I’m a NKJV guy but I always say that if the Lord were to use me again to plant another church I would use the CSB. It has become a favorite translation of mine. I enjoy it very much.
I float between CSB, LSB, and ESV for my reading and study. I completely agree with you regarding your point "The CSB is what the NIV should have been."
Thanks for the video. I have started to collect a few bibles and don’t have a CSB version yet. I think I will look into getting one. I do like the NIV study bibles but they seem to be disliked (most of the commenters don’t seem to like it much) but I enjoy the readability. You have a great depth of knowledge.
The two translations I use the most frequently are the CSB and the NASB both 95 and 2020. I also use the HCSB from time to time. Reading it alongside the NASB really in my humble opinion shows just how accurate it is.
ESV and CSB are my 2 main translations. I started using both of them in 2017 and like them both equally. My church uses ESV so I guess I am using the ESV more of the time. But CSB is a really nice change. It's just more relaxing....if that makes sense.
I love the CSB. It’s as readable as the NIV or NLT, yet literal enough to trust its renderings of words & phrases. It’s my go-to for regular devotional reading, I pair my Schuyler CSB with the ESV Study Bible and my KJV Scofield Reference Bible and it’s excellent.
Even tho the NIV is my main and favorite translation, I enjoy the CSB very much. I've preached from it a few times and I'm considering doing it more. It's a great translation.
The CSB is the translation that got me back to daily Bible reading in 2019 and helped get me through a divorce and the covid pandemic. It will always have a special place in my heart. Since then, I have switched to the Berean Standard Bible. I find it just as easy to read as the CSB, however I prefer the traditional gender pronouns of the BSB.
My favorite translation presently is the CSB and before that (about a year ago, was the HCSB. I am one of those weirdos who believes the HCSB -- especially their study Bible is a superior study Bible to the CSB Study Bible and I use the CSB Study Bible fairly consistently. It ranks very high in my estimation. I started in pursuit of an adequate study Bible with the NIV Study Bible in he mid 70s. I'm 84 years old so I've been at this pursuit some number of years. Right now--excluding the MacArthur Study Bible their several versions I'm pretty well linked to the CSB Study Bible. Good job with your review.
I'm (slowly!) learning the biblical languages, viz. Classical Hebrew and Koine Greek, so I tend toward using the ESV or NASB for my primary English translation since these translations serve as good cribs or ponies for a novice like me trying to learn the original biblical languages, but I love the CSB! 😊 1. The CSB was originally initiated by Arthur Farstad who chaired the NKJV translation committee and wanted the CSB to use the Textus Receptus/Majority Text (TR/MT). However Farstad passed away shortly after work on the CSB began (then known as the HCSB). Edwin Blum replaced Farstad on the CSB, and Blum and the CSB translation committee decided to go with the Critical Text (CT) rather than the TR/MT. Nevertheless the CSB honors Farstad in indirect and subtle ways such as by frequently placing the TR/MT verses and translations in the CSB's footnotes. Many have said the CSB may have the best footnotes of any major English Bible translation, arguably better than even the NKJV's footnotes which I already highly respect. 2. I agree with you that "the CSB is what the NIV 2011 should have been" is a pretty fair way to put it. For more detail, I'd say the following: Most scholars involved in translation use 3 or 4 criteria to assess a translation: a. Accuracy. The CSB is more formally equivalent (aka "literal" or "word for word") than the NIV. Actually I find the CSB is often equally formally equivalent to the ESV, NKJV, NASB/LSB. That said, 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. And, importantly, 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 many (not all) of the NIV 2011's translation choices are defensible even though I would strongly disagree with them. b. Clarity. The CSB and the NIV are both clear. Both receive very 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, or if course prefer the KJV, NKJV, or ESV to most other translations; 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., the ESV is filled with Biblish. The CSB is more or less equal to the NIV in terms of naturalness. Also, at least to my ears, the CSB sounds more "American" in its English (though Holman recently released an Anglicized version of the CSB), 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 the NIV is consistent with most other English speakers around the world and uses 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 in places where I think there should be 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. 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, 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. My current favorite editions of the CSB are: a. Affordable: * CSB Reader's Bible. * CSB Single Column Compact Size Bible, which I find superior to the CSB Single Column Personal Size Bible because it is slightly less expensive, it has significantly less ghosting, it is a little bit more portable, and the text doesn't slide into the middle gutter which I find annoying in the Personal Size. * CSB He Reads Truth Study Bible, which isn't much of a study Bible, it's very bare bones, but it serves as a relatively affordable single column paragraph format version of the CSB that can double as a very basic study Bible as well as note taking Bible. * Other CSB study Bibles like the CSB Study Bible and the (sadly out of print but still available as an ebook) CSB Baker Illustrated Study Bible are also worth mentioning because they are or were very affordable and make for very good study Bibles if one wants a study Bible. b. Premium: * CSB Single-Column Personal Size Bible in the Holman Handcrafted Collection. This isn't anywhere near as good as, say, Schuyler, R.L. Allan, or Crossway Heirloom. It might be on par with Cambridge, though I'd say even Cambridge is slightly better quality. Nevertheless this CSB in the Holman Handcrafted Collection is currently only about $100, which is a good price point. If it was more, it wouldn't be worth it. But since it's more or less appropriately priced, it makes for a great premium Bible. At present, it is the best single column paragraph format CSB. Schuyler makes the best premium CSB Bibles of all, but they're double columns. I should admit my bias is that I prefer single column paragraph format when it comes to every day carry (EDC) Bibles and reading Bibles, though I'm fine with double columns in, say, study Bibles. * Schuyler PSQ or Schuyler Quentel. The PSQ is the personal sized Quentel, though I think it's more towards compact sized. The Quentel is bigger. But the textblock is the same inside. Schuyler is updating their Quentel and PSQ line though; I'm referring to the current line that hasn't been updated yet. Also Schuyler recently held a survey to gauge interest in how many people might like to see an affordable Schuyler Bible. I think it's be great if Schuyler starts punishing affordable Schuyler Bibles with the same textblock, fonts, and so forth as their premium Bibles! Just like how Crossway has their premium ESV Heirloom Heritage line as well as their mor affordable ESV TruTone line. For example, compared the ESV Heirloom Heritage with the ESV TruTone Heritage. I think the ESV TruTone Heritage is an absolute steal to get the same textblock as in the ESV Heirloom Heritage. Hopefully Schuyler will do something similar if they decide to go with affordable Schuyler Bibles.
I agree with nearly all your points on the CSB. Our Church uses it as its main. My wife and Son love it. Like you I just prefer more formal translations. My main two are LSB and NKJV. I have read through the CSB and to me it seems like they change things just to change them. I am not a fan of the translation “Lord of armies.” either. But it does do a good job for folks that may not have the nerd component. Great video!
I really like the CSB translation. The CSB is my daily reader and it is supplemented with the ESV Study Bible. I do prefer the BSB for scripture memorization.
@@jakersni9499 I think I prefer the BSB slightly over the CSB. For scripture memorization it’s great because it retains a lot of the traditional word choices and cadences for the popular memory verses yet overall it’s very readable like the CSB.
I enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the CSB. I tend lean more towards the LSB, ESV, NKJV and NASB95, but I do own serveral copies of the CSB, including a CSB Study Bible. My biggest issue is with the pronoun changes in the CSB. For some reason, when I read 'brothers and sisters' over and over again, it seems 'forced' to me somehow. Also of note is that all of the other translations that I mention do not do this.
Great review, as always. My attitude towards the CSB is a lot like yours. I think it's an excellent overall translation, but I tend to lean towards the more "literal" versions like the ESV, NKJV, and NASB. It does offer great readability and accuracy. I do cringe every time I run across their catchphrase of "optimal equivalence", though. Every translator aspires to optimal equivalence! I bet the translators of the NIV and ESV would both say they were going for that even though they haven't chosen to make a slogan out of it! 🙂
I do quite like the CSB. Sometimes this translation makes some passages more understandable. In other words: I completely agree with what you're saying. 😎 Thank you!
I am a fan of the HCSB. I am not too sure about the CSB. I have bought a copy of the CSB and reading through it. These videos are informative. Although in my ministry I preach from the NKJV or LSB Bible, but I will say the CSB is a much easier read through.
I like my nerdy theological words too lol. I appreciate the more dynamic translations but I stick with LSB and ESV mainly because I’ve always been the most familiar with traditional terms.
I like the Holman CSB version better. There is just a lot of things about it that I enjoy. One thing is the including the parts of scriptures that are usually placed at the bottom of the page in modern translations.
I like the CSB, it's my wife's favorite translation so that's what we read together in the home. It's not my most frequently used, but something I noticed about it is that it's not memorable or memorizable.For whatever reason the KJV and old timey english translations have hooks that stick in your brain and make it memorizable but as clear and easily readable as the CSB is, it's impossible to quote verbatim. You perfectly understood what you read, but the specific wording doesn't have the same hooks to be easily memorizable.
I have a wide margin esv and I’ve written several csb translations of verses in it. But overall it doesn’t sound right to me, but I reference it often.
@@coltonyarbro you’re welcome brother! I loved the ESV and felt disoriented knowing the locations of verses yet not able to quote them like I used to with the NASB. One silent night I felt God’s urgency to return to the translation I have mostly memorized. I got a LSB being very much like the NASB 95 with some tweeks. I felt at home buying the Italian cowhide edge line PPR LSB to last me a while. I definitely was at peace returning as it’s been 2 years. I missed it!
I also wish they would leave them in the main text. I don’t mind brackets, which is what the NASB does. But I really wish they would leave them in the text.
I’m usually pretty close to kjv only but do also include that with the older translations like the Geneva, douay rheims, and Mathew’s Bible. I also do like the nkjv. The only critical text bibles I would consider is the esv, would have been the nasb but the 2020 update I didn’t like at all. That being said I read through study Bibles for the notes. And the csb study Bible so far I like the notes and from the passages I’ve skimmed it seems decent, much better then the NIV or any other translations further twords thought for thought
My church uses the CSB. When I’ve had a long, rough day and my brain is scrambled, I’ll go to the CSB occasionally. I typically use the KJV, NKJV, or ESV. I do wish the CSB would keep certain theological words as well. One that sticks out to me is “begotten” I appreciate how the NKJV retained that particular word. Probably because it was used in the council of Nicaea. I understand “one and only” is the meaning of begotten, but much like you it’s personal preference. I wish the ESV would have retained it, otherwise the ESV would be my main instead of the NKJV.
I really like the CSV specifically because it breaks away from the KJV translation tradition that a lot of translations preserve while still going for an accurate translation. In part, this creates the effect of having a more "casual" sounding rendering, whereas the early modern English president tends to make it seem high and larger than life to modern ears in a way that the Bible never was meant to be. The different word choices often make me do a double take and dig deeper into a text precisely because it is different than the ESV or NIV renderings I'm more familiar with. Translation is very difficult. I've studied Japanese a bit, so I have an idea of how much a good translation might have to fabricate a subject or other supporting information just to make a sentence work grammatically in English. It doesn't make a translation bad or impossible, but it does mean extra care needs to be made to ensure that the added context is true to the original and not due to the translators bias or misinterpretation. I can't approach the original languages, so it is great to double-check my assumptions against a variety of translations to make sure whatever pops into my head when reading one translation still makes sense. I find that the CSB is different enough that it makes a good choice for a second opinion because of the translation philosophy differences. (I also like to consult hyper literal translations to get a feel for the sematic range of a verse.) I bought a reader edition specifically for casual reading, while I have various study editions of the ESV for deeper dives.
I’m a new king James guy also, and if a young pastor reads from the CSB, maybe people will take up their bible and read. Very good translation, just need to tweak the psalms.
I haven’t finished the video, so you might answer this. But what is the “standard” in Bible translations? There’s a few quite different “standards” out there.
So for me I love the Hcsb and feel no need for the Csb. My primary translations, though, are the Nasb1995 and Kjv. As a Bible teacher, I also prefer the more literary translations but use multiple translations and study bibles and Commentaries for serious study ✝️. I also prefer the original genders and some like the Csb go in the direction of our current culture and don't stick to the male use of the original Hebrew and Greek. Not sure if you mentioned that 🤔
It is short-sighted to think any 1 translation can fully reveal the meanings of the words and phrases of the original languages of the Holy Scriptures. Study the original for yourself and compare to the efforts of many who have tried. Always remembering they are attempts to get as close to the meaning and sometimes also the rhythm of the original.
It’s a great translation, just not very pretty in the Psalms compared to the KJV tradition. I also think it’s hard to memorize it exactly because it’s so conversational
I think the keys are gone! 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 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.
@@coltonyarbro A Hermeneutical principle is that a word carries the same meaning through the bible. If you did a word study in the CSB of Morning star you would arrive at the equating of the fallen morning star of Isa.14.12 with the same morning star in Rev 22.16 They keys are gone!
@barryjtaft that's not a good hermeneutic principle. Especially if you learn anything about the root languages. The context determines the meaning of the word. Clearly they are talking about different characters.
NO Bible TRANSLATION is going to be perfect, not even the ones that make use of Shakespeare's language. That is why we all need to learn the languages of the Bible ourselves, find out what it says and COMPARE with many other translations and talk it over to come to a consensus.
@@coltonyarbro I agree. KJV the best translation. It slows you down so that you can't read it like a story book you really have to think. When you quote it everybody knows it's the Bible. I love my King Jimmy.
I’m a NKJV guy but I always say that if the Lord were to use me again to plant another church I would use the CSB. It has become a favorite translation of mine. I enjoy it very much.
It’s a great one for sure! Love the NKJV also.
CSB is far and away my favorite. I love the blend of accuracy and readability.
same
I float between CSB, LSB, and ESV for my reading and study. I completely agree with you regarding your point "The CSB is what the NIV should have been."
Thanks for the video. I have started to collect a few bibles and don’t have a CSB version yet. I think I will look into getting one. I do like the NIV study bibles but they seem to be disliked (most of the commenters don’t seem to like it much) but I enjoy the readability. You have a great depth of knowledge.
The two translations I use the most frequently are the CSB and the NASB both 95 and 2020. I also use the HCSB from time to time. Reading it alongside the NASB really in my humble opinion shows just how accurate it is.
CSB is the first translation I ever read other than the KJV. I absolutely love it now.
Nice! That’s a pretty big difference going from very old English to very modern English.
I been thinking of getting the CSB ancient faith study bible . 🙏 thanks for the video i have a good idea of what to expect now
I LOVE mine!
I was searching the comments for this. I love mine, great quality for a decent price and the commentary is really well incorporated! Go for it!
ESV and CSB are my 2 main translations. I started using both of them in 2017 and like them both equally. My church uses ESV so I guess I am using the ESV more of the time. But CSB is a really nice change. It's just more relaxing....if that makes sense.
yes! its easier for most modern ears. may lose a little poetically compared with esv at times but more than makes up in other ways.
I love the CSB. It’s as readable as the NIV or NLT, yet literal enough to trust its renderings of words & phrases. It’s my go-to for regular devotional reading, I pair my Schuyler CSB with the ESV Study Bible and my KJV Scofield Reference Bible and it’s excellent.
Even tho the NIV is my main and favorite translation, I enjoy the CSB very much. I've preached from it a few times and I'm considering doing it more. It's a great translation.
Always enjoy your videos and content man. Would be cool to see some of your sermons!
@@Starkwolf88 thank you! All sermons are posted at my church’s UA-cam channel here
youtube.com/@FBCDawson
@@coltonyarbro oh cool, didn’t even know you had this, will check it out. God bless!
Awesome! Got a copy of the CSB in the mail. I haven’t thumbed through it yet but stoked to dive in.
Hope you enjoy it!
@@coltonyarbro same. I was thinking about doing the SHRED bible reading plan with it.
@@SirDMTZ I’ve never heard of that. I’ll have to look into it.
I think the CSB is the perfect choice for kids, too. I really like the CSB Explorer Bible for Kids (and so do my kids!). Highly recommend!
The CSB is the translation that got me back to daily Bible reading in 2019 and helped get me through a divorce and the covid pandemic. It will always have a special place in my heart. Since then, I have switched to the Berean Standard Bible. I find it just as easy to read as the CSB, however I prefer the traditional gender pronouns of the BSB.
I’ve never really read the BSB but I am interested!
@@coltonyarbroif ever there was a translation that an updated NIV should have been, it’s the BSB.
My main translations are the CSB and the LSB. I use both for preaching and teaching and personal study.
Great combo!
My favorite translation presently is the CSB and before that (about a year ago, was the HCSB. I am one of those weirdos who believes the HCSB -- especially their study Bible is a superior study Bible to the CSB Study Bible and I use the CSB Study Bible fairly consistently. It ranks very high in my estimation. I started in pursuit of an adequate study Bible with the NIV Study Bible in he mid 70s. I'm 84 years old so I've been at this pursuit some number of years. Right now--excluding the MacArthur Study Bible their several versions I'm pretty well linked to the CSB Study Bible. Good job with your review.
Great stuff. Thank you 🙏
@@mikehoward455 thanks Mike!
I'm (slowly!) learning the biblical languages, viz. Classical Hebrew and Koine Greek, so I tend toward using the ESV or NASB for my primary English translation since these translations serve as good cribs or ponies for a novice like me trying to learn the original biblical languages, but I love the CSB! 😊
1. The CSB was originally initiated by Arthur Farstad who chaired the NKJV translation committee and wanted the CSB to use the Textus Receptus/Majority Text (TR/MT). However Farstad passed away shortly after work on the CSB began (then known as the HCSB). Edwin Blum replaced Farstad on the CSB, and Blum and the CSB translation committee decided to go with the Critical Text (CT) rather than the TR/MT. Nevertheless the CSB honors Farstad in indirect and subtle ways such as by frequently placing the TR/MT verses and translations in the CSB's footnotes. Many have said the CSB may have the best footnotes of any major English Bible translation, arguably better than even the NKJV's footnotes which I already highly respect.
2. I agree with you that "the CSB is what the NIV 2011 should have been" is a pretty fair way to put it. For more detail, I'd say the following:
Most scholars involved in translation use 3 or 4 criteria to assess a translation:
a. Accuracy. The CSB is more formally equivalent (aka "literal" or "word for word") than the NIV. Actually I find the CSB is often equally formally equivalent to the ESV, NKJV, NASB/LSB. That said, 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. And, importantly, 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 many (not all) of the NIV 2011's translation choices are defensible even though I would strongly disagree with them.
b. Clarity. The CSB and the NIV are both clear. Both receive very 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, or if course prefer the KJV, NKJV, or ESV to most other translations; 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., the ESV is filled with Biblish. The CSB is more or less equal to the NIV in terms of naturalness. Also, at least to my ears, the CSB sounds more "American" in its English (though Holman recently released an Anglicized version of the CSB), 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 the NIV is consistent with most other English speakers around the world and uses 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 in places where I think there should be 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. 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, 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. My current favorite editions of the CSB are:
a. Affordable:
* CSB Reader's Bible.
* CSB Single Column Compact Size Bible, which I find superior to the CSB Single Column Personal Size Bible because it is slightly less expensive, it has significantly less ghosting, it is a little bit more portable, and the text doesn't slide into the middle gutter which I find annoying in the Personal Size.
* CSB He Reads Truth Study Bible, which isn't much of a study Bible, it's very bare bones, but it serves as a relatively affordable single column paragraph format version of the CSB that can double as a very basic study Bible as well as note taking Bible.
* Other CSB study Bibles like the CSB Study Bible and the (sadly out of print but still available as an ebook) CSB Baker Illustrated Study Bible are also worth mentioning because they are or were very affordable and make for very good study Bibles if one wants a study Bible.
b. Premium:
* CSB Single-Column Personal Size Bible in the Holman Handcrafted Collection. This isn't anywhere near as good as, say, Schuyler, R.L. Allan, or Crossway Heirloom. It might be on par with Cambridge, though I'd say even Cambridge is slightly better quality. Nevertheless this CSB in the Holman Handcrafted Collection is currently only about $100, which is a good price point. If it was more, it wouldn't be worth it. But since it's more or less appropriately priced, it makes for a great premium Bible. At present, it is the best single column paragraph format CSB. Schuyler makes the best premium CSB Bibles of all, but they're double columns. I should admit my bias is that I prefer single column paragraph format when it comes to every day carry (EDC) Bibles and reading Bibles, though I'm fine with double columns in, say, study Bibles.
* Schuyler PSQ or Schuyler Quentel. The PSQ is the personal sized Quentel, though I think it's more towards compact sized. The Quentel is bigger. But the textblock is the same inside. Schuyler is updating their Quentel and PSQ line though; I'm referring to the current line that hasn't been updated yet. Also Schuyler recently held a survey to gauge interest in how many people might like to see an affordable Schuyler Bible. I think it's be great if Schuyler starts punishing affordable Schuyler Bibles with the same textblock, fonts, and so forth as their premium Bibles! Just like how Crossway has their premium ESV Heirloom Heritage line as well as their mor affordable ESV TruTone line. For example, compared the ESV Heirloom Heritage with the ESV TruTone Heritage. I think the ESV TruTone Heritage is an absolute steal to get the same textblock as in the ESV Heirloom Heritage. Hopefully Schuyler will do something similar if they decide to go with affordable Schuyler Bibles.
I agree with nearly all your points on the CSB. Our Church uses it as its main. My wife and Son love it. Like you I just prefer more formal translations. My main two are LSB and NKJV.
I have read through the CSB and to me it seems like they change things just to change them. I am not a fan of the translation “Lord of armies.” either. But it does do a good job for folks that may not have the nerd component.
Great video!
I agree with your analysis regarding certain word translations. I am a more of “traditional” translation on theological terms and phrases.
I really like the CSB translation. The CSB is my daily reader and it is supplemented with the ESV Study Bible. I do prefer the BSB for scripture memorization.
I'm currently reading through the CSB but think the BSB will be next.
@@jakersni9499 I think I prefer the BSB slightly over the CSB. For scripture memorization it’s great because it retains a lot of the traditional word choices and cadences for the popular memory verses yet overall it’s very readable like the CSB.
I enjoyed the video. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the CSB. I tend lean more towards the LSB, ESV, NKJV and NASB95, but I do own serveral copies of the CSB, including a CSB Study Bible. My biggest issue is with the pronoun changes in the CSB. For some reason, when I read 'brothers and sisters' over and over again, it seems 'forced' to me somehow. Also of note is that all of the other translations that I mention do not do this.
Great review, as always. My attitude towards the CSB is a lot like yours. I think it's an excellent overall translation, but I tend to lean towards the more "literal" versions like the ESV, NKJV, and NASB. It does offer great readability and accuracy. I do cringe every time I run across their catchphrase of "optimal equivalence", though. Every translator aspires to optimal equivalence! I bet the translators of the NIV and ESV would both say they were going for that even though they haven't chosen to make a slogan out of it! 🙂
Thanks! Yeah the use of “optimal equivalence” is pretty cringe. 😬
Hello I use the CSB alot I very much like it.i think it's very accurate and clear.God Bless!!!
I do quite like the CSB. Sometimes this translation makes some passages more understandable. In other words: I completely agree with what you're saying. 😎 Thank you!
Thank you for watching! It definitely helps me shed some light on harder to understand passages at times.
I am a fan of the HCSB. I am not too sure about the CSB. I have bought a copy of the CSB and reading through it. These videos are informative. Although in my ministry I preach from the NKJV or LSB Bible, but I will say the CSB is a much easier read through.
I like my nerdy theological words too lol. I appreciate the more dynamic translations but I stick with LSB and ESV mainly because I’ve always been the most familiar with traditional terms.
I like the Holman CSB version better. There is just a lot of things about it that I enjoy. One thing is the including the parts of scriptures that are usually placed at the bottom of the page in modern translations.
I am a NKJ, NASB/LSB and ESV. May need to give The CSV a try. I avoid the NIV like the plague.
I like the CSB, it's my wife's favorite translation so that's what we read together in the home. It's not my most frequently used, but something I noticed about it is that it's not memorable or memorizable.For whatever reason the KJV and old timey english translations have hooks that stick in your brain and make it memorizable but as clear and easily readable as the CSB is, it's impossible to quote verbatim. You perfectly understood what you read, but the specific wording doesn't have the same hooks to be easily memorizable.
I should add, when I give away scripture to people it's probably 40% CSB and 40% ESV
I have a wide margin esv and I’ve written several csb translations of verses in it. But overall it doesn’t sound right to me, but I reference it often.
Even though I don't own a CSB, I am interested in it. My main daily Bible is the NAS95, but I also use and study with a few others.
I love the LSB, CSB, and NET. I’d use the ESV alongside those instead of LSB, preferably a Wellington Alpha if I wouldn’t lose Scripture memory
I understand that. Scripture memory is not talked about enough as a reason to stick with a certain translation. May do a video on this.
@@coltonyarbro you’re welcome brother! I loved the ESV and felt disoriented knowing the locations of verses yet not able to quote them like I used to with the NASB. One silent night I felt God’s urgency to return to the translation I have mostly memorized. I got a LSB being very much like the NASB 95 with some tweeks. I felt at home buying the Italian cowhide edge line PPR LSB to last me a while. I definitely was at peace returning as it’s been 2 years. I missed it!
What are those black books directly over your left shoulder?
@@roycyrier5979 Systematic Theology Books (Joel Beeke)
I don't like to many verse missing out of the main text and put in the footnote that doesn't work for me
I also wish they would leave them in the main text. I don’t mind brackets, which is what the NASB does. But I really wish they would leave them in the text.
I’m usually pretty close to kjv only but do also include that with the older translations like the Geneva, douay rheims, and Mathew’s Bible. I also do like the nkjv. The only critical text bibles I would consider is the esv, would have been the nasb but the 2020 update I didn’t like at all.
That being said I read through study Bibles for the notes. And the csb study Bible so far I like the notes and from the passages I’ve skimmed it seems decent, much better then the NIV or any other translations further twords thought for thought
My church uses the CSB. When I’ve had a long, rough day and my brain is scrambled, I’ll go to the CSB occasionally. I typically use the KJV, NKJV, or ESV. I do wish the CSB would keep certain theological words as well. One that sticks out to me is “begotten” I appreciate how the NKJV retained that particular word. Probably because it was used in the council of Nicaea. I understand “one and only” is the meaning of begotten, but much like you it’s personal preference. I wish the ESV would have retained it, otherwise the ESV would be my main instead of the NKJV.
I feel that. I really wish the ESV would have retained begotten
@@coltonyarbroAgree 👍
I really like the CSV specifically because it breaks away from the KJV translation tradition that a lot of translations preserve while still going for an accurate translation. In part, this creates the effect of having a more "casual" sounding rendering, whereas the early modern English president tends to make it seem high and larger than life to modern ears in a way that the Bible never was meant to be. The different word choices often make me do a double take and dig deeper into a text precisely because it is different than the ESV or NIV renderings I'm more familiar with.
Translation is very difficult. I've studied Japanese a bit, so I have an idea of how much a good translation might have to fabricate a subject or other supporting information just to make a sentence work grammatically in English. It doesn't make a translation bad or impossible, but it does mean extra care needs to be made to ensure that the added context is true to the original and not due to the translators bias or misinterpretation. I can't approach the original languages, so it is great to double-check my assumptions against a variety of translations to make sure whatever pops into my head when reading one translation still makes sense. I find that the CSB is different enough that it makes a good choice for a second opinion because of the translation philosophy differences. (I also like to consult hyper literal translations to get a feel for the sematic range of a verse.)
I bought a reader edition specifically for casual reading, while I have various study editions of the ESV for deeper dives.
I’m a new king James guy also, and if a young pastor reads from the CSB, maybe people will take up their bible and read. Very good translation, just need to tweak the psalms.
I enjoy the CSB it’S a good translation.
Agreed!
@@coltonyarbrothe CSB study bible is also really good. One of my favourites.
I haven’t finished the video, so you might answer this. But what is the “standard” in Bible translations? There’s a few quite different “standards” out there.
It’s a good question and honestly I don’t know 🤷🏻♂️.
@@coltonyarbro Maybe it’s a pole we put certain translations on…lame LOTR joke.
English Standard Version is standard for English speakers. Christian is standard for Christians. That’s my guess anyways.
@@michaelsayad5085I don't think so but it's logical 😂
ALL True Believers read the ASV.....
So for me I love the Hcsb and feel no need for the Csb. My primary translations, though, are the Nasb1995 and Kjv. As a Bible teacher, I also prefer the more literary translations but use multiple translations and study bibles and Commentaries for serious study ✝️. I also prefer the original genders and some like the Csb go in the direction of our current culture and don't stick to the male use of the original Hebrew and Greek. Not sure if you mentioned that 🤔
I didn’t mention that but I also prefer the original gender distinctions.
It is short-sighted to think any 1 translation can fully reveal the meanings of the words and phrases of the original languages of the Holy Scriptures. Study the original for yourself and compare to the efforts of many who have tried. Always remembering they are attempts to get as close to the meaning and sometimes also the rhythm of the original.
I love the CSB but it uses a few American phrases, like 'trash' and, to a lesser degree, 'slacker'.
It’s a great translation, just not very pretty in the Psalms compared to the KJV tradition. I also think it’s hard to memorize it exactly because it’s so conversational
@@zgennaro I agree. I’m not a big fan of the rendering of the Psalms.
I think the keys are gone!
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
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.
Lucifer is a Latin word put into the KJV from the Vulgate, and it literally means “morning star” or “light bearer.”
@@coltonyarbro Absolutely Right!
@@coltonyarbro so who is the morning star, Jesus or Lucifer (or do you agree with the Mormons that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer)
@@coltonyarbro A Hermeneutical principle is that a word carries the same meaning through the bible. If you did a word study in the CSB of Morning star you would arrive at the equating of the fallen morning star of Isa.14.12 with the same morning star in Rev 22.16
They keys are gone!
@barryjtaft that's not a good hermeneutic principle. Especially if you learn anything about the root languages. The context determines the meaning of the word. Clearly they are talking about different characters.
NO Bible TRANSLATION is going to be perfect, not even the ones that make use of Shakespeare's language. That is why we all need to learn the languages of the Bible ourselves, find out what it says and COMPARE with many other translations and talk it over to come to a consensus.
King James Reigns.
Actually he’s been dead a long time. King Jesus reigns!
@@coltonyarbro I agree. KJV the best translation. It slows you down so that you can't read it like a story book you really have to think. When you quote it everybody knows it's the Bible. I love my King Jimmy.