Hcsb

It's very much like the 2011 NIV as a mediating version which tries to maintain a balance between the form-oriented versions on the left,and the more functionally-equivalent versions on the right. The Catholic NAB,ISV and NET Bible are also in this same category.

It's my fourth favorite Bible translation.

 

I use the HSCB on Wednesday nights (its on my cell phone lol and I don't have to carry and keep up with a print version). I don't always like it. Sometimes I wonder why they phrased things the way they did. For the most part its okay.

I'm a NIV fan though and after that, ASV and ESV equally.

 

seems to be the SBC response to the TNIV/2011 NIV, as the SBG railed against those versions and their "gender issues in translation", so made up their own version!

good one, seems to me to be a tad more literal/conservative in renderings thanthe 2011 Niv!

 

I like it, and I use it.

They say its "optimal equivalence" but in reality it is mediating. (The SBC like to be original so I guess, you know, they say whatever they want.)

On my iPad I have it as the primary translation (along with all the others I have access to) and think it does a good job at most points...just like other translations of its time.

 

You speak the truth.

 

Just so you are aware. The NIV was charging a very large copy fee for its use in SBC literature. Due to this reason it was an economic choice to make their own Bible so they did not have to pay the huge copyright fees. This does or does not indicate whether it is a good Bible, I am simply stating the story that is being circulated amongst the SBC who should be in the know. I believe the poster at the top that it is very similar to the NIV and should be used in the same way you use the NIV version.

 

I think that point has been brought up a couple of times, including once or twice by myself, in other threads about this. Let's make no illusions about this, the decision to create a denominational translation was one of: politics, economics, theology, and...in some part...hubris.

I like the HCSB. I use it in preaching, teaching, and for study. It communicates well and is authentic to the original text.

The controversy between Zondervan and the SBC is longstanding and sorta silly. But for anyone attempting to say the NIV is better because it doesn't engage in those things I listed above, I'd simply say it too is guilty of each of the categories.

 

Not the only reason, Mohler stated that they wanted a version they could control. Haven't used it, don't plan to.

 

Oh, I have no doubt that you are right. Plus, they have a "build in" market share if only one-half of the SBC churches use it. I do NOT say this in a bad way. It is the same in ALL the Bible printing business; If you are going to print Bibles you have to have a market, a decent product for that market (a product that will be accepted by the market you are aiming at), and finally a reasonable price. This is just plain ole business.

 

I know several of the translators personally. They went to great pains to translate difficult concepts in a way that made them understandable to the masses who sit in churches week in and week out who do not understand the doctrines that they think they hold.

For the most part, the HCSB is a word-for-word translation, but in some cases, a dynamic equivalence method was employed to get closer to the original direction of the text, especially when common phrases that would have been perfectly clear to any 1st century reader have been brought into a 21st century world where they are not longer the idiom of the day.

We toss about terms like, "He hit that one right out of the park" and everyone knows what that means in the context in which it was uttered. either a baseball player hit a hard home run over the outfield fence, or the effort of the individual was wildly successful. Take that similar saying and stick it back into history before baseball was intented and it is gibberish, subject to all sort of wild interpretations. So it is for the sayings brought forward from history.

I have and will continue to use the HCSB, but I prefer the ESV for preaching and teaching. The HCSB is my preferred version where I might otherwise use the NIV, New Living Translation, etc., i.e., when a very simple translation will make more progress than a more technical and difficult one.

More shocking to me than the fact that we are discussing this version is that Robert Snow attends an SBC church. Wonder if his pastor knows? :tonofbricks:

 

No, I was wondering if your pastor knows about your stance on almost every doctrine that gets mentioned around here. Nothing in particular about your stance on the HCSB, as you have so far failed to mention any.

 

I am SBC and as you the Sunday school books have both Holman Standard and King James. Even though I'm in my mid 40's I am in the older men's class, everyone else is old enough to be my dad or grandfather. We don't even bother looking at the Holman side of the book, but from time to time I may bring up the fact that it doesn't say what it does in the KJB. Only when the notes don't agree with the KJV.

Me personally, I don't like the Holman, it's just an NIV with another name. As many have already stated it to be compared to the NIV. They both will fall to the wayside as time will bring in another "better" version, And I will still be reading the one that has stood the test of time, The King James Version.

It's no wander to me why the Church seems to be going in so many different directions (while on the way down), with all these different versions in the same congregation, no one is on the same page!

You can not follow along with the preacher when he is in one version while you are in another. It's of my opinion that whatever version the preacher uses the congregation should use the same version while at service. If they want to make a comparison after church then they can go home and make that comparison. You can not hear the preacher, concentrate and process all that different information at the same time while using a different version other than the one the preacher is using.

I got into a discussion with a fellow member of our church about the different versions and showed her some of the differences. She told me she had never noticed them before and never noticed the difference while following along with the preacher. It came to me later and I told her the reason she had never noticed it, was because while she was reading her version he was reading his and not hearing what he was actually saying or she was concentrating on what he was saying and not reading hers. Its because the words are not in the same order or it's saying something slightly different, or drastically different. Unless you really know your Bible or you make a side by side comparison you will not catch a lot of the problems.

As for using the same version as the preacher, I stand by that, and if he is not going to use the KJV, I'll find a church that will. I'm not going to tell a preacher what version to use, that's up to him, But for me, I want to be reading what he is reading and I'm reading the KJB. There is enough confusion in the Church as is.

Dell

 

Dell, hate to break it to you, but the reason the church is in trouble these days has nothing to do with the translation used in the service.

Rather, if I might be so bold to suggest it, the true reason is that so many people have left God and turned their eyes toward very human matters. Everything these days seems to be centered on whether or not some PERSON likes it or not, and very little concerns the God who made it clear that He is Almighty, Sovereign, and greatly to be feared while at the same time, merciful, gracious, and most loving, as to grant us a salvation that we could never earn.

Instead, we get up in arms because this version has this word and another version has that word -- each essentially synonomous -- yet we fight, and while we fight, we ignore God to our peril.

We also fight about whether God elects or we choose. Silly fools... Even if we choose, God also has to choose or we still have no hope. So what if we choose... God is the only one who can save and we remain at His mercy to do so.

 

You very well may be right about that, as many churches around the world do not even have a Bible and they are growing and fear God, but for here in the U. S. I see a trend that the more liberal watered down churches tend to use the more modern versions and the more conservative, as small as they may be, tend to use the KJV.

 

Actually, you may have that exactly opposite of what is actually true, but if you believe it then good for you.

I believe, however, if one checks the fastest growing congregations along with their doctrines and Bible translation preference, you will discover that very few actually still use the KJV AND grow. Of course, there is that age-old pastor's quip, "Yes, but WE are growing spiritually." Really? When the version requires you to translate into modern English before it can even be understood? Seems like a royal waste of time and an exercise in incorrect doctrine to me. "Conservative" plays little role in that, unless by that term you mean "stodgy" and "unwilling to change in culture while holding fast to the never-changing gospel."