NASB or HCSB?

I'm down with the much maligned TNIV.

It's what I read, study, meditate, teach and preach from.

 

I said that the fact that it left that out did bother me. It doesn't matter that other versions leave it out, too. I was already liking the NASB at the time and I agree with others that it's more accurate word for word, although sometimes more awkward than the NIV.

 

I don't have the CSB anymore so I can't check it out and don't have time to do it online. I might try again another time if a similar thread comes up, though, and if I have time.

I think all versions I have looked at, except for The Message, are fine to use but I don't like all of them for myself. This includes the King James, NKJV (which I use a lot), the NASB, the NIV, the NLT, the HCSB, and the NET Bible.

I have never examined or read much of some versions and so don't say anything about them (such as the ESV, TNIV, New Century, and several others I've not read much or any of).

 

I simply cannot recommend the CSB as a primary Bible.

Too many idiosyncrasies. But it's up to the individual believer.

 

Well, this confirms my impressions and memories. I was sketchy on the details so couldn't give evidence to Rippon. But you saying this helps me out. So thanks!

 

Glad to help, my sister. :thumbs:

 

Although I've heard of the HCSB, I've never done any reading through it. Most of my reading/studying is from either the NASB or NKJV.

I must say however, that after taking a look through some passages online, I think I would like the HCSB. It seems to be a very free flowing (for lack of a better term) version. I'll have to do some more reading of it to get a better feel, but so far I like what I've read.

Having said that, the few times I've read through the Bible in a year, it's always been from the NASB.

 

Marcia,you made that Judges chapter 3 the litmus test of whether or not a version was valid or not.Of course anyone can have any criteria they wish to determine to their own satisfaction that a particular version isn't reliable.I just think that your reasoning based on that single text is suspect.

 

Well,when you can furnish details in the future I would be happy to read your objections.

 

You seem to want to pick on me for some reason. I did not make that the litmus test, fyi. I had done other comparisons, and like numerous people I know, believe the NASB to more accurate. I have also been told that by some I respect. I realize there are disagreements.

So it's not just that passage. It just so happens that was an interesting time in the class that I recall and I brought it up here because I was remembering it and it seemed others might also find it interesting.

Doing something here totally innocently can certainly invite harshness.

 

Why don't you pick on others who also prefer the NASB? Why me? It's as though I can't state a preference here or a dislike without you pouncing on it. Pick on someone else for a change.

 

I agree, it's not my choice as a primary Bible

But “Viva la difference", Holmans CSB makes a great Bible for comparison study!

Rob

 

From the original post of yours it seemed as if that chapter 3 of Judges clinched it for you that the NIV was not to be relied upon.Your professor's point made a real impression on you and from that point on the NIV was suspect.

So since the NIV is missing what the ESV and TNIV have -- do you think based on that passage that the latter is a worthy translation?

 

The issue has never been about your preference for the NASB.

 

I agree with you here.( I tried to simply say :"I agree" and I got a message saying that my post needed to be longer.)

 

Nas

I like the HCSB alot .

 

TCG, what idiosyncrasies are you referring to in the CSB?

 

Failure to provide footnotes on alternate translations like most other mainstream Bibles do.

 

My HCSB has footnotes.

 

Yes, and that is what gets me about the HCSB: it provides a lot but only selectively to fit a particular agenda.

Gen 1:2 and so on...