Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by nodak, Dec 5, 2010.
Both are HCSB and both from Broadman. Any of you familiar with both?
If so, which do you prefer?
I will throw this out there for you, the HCSB Study Bible includes the new revised text of the HCSB, while the Apologetics Study Bible will have the older text. I'm not in a position to say does the update make it better but thought you may want to know.
Also I think each Bible will be a little different. The HCSB Study Bible will give you what the typical study Bible will, a verse by verse explanation, application, and word studies. The Apologetics Study Bible is more geared to answering Apologetics based questions (How can we know the Bible is true, Is Jesus really God, how does that particular religion differ from Christianity?)
You can probably get the Apologetics Study Bible on sale, they have been on sale the last few times at my local Lifeway. You can go to mystudybible.com and see an example of the study notes in the HCSB Study Bible.
Hope this helps!
I'd get the study Bible since it's text is the updated HCSB as mentioned above.
Thanks! I have an early HCSB larger print text only. I love it except where it uses the phrase "large egos" for being full of pride. I don't think such psychological concepts were even thought of back in OT times, but I could be wrong.
I have the apologetics study Bible and love it. I saw the HCSB Study Bible in a bookstore last weekend. I fell in love with the colorful illustrations, etc. It seems to give a lot of info without so bogging you down you never get around to actually reading the scripture.
Did some checking and link running, and decided to order one. I think using the two together will be very beneficial.
I also have trouble with some regular print study Bibles, but while this one isn't large print it is for some reason very clean clear print--easy on the eyes. And the use of color for verse numbers, alternate translations, etc, make it nice on my eyes.
Ted Cable, editor of the Apologetics Study Bible was my dean and a personal friend. He and those who contributed did a remarkable job in this version. Both would be very helpful versions as explained above, depending on the intended use.
Of note, some of the rationale behind the use of certain words or terms in some of the newest translations coming out are difficult decisions made by the editing team based on common usage of words. In today's world, a word like "pride" now almost universally points to the gay community, and that may have influenced their decision to phrase a certain section the way they did.
As word usage changes down through the ages (most English word really don't remains static and unchangeable) so do translations that use those words.
For instance, this from the KJV:
1 Kings 16:11 And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, [that] he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.
This is more commonly, and usefully translated:
1 Kings 16:11 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
When he became king, as soon as he was seated on his throne, Zimri struck down the entire house of Baasha. He did not leave him a single male, whether of his kinsmen or his friends.
Yes--I realize language changes. But ego, id, superego imply accepting a whole philosophical system that many believe is counter Biblical. So it seemed an odd word choice. Don't know if the update changed it. It wasn't a deal breaker for me with the translation, which is one of my favorites. I love the NASB, TNIV, NKJV, KJV also. Didn't used to like the HCSB where it kept switching from Messiah to Christ even though I understood why. But I find it very good for witnessing to those of Jewish background.
"Ego" is simply the transliteration of the Greek personal pronoun singular "I".
Greeks 400+ years before the NT knew about "I" issues, what we think of as "ego" or pride.
Yes--I agree. But when ministering to someone who thinks in psychological terms with no right or wrong, only useful or socially acceptable, using ego, id, and superego instead of the concept of there even being a conscience, there could be better word choices.
Excellent point, nodak. I have taught philosophy and psychology both in christian and secular colleges and made certain no one "bought in" to the pagan idea of "no moral/no right-or-wrong" in using those terms. But many could be confused.
Shifting my thinking to agree with yours! :type:
Oh my goodness, consensus building and discussion.
What a novel idea.
And for the record, I don't know that the newer version still refers to some people having "big egos" or "large egos".
All in all it is an excellent translation.