Holman Christian Standard BIble

[Doeroftheword]

I was curious what you guys thought of the Homan Christian Standard Bible? I got one from Hastings and started reading it and was really impressed with it for the most part but I heard there were issues with verses using the word man or something but i didn't see any of that.

 

[Dale-c]

I have never read the HCSB.
Who told you there were issues?
If it was someone who normally uses the ESV or NASB etc then there might be some stock in it.
If it was a KJVO advocate, pay no attention to them because I have seen those people say things against translations they have never even read.

 

[Trotter]

I like the HCSB. I haven't found any issues with it thus far. It is clear and easily understandable.

 

[puros_bran]

Dale why would their be 'stock in it' if it was an ESV or NASB supporter?
Sadly KJBO aren't the only ones that will bash a bible that isn't their particular brand. Look at the TNIV, its been raked over the coals by its competitors.

The Christian Standard Bible is a legitimate translation. With a very limited grasp of Greek I can't say I've 'compared it to the source material' but I have compared it to several other translations. It is solid. It fits into the same niche that the ESV fills.

The only issue is it is viewed as a SBC bible much the same way as the ESV is viewed as a Reformed bible.

FWIW Holman has wisely dropped the 'Holman' from the CSB. Probably to late for it to ever be called anything but the HCSB but it has been done none the less.

 

[CoJoJax]

Dale why would their be 'stock in it' if it was an ESV or NASB supporter?
Sadly KJBO aren't the only ones that will bash a bible that isn't their particular brand. Look at the TNIV, its been raked over the coals by its competitors.

The Christian Standard Bible is a legitimate translation. With a very limited grasp of Greek I can't say I've 'compared it to the source material' but I have compared it to several other translations. It is solid. It fits into the same niche that the ESV fills.

The only issue is it is viewed as a SBC bible much the same way as the ESV is viewed as a Reformed bible.

FWIW Holman has wisely dropped the 'Holman' from the CSB. Probably to late for it to ever be called anything but the HCSB but it has been done none the less.

Glad to hear they dropped Holman from the name! I thought that was a little cheesy...

Anyway - I bought a CSB and didn't like it that much. That's just me.

 

[Dale-c]

Dale why would their be 'stock in it' if it was an ESV or NASB supporter?
Sadly KJBO aren't the only ones that will bash a bible that isn't their particular brand. Look at the TNIV, its been raked over the coals by its competitors.

The point is that KJVO folks don't even need to read a new translation to bash it. The fact that it is not the KJV is reason enough for them.

To someone who uses another version who is not an "onlyest" they are much more likely to have a specific reason why they do not like a particular version.
That does not mean it is a VALID reason, but a reason nonetheless.

For instance, to the KJVO, what is wrong with the NIV?
It is not the same as the KJV therefore it is evil.
To the person who prefers the NASB over the NIV, he would probably say that he prefers a more literal translation.
You can disagree with the NASB readers opinion but at least he has a specific reason against the NIV.

 

[puros_bran]

Fair enough..

I hated it when I first had to use it in sunday school....
I went so far as to just read my KJV when it was my turn to read (that made all the MV crowd in the room uncomfortable )
When I got promoted/demoted (depending on the view) to 4-6th grade teacher position, I jumped on the band wagon and bought a CSB.
There are still passages that don't and probably never will sound right to me, but I have a hard time finding passages that I think they totally ruined.. not saying they are not there, no translation is perfect..

I still prefer my KJV and NASB.. but I wouldn't hesitate recommending a CSB to someone.

 

[preachinjesus]

I use it frequently in my teaching (alas, I might call it preaching too) and personal study.

For the most part I like the translation. There are bits and pieces that I do have to work through more deliberately. But then again, when preparing using whatever translation there are always these parts.

I'm a pretty big fan, but wouldn't reject other translations too.

 

[R. Lawson]

I love the HCSB and cannot wait for the revision to be released later this year.

I favor the TNIV over it, however.

 

[RevGKG]

The HCSV is one I use during my study time. I first encountered this translation in the Lifeway Sunday School curriculum and had to investigate it for a while and I do like it.

I also use TNIV, NKJ, NET, NASB, and NCV. I read the passage which I am studying in each translation as I am preparing for a sermon and like each one. During preaching I use NKJ since that is what the majority of the congregation use.

Grew up with the KJV but seldom use it today. The only issue I run into is many verses were memorized in KJV and the mind defaults to that many times when quoting.

Had heard about them dropping the name Holman.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Grew up with the KJV but seldom use it today. The only issue I run into is many verses were memorized in KJV and the mind defaults to that many times when quoting.

I have that same "issue". Nothing wrong with it, though.:thumbsup:

 

[Dale-c]

SOmetimes if I need to do a search for a familiar phrase it is helpful for me to do it with the KJV. I can then go from there to look up other MVs.

I am still looking for an ESV/NIV parallel bible

 

[Chessic]

I tried the Holman for a while and respect the version, though it is too casual for my personal taste. I got tired of the very informal speech and all the contractions (won't, can't, doesn't, etc). On the bright side, it is one of the very few translations to give a more accurate reading of John 3:16. Too many translations just leave it at "God so loved..." where the "so" is vague and misunderstood (in the greek it refers to kind, not degree). I'm sure the translation has many other good features.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Glad to hear they dropped Holman from the name! I thought that was a little cheesy...

Anyway - I bought a CSB and didn't like it that much. That's just me.

What didn't you like?

 

[rsr]

Although the ESV is still my primary Bible, I've carry a copy of the Holman (which is what I've called it and probably can't break the habit) to church for several months. I generally like it, and it's quite a bit smaller than the ESV so it's easier to tote around.

I have found some "quirky" readings (can't remember exactly what they are now) but like it well enough to keep using it. I prefer it to both the NIV pew Bible and the NKJV that the pastor uses.

 

[Marcia]

I used a Christian-Holman Bible for close to a year for devotional reading at home. I liked it at first but then liked it less as time went by. It did not seem as precise to me (only term I can think of) as the NASB or even the NKJV. However, I think it's a good Bible; I am just not that fond of the way it reads.

 

[RustySword]

I used it for my regular reading for about 3 months. I thought it was pretty good. I prefer it to the NIV - I think it does a little less "interpretation" than the NIV, but I would need to check some more passages before I could say for certain.

One of the translators told me that the project was actually "sold" to Holman by the late Dr. Arthur Farstad. Dr. Farstad was a big Majority Text supporter, and I can't imagine him pushing a project in which he didn't intend the NT to be based on the Majority Text. But he passed away in 1998 just as the project was getting underway and, alas, it ended up being based on the NU text.

 

[BaptistLady02]

I personally like the HCSB. It is a very accurate translation and is a good read. It's easy to understand too.