# HCSB - new study bible coming out



## larryjf (Aug 6, 2007)

First, i would love y'alls thoughts on the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). I am going to start reading it more, and wanted to know some of your thoughts.

Second, the HCSB is going to be coming out with an Apologetics Bible...thoughts on that?


----------



## Gryphonette (Aug 6, 2007)

I switched to the HCSB as my primary Bible, with the NASB as back-up. ;^)

They're very close, so really, I couldn't tell you why I found myself reaching more frequently for the Holman, but I did.

Which gives no useful info whatsoever, does it? Sorry about that.


----------



## shackleton (Aug 6, 2007)

I have found that the HCSB reads like a combination of the NIV and NASB. I heard that it was written so that the Southern Baptists would not have to keep paying royalties to the NIV for using verses in their teaching materials.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2007)

I bought an HCSB the first week it came out. It's okay. I would be interested to see how they do the Study Bible. I might get a paperback one


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 6, 2007)

Jacob,

Where is that quote of Poythress' from?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob,
> 
> Where is that quote of Poythress' from?



Grace Theological Journal 10 [1989] : 158


----------



## jbergsing (Aug 6, 2007)

I bought one shortly after it was released, _back in my Baptist days ... cough - cough_, and I found it somewhat awkward to read. I put it back on the shelf and it has a fairly good layer of dust collecting on it now. As for me, I'll stick with my ESV.


----------



## Ivan (Aug 6, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Second, the HCSB is going to be coming out with an Apologetics Bible...thoughts on that?



Norm Geisler is a contributor to the Apologetics Bible....not my cup of tea.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 7, 2007)

shackleton said:


> I have found that the HCSB reads like a combination of the NIV and NASB. I heard that it was written so that the Southern Baptists would not have to keep paying royalties to the NIV for using verses in their teaching materials.



This is my understanding as well, and also that it (as well as the ESV) was precipitated by the gender-neutral NIV controversy in the late 1990's.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 7, 2007)

The text references at the bottom of the page in my copy are decent and worth consideration.


----------



## jbergsing (Aug 7, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> This is my understanding as well, and also that it (as well as the ESV) was precipitated by the gender-neutral NIV controversy in the late 1990's.


I doubt the HCSB nor the ESV were created merely as a reaction to the tNIV. That doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to translate a new version of Scripture.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 7, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> I doubt the HCSB nor the ESV were created merely as a reaction to the tNIV. That doesn't seem to me to be a good reason to translate a new version of Scripture.



That was not the only reason, but it is a reason for them coming out at that time. The HCSB was a project that was ongoing that Lifeway acquired the rights to. The ESV was the brainchild of some evangelicals who wanted a version that was more literal than the NIV and more readable than the NASB. But my understanding is that what really got the ball rolling on the ESV was the Colorado Springs meeting in 1997 opposing the gender neutral NIV. 

BTW the gender neutral NIV was originally supposed to simply be a new revision of the NIV. The controversy grew so hot that they appeared to abandon it for a time only to come out with the TNIV a few years later.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 7, 2007)

I still wondereth what is wrong with the KJV. Methinks it is still a good translation. Plus it helps me read old stuff.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 7, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> I still wondereth what is wrong with the KJV. Methinks it is still a good translation. Plus it helps me read old stuff.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 7, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> The text references at the bottom of the page in my copy are decent and worth consideration.



Well, Jacob, the references seem pretty standard Critical Text; the major variant readings they support are almost identical to the readings of the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek edition. This is the first thing I look at in a new translation -- what is the Greek text used?

Which is not to say that their renderings have no merit (one can view the HCSB text, among others, at http://www.biblegateway.com/); it is just that I cannot abide taking from the Bible major sections of it, and multitudes of smaller passages and individual words, on the basis of, in my view, inferior texts and readings.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 7, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, Jacob, the references seem pretty standard Critical Text; the major variant readings they support are almost identical to the readings of the 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek edition. This is the first thing I look at in a new translation -- what is the Greek text used?
> 
> Which is not to say that their renderings have no merit (one can view the HCSB text, among others, at http://www.biblegateway.com/); it is just that I cannot abide taking from the Bible major sections of it, and multitudes of smaller passages and individual words, on the basis of, in my view, inferior texts and readings.





I just love that banana


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Aug 7, 2007)

The original text for the NT of the HSCB was supposed to be the Majority/Byzantine text.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Aug 8, 2007)

Arthur Farstad actually got the initial project going for the HCSB and was going to use the Traditional Text. After his death very early on in the project, those who took it over changed the text to the Critical Text.

See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible




BlackCalvinist said:


> The original text for the NT of the HSCB was supposed to be the Majority/Byzantine text.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Aug 10, 2007)

prespastor said:


> Arthur Farstad actually got the initial project going for the HCSB and was going to use the Traditional Text. After his death very early on in the project, those who took it over changed the text to the Critical Text.
> 
> See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible
> 
> ...



...which sucks, since I've been waiting for someone to do a Majority Text translation for the longest while. I love the NKJV, still. My primary is still an ESV. 

Maybe we can get some NT folks together and have them do an ESV (Maj) NT. Keep most of the current text for the ESV and just add in all of the 'other' verses where the text differs.

Publish it by Ligonier in an MTESV Study Bible and call it a day. I bet it would sell.....


----------



## JM (Aug 10, 2007)

I use a plain AV. The apologetics are in the study of it.


----------



## etexas (Aug 10, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> I bought one shortly after it was released, _back in my Baptist days ... cough - cough_, and I found it somewhat awkward to read. I put it back on the shelf and it has a fairly good layer of dust collecting on it now. As for me, I'll stick with my ESV.


Agreed! The ESV is very elegant and accurate. My Holman is a dust collector as well. It is to clunky to read..........what were those people thinking?


----------



## tellville (Aug 11, 2007)

Go HCSB! Go Critical Text! ESV is good too!

I know this is a 

but I can't help it  

The only way another major translation of the majority text is ever going to happen is if the Eastern Orthodox do it. And even if they did do another translation the KJV people would complain at all the areas that it differs and thus make the whole thing void (for Protestants anyway).


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2007)

Orthodox Study Bible


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 11, 2007)

Mark, the can has already been open here a long while. The issue is, it seems to me, and you noted it -- "the KJV people would complain at all the areas that it differs" -- are the KJV people justified in their complaint, or not? Are those _few_ areas where the MT (or Byz) differs from the TR to be adhered to?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 11, 2007)

One problem I have with it is that it translates _Christos _as Messiah. That gets annoying after a while. Yes, I know they mean the same thing, just still...

It also uses contractions at times. Also annoying.


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> One problem I have with it is that it translates _Christos _as Messiah. That gets annoying after a while. Yes, I know they mean the same thing, just still...
> 
> It also uses contractions at times. Also annoying.


the Messiah thing should annoy you......why.........it is linked to the expectations the Jewish People had for a "New David", a great annointed King who was going to "run off" everyone but them, they ignored their own scriptures.......I think it to be God's providence that the Greek(gentile) Christ came into use ,he embraced a people "who were not once His people". Those who rejected him and scorned him ,well he was not the Messiah for them anymore, yes both mean annointed, but scripture is filled with symbols and it is no "accident", that Christ became the designation of our Lord.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 11, 2007)

I think that is reading a little too much theology into a word. Anyway, Psalm 110--the most quoted OT text-- is clearly messianic (oops, wrong word)


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I think that is reading a little too much theology into a word. Anyway, Psalm 110--the most quoted OT text-- is clearly messianic (oops, wrong word)


Chuckle! Well...........a lot of theology can be covered in a word, and as a Reformed Believer I don't buy into chance and accident. By the bye............I DIG that Bos Hogg Avatar my Brother!


----------



## Ivan (Aug 11, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> By the bye............I DIG that Bos Hogg Avatar my Brother!



Jacob has the best variety of avatars!


----------



## etexas (Aug 11, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Fingolfin said:
> 
> 
> > By the bye............I DIG that Bos Hogg Avatar my Brother!
> ...


I am hurt no one has admired my Cranmer!


----------



## Ivan (Aug 11, 2007)

Fingolfin said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Fingolfin said:
> ...



Do you expect a Baptist to know who Cranmer was?


----------

