Holman Christian Standard Bible

How to get saved in the HCSB:

Romans 10:9 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible):
if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

I believe that all English versions are
the inerrant Written Word of God. The
HCSB contains the inerrant Written Word
of God. Yes, i endorce it.

I also have been using it to teach my Sunday
School lesson for over a year. HCSB is
a good Bible.

 

We recently had a thread on the HCSB.

HCSB dynamic or literal

Here is the introduction to the HCSB that shares its motivations and translation philosophy.

Here is an article where Michael Marlowe gives his opinion on the HCSB.

Here is the historical context of the translation from bible.org

 

I personally prefer the NKJV/NASB, but I have found nothing wrong with the HCSB, and in fact would recommend it over the NIV...A matter of personal opinion.

 

I think it's a good version. I personally don't like the tone of the text, which lends itself to colloquialisms at times, but this is not a serious flaw--it's a matter of preference.

My problems with the HCSB:
1. It was possibly written to derail the TNIV and/or to replace the NIV in Lifeway material.
2. The translation team was HEAVILY baptist when compared to other translation teams.
3. "Optimal" equivalence

I really see no need for the "optimal" equivalence translation philosophy. All it really is "dynamic with a little bit of formal equivalence every now and then." I have no problem with the dynamic equivalence philosophy as employed in the NIV, so I'm sticking with it.


But, if these issues do not bother you, then by all means use the text. As for me, I did not find the HCSB literal enough to replace my NASB, nor did I find it constructed better than my NIV.

As an interesting aside, if you have an early text edition HCSB, one of the titles of Jesus listed on page 1070 is "Source of LifeWay Network User" according to Acts 3:15, apparently.

 

I think it is as likely for SBC churches to adopt the Roman Catholic New American Bible as it is for mainstream Christianity to accept the HCSB.

 

I used the NIV to teach Sunday
School for 10-11 years. I prefer the HCSB.

It will be a significant Bible if only
a 'Southern Baptist Bible'.

 

Ed, how can you say that "all English versions are the inerrant Written Word of God"? Are you saying that all the English versions are perfect, and without fault, as the word "Inerrant" means? urelt you have to limit this to the original autographs. Further, by your statement, that the HCSB "contains the inerrant Written Word of God", you can be accused of saying that you only believe in a partial "Inspiration of Scripture", which I am sure you don't believe.

Regards
Icthus

 

Please ignore "urelt"

 

Icthus: " Further, by your statement, that the HCSB "contains the inerrant Written Word of God", you can be accused of saying that you only believe in a partial "Inspiration of Scripture", which I am sure you don't believe."

I don't understand your charges.
What is partial "Insdpiration of Scripture"?
I believe in whole inspiration of scripture.
The whole of the HCSB is inspired, inerrant scripture
and additionaly contains inerrant, inspired scripture.

Icthus: "Ed, how can you say that "all English versions are the inerrant Written Word of God"?"

I didn't say that, i said (cut and paste):
"I believe that all English versions are
the inerrant Written Word of God."

MOst people want me to say:
"I believe that all faithful English versions are
the inerrant Written Word of God."
(yes, The Reader's Digest Bible (RDB) is weak.
Yes, the New World Translation (NWT) is weak.
They still contain the inerrant Written Word of God.
But people get upset when i say that.

I'm not a missionary
"I believe that all English versions are
the inerrant Written Word of God".
Feel free to say only the unavailable original
authographs are inspired and inerrant. I'm going
for the avialable Bibles are inspired and inerrant.

BTW, that includes the KJV1611, KJV1769, and KJV1873
that i have on my shelf.

 

Thanks for clearing it up

 

I like it !

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by StefanM:
I think it is as likely for SBC churches to adopt the Roman Catholic New American Bible as it is for mainstream Christianity to accept the HCSB. [/QB]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think someone can be saved reading the RC New American?

 

I think the HCSB is ok as yet another unasked for version (like the NCV, the CEV, etc.)

However, I think Holman's underlying motive was clear: save money on royalties. Almost all the Christian publishers I can think of have their own version for this purpose.

The HCSB allows them to save millions annually on NIV/NKJV (etc.) royalties in the tons of Sunday School material and other materials published by the SBC.

Like I said, it's ok as far as translation. But it was totally unneeded except for econmoic reasons. The NIV, NKJV, NASB and ESV all were perfectly sufficient. In act, I don't think any English version since the NKJV has really been needed.