# Is HCSB simply a more masculine version of the NIV?



## RamistThomist (Feb 16, 2013)

I never researched the HCSB much. I did see some similiarities to the NIV and that was a huge turn off, but I hope I am simply mistaken. Is it simply the NIV, only better?


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2013)

At least one member of the PB (Iain Duguid) is a HCSB translator. There are some fans of it here as well who commit the modern day heresy of preferring it to the ESV! 

Here's a review by a Confessional Presbyterian that I think will answer many of your questions. http://bible-researcher.com/csb.html While I think some of his comments about denominations are somewhat oversimplified, overall I think it's a good (and fair) review. 

They have an excellent website that has a lot of material you wouldn't expect to see freely available. MyStudyBible.com It looks like the whole study bible is available there without even a log in.


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 16, 2013)

Well, since it's different than the NIV, I wouldn't say it is the NIV. I think it's a fine translation. My primary one, in fact.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

Is the ESV a more reformed version of the NIV? Ha! I know what you mean. I received a Holman Bible from T4G last year. I removed the plastic, smelled the new-book-smell (remember, I am a book sniffer "from way back") , flipped through a few pages, and put it on the shelf where it still sits. Anyone want a free Holman? How does one get motivated to read the Holman? I do hear it is better than the NIV.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 16, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Is the ESV a more reformed version of the NIV? Ha! I know what you mean. I received a Holman Bible from T4G last year. I removed the plastic, smelled the new-book-smell (remember, I am a book sniffer "from way back") , flipped through a few pages, and put it on the shelf where it still sits. Anyone want a free Holman? How does one get motivated to read the Holman? I do hear it is better than the NIV.



What edition is it?  I was eyeing the thinline (the non-reference version) a while back. Unfortunately, all of them are in red letters. I have the Study Bible, which is a pretty good resource and is thankfully in "black letter". I probably wouldn't have bought it but it was $10 at Lifeway after Thanksgiving. Whether or not that sale was an indication of trying to push a version and a Study Bible that has been a slower seller than they hoped, I can't say. It was perhaps a loss leader as well. 

One thing that is lacking with the HCSB is resources like an exhaustive concordance, etc. Some preachers will not switch because of that. (And they have apparently made it clear that that's not in their immediate plans.) But I think some of that may be ameliorated by the excellent online tools.


----------



## Zach (Feb 16, 2013)

I think the HCSB is the HCSB.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

Zach said:


> I think the HCSB is the HCSB.



Me too, but you know what he means. Right?


----------



## Zach (Feb 16, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> > I think the HCSB is the HCSB.
> ...



That its slightly better than the NIV. I would agree with that.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 16, 2013)

One HUGE good point about the HCSB is the way John 3:16 is rendered. in my opinion, it's the only English language Bible that properly interprets the Greek in that verse.

Here's the ESV: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Here's the HSCB: "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."

The only improvement on the HSCB translation would be on the phrase "so that everyone who believes in Him"; James White rightly says it should read, "so the believing ones". 

John's gospel is the most Calvinist of the four, yet the common English rendering of this one verse makes it the favorite of Arminians everywhere.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> One HUGE good point about the HCSB is the way John 3:16 is rendered. in my opinion, it's the only English language Bible that properly interprets the Greek in that verse.
> 
> Here's the ESV: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
> 
> ...



This motivates me to look at the Holman a little bit moreZ


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

Pilgrim said:


> What edition is it?



It's a thinline. But it has a cross on it. It's your's if you want it.


----------



## MightyManfred (Feb 16, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > What edition is it?
> ...



If he turns it down, I'll take it off your hands.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 16, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> yet the common English rendering of this one verse makes it the favorite of Arminians everywhere



I am not fully convinced of this argument. I tell my Arminian brother that the main translations (eg, ESV, HCSB, NKJV, NASB etc) say something like whoever believes (not just whoever). Thus the emphasis is on believing as well as whoever - after that argument then I discuss the Greek. 

Yes, I think the HCSB is a very good translation. My preference is the ESV but I also compare with the HCSB.


----------



## sevenzedek (Feb 16, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> One HUGE good point about the HCSB is the way John 3:16 is rendered. in my opinion, it's the only English language Bible that properly interprets the Greek in that verse.



This is the footnote for the ESV:



> 3:16 Or, For this is how God loved the world


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 16, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> One HUGE good point about the HCSB is the way John 3:16 is rendered. in my opinion, it's the only English language Bible that properly interprets the Greek in that verse.
> 
> Here's the ESV: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
> 
> ...



They could also stop mistranslating the Greek word _monogenes_. It does not mean only or one and only.


----------



## nicnap (Feb 17, 2013)

MightyManfred said:


> John's gospel is the most Calvinist of the four



?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 17, 2013)

nicnap said:


> MightyManfred said:
> 
> 
> > John's gospel is the most Calvinist of the four
> ...



I think he is referring to verses such as John 1:12-13: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

and John 6:44: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

and John 6:65: " And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Feb 17, 2013)

Piper says several times in his Calvinism DVD that John is the most Calvinistic of the Gospels. I would have to pull out my notes to come up with all the texts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 17, 2013)

John has quite a few verses that seem to directly contradict the notion that God is passively waiting for people to pick him. Really the whole drama of redemption contradicts that notion but for people who like short one sentence retorts the Gospel according to John delivers quite a few times. That said Calvinism as a system did not exist until the 1600s so calling any verse Calvinistic is silly.


----------



## SRoper (Feb 17, 2013)

We've been going through a series called The Doctrines of Grace in John.


----------



## nicnap (Feb 17, 2013)

I knew exactly what was being referenced--I just don't think that's the way to state it.


----------

