Holman Christian Standard Bible

Ed Edwards will come to the board soon.He is an HCSB guy, he likes it a lot.I will probably get a copy based on what he has said.Ed's a pretty sound guy.

 

I have been impressed with the HCSB, although it is not my favorite translation. It seems the Southern Baptists really didn't make a "Baptist Bible" as many people had feared.

 

I like it, although not as much as the ESV or the Updated NASB. It is not quite as literal as either of those translations, although somewhat more literal than the NIV.

 

I would say:
"I believe the HCSB from Genesis to Maps"!
Only the version i have is one of the
first to come out (both OT and NT) and
has NO MAPS

Here are a couple of old topics
easily available:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2046.html#000000

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/1967.html?

 

I would call the Holman Christian Standard Bible a better than average paraphrase that might possibly be suitable for some Bible games , but certainly not for Bible study .

 

I really like it .

 

I study the Christian Standard Bible a lot.
I got saved 52 years ago.

 

I wish the Life Application Study Bible would come out in CSB version .

 

I bought another KJV1769 just cause it had
the Tim LaHaye notes: PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE.
I want Tim LaHaye's notes in my
Holman Chrisian Standard Bible (HCSB).

Another time i had the new Schofield notes
in a New King James Version (nKJV).
I guess it would be nice to have the
new Schofield notes in a HCSB also.

I hope the HCSB is the Bible in the English
language of the Rapture Generation

 

I only have a New Testament that was sold when they introduced it. Real deal, big print, $2.50.

I just bought a thin-line large-print new from ebay, but haven't got it yet. I only paid $15 for it. It is listed at about $40+ on Amazon. (They wouldn't take paypal though, so I'm having to wait until my check gets to them and clears.)

As far as the New Testament. It is an easy to read translation, appears to be a little like the NIV, more of a (can't think of the word.....you know, thought for thought, rather than literal).

My ESV is harder to read, but probably much more literal.

The Holman Bible is NOT just an Baptist Bible. I think it would actually fall under the "translation" class rather than "paraphrase" class; however.

I like to read it when I'm tired and just want to read some Scripture like I would a novel. It is written in a way that keeps your attention and you do not have to translate odd phrases of a more literal translation to a more readable English phrase, in your head. Did that make sense to anyone?

 

I like the HCSB a lot. I first tried it out about a year ago, and when the full translation was released in April I started reading it pretty regularly. Now, I read it almost exclusively. If not,then I turn to the ESV.

The sentences are crisp and clear, and aside from the word here and there that seems flat (instead of the more vivid KJV or ESV), it reads very smoothly.

The greatest difference, however, is in the syntax--i.e. the word order in the sentences. When I first started reading the HCSB and our pastor was reading from the NKJV, I was startled. It seemed as if one of the two of us wasn't using the same Bible.

We were/are, only the HCSB tries to order the words in a way that resembles contemporary English rather than retaining a word order that reflects the orignal Greek or Hebrew.

 

You noticed that too?

I was reading my NT this morning and I noticed that some words just did not seem to carry the picture very well, although it was easy to understand. I don't know if it was so much "word choice" as it might have been actual "sentence structure".

 

Wow, I finally figured out why my ESV is harder to read.

The print is smaller.

 

I'd rather magnify the Lord
than to magnify the Lord's written word

 

I recently bought a Holman Ultrathin Bible Classic Edition (which includes maps) and am just starting to read it. So far, I find nothing offensive about it, and little truly noteworthy. It has a few renderings which are memorable, but not many. I read the ESV through last year and would prefer it over the HCSB in most cases. Also, I'm a little bothered that each publisher feels the need to have its own "house" Bible, and that this seems to be the chief motivation for the HCSB. They even put their name in the title. Don't get me wrong; I like comparing a variety of translations. But eventually we may get to the point of having too many versions.

 

Bingo, baby! One of the chief reasons behind the HCSB is so Lifeway can stop paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties to Zondervan because of the NIV in the Sunday School materials. I heard this from the mouth of one of the editors himself back in '99 or '00.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Hi West! I am glad to see you back.

 

I have NO doubt that this is true. Zondervan charges a fortune for NIV royalties. For an example buy one of the little Bible programs that has some free Bibles and compare the cost of adding the NIV to one of the other copyrighted translations.

Whether this is right or wrong is debatable, I do not know how much overhead Zondervan has had to pay for all of the labor put into its translation, but considering that it is now the number one selling Bible, I would assume that overhead has been very well covered.

If the SBC Baptists keep using Sunday school materials with two translations (KJV and NIV), then it was obvious that the cost was a driving force.

The question is, is that really wrong? I guess there might be two ways of looking at it.

Are there too many translations? Yeah, probably. I must say that the NKJV has two things going for it. One, it uses the TR for the New Testament, if people are so inclined to prefer it (and many are). Second, it is marketing off of the KJV name and getting KJV preferred people to buy it. Is that wrong? Again, hard to say.

Was it wrong for King James to demand that his Bible replace the Geneva? Probably, considering that he had the power of governmental monopoly on his side.

Just some food for thought.

 

So, I guess I better stick to the Holman then.