Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by anthonyone, Jul 28, 2008.
To those that have used them both what one do you like and why ?Thank you ..........
I like the HCSB. The ESV is very similar to the NASB, and I like the "optimal equivalence" the HCSB uses in the translating process. Where word for word (formal equivalence) makes the most sense it goes with that, and where the thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) makes the most sense, it uses that. It is in my top 5 for sure (maybe top 2).
I use both the ESV and HCSB (or as Ed Stetzer says, the Hard Core Southern Baptist version.) Both are fine by me. As webdog mentioned they have their strengths.
I find in my teaching both are adequate and very helpful. I tend to do my own translation of some parts of the verses and will, from time to time use that over another translation. Often the ESV seems a bit stilted in its rendering. Just the other day I was working through a passage in Hebrews in the HCSB and it seemed to gloss over a concept that, with a couple more words, would have been properly expounded on. Of course given a translator we can find that in any version.
I would use the HCSB for my pulpitteering, if I ever had a pulpit...and the ESV for my teaching. (I will bounce back and forth between translations often.)
The HCSB over the ESV, but what about the TNIV?
The HCSB, natch' -
although I have not purchased either an ESV or TNIV.
Uh- mostly because I was able to get an HCSB as a gift for my bride at the SBC
convention display at LifeWay© at 75% off.
Since I wuz' feeling poor -
and spending cheap,
that 'uz good enough for me! :thumbsup: :laugh:
Ed, Do yourself a big favor and get the TNIV.
Tell them I sent you. :laugh:
The HCSB is certainly better than the ESV. It is not a "hard-core Southern Baptist version"though.
The language in the HCSB has better grammar and is hence more understandable than the antiquated ESV.( I say antiquated because most of it is -- while parts are clear).
But, as TCG has said,folks ought to take TNIV out for a test-drive. It's even better than the HCSB.
Do either or both of you guys own stock in the company that is printing the TNIV?
Last I heard there was controversy over gender nuetralness in the TNIV. Is that still an issue?
I have the HCSB apolgetics study Bible and like it better than my ESV which I also like, but I like my NKJV Study Bible best.:thumbsup:
Tell Us How You Really Feel About It Rip
"Antiquated" lies in the eye of the beholder. I am reading through the HCSB this year, and use the ESV as my primary study Bible. Personally I much prefer the 'antiquated' ESV to the HCSB. But that is just my preference.
I do not see how one can call the ESV a 'warmed-over RSV'. The RSV clearly missed the boat on the translation of 'almah' in Isa. 7:14, deleted John 7:53-8:11 and Luke 22:20 and the ESV does not. Big difference IMHO.
The RSV missed nothing.
Translators have a way of translating the OT with the NT in mind. What an error!
Maybe, maybe not... here's an interesting discussion on the subject.
(Pardon the hijack. Back to my neutral corner now.)
Leland Ryken, ESV literary Chairman, preface to The Word of God in English:
". . .[The KJV] was badly showing its age and had become culturally obsolete with its archaic language and deficient scholarship (the RSV might have become the accepted alternative but was shunned as a theologically liberal translation);. . .
. . .(I myself was surprised and pleased to learn, when I joined the ESV Translation Committee, about evangelical luminaries who had remained closet RSV people for three decades, as had I.)"
The Historic Legacy of the ESV
"The words and phrases of the ESV grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for the ESV text."
The Origin of the ESV
"From the beginning, Crossway wanted to revise an existing translation of the Bible; the logical place to start was the Tyndale/King James legacy, with centuries of history behind it. There was debate over whether to use the ASV of 1901 or the more recent RSV (itself a revision of the ASV) as the starting point for the text. The RSV won out in the end, largely because:
1. The RSV is a good translation (some have called it the finest translation of the 20th century), so the translators would not have to revise large swaths of it.
2. The RSV has wide scholarly acceptance.
3. Many prominent Christian leaders were trained on the RSV. "
Philip Graham Ryken explain why Tenth Presbyterian Church uses the ESV
"I had heard very early on that there was an opportunity to do an evangelical revision of the RSV. I was somewhat hesitant about whether we really needed another translation; somewhat daunted, perhaps, by the prospect of seeking to find a sufficient audience within the church for yet another translation and yet strongly attracted to an evangelical revision of the RSV,"
People who use the ESV just need to pull it out and read it alongside the RSV in James.
It's virtually unchanged.
I respect Philip Ryken. I've spoken with him years ago when he was Asscociate Pastor of 10th Presbyterian.It's not surprising that he chose to go along with the version with which his dad was associated.However, taking up with the ESV was a step or two backwards.Pastor Ryken should have retained the NIV just as his predecessor James Boice had used for years in his very impressive ministry.
I like the HCSB a lot. I'm just a layman and have no formal training in biblical languages. But as a high school Spanish and social studies teacher I am interested in linguistics and have some understanding of the difference between formal and dynamic translation. (Probably more so than a monolingual person would)
I'm 37 years old and got saved when I was 25 in 1996. The NIV was the first Bible I read. I didn't like it all that much and quickly switched to the NASBu. However I thought it was a little too stilted and odd sounding. So I used both the NIV and NASBu for about 5 years all the while thinking that the NIV was to dumbed down and the NASBu was to pompous. I used the KJV or NKJV for most of my memorization in those days.
I 2002 I heard about the upcoming HCSB and became excited about it b/c it was supposed to fill a niche between the NASBu and NIV. It was exactly what I was looking for in a Bible Translation.
During my internet research about the CSB, I discovered the ESV which was already complete back in '02. Also it was highly regarded in Reform circles. Since I have a slight Calvinist tinge I bought one and was disappointed with its archaic syntax in many places.
I stood in line in March of '04 to buy one of the 1st complete copies of the HCSB. I love it! Even though it is weird in some places like it's use of the term Messiah in the NT. It reads very smoothly, it has appropriate gender usage not to much not to little, and a bunch of notes for a non study bible, in fact in most places where it departs from the literal the literal is foot noted and many alternate interpretations are given.
The HCSB has been my primary Bible for reading, study, and memorization since 2004. I've read it through each year since. My other translations now sit on the shelf I use them only for comparative study sometimes and mostly with e-sword so I rarley use a bound copy of the other translations any more.
I have a few editions of the HCSB, the original red hardback, 2 reference editions, and the teacher’s edition. Santa Clause (a.k.a my wife) will bring me the Apologetics Study Bible this Christmas and I’m looking for a HCSB / Riana Valera 1960 parallel version.
The Word of God is perfect, translations are not. Even though the HCSB is not perfect, it is in MHO one of the best.
BTY I am Southern Baptist but my pastor still uses the NIV almost exclusively.
Given you two choices the ESV for me no real reason other than I like it.
As far as the TNIV I must admit I know nothing about it except I heard an entire program of Focus on the Family talking about how bad it was, I have never read a word out of it so I cannot say anything about it. But I do clearly remember that radio program because I was thinking the whole time "Ain't James Dobson a child shrink and not a linguistics scholar" I don't remember what he said so I can neither agree or disagree.
Good observation on Dobson. Also, Dobson would have to be calling first rate biblical scholars like Bock and Carson delusional for thinking the TNIV is an excellent and accurate rendering of the original languages.
I don't "AMEN!" everything TCG says in his posts,but his remarks above deserve a hearty one.