# I picked up the Apologetics Study Bible HCSB



## RamistThomist

The Holman Christian Standard translation has issued the apologetics study bible. I picked it up tonight at Lifeway. Here are my initial thoughts

Contributors:
The contributors include mainly broadline Evangelicals. This will mean, necessarily, a weaker theology and apologetic (since the two are necessarily tied together). Included are JP Moreland--who is competent, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson , John Frame (the high point of the study Bible), Walt Kaiser (another good one), etc.

The Articles:
The above notwithstanding, the articles do appear to be useful. The book is premillennial, at least the interpretation of Revelation 20 is. 

Binding, etc. 
The book is well-done. I got the hardback copy. There are wide margins, another plus. The cover is very nice. The pages are about what you would get from a hardcover.

Translation:
It is the HCSB. Nothing one can do about that. This is independent of the study bible. It isn't a bad translation, to be honest, and if you are comfortable with the NIV, then you shouldn't have any problem with this. On the other hand, I cringed at how Colossians was translated. 

The study bible looks like it will be very good.


----------



## Ivan

I was surprised (in a good way) to see John Frame as a contributor. I wish more professors from Southern would have had a hand in it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Ivan said:


> I was surprised (in a good way) to see John Frame as a contributor. I wish more professors from Southern would have had a hand in it.



True, but as I persued the tablet of contents, I was pleased with who did what. I was also pleased with the specificity of the topics. They dealed with meaty, hard to answer questions.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Didn't Norm Geisler have a hand in it too? I read some of a book he did with Ravi Zacharias on "Hard to Answer Questions", and was severely unimpressed.


----------



## Ivan

Exagorazo said:


> Didn't Norm Geisler have a hand in it too? I read some of a book he did with Ravi Zacharias on "Hard to Answer Questions", and was severely unimpressed.



Yes, Geisler is involved. I kinda like Ravi though, at least what I heard on the radio. He's thought-provoking.


----------



## DMcFadden

Spear Dane said:


> The Holman Christian Standard translation has issued the apologetics study bible. I picked it up tonight at Lifeway. Here are my initial thoughts
> 
> Translation:
> It is the HCSB. Nothing one can do about that. This is independent of the study bible. It isn't a bad translation, to be honest, and if you are comfortable with the NIV, then you shouldn't have any problem with this. On the other hand, I cringed at how Colossians was translated.



Spar Dane,

What is your problem with the translation? I have been using the ESV for preaching and teaching, but found myself stumbling over the words when reading it to my wife in our early morning devotional time (not quite awake, I guess). When testing a few passages in the HCSB (but not Colossians), I found it to be essentially literal but easier to read (e.g., use of contractions in direct discourse) out loud. From the material on the web, it sounds as if the NASB, ESV, and HCSB are all examples of essentially formal correspondance translations. Of the three, the NASB boasts the most wooden English; the ESV contains the most lofty and elegant English; the HCSB seems to be the most readable. Not having compared the Greek of Colossians (or even knowing who translated that), I am at a bit of a disadvantage. Can you say more? Thanks!


----------



## RamistThomist

DMcFadden said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Holman Christian Standard translation has issued the apologetics study bible. I picked it up tonight at Lifeway. Here are my initial thoughts
> 
> Translation:
> It is the HCSB. Nothing one can do about that. This is independent of the study bible. It isn't a bad translation, to be honest, and if you are comfortable with the NIV, then you shouldn't have any problem with this. On the other hand, I cringed at how Colossians was translated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spar Dane,
> 
> What is your problem with the translation? I have been using the ESV for preaching and teaching, but found myself stumbling over the words when reading it to my wife in our early morning devotional time (not quite awake, I guess). When testing a few passages in the HCSB (but not Colossians), I found it to be essentially literal but easier to read (e.g., use of contractions in direct discourse) out loud. From the material on the web, it sounds as if the NASB, ESV, and HCSB are all examples of essentially formal correspondance translations. Of the three, the NASB boasts the most wooden English; the ESV contains the most lofty and elegant English; the HCSB seems to be the most readable. Not having compared the Greek of Colossians (or even knowing who translated that), I am at a bit of a disadvantage. Can you say more? Thanks!
Click to expand...


I actually now meant to retract my comments on the HCSB. Originally, I didn't like how they would alternatingly translate "Christos" as "Christ" or "Messiah." I now understand the reason for it. I almost approve. 

No, the HCSB is growing on me. The HCSB has a "bluntness" to it that I find refreshing.


----------



## Gryphonette

*I'd be interested in that, too.*



DMcFadden said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Holman Christian Standard translation has issued the apologetics study bible. I picked it up tonight at Lifeway. Here are my initial thoughts
> 
> Translation:
> It is the HCSB. Nothing one can do about that. This is independent of the study bible. It isn't a bad translation, to be honest, and if you are comfortable with the NIV, then you shouldn't have any problem with this. On the other hand, I cringed at how Colossians was translated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spar Dane,
> 
> What is your problem with the translation? I have been using the ESV for preaching and teaching, but found myself stumbling over the words when reading it to my wife in our early morning devotional time (not quite awake, I guess). When testing a few passages in the HCSB (but not Colossians), I found it to be essentially literal but easier to read (e.g., use of contractions in direct discourse) out loud. From the material on the web, it sounds as if the NASB, ESV, and HCSB are all examples of essentially formal correspondance translations. Of the three, the NASB boasts the most wooden English; the ESV contains the most lofty and elegant English; the HCSB seems to be the most readable. Not having compared the Greek of Colossians (or even knowing who translated that), I am at a bit of a disadvantage. Can you say more? Thanks!
Click to expand...


I like the HCSB, and over time it's become my preferred translation....it and the NASB.

Don't care much any longer for the NIV, although that's the one I came to Christ with, and though I bought one shortly after it was released, I've never really warmed up to the ESV.


----------



## RamistThomist

I really like how Revelation 2.7 is translated, "I will give the *victor *the right to eat from the tree of life."

In conjunction with verse 26 it brings out the idea of "ruling" in a physical connotation.


----------



## Pilgrim

Spear Dane said:


> I really like how Revelation 2.7 is translated, "I will give the *victor *the right to eat from the tree of life."
> 
> In conjunction with verse 26 it brings out the idea of "ruling" in a physical connotation.



Even though I was seemingly buying everything that came out, I've never picked up the HCSB. The reference version seems to have some good marginal notes and study helps as well.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really like how Revelation 2.7 is translated, "I will give the *victor *the right to eat from the tree of life."
> 
> In conjunction with verse 26 it brings out the idea of "ruling" in a physical connotation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I was seemingly buying everything that came out, I've never picked up the HCSB. The reference version seems to have some good marginal notes and study helps as well.
Click to expand...


It's worth picking up. You can spend as much or little on it as possible (if you go to Lifeway right now in most any city you will find the apologetics bible, hardback for 30 dollars). Believe it or not, even the Henry Blackaby Experiencing God NT HCSB had good reference notes.


----------



## caddy

I had a 25 dollar Amazon Gift Certificate, so I picked this up online. It arrived yesterday. I got the Hardback version for 5 bucks and some change. I am very impressed with the Cover and binding on the hardback. I have never read the HCSB, save in my Bibleworks 7 program. I did read 3 or 4 of the articles throughout the bible. I am very impressed with the book so far.


----------

