Holman Christian Standard Bible

Status
Not open for further replies.

davenporter

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi all,

I searched the forum for peoples' opinions on the HCSB and found a couple of threads from 2010 when the Study Bible was just being released, but nothing more recent. I am curious to hear if anyone on this board uses the translation, and/or knows how good of a translation it is. Right now I primarily use the ESV and NASB, and in a few years I hope that I'll be able to use the original languages for study, but for my non-Seminarian friends the HCSB seems like a good Bible to recommend. I especially appreciate the way it translates John 3:16, "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." From what I've read (half the Old Testament), it seems pretty good and reads very easily to a younger-generation guy like myself. Still, I appreciate hearing the wisdom of others!

If anyone has any concerns or insights, please share.

Thanks!
 

Rich Koster

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I used it as my morning reader for about a year. I read the whole NT, and parts of the OT. It is written at a pleasant reading level for publik skool graduitz, like me. The only reason I switched is that I was given a GIANT print NKJV, and it is easier on the eyes in the AM. I keep a LARGE print NASB at our meetinghouse for a pew Bible. I like the HCSB, but I'm sure some better educated people could point out it's strengths and weaknesses. I also downloaded a free copy on my Kindle for Mac. That is an electronic large print version ;)
 

surnamelevi

Puritan Board Freshman
i have a love/hate relationship with it; but i would say i love it more than hate it.

sometimes i has a little extra translation in the text than needed, such as Jude 7.
perhaps strange wordings, such as esau asking jacob for "that red stuff" or in acts "temple police".

but at the end of the day, i find it to be an excellent read.
 

GulfCoast Presbyterian

Puritan Board Junior
My wife likes that translation. So, I got her an R.L. Allan version, and now she REALLY likes it. It seems to me like it has "less words" than other versions, if that makes sense. Like its more "concise" in how it translates verses.
 

ClayPot

Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm a big fan of the HCSB. The translators aren't afraid to deviate from the traditional language of a Bible translation when it seems the idea can be explained more clearly (John 3:16 being the most obvious example). It is also more smooth to read (in most places) than other translations such as the ESV or NASB. It has some rough spots, but is a solid translation.
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
My pastor's wife uses that translation and likes it a lot. I've looked into it on Bible Gateway to compare verses. I don't care for the phraseology the translators chose. For example, out of Ephesians 2 ; 2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins 2 in which you previously walked according to the ways of this world, according to the ruler who exercises authority over the lower heavens, the spirit now working in the disobedient. I've read that is is an accurate and a literal translation though. For myself I stick with the AV, NKJV, NASB and to some extent the ESV.
 

PointingToChrist

Puritan Board Freshman
i have a love/hate relationship with it; but i would say i love it more than hate it.

sometimes i has a little extra translation in the text than needed, such as Jude 7.
perhaps strange wordings, such as esau asking jacob for "that red stuff" or in acts "temple police".

but at the end of the day, i find it to be an excellent read.

I'm no Hebrew scholar, but either the Reformation Study Bible or ESV Study Bible says that the Hebrew in reference to Esau literally says "that red stuff."
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Full disclosure: I was part of the translation team for the HCSV and am presently on the oversight committee.

Like the ESV, the HCSV aimed to provide a readable translation somewhere a bit more literal than the NIV, which I, like many preachers, found slightly more dynamically equivalent that I would prefer. I use it and the ESV most of the time; the main difference between the two is ESV's deliberate tendency be more "literary" and "to sound like the Bible" (Leland Ryken's influence). The ESV therefore uses archaic terms like "Behold" and "Maiden" which aren't really part of contemporary language (do you ever say to your wife, "Behold, I was at the grocery store and the maiden at the checkout was a member at our church"? Didn't think so...). It also has distinctly longer paragraphs, and in terms of the software that evaluates required grade of education to read it, reckons out at about one grade higher in reading level than the HCSV. But since Reformed people tend to be good readers, that's not a problem for most of our churches.

In general, the ESV is best in the psalms which are poetry and as such often use archaic Hebrew. For the rest of the Bible, I prefer the Englsih translation to match the level of the original Hebrew more closely, and I think the HCSV does that admirably.

Both are in my view excellent translations, although there are always places where any translation can be improved. If you have any particular suggestions for the HCSV, please let me know (you can email me through Grove City College if you wish), so that I can bring them to the attention of the committee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top