CSB (Holman) - Ultrathin Reference Bible - Brown Leathertouch

The Christian Standard Bible is a new revision of the Holman Christian Standard Bible.  They have made some changes, and it seems to me that many of those changes are toward a more literal translation, which is a good thing. 

Here are some samples:

In Matthew 19:28 the HCSB renders it:

"Jesus said to them, 'I assure you: in the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne…" This new revision has it as, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, In the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne…'" - CSB

Not that I'm disputing that the renewal of all things references the Messianic age, it's just that "the renewal of all things" is a more literal rendition of what Christ said, more toward a formal equivalence rather than a dynamic one - which I believe is a safer route.

To some degree the same holds true with the following:

Daniel 9:25:"Know and understand this:  From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince will be seven weeks and 62 weeks…" HCSB

"Know and understand this:  From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an Anointed One, the ruler, will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" CSB

1 Peter 3:1-2: "In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own  husbands so that, even if some disobey the Christian message, they may be won over without a message by the way their wives live when they observe your pure, reverent lives." HCSB

"In the same way, wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by the way their wives live when they observe your pure, reverent lives."  CSB

The translators also switched "languages" in 1 Corinthians 14 to "tongues", though I still think that Languages was a good translation.

There are also noticeable changes in the way the translators interpret the text, for example, in 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul is explaining that if a husband or a wife has an unbelieving spouse who wants to leave them, that they should let them leave, they then translate his next words as, "Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband.  Husband, for all you know you might save your wife." CSB  Whereas the HCSB said, "For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?  Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?"  - 1 Cor 7:16?   Which is a rather significant change.

There were some things that I did not like about this translation.  For instance, they seem to have caved a little bit more on the gender inclusive language - 1 John 3:17  "If anyone has this worlds goods and sees a fellow believer in need but withholds compassion from him -how does God's love reside in him?" CSB

"If anyone has this world's goods and sees his brother in need but closes his eyes to his need - how can God's love reside in him?"   HCSB  They do note that their goal is to translate the Bible faithfully, they simply change some gender specific language to gender inclusive when the text itself allows for it. I still don't think that that is necessary, but okay.   

And then there is a problem that I had with the HCSB that I still have with this revision.  One of which is that, despite saying in their introduction that their "OT Textual notes show IMPORTANT differences among Hebrew (HB) manuscripts and ancient OT versions, such as the Septuagint…(emphasis mine)", they do not include the LXX variant of Psalm 40:6, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a BODY hast thou prepared me: (Brenton- Emphasis added), Whereas the Masoretic text (which only goes back to about 900 A.D. [or CE]), the text the Majority of our Old Testaments are based on, says, Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; MINE EARS HAST THOU OPENED: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." (KJV - emphasis added).  The difference is extremely significant as the writer of Hebrews quotation of that verse matches the Septuagint and not our Masoretic text in that it says that God prepared a body for the speaker rather than opened his ears.   And yet they include a manuscript variant of the number of the beast, 616 - which variant is quite suspect as Irenaeus (a person who lived in the earlier days of the church who is thought to have been a follower of Polycarp a follower of the Apostle John) said that this variant was false, and that the older manuscripts did not contain it nor did those who knew the Apostles support it.  If they included this variant of the number of the beast then I do not  understand how they did not give the variant of Psalm 40 which is supported by the writer of Hebrews in the Bible!

One other thing that confused me:  The CSB is presented as having been translated directly from the original languages rather than using an existing translation as its basis. There is a chart on the website for this translation showing many translations and separating them on the basis of whether or not they are translated directly from the ancient languages as opposed to using an existing English translation as the basis.  The CSB is shown to be a translation not based upon an existing translation. But to me this seems to be contradicted by the admission that the CSB is a revision of the HCSB.   That just struck me as rather deceptive.  Perhaps I simply didn't understand the chart….

Otherwise, this is quite a nice translation  Also, this Bible is very nicely bound, with a LeatherTouch cover (it feels very nice).  The text is in two columns with a center column cross reference.  There is also a concordance at the back as well as full color maps.  All in all, very nice.

Many thanks to the folks at B&H publishers for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable).

My rating: 5 out of 5 stars

 *****

Among other websites you may purchase this Bible at Christianbook.com and on Amazon.com

The Murderous History of Bible Translations - by Harry Freedman

I often sense a tendency in myself to take having an English translation of the Old and New Testaments for granted.  But, as Harry Freedman demonstrates in his book, The Murderous History of Bible Translations: Power, Conflict, and the Quest for Meaning, I shouldn't take it for granted and should appreciate all the more the effort and sacrifice that went in to getting the written Word of God into a book that ordinary people could read. 

In this book Freedman does an excellent job at writing, he grasps and keeps one's attention, and it flows nicely.  He takes you through history, beginning with the translation of the Old Testament and then including the New in the focus as well.   Translating God's Word into the common vernacular of any people was often very tumultuous and controversial, and we see this down the passage of time that the author examines, and through many different translators who often took many risks to make the translation. 

Though I really like the book, I feel the need to mention that there were several things that I did not like, for instance, statements like:  ""…even to this day, radical fundamentalism hasn't gone away.  And religious extremism relies upon a revealed, unmediated, literal reading of Scripture, one which rejects the prism of human interpretation."(pg.139)  Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the author is saying, but I think that' religious extremism' is that which focuses upon the "prism of human interpretation" without interpreting the Word of God with a literal/grammatical-historical hermeneutic. To be extreme is to not take the Bible for what it says, to not interpret it literally.  Interpreting the Bible "literally" in my view is to interpret it correctly in context: taking allegory as allegory, historical narrative as narrative, prophecy as prophecy, …etc. But again, perhaps I  misunderstand what he meant by that statement.

This book seemed more or less secular look at the history of Bible translation, but Freedman did a very good job at giving the perspective of the translators (whether Christian or Jewish) whose lives he recounts.  All in all, despite statements that I disagreed with, I really liked the history given, it is very, very interesting and an informative read.  Knowing this history should drive Christians more to reading this Holy Book that people in the past translated and read in secret, suffered and died for, many considered the Words it contains as much more valuable than their lives or comfort in this earth.  Shouldn't we do the same and do God the honor of reading it?

Many thanks to the folks at Bloomsbury Press for sending me a free advance review copy of this book! (My review did not have to be favorable)

This book is slated for release on November 15, 2016

You may preorder it at Amazon and on the Bloomsbury website  (and probably from other sites as well)

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars *****

NLT Guys Slimline Holy Bible

The NLT Guys Slimline Holy Bible is nicely bound, very slim and lightweight. The cover has some of the 'leather-touch' material that feels very nice (not that boys will care that much), and the bright blue lines intermixed with the black should make it very easy to spot if misplaced and also catches the attention which would hopefully be a reminder for young guys to read it each day.   The letter font on the inside is small but not too small, I found it quite easy to read.  At the back of the book, Bible includes a dictionary/concordance, a list of suggested memory verses on various topics, a Bible reading plan and of course the usual maps of the Holy land and Europe.

The translation itself is very readable, the translation notes say that they were trying for a mix of formal equivalence and dynamic, I think this translation leans a bit more to the latter, a 'thought for thought' type of translation which then necessarily has some heavily imposed biased interpretation on certain texts.  I'll give a couple of related texts as an example,   Matthew 19:9: "….whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery - unless his wife has been unfaithful"  and 1 Corinthians 7:15, "But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go.  In such cases the believing husband or wife is no longer bound to the other…"   Both of these verses evince a bias on the part of the translator.  In the Matthew text they make the 'exception clause' permit remarriage rather than just a separation of the couple, and in the Corinthians text they make it sound as though the couple are no longer bound to one another in marriage (in God's eyes) rather than using the simple statement, "no longer bound." Which statement does not give the impression that the marriage is done in God's eyes.  I do not see how people don't see the problem with the 'remarriage allowed' interpretation (which in my view is an eisegetical interpretation not an exegetical one). When you think about it for a moment you realize that if a marriage is ended in God's eyes by adultery or separation then the couple CANNOT forgive one another and stay married - they MUST legally divorce and separate if the marriage is finished before God, otherwise the couple would be living together out of wedlock (in God's eyes) even if they are not legally divorced.  Legal divorce was permitted by Moses because of the hard hearts of the people, but Christ came to give us NEW hearts.  Remarriage after legal divorce should not be an option in a Christians eyes because they have a new heart, not a hard heart and if they must be separated from their spouse then they should be willing to live a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 19:11-12, 1 Cor. 7:10-11).  I know it's hard to accept but we should not reject or accept what we like in God's Word simply because "it's not fair" or "I don't feel that God would allow that".  Our feelings and our idea of fairness are not the authority, God is, and His Word is our standard, not ourselves. So, as you see, I think this translation is a bit too biased/not literal enough.  *Cough* sorry for rambling on, I just had to get that out and it's been on my mind because we're hitting the topic at my church.

I also didn't understand why some traditional words like, "Justification" were changed to "made right with God" but others, like the word "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 14 were kept instead of changed to "different languages".  It just seemed rather inconsistent.   'There were several translations of verses that I liked and thought did a pretty good job of carrying the original idea of the passages over into modern English but overall I think that they could have done a better job, (the ICB seems to be more consistent in that area).

Overall the translation is okay (maybe a little too clear/modern/explicit a translation in some parts- especially for kids) though I strongly prefer the NASB.

Many thanks to the folks at the Tyndale Blog Network for sending me a free review copy of this Bible (My review did not have to be favorable)

ICB translation: The Frost Bible

I must admit, I liked the cover of this Bible (the 'Frost Bible') decorated with snow and sparkles and that was one of the reasons I requested this book in order to review it.  I am not an advocate of choosing a Bible because of its cover, and am generally uncomfortable with Bibles that are aimed towards a specific gender (mainly because of their study notes that may run into danger of eisegesis by trying to direct the thinking into a more egotistical interpretation of Scripture) , but this one, other than its being appealing to girls by its cover (as I am proof of) is otherwise a fairly basic Bible.   

My motives in requesting this Bible were not wholly material in nature, I had never heard of the International Children's Translation before and was very curious about it.   It seems to be a rather literal translation overall.  They explain in the preface about some liberties they took in translation, such as clarifying ancient customs, changing Rhetorical questions to statements, "showing the implied meaning, as in this example:  'No one is equal to our God,' instead of 'Who is equal to our God?'", editing figures of speech, idiomatic expressions ('he rested with his fathers' is changed to, 'he died')…etc.   Some of the writing style reminds me of the Dick and Jane books, short sentences with a lot of periods for punctuation. But it still reads quite well.  Here's a sample from Genesis 42: 1-4:  "Jacob learned that there was grain in Egypt.  So he said to his sons, 'Why are you just sitting here looking at one another?  I have heard that there is grain in Egypt.  Go down there and buy grain for us to eat.  Then we will live and not die.'  So ten of Joseph's brothers went down to buy grain from Egypt.  But Jacob did not send Benjamin, Joseph's brother, with them.  Jacob was afraid that something terrible might happen to Benjamin."

The translation appears to be quite good to me, and very understandable for kids.  One of the passages I always go to in Bibles to help give me an idea of the general literalness of the translation is Romans 9:13, and this translation doesn't try to soften it which is a good sign:  "As the Scripture says, "I loved Jacob, but I hated Esau." 

Here are some other excerpts to help give you more of an idea of how this translation reads: 

Rom 8:28, 30. "We know that in everything God works for the good of those who love him.  They are the people God called, because that was his plan…God planned for them to be like his Son.  And those he planned to be like his Son, he also called.  And those he called, he also made right with him.  And those he made right, he also glorified." 

2 Tim. 3: 14-17:  "But you should continue following the teachings that you learned.  You know that these teachings are true.  And you know you can trust those who taught you.  You have known the Holy Scriptures since you were a child.  The Scriptures are able to make you wise.  And that wisdom leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching and for showing people what is wrong in their lives.  It is useful for correcting faults and teaching how to live right.  Using the Scriptures, the person who serves God will be ready and will have everything he needs to do every good work."  

The Bible has some fancy pages (with snowflakes of course) scattered throughout with little tidbits on topics like, "How Do I Pray?" , "How Do I know Jesus Better?" and "Knowing Jesus Better".  For the most part those sections seem okay, though I might have an issue with some of the memory verses they suggest like Jeremiah 29:11 which is usually taken out of context and applied specifically to Christians when in actuality it was a promise to the physical descendants of Jacob, not necessarily to present day Gentile Christians.  I just had to mention that. 

Overall, I thought this translation was pretty good. 

 

The FTC guidelines require me to state that I received this Bible for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review (my review did not have to be favorable).  Many thanks to the BookLook blogger program.

Amongst other places, this book may be purchased at Amazon

NIrV Study Bible for Kids

The NIRV Study Bible for Kids is and interesting concept, but not as well executed as I think that it could have been.  First, there were unnecessary pictures.  I don’t understand why almost everyone has to depict Adam and Eve before the fall, without clothing? Yeah it was okay before the fall, but we live after the fall so to depict them in that way now is shameful. It wasn't as bad a it could be (there were the usual bushes) but was worse than some I've come across…they showed enough to make me more uncomfortable with them than I normally would be.  Wouldn't it be wrong to depict the nakedness of the father and mother of all human beings?  Displaying what is now their shame as art?  Should Christians actually promote this?   Also, they had depictions of Christ, and I still think that that type of thing may break (or at least be on the edge of breaking) the commandment to "not make any graven image" to worship.

The NIrV translation itself seems rather good, but it may be a little too clear in some areas for kids….if that's possible in translating a Bible?  For instance, in Ezekiel, the part where God compares Israel and Judah as prostitutes is a bit graphic, but it may not be more graphic than other translations, just more modern in expression (they appear to be sticking to the text quite well and not unnecessarily expanding on it in those areas).  Just wanted to note that for parents' sake.  But I do think that translation is good overall (though I think that the translator(s) of Romans 7 may have thought that the man with conflicting desires is an unsaved person rather than a saved one).  Here are some examples of verses I liked the wording of:   

 "Don't live the way this world lives.  Let your way of thinking be completely changed.  The you will be able to test what God wants for you.  And you will agree that what he wants is right.  His plan is good and pleasing and perfect." - Rom. 12:2 

"Then Jesus spoke to his disciples, he said, "Whoever wants to be my disciples must say no to themselves." - Matt. 16:24 

"All who take part in the games train hard.  They do it to get a crown that will not last.  But we do it to get a crown that will last forever.  So I do not run like someone who doesn't run toward the finish line.  I do not fight like a boxer who hits nothing but air.." - 1 Cor. 9:26

As I alluded to above, the translation isn't perfect (no translation is), one mistranslation I feel I need to bring up is in Romans 9:  "It is written, "I chose Jacob instead of Esau" - vs. 13  That's a far cry from, "Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate."(YLT).  But they seem to be okay in other parts of the passage: vs 18, "So God does what he wants to do.  He shows mercy to one person and makes another stubborn…" Other places are not translated very accurately as well, but again, no translation is absolutely perfect across the board.   

Again, on the positive side, there are questions in little boxes throughout the Bible that kids can ponder, and a little dictionary at the back than can be pretty helpful, as well as maps.  Anyway, the translation was okay, but maybe a bit too specific in passages speaking sexual related things for kids..maybe… again, that's debatable. Again, can a Bible translation translate a word too clearly? As long as the word is actually translating, and is not expanding on a word or making it refer to more than it does in the actual Greek and Hebrew, is it too clear?  Again, parents should decide this for themselves, as to what there kids should or should not read/know at their ages.  My biggest problem was the pictures, so because of that I can't rate this edition as high as I would have without them.  Otherwise it was pretty good. 

 

I received a free copy of this book from the Booklook Blogger Program(My review did not have to be favorable)

HCSB Large Print- Personal Size Reference Bible(Brown Leather-Touch)

The first time I remember hearing about the HCSB translation was in John Macarthur's book: 'SLAVE: The hidden truth about your identity in Christ', in which this translation is used because it translates 'doulos' literally as 'slave' rather than the less accurate translation of 'servant' or 'bondservant'.  That made me curious to take a better look at the translation.  This translation uses "Optimal Equivalence" as the translation method which they consider to be a careful cross between formal equivalence an dynamic/functional equivalence.  Also, the translators do not give in to gender neutrality, as they mention in their 'introduction':  "…the translators have not changed 'him' to 'you' or to 'them,'  neither have they avoided other masculine words such as 'father' or 'son' by translating them in generic terms…" 

There were some specific things that I looked for, in particular the usage of other translations of the Old Testament for textual criticism.  In Genesis 4:8 instead of the verse reading , "And Cain told Abel his brother. And it came to pass, when they were in the field…"( ASV) it relies upon the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, Syriac and Vulgate and reads, "Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let's go out to the field.' And while they were in the field…"  Including that statement there is added clarity, and, though not in the Masoretic text, it has numerous supports in other available texts.  They support their translation choices/sources with footnotes explaining where the variants are taken from and also to give alternate readings that are not found in the Masoretic text of the OT.  I did appreciate that, unlike the NIV, at Isaiah 7:14 where it says "the virgin will conceive…" they do not have a footnote saying "or young woman".  But I didn't like that, unlike the NIV, in Psalm 40 where they follow the Masoretic wording of "my ears you have opened" they don't include a footnote mentioning that other ancient translations like the LXX read "body you have prepared for me".   

It reads in a sort of cross between modern English and a more literal style, though I think it is leaning more towards a literal translation which I appreciate.  But overall, I think I like the translation.   Oh, I also liked how they converted measurements into feet, inches, miles…etc.  It makes it easier to picture. 

And now, as for the external/material things,  the binding of this version was silky smooth, and I like the simple yet decorative cover.   On the inside the font is nice and large and easily readable, even the footnotes are a nice size.  This Bible has a topical concordance at the back and at the beginning a summary of God's plan for salvation in which I particularly liked some of their wording for instance, "First, God says we must repent.  The word 'repent' means a change of direction.  This means when we turn to God, we are turning away from sin and giving up on the attempt to make ourselves right before God." 

Many thanks to B&H publishers for sending me a free copy of this Bible to review!(My review did not have to be favorable)

 

This Bible may be purchased on Amazon and on the B&H Publishing Group website