Read on Twitter
I'm using the CSB for personal reading. If I were the main preacher at our church, I would preach from the @CSBible.
Here's the translation oversight committee: https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-oversight-committee/ https://twitter.com/jt_english/status/1303500530375888896
Here's the translation oversight committee: https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-oversight-committee/ https://twitter.com/jt_english/status/1303500530375888896
My only disappointment is that they didn't render YHWH as "Yahweh." The HCSB was inconsistent.
I'd prefer it always rendered Yahweh in the 6,000+ occurrences, as it provides an important contrast to false gods with names. https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/faqs/#faq/why-did-the-christian-standard-bible-move-away-from-the-hcsbs-use-of-yahweh
I'd prefer it always rendered Yahweh in the 6,000+ occurrences, as it provides an important contrast to false gods with names. https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/faqs/#faq/why-did-the-christian-standard-bible-move-away-from-the-hcsbs-use-of-yahweh
Consider the translation of Gen 3:16:
ESV: "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband...”
CSB: "Your desire will be for your husband..."
"Contrary to..." is a legitimate interpretation of "for," but not the only legit option.
The decision should be left to the reader.
ESV: "Your desire shall be contrary to your husband...”
CSB: "Your desire will be for your husband..."
"Contrary to..." is a legitimate interpretation of "for," but not the only legit option.
The decision should be left to the reader.
The CSB allows the reader to make the interpretive decision.
The ESV makes the interpretive decision in the translation, leaving readers with no opportunity to reach a different conclusion.
ESV makes the idea that wives inherently oppose husbands the undisputed meaning.
The ESV makes the interpretive decision in the translation, leaving readers with no opportunity to reach a different conclusion.
ESV makes the idea that wives inherently oppose husbands the undisputed meaning.
This ensures that generations of readers will not question a foundational doctrine of hard complementarianism.
Even if you agree with that interpretation, I don't see how you justify forcing the reader to interpret it that way when "for" is an acceptable translation.
Even if you agree with that interpretation, I don't see how you justify forcing the reader to interpret it that way when "for" is an acceptable translation.
This view is taught in RBMW by Ray Ortlund Jr. in his interpretation of Genesis 3:16: "Because she usurped his headship in the temptation, God hands her over to the misery of competition with her rightful head. This is justice, a measure-for-measure response to her sin."
The Danvers Statement teaches that "the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility." The only scripture reference offered to support it is "Gen 3:17, 12, 16."
None of those verses would support "servility," making one wonder if it was added to balance "usurpation." Referencing those verses indicates that they support the idea of usurpation—meaning that is what Gen 3:16 means.
Changing the text to read "contrary to" (instead of "for") makes the CBMW/RBMW doctrine the only meaning a reader could bring away from the text. (I doubt that few first-time readers will look at footnotes, and the translation in the main text will bias readers.)
Crossway, the ESV publisher, is also the publisher of RBMW, a foundational CBMW work.
There is a clear conflict of interest in this translation decision.
While there is much I appreciate about the ESV, this decision diminished my trust in the translation.
There is a clear conflict of interest in this translation decision.
While there is much I appreciate about the ESV, this decision diminished my trust in the translation.
I'm told by CBMW there is no "official exposition of the Danvers Statement."
"RBMW wasn’t written as an interpretation of Danvers but as laying some biblical & theological foundations for it. ...
"RBMW wasn’t written as an interpretation of Danvers but as laying some biblical & theological foundations for it. ...
......But even there, there are all kinds of biblical interpretations in RBMW that should not be construed as the “Danvers interpretation” of those texts. ...
...For example, Ray Ortlund follows Susan Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16. That interpretation fits with Danvers, but so do other interpretations. Many complementarians disagree with Foh/Ortlund, but they nevertheless affirm Danvers."
I'm left wondering how a different interpretation of Gen 3:16 could be in compliance with the Danvers Statement. It's clear what they say about wive's inclination to usurpation, citing it with only Gen 3. If that's not the meaning of Gen 3:16, how is the doctrine supported?
Likewise, if there is no official exposition of The Danvers Statement, and affirmers can disagree with an interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that the statement itself clearly makes mean one specific thing, then does the DS mean anything at all? And, if so, then who can tell us?
This all feels like we're being told on the one hand that complementarians don't have to interpret Genesis 3:16 to mean that wives are prone to usurpation, while the other hand tells us through translation and "bib & theo foundations" that this is the correct interpretation.
This thread isn't about which interpretation is correct.
It's about how we present and persuade in contrast to what we say is acceptable within our camp.
CBMW may say that a variety of complementarian stances are acceptable within the comp camp, but it doesn't always feel true.
It's about how we present and persuade in contrast to what we say is acceptable within our camp.
CBMW may say that a variety of complementarian stances are acceptable within the comp camp, but it doesn't always feel true.
