlinear Bible for a truly word for word translation.
Yeah, I'm typically careful with how I use the word Accurate... And of course, this is a long debated topic. lol...
For me, I think I mentioned this in the video, is that the Bible is a book written at a specific time IN a specific culture. Ultimately, I think a good way to define an 'accurate' translation is one which maintains clarity, when the text is clear, and maintains ambiguity, when the grammatical construction is ambiguous (like certain usages of the genitive for example). Admitedly, this is a tough balance, and for me, the more dynamic a translation becomes, the more interpretive it HAS to be, and in that sense, the CSB would be less 'accurate' than something like the ESV or NKJV.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and it's certain there will be no consensus! lol
I use the CSB, HCSB, and NIV mainly. Working on using the ESV. Glad to know your thoughts. I love the CSB and HCSB because they are both very accurate and very easy to understand. I think a shortfall is that it doesn’t put the “missing verses” in brackets like the HCSB did.
That is what I find annoying about the "missing verses".
Great review Dwayne, as I mentioned over on the CSB Facebook group, I do use the CSB to preach from. I fill that over all it is a solid translation and reads better outload than some of the other translations. However, I admit the reality of those differences may be small. I use the ESV and at times other translations as part of my sermon prep.
I have enjoyed the CSB, glad to hear this detailed review! Interesting considerations!
I've enjoyed the CSB. Thank you for all the work on this channel btw and keep up the good work!
Oh man i love it. I wish there was a hybrid of csb and NKJV. Leave most of it csb but put it in psalm 23,27, Isaiah 9. And the Lord’s Prayer from the NKJV. But other than that, the csb has been really well for me to understand and connect with.
Thank you for this informational video with Biblical sound doctrine in mind! I ordered a CSB Spurgeon Study Bible and like you mentioned, it won’t be my main Bible, but one as a nice reference! Thank you and God bless!!🙏🏼
Started reading through the csb last week. Really enjoying it so far.
'Brothers & sisters' in NRSV I use. It's much better as the default unless specifically to a group of men. Only last week I saw a passage in Acts where the instruction was given to a group of men and women so 'brosis' is a better translation of the generic adelphoi
I have trouble reading so I’m slow. So sometimes KJV or NKJV is a little hard for me but CSB is a good read for me
Thank you for sharing. I have used NKJV for 30+ years as my main study Bible and for scripture memorization. But I also reference a few other translations when digging in to study.
I just became aware of the CSB and ESV last week while looking for a good note taking Bible. (Where have I been?!) 😮
After searching and checking people's reviews, I've decided to buy the CSB Hosanna Revival journal Bible (wide margins for notes!) and I'm looking for the best copy of the CSB study Bible; some complaints on the hardback binding falling apart quickly😢).
Good, honest and fair review of the CSB Dwayne! I've been a fan of this translation since it was the HCSB but only recently started using it more regularly. The CSB is my main devotional translation. So, when I'm reading during my personal time in the morning/evening I use the CSB. Whereas the ESV has long been the translation I use for preaching/teaching. Although I have used the CSB to preach from on occasion. For newer Christians and anyone who has trouble reading, I always recommend the CSB and they are better able to connect with the bible and maintain a regular practice of reading scripture.
Off topic: You're lighting is on point and looks great!
Thanks Vaughn! Glad the lighting looks good, better than staring at a bland grey background!
The thing you said about the CSB for those that have english as their second language is so true. I'm dutch, so english is not my mother tongue, but I thought I would be able to read it. And it was true. I bought the CSB study bible. (dutch study bibles are pretty expensive, simply because there are not that many who speak dutch. So they can't print like hundreds of thousands of study bibles).
That's great! Since the CSB has been out since 2017, were you using another english translation before?
@@Dwayne_Green No, not really. I bought an NIV about 8 years ago, but I didn't read a lot in it. So, I can't really compare those two.
I agree that the CSB is quite readable, and the accuracy is quite good.
My major problem with most modern versions is I think they are too prone to updates!
I also am not ultimately a fan of the Critical Text, upon which these modern versions are based.
My favourite translation of all is the NKJV which is not prone to these same issues :)
@@Dwayne_Green The NKJV is also my favorite modern version.
Mark Ward sees the CSB in the same way. He also points out the dead words and false friends in the KJV.😊
Love this video bro... Believe it or not the NIV does a good job in poetry.
I actually do not have an NIV, so I couldn't say either way! Maybe that's next on the list!
@@Dwayne_Green it does a better job at staying close to traditional renderings while maintaining readability and accuracy at a very high level.
I just discovered this translation and I also enjoy it. I will say on the "brethren" topic, I think the term "brethren" could easily mean "people" not just "dudes". So to me, using "brothers and sisters" or "folks" is perfectly fine to be. I don't feel like the CSB is going liberal or anything because of it.
I love the csb! I have a compact reference version of it to take with me from place to place (I also have a esv NT I take sometimes) and a Holy land illustrated Bible in csb to use for study at home. I read the Hebrew Greek Bible so it’s great to take a look at when I, as you said, need to supplement in a difficult area.
That's great stuff! The Hebrew and Greek are soooo important if you have the aptitude to learn it :) I always pull out the original languages when I prepare stuff!
I really like the csb..... but I started into the NKJV and now it’s a struggle! Lol I have used ESV for 10 yrs or so. The struggle is real. 😊 Great video.
I love the NKJV! It's my absolute favourite. From what I understand, the ESV is very similar to the NKJV.
The struggle is real
One of my favorite translations
Thank you for this explanation. God bless.
My go-to NT translation every time is the DBH Revised. IMO it’s the most accurate (both formal and dynamic) NT translation
since the original autographs.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
I agree with you about the CSB and poetry: it's not as good as other translations like the NKJV as you mentioned. For more detail:
1. I like the CSB except in the poetic sections like the Psalms.
2. Depending on how one counts, poetry does make up around 1/4th to 1/3rd of the Bible, so it's not an insignificant matter.
(Tangentially, the most literary of most cultures until the modern age typically considered verse or poetry, not prose like novels or even plays like Oedipus Rex or Shakespeare, the height of verbal expression. See the epics of a culture or civilization such as Gilgamesh, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Virgil's Aeneid, Beowulf, Dante's Divine Comedy, etc. Not at all suggesting the Bible is mere literature, of course it is God-breathed Scripture, but arguably the Bible is not less than literature either, however one might best define literature.)
3. In any case, 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 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 suchlike and enough people became sufficiently literate - and no more is this likely true than in the poems and songs of biblical Israel.
4. Granted, I think the CSB is syntactically accurate. Yet it seems to do so at the great expense of the "music" of the underlying Hebrew. For instance, see the work of the literary scholars Robert Alter and Harold Bloom on this point. By and large, both men are secular Jews, though Bloom called himself a secular Jew as well as a Gnostic Jew, but both are likewise highly sensitive to literary merit and demerit, and ad such are immensely helpful when speaking to the issue. Continuing, it's never been easy to translate poetry from one language into another, but there are cetainly better and worse translations, given there are many different ways to express the same idea in English; however I find the CSB does a more pedestrian job than most other translations with respect to the biblical poetry. I think even the NIV and the NLT are better, though there are other significant costs in these latter translations. The CSB is reliably serviceable, but it has lost much of the flavor. The poetry comes across more like a translation by a committee with ears tuned more toward linguistic technicalities than to harp or lyre or other instruments the psalmists used to compose their praises and laments and so forth.
5. I say all this not because I wish (perhaps like Leland Ryken, the ESV's main style editor) to make the apparently circular argument that the Bible ought to "sound like the Bible" since I was raised on the KJV. I wasn't. I'm a millennial and my first real encounter with God's Word was in the NIV. Rather I'm very much on board with what the biblical scholar Don Carson has said about Bible translations: "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.”
6. Still, I don't wish to throw stones at the CSB - or at least not too many! It is a good translation in most other ways. It is the translation I usually recommend to most people, especially new Christians. And arguably, 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.
Edit. Perhaps my literary evaluation of the CSB's poetry is mistaken. Perhaps it is better than I think it is. That's certainly a possibility. In that case I suppose we'd have 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."
I will start by saying that I use the CSB in the pulpit and when I teach. In saying that, I was very hesitant in using it because of the HCSB. I found the HCSB to be very "forced" in it's translation.
I have a congregation that is mixed with new and experience Christians. I also have some from other countries. The CSB really fills that gap and makes it easy to preach from.
As a long time reader of the NASB and ESV, I have found that the transition has been very easy. I also found that, as it is not a word for word, it still retains the that format enough to used in word studies while maintaining the readability.
I'm glad i found this video.. I've been trying out various translations trying to find the perfect one to pair with my NKJV..i thought maybe the ESV but i feel the ESV reads very similar to the NKJV and often the NKJV just is even more straightforward and easier to understand then the ESV so i dropped the ESV out of the race.. NIV I've tried a few times but it just does not do it for me so i tried CSB and been leaning towards that one a lot as it just reads so easily..
This solidifies my decision... I dont want to use so many translations that i lose regularity and the NKJV/CSB go so well together.. Aside from that i read the KJV every now n then.
My main is the NKJV as well which I often pair with the CSB! I've got another video where I talk about the benefits of the NKJV. ua-cam.com/video/K3cuAOd0DwI/v-deo.html
@@Dwayne_Green Thanks Dwayne.. Yes i feel I've finally settled fully on the few translations i want to use together..
Excellent review!
Every so often I read the CSB and love that it is a 'Smooth Read' and accurate. I have read the Bible many times through cover to cover. I switch translations to refresh myself and to see it differently. I have been reading the Bible for 50 years. I own every version. I especially enjoy the NLT for that novel type reed when going to sleep, and NKJV for my second translation. I have found the NLT sometimes falls short on accuracy for me. The CSB conveys more clarity for me as a stronger translation than the NLT. The NLT is paraphrased, which is like reading a novel and its good. The NKJV Bible and its language trys to translate word for word, it lacks refinement in conveying the spirit and clarity of the message. It had no impact for me. CBS is more accurate than the NLT and probably the NKJV for me because it reaches deeper for me.
The idea of a translation being more accurate if it is a word for word translation is utterly rediculous. Much of the NT was recorded in the paraphrases of the time and recorded. The writters went to people asking what they saw or experienced and they spoke in the common language of the day, many were uneducated, so paraphrase would more accurate. Look at the gammar of learning another language where the verb is before the subject noun is located in the sentence and the predicate which dont even exist in the Hebrew texts. Beleive me there is no word for word translation possible from one language to another.
I like the easy read bibles more as I get older. Im 70 now. And the CSB is a good smooth read with Clarity that produces impact for me. it is a Strong Translation. The Gender specific grammar corrrection is long overdue. Reading ' Brothers and Sisters' is fine with me, and it gets away from the patriachal pretense of leadership, where men control the church and the household by rights of their gender thereby reducing women to lesser slave vassles of lesser valued than a man. People have to read what appeal to them. The Very Best Translation for anyone, is the Bible they are holding in thier hand for sure no matter what it is. If its in your hand God put it there.
For the first time reader, I would recommend the NLT Application Bible by Tyndal. if you do get it be sure to get the Giant print version as the print is small even in the large print. To me this NLT Application Bible is a masterpiece, I read it and all its notes 3 times. I think its the best selling Study Bible of all time. Good for the newbees. I did read the NKJV 3 times before I came upon the NLT Application Bible which i also read 3 times and before that the Bible of the day was the NIV which I dont like either. Now when I study I hope around thru all the versions as I like. Get the one that works for you. If its the KJV, get that. I do reaad the KJV for meditation because it is so beautiful. God Speed on your journey Brothers and Sisters. Be blessed.
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
Thank you, this was very useful for this french christian woman. I have an old KJV, with the combined difficulties of ancient language and small print. I am looking for a more readable, kind of help-bible. I have my french bible but when listening to a sermon given by an american pastor I love to take notes and quotes on a bible of same language. I believe a CSB will be very comfortable. God bless you.
I own a Large Print references Bible from CSB and a Study CSB Bible. Everything you sound true to me. I did not like a lot of the way they translated somethings, like in Luke with what Mary said and John 2 Wedding of Cana using headwaiter. Both are not wrong, they are just not poetic but I am getting over that. Mark Smith recommended reading the whole Bible in the CSB and I might try it. CSB my be my go to Bible and I can't go wrong with it. Thank you for your video.
Agree with you so much on the poetry -- on that count KJV / NKJV for the win 😁 But I’ll def check out the CSB study Bible next
Great review Dwayne
Thanks!
Great video... Thanks!!
Thanks!
I only use it with my she read thirty Bible as an devotional
It is my favorite translation!
The CSB is one of the surprises in bible translation. For one, I use the nkjv , KJV, Nasb and ESV. But when the Hcsb came out, I found it a wonderful alternative to the NIV. That said, I was a bit put off by the changes in the CSB . But, when using it as a Sunday school class, the CSB does shine. But as for poetry, my goodness, can a stylist from Holman , please , soak up the linguistics from the Textus Receptus and be brave and not culturally relevant? Enough rant , my apologies. Very good review.
They don't use the Textus Receptus. They use the Critical Text Manuscripts.
Excellent comment about people with English as a second language. It was amusing to have people who loved the KJV do a Cloze test on KJV and a more recent trranslation. They always resulted in revealing that they had not properly understood the text from KJV
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
What do you think about the difference between NLT and CSB
I'm not a big fan of the NLT, the NLT takes a lot more liberties in it's Dynamic approach. CSB would be more literal than the nlt.
@@Dwayne_Green appreciate your reply. We tried ESV and NKJV then I found the reading required too much of other study material just to read the bible. my friends "secretly" were reading NLT so we looked into it at the store and finally could read it without outside help. But when we listened to the audio it sounds hard to listen but CSB was more flowing then NLT. so looking into getting a CSB hence watching your video maybe better for my bible studies :)
I think the ESV is better than CSB for the Psalms. But the gospels especially sound and read great in the CSB.
It is a great translation!
No. modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
It's the same way with
Spanish. If it's a mixed group, the masculine form is always used. It doesn't if it's 100 females and just 1 male. The masculine form is still used.
I love this Bible. I am confused why they dropped the name of God from its predecessor. “Lord” is a title and Yahweh is a name. Is it really so hard to read God’s name? Thank you for your vlog! Blessings.
The 1977 NASB is a awesome in the Psalms
Excellent video really enjoyed it. KJV & NKJV are my choice although I read the CSB all the way through in chronological order and enjoyed it. I felt it fell flat in Psalms. For me the CSB & NIV tie for 3rd place. I have the ESV as a study bible which is excellent and a NSAB which is great for study but I find the ESV horrible to just read it’s to flat and dead.
The NKJV is my primary version, my absolute favourite! The CSB is a great supplement for it :)
Interesting take. The NLT seems similar. Any striking differences between CSB and NLT?
The NLT is more on the thought-for-thought side of the translation spectrum. I wouldn`t call it a paraphrase, but it`s really close. I find the CSB hovers right in the middle between Word-for-word and thought-for-thought.
That was my question as well, thx for asking 😁
NLT is a really good translation but very different than CSB as it is a much looser translation. It came out of a desire to update the Living Bible but ended up becoming a full on translation. I think it can be a bit lacking for in-depth Bible study but is my top choice for an easy to read devotional Bible.
I have found that - as far as modern translations since 1950 - the NASV & the NKJV are very formal and literal (though based upon slightly differing texts). The ESV is slightly less formal and literal than them. The CSB is SLIGHTLY less word-for-word than the ESV, but far more literal than the NIV. The NLT is far more ‘thought-by-thought’ and a looser translation (not as formal / word-for-word) than even the NIV.
@@pastor-josh, I agree. It is great for getting the ‘big picture’ - especially in the Old Testament narrative sections, as well as getting the main idea. When it comes to the ‘teaching’ sections, I would stick with a more word-for-word translation (or at least always compare the NLT with one).
What if someone took various books of the Bible from different translations and mixed them... Use CSB, KJV, NASB, and the Amplified Bible and assembled a book. Each has strengths and weaknesses... what would happen?
modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading.
Modern versions are corrupt.
The Canadian Standard Bible! ( I am a big fan of the HCSB. )
Ha! Love it. The Canadian Standard Bible! They'll need a few more "eh"s in r=there!
I like the translation
I'm not English I'm Dutch and my English is not very good
I understand this English good
That's fantastic! I've found a few non-native english speakers that have found the CSB easier to digest!
For me personally, I will not be purchasing the CSB. After reviewing Romans 10:10 from the NKJV and CSB, the doctrinal error contained in the CSB threw me off. I appreciate your review, however!
I like their scripture notebooks. You don't have to mark up your bible. Sometimes I understand it easier then nasb.
The Holy Ghost preserved a Bible and its the kjv. And I am a trained translator/textual critic
So I'm asking have you seen any errors?
2 Samuel 21 verse 21 foot note says ads brother of in the foot note. So I don't know. If you could help explain. I'm reading from the color csb color study bible. Thank you
The CSB is a 'Critical Text' based translations, the footnote here is likely a reference to either the septuagint or the dead sea scrolls.
@@Dwayne_Green so the Christian standard is a trust worthy translation. I can understand it better than the nkjv
@@Kens1966 I would say so.
Poetry: just read the Hebrew. That way you get the parallelism, puns, etc. Don't let the 'poetry' of KJV get in your way. One way to translate is to do two translations of poetry: one interlinnear like and one in English poetry form on opposite pages
I love the CSB
it's definitely a good translation :)
@@Dwayne_Green yes sir definitely
Its the Calvinist Standard Bible
Read Psalm 51:5
I don't like the CSB translation of Malachi 3:6.
I took a quick look, and it looks like they footnoted an alternate translation there. It's a great supplement, but not perfect!
I agree with you. I do not care for this verse in the CSB. However, it is apparently a viable option.
Translation Note:
The CSB translates this verse with the phrase ‘ I have not changed’ instead of the usual ‘I do not change.’ Why?
The Hebrew is the exact parallel construction with the phrase ‘you have not been destroyed.’
According to Douglas Stuart, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey (Baker, 1998 - 3 vols. ; single volume from Baker Academic, 2009 ; On Logos Bible Software)
Most versions translate the Hebrew as a perfect with a gnomic present (hence ‘I do not change’)
Let's get away from calling Kings 'historical'. Kings and Samuel may contain historical data but they are classified as 'former prophets' in Tanach. They are in the Hebrew scriptures in their present form to have prophetic impact of the original readers of the exilic and post exilic eras. They refer to other source material that has been lost. The texts we have are there for us to learn lessons from, and are mostly about how not living appropriately as the people of God (Deuteronomy 4 as exemplar of a good community that others admire) results in the consequence curses of Deuteronomy 28. They omit a lot of history such that many Christians flip from one page to another thinking one thing followed another but, in reality, 50 to 100 years passed by with plenty of time to forget lessons learned, new kings and administrations to arise, new great powers to affect economies and alliances
I don't like it I was reading php4-13 today and it leaves out christ and put him I will stay with my nkjv
Nkjv is better but also altered. better to use AV/KJV
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.
This is what I call the "Worst possible translation". Did you know that it's possible to interpret the CSB here in a way that isn't heresy, or are you purposely leaving that out?
@@Dwayne_Green Is it possible? Yes! Is it harder, in my opinion, yes! As you well know, Isaiah 14:12 is the only verse in scripture where the evil one is actually named.
Recall that the Jehovah's Witness cult was the result of a one word change in 1 John 5:7. Charles Taze Russell in his own words says that it was, in his view, the proof that Jesus was not God.
Is it possible to interpret 1 John 5:7 in a way that implies that Jesus is God? Yes! Is the argument harder to make? In my opinion, yes!
@@barryjtaft There are many places, even in the KJV (especially due to false friends) where someone is more likely than not to twist the scriptures. The branch Davidians are KJVo, yet we don't blame the translators for their heresy...
i'm only 6 books in (NT) and i'm not impressed. don't care for the gender neutral wording.
And also folks we were givin the book of Enock this book is ment for this generation the last generation. The end times are upon us.
Meh. A mediocre translation.
Thats the thing about the bible. It really isnt meant to be understood by the human brain, rather the soul and spirit is to digest this information. The brain only confuses and disrupts this. Flesh
The csb is missing tons of verses
Depends who you ask, some might say the KJV/NKJV Add tons of verses.
@@Dwayne_Green 😆 🤣 😂 what a stupid thing to say,but your speaking from your resources..
@@AV__joint-heir_Timotheus Wow, are you a KJVonlyist? Cause this is the sort of attitude that contributes to their stereotype.
@@Dwayne_Green if you say so,have a nice day friend
😢
I have watched.videls.on UA-cam saying there are errors with the csb translation has some errors with it
I don't believe that there are any perfect translations. some details is always lost when you shift from one language to another. Translation is not an exact science, and words from one language don't usually match 1 to 1.