Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by FundamentalBaptist02, Sep 18, 2006.
What do you all think about the Holman Christian Standard Bible?
a sound translation of the bible. not my absolute favorite, but a good one.
Some folks liked it in my thread asking about the ESV . . . whew! I don't have time to read all the versions to keep track . . .
The HCS Bible is wonderful -- #2 in my estimation . The planned revision of the ESV should take notes from the HCS .
The previous resurrection of this topic was at:
The HCSB = Christian Standard Bible (Holman, 2003)
is the best translation thus far in the 21st Century (2001-2100).
I've been using it exclusively since early 2003 (it was in the
Sunday School Literature I use from LifeWay Press.
-Ed Edwards, documenting the KJV1611 Edition at:
I love it. You will notice it's the translation I quote from the most here on the BB (from e-sword).
The Holman Christian Standard Bible is based upon the corrupted Egyptian text according to David Cloud in his website. Sorry, I do not recommend it.
We'll be sure not to take your advice ASKJO . David Cloud is as reliable on the subject of Bible translations as he is on Calvinism .
Is that the same text that Joseph claimed he had translated?
I wouldn't lend too much credence to anything Cloud says. His "truth" is far from real truth.
What is the meaning of 'based' in this context?
In honesty, the translators of the HCSB used the so called
"corrupted Egyptian text" (which is a lie) because
it is available. In most cases the Majority Text reading is used.
BTW, I'm still have righetous indignation against certain Bible Bashers
who, if they can't tear down a Bible because it uses the
Alexandrian Texts; then they will tear it down because it
it footnotes the Alexandrian Texts.
Said Bible Bashers cannot distinguish between those translations
who use the Alexandrian Texts exclusively and those who
only admit the Alexandrian Texts exist.
The HCSB is a better translation for the 21st Century (2001-2100)
better than the KJVs Translations.
I was told that the Holman Version was funded and developed for the SBC to avoid paying usage fees to other versions. Is this correct?
This is probably correct. Lifeway (the sales point for the SBC) had the
NIV and the KJV1769 verses parallel in the Sunday School Literature.
They were paying through the nose for the NIV.
The HCSB is cheaper for them to use.
There is a difference, which i've noted up-topic (i.e. before in this topic).
Consider the choice between the Alexandrian Texts readings
and Majority Texts readings. The NIV usually went with the
'best and oldest' Alexandrian reading footnoting the
Majority Text; the HCSB usually goes with the Majority Texts
and footnotes the Alexandrian texts reading.
So another of Cloud's "truths" is exposed as either lack of knowledge or else intentional deception.
:tonofbricks: :laugh: :thumbs:
Nestle-Aland is based on Alexandrian not Majority text, I believe. This is the basis for the new testament text in HCSB.
//The textual base for the New Testament [NT] is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition. The text for the Old Testament [OT] is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5th edition.//
That statement is also in my copy of the HCSB, in the Introduction.
Dave: //Nestle-Aland is based on Alexandrian not Majority text,
I believe. This is the basis for the new testament text in HCSB.//
I don't believe you are correct.
The examples i've checked (not all of them, of course)
show that what I said is correct: //the HCSB usually goes
with the Majority Texts
and footnotes the Alexandrian texts reading.//
I really don't have time to take up examples. I've got some
grandchildren I'm supposed to raise ???
Not to mention, the SBC (which owns B&H through an entity) makes a couple of nickels every now and then when one sells,
If it were to contain a little leaven, why worry? After all, leaven always does "raise the dough"! :laugh: :laugh:
Now that I've gotten in my laugh, I personally like the HCSB better and better, each time I check it out. :thumbsup: It is far better than some other fairly modern versions, and it does seem that one can find a new one every few months or so. The last fact, I have no particular gripe with, FTR. Better 'too many'? versions than 'not enough'! versions, IMO.
Aside form the last sentence in his post , what Ed Edwards says here seem to be basically correct. While the HCSB is suposedly 'based' on the N-A, practically this is hard to see, unless one is reading the brackets and footnotes, from what I've seen. The "proverbial straw" was the decision of the NIV owners to "update" into "gender-neutral" and what amounted to PC language. Thankfully, the SBC and BSSB?? said basically, "NO DEAL!", comissioned the late Dr. Arthur Farstad, the General Editor of the NKJV, as General Editor to do a New Version, and upon his death, chose Dr. Edwin Blum, to take his place.
I do find it interesting that three relatively modern 'standard' versions have or have had Dallas Seminary types as the Editors:
NIV - Dr. Kenneth L. Barker
NKJV - the late Dr. Arthur L. Farstad
HCSB- First Dr. Farstad, and then Dr. Edwin A. Blum.
I read through the Bible in the HCSB last year really liked it .
What do ya'll think of HCSB's translation of Proverbs 11:30..."violence takes lives." Instead of "...he who wins souls is wise."?
Just curious what some of you language scholars could drum up to ease my conscience.
By the way, I like the HCSB.