Georgiadis
Puritan Board Freshman
I put novelty translation in quotes because I’ve read it criticized as such though my personal experience has been quite the opposite. The CSB has been absolutely delightful to read and the differences I’ve noticed between other translations have been insightful and, for the most part, appear to be thoughtful, concise decisions made by the translation team and oversight committee.
I call the CSB my “Cheat Sheet Bible” because of how clearly it reads, but unfortunately now that the seed of doubt has been planted it has become a distraction, nay, OBSESSION, whenever I encounter a word that strays from the bulk of translations I trust. I do not mean high-profile verses like John 3:16, to which there is ample explanation provided. I am referring to individual word choices that at times, appear to lend credence to the accusation that the CSB arbitrarily changes words in order to meet the minimum requirement for obtaining a copyright. Again, not my words nor belief but a festering distraction.
I will share three examples I recently encountered. I would very much appreciate any insight you may have as to the decisions behind these word choices. I know that an entire translation does not hang upon three verses but for whatever reason, I feel like these get to the heart of my underling concern. It makes me angry to think that a sweeping accusation such as this would rob me of the joy of reading God’s word. But if it is grounded, then I would want to know.
To clarify, I’ve already been down the Critical Text vs Majority Text road many times. This is not a dynamic vs equivalence debate (at least I don’t think it is). I am just hoping to get an idea as to the decision behind the word choices in the following verses.
Most translations I’ve checked use the word “sober” instead of “self-controlled”. Seems harmless enough but why change? They can mean the same thing but there is a drunkenness antonym in the next verse that becomes slightly disconnected without the word sober. Were the translators trying to avoid people making too strong a connection to alcoholism (which would clearly fall under the umbrella of the warning but not the main force of the command)?
A lot of translations use lavished in verse 8 and then some variation of poured out, freely given/bestowed, etc… in verse 6. Why not use lavished in verse 8? Richly poured out seems an adequate substitution for lavished but why move lavished to verse 6?
Many translations use some form of the word “obey” here instead of “persuaded”. To me, those are two very different words. What makes persuaded a better choice? When I see the NIV and KJV align with each other against the CSB it gives me pause!
I think it’s important to acknowledge that none of my doctrinal beliefs have been shaken by the variations I’ve encountered. Perhaps that makes this all moot. I just hate the thought of a translation that is produced for the primary, or even secondary, purpose of avoiding licensing fees for a publication house. No doubt it happens, and may even be the funding source behind the project - but that it would affect the translation to the extent of influencing word choices is of genuine concern.
The Puritan Board has been a real blessing in my life and this is the first time I’ve posted. Please go easy on me!
I call the CSB my “Cheat Sheet Bible” because of how clearly it reads, but unfortunately now that the seed of doubt has been planted it has become a distraction, nay, OBSESSION, whenever I encounter a word that strays from the bulk of translations I trust. I do not mean high-profile verses like John 3:16, to which there is ample explanation provided. I am referring to individual word choices that at times, appear to lend credence to the accusation that the CSB arbitrarily changes words in order to meet the minimum requirement for obtaining a copyright. Again, not my words nor belief but a festering distraction.
I will share three examples I recently encountered. I would very much appreciate any insight you may have as to the decisions behind these word choices. I know that an entire translation does not hang upon three verses but for whatever reason, I feel like these get to the heart of my underling concern. It makes me angry to think that a sweeping accusation such as this would rob me of the joy of reading God’s word. But if it is grounded, then I would want to know.
To clarify, I’ve already been down the Critical Text vs Majority Text road many times. This is not a dynamic vs equivalence debate (at least I don’t think it is). I am just hoping to get an idea as to the decision behind the word choices in the following verses.
1 Thessalonians 5:6
So then, let us not sleep, like the rest, but let us stay awake and be self-controlled.
Most translations I’ve checked use the word “sober” instead of “self-controlled”. Seems harmless enough but why change? They can mean the same thing but there is a drunkenness antonym in the next verse that becomes slightly disconnected without the word sober. Were the translators trying to avoid people making too strong a connection to alcoholism (which would clearly fall under the umbrella of the warning but not the main force of the command)?
Ephesians 1:6-8
to the praise of his glorious grace that he lavished on us in the Beloved One. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he richly poured out on us with all wisdom and understanding.
A lot of translations use lavished in verse 8 and then some variation of poured out, freely given/bestowed, etc… in verse 6. Why not use lavished in verse 8? Richly poured out seems an adequate substitution for lavished but why move lavished to verse 6?
Galatians 5:7
You were running well. Who prevented you from being persuaded regarding the truth?
Many translations use some form of the word “obey” here instead of “persuaded”. To me, those are two very different words. What makes persuaded a better choice? When I see the NIV and KJV align with each other against the CSB it gives me pause!
I think it’s important to acknowledge that none of my doctrinal beliefs have been shaken by the variations I’ve encountered. Perhaps that makes this all moot. I just hate the thought of a translation that is produced for the primary, or even secondary, purpose of avoiding licensing fees for a publication house. No doubt it happens, and may even be the funding source behind the project - but that it would affect the translation to the extent of influencing word choices is of genuine concern.
The Puritan Board has been a real blessing in my life and this is the first time I’ve posted. Please go easy on me!