I'm not very familiar with the HCSB, so I skimmed the website. Sounds like some of you enjoy the HCSB. How would you say it's superior to the NIV or ESV? I assume those are the translations with which you might compare the CSB.
Thanks for the heads-up. I ordered a review copy and will be interested to examine the changes/updates they've made.
Based on their description of the changes, I'm not sure that they haven't just nailed their own coffin shut...not at all saying they're being unfaithful, but rather that the reason folks used the HCSB (other than being a Hard Core Southern Baptist!) was for its translation uniqueness: YHWH, slave, etc. -- which they've apparently just eliminated.
For me, the big difference from the ESV is the ESV's love of archaic terminology, such as "Behold" and "maiden". I would never say to my wife, "Behold I was at the grocery store today and the maiden behind the counter said to me..."
Thank you for your informative response and for your work on this translation. That being said, regarding your quote above, isn't that the point? That God's word should be higher and better than ordinary speech. Just my opinion.
Despite any good translation improvements, it nonetheless has the defects of the standard Critical Text; to list but three larger ones:
Mark 11:26 is simply missing: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
Mark 15:28 missing: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Mark 16:9-20 bracketed as though not genuine
I might get a copy just to see translational differences, but the flaws accompanying the text departing from the
Reformation standard—the Textus Receptus editions—are significant.
I'm curious as to if there is any good reason the word propitiation isn't used in Romans 3?
It is in Matthew 6:14-15
It is in Luke 22:37
It only says "[Some of the earliest mss conclude with 16:8.]" which is true, regardless of whether you think it's original.
Apparently the original HCSB was to be based on the MT/TR, but the leadership was handed over to those preferring CT after the original editor died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible#Beginnings
But in general, it doesn't claim to be a translation of the TR, so it should not be treated as such.
The problem there is that "atoning sacrifice" and "propitiation" don't mean the same thing. Appeasing God's righteous anger (which is what "propitiation" is) is one of the effects of the "atoning sacrifice." So, I guess their website gives the impression that those two terms are equivalent in meaning, which they're not.