CSB translation-Gender accurate or gender "inclusive"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silas22

Puritan Board Freshman
I admit that I really do not like the change from "man" to "people" in Psalm 1. Although I'm no scholar, it seems to me that when a translation seeks to "update" the language of the Bible from its ancient cultural context, they seem to show a profound mistrust in the authorship and infallibility of scripture. The argument that the biblical writers and Jesus himself would speak differently today is a gigantic argument from silence, one in which I am not comfortable with at all.

What say you?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...-bible-translation-csb-southern-baptists.html
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
I admit that I really do not like the change from "man" to "people" in Psalm 1.

While it replaces "man", for clarity's sake, the CSB does not use "people" in Psalm 1.

1 How happy is the one who does not
walk in the advice of the wicked
or stand in the pathway with sinners
or sit in the company of mockers!
2 Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction,
and he meditates on it day and night.
3 He is like a tree planted beside flowing streams
that bears its fruit in its season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.
4 The wicked are not like this;
instead, they are like chaff that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand up in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.

I don't personally have an issue with it.
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Doctrinal Downgrade by any other name still smells the same...

That's a remarkably strong charge based on a single article which doesn't give specific examples and clearly has an axe to grind. As one of the original translators of the HCSB and a member of the revision committee that produced the CSB, I can reliably state that there was absolutely NO gender neutral agenda. There was certainly a concern for gender accuracy, which in some cases led away from a "literalistic" translation. For example, in Proverbs where the original Hebrew had 'ish we generally retained "man" while where there was a substantive participle we opted for a less gender specific term. In reality, all translations do that. The KJV does that every time it translates bne yisrael (literally, "the sons of Israel") as "the children of Israel", recognizing (rightly) that this is what it means. The ESV does this in Leviticus 19:3 when it translates 'ish as "Every one of you". The KJV does this in Leviticus 19:11 when it translates the gendered idiom "each to his companion" with the gender neutral idiom "one to another".

You may not agree with all of our translational choices. That is your prerogative, though I hope it is based on a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and translational practices and not just a knee jerk reaction in favor of a familiar translation. But the CSB is certainly not a gender neutral translation, nor were there any reservations about the authorship, inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical text.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I agree with Iain. I've been reading through the CSB for daily devotions, and I have had (so far) no places where I cringe. It is actually a stellar translation, one of the very best.
 

Robert Truelove

Puritan Board Sophomore
https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/the-english-standard-version-and-gender-inclusive-language/

The Colorado Springs Guidelines are rubbish. They paved the way for a flood of Bibles with Egalitarian English. Masculine inclusives (male oriented words that refer to both men and women) are predominate throughout Scripture but you wouldn't know it from almost every translation after the turn of the century. If male oriented, gender inclusive language didn't mean something, then why have the feminists sought to eradicate it?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/the-english-standard-version-and-gender-inclusive-language/

The Colorado Springs Guidelines are rubbish. They paved the way for a flood of Bibles with Egalitarian English. Masculine inclusives (male oriented words that refer to both men and women) are predominate throughout Scripture but you wouldn't know it from almost every translation after the turn of the century. If male oriented, gender inclusive language didn't mean something, then why have the feminists sought to eradicate it?
Maybe there has been an evangelical feminism within the church that wants to eliminate ropes based upon sex, as the Lord did have male leadership/headship as seen as the set up within the Bible for both church and family...
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
That's a remarkably strong charge based on a single article which doesn't give specific examples and clearly has an axe to grind. As one of the original translators of the HCSB and a member of the revision committee that produced the CSB, I can reliably state that there was absolutely NO gender neutral agenda. There was certainly a concern for gender accuracy, which in some cases led away from a "literalistic" translation. For example, in Proverbs where the original Hebrew had 'ish we generally retained "man" while where there was a substantive participle we opted for a less gender specific term. In reality, all translations do that. The KJV does that every time it translates bne yisrael (literally, "the sons of Israel") as "the children of Israel", recognizing (rightly) that this is what it means. The ESV does this in Leviticus 19:3 when it translates 'ish as "Every one of you". The KJV does this in Leviticus 19:11 when it translates the gendered idiom "each to his companion" with the gender neutral idiom "one to another".

You may not agree with all of our translational choices. That is your prerogative, though I hope it is based on a thorough knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and translational practices and not just a knee jerk reaction in favor of a familiar translation. But the CSB is certainly not a gender neutral translation, nor were there any reservations about the authorship, inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical text.
You did not go overboard into Inclusive language renderings as the Nov 2011 has, did you?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
I admit that I really do not like the change from "man" to "people" in Psalm 1. Although I'm no scholar, it seems to me that when a translation seeks to "update" the language of the Bible from its ancient cultural context, they seem to show a profound mistrust in the authorship and infallibility of scripture. The argument that the biblical writers and Jesus himself would speak differently today is a gigantic argument from silence, one in which I am not comfortable with at all.

What say you?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ne...-bible-translation-csb-southern-baptists.html
The Csb does not seem to be as much into Inclusive language as the Niv 2011 did in their revision, do did not appear to violate the scriptures intended meaning...
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
https://www.theauthorizedversion.com/the-english-standard-version-and-gender-inclusive-language/

The Colorado Springs Guidelines are rubbish. They paved the way for a flood of Bibles with Egalitarian English. Masculine inclusives (male oriented words that refer to both men and women) are predominate throughout Scripture but you wouldn't know it from almost every translation after the turn of the century. If male oriented, gender inclusive language didn't mean something, then why have the feminists sought to eradicate it?
As I pointed out above, the KJV does exactly the same thing that you decry in modern versions. So it is not a principial issue but rather a pragmatic issue of communication. Every translator agrees that sometimes "gender inclusive" language communicates better. If I am translating a book, am I a feminist if I choose to translate "fireman" with "firefighter", when I know that the original referent included both male and females?

For the record, the CSB translated bne adam as "children of Adam" in a number of places, bringing out a nuance that is lost in most other translations.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
The ESV uses "man" in Psalm 1, and has this footnote regarding the word "man" - "The singular Hebrew word for man (ish) is used here to protray a representative example of a godly person. . .".
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
walk in the advice of the wicked
or stand in the pathway with sinners
or sit in the company of mockers!

The alternating preposition sacrifices the symmetry of the original in order to convey a specific meaning to the English reader which is not necessarily specific in the original.

Instead, his delight is in the Lord’s instruction,

Innovative in replacing the traditionally recognised word, "law," for a more generic word which may or may not intend the idea of regulation.

Therefore the wicked will not stand up in the judgment,

"Stand up" is overly semantic and might fit another context but it does not fit the picture of being driven away.

For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.

The first line is overly restrictive of the word "to know," in which there is a broad range of meaning connected to the idea of "acknowledging" a person, including acknowledging as one's own. The Psalmist is often challenged as one who has been disowned.

The addition of "leads to" introduces a non determinative meaning which is the invention of the translator.
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
We should not expect our bible translations to shift as the winds of culture shift.

This is all part of dismantling a patriarchal society and erasing patriarchal literature. Society at large rejects that man is used or brothers used for all parties because it hates male-dominated culture.

Either the older translations are sufficient or they were insufficient. If they are sufficient, then why change them except to pander to feminists. If they are insufficient, then do we admit that feminists helped us to see the Scripture in a clearer light?
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
I think ideas like "pandering to feminists" need to be substantiated. As I look at who the translators are of various modern translations, I don't think that charge is obviously true.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Up until the last decade or two, we didn't have masses of unsaved women because of the lack of translating anthropos as person instead of man, or the failure to translate adelphoi as brothers and sisters....but somehow this became a pressing need exactly at the same time as the rise of feminism happened within the evangelical church...

...but it's in no way related to the shifting tide of Western culture.....right!
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
Taking that approach and flipping it over from the other side....

How many with a feminist agenda are looking for Bibles to quote from? Are the feminists quoting the NLT, TNIV, NIV2011, NRSV or CSB (and in all honesty the many places the ESV and KJV do the same) to forward their agenda?

Probably not because a feminist agenda isn't interested in what the Bible has to say at all no matter what the translation or gender rendering is in any translation, are they?

Taking Psalm 1:1....

Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (ESV)

How happy is the one who does not
walk in the advice of the wicked
or stand in the pathway with sinners
or sit in the company of mockers! (CSB)

How is the feminist agenda moved forward by the CSB rendering of this verse?
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Can you give overboard examples?
The Niv 2011 seemed. at least to me, to be adopting the principle that women could have been leaders within local assemblies, able to teach, and that they at times seemed to not want to have Jesus in Psalms as Son of man, nor in Hebrews, but almost like a generic term used for Mankind itself....
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Taking that approach and flipping it over from the other side....

How many with a feminist agenda are looking for Bibles to quote from? Are the feminists quoting the NLT, TNIV, NIV2011, NRSV or CSB (and in all honesty the many places the ESV and KJV do the same) to forward their agenda?

Probably not because a feminist agenda isn't interested in what the Bible has to say at all no matter what the translation or gender rendering is in any translation, are they?

Taking Psalm 1:1....

Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (ESV)

How happy is the one who does not
walk in the advice of the wicked
or stand in the pathway with sinners
or sit in the company of mockers! (CSB)

How is the feminist agenda moved forward by the CSB rendering of this verse?
The assumption had always been though that when the older versions would say Blessed is the man, or that God gave them the right to be called the sons of God, was implying that women were also included in there...
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
There are many feminists within the church. Just ask your normal evangelical woman about gender roles within marriage and work. Somehow Proverbs 31 suddenly became all about working women balancing it all.

They haven't rejected the bible...they just want a bible more to their liking.

In fact, I think there is a synod going on right now where Christian women preaching and becoming deacons is being considered. These haven't rejected the bible...they just don't want some old-fashioned bible with a patriarchal worldview and may even wince a bit at the dated expression "mankind."
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
There are many feminists within the church. Just ask your normal evangelical woman about gender roles within marriage and work. Somehow Proverbs 31 suddenly became all about working women balancing it all.

They haven't rejected the bible...they just want a bible more to their liking.

In fact, I think there is a synod going on right now where Christian women preaching and becoming deacons is being considered. These haven't rejected the bible...they just don't want some old-fashioned bible with a patriarchal worldview and may even wince a bit at the dated expression "mankind."
The team that did the 2011 Niv seemed to be addressing that "problem" of some seeing the Bible as being too much from the perspective of men, as the current culture does not agree with the position of God having male leadership in the home and church...
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
Taking a look at popular 'culture' the past 20 years or so, we see films, and probably television shows, (I don't watch either) that depict women beating men in fistfights, decimating the bad guys as the gals fire a pistol, one in each hand.
Speaking of Spiritual perception, if anyone doubts that the whole world lieth in the wicked one they are obviously a natural man ..... or should I say person ?
 

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
The assumption had always been though that when the older versions would say Blessed is the man, or that God gave them the right to be called the sons of God, was implying that women were also included in there...

I agree with you completely. I've never struggled with being able to tell when "man" means more than "males".

So when something like an ESV or NASB use "man", I know it means what the ESV footnote says.

At the same time, when the CSB uses "the one", I'm not bothered by that either. The Psalmist isn't limiting the context to males only.

I don't see "the one" assisting a feminist agenda. I don't see "man" helping preserve a patriarchal complementarian society.

People unnecessarily get worked up more than needed on this issue, in my opinion. Tying this back around to my first paragraph above, I think some make too big of a deal about "man". They need to read more literature and learn to tell when "man" means "male" and when it means "human". I think others make too big a deal about rendering something more neutral when that's what is meant by "man" anyway. Psalm 1 isn't for only the males in the congregation.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
Taking a look at popular 'culture' the past 20 years or so, we see films, and probably television shows, (I don't watch either) that depict women beating men in fistfights, decimating the bad guys as the gals fire a pistol, one in each hand.
Speaking of Spiritual perception, if anyone doubts that the whole world lieth in the wicked one they are obviously a natural man ..... or should I say person ?
For someone not watching, you seem to know quite a lot of detail...:popcorn:
The last time I paid to darken the door of a movie theater was 1985. Took a gal out who wanted to see 'The Women In Red.' I haven't willingly watched television in more than 5 years, though I was a captive audience at times when the place where I worked, before I retired 3 years ago, had a wide screen TV that was on more often than not. You ?
 

Von

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have small kids so I know a LOT of animation.
Other than animation, I do enjoy movies, and yes, I do agree with you about the shift in popular culture. Even the children's movies are following this trend with the defiant female hero (Pocahontas, Mulan, Little Mermaid, Tangled, etc). But at the same time I do not believe this is necessarily a new trend in sins of the heart - just new manifestations of the same depravity. It has always been there - these stories are old fables. Sin came into the world fully grown. Humanity just shifts from hypocrisy to open sins and back again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top