HCSB and/or ESV Translation

Status
Not open for further replies.

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Snowflake
They are both decent translations.

Whenever I preach somewhere I ask the pastor "what is the version you use in your church?" And I just use that version when I preach for continuity's sake.

But since I do most of my preaching in Reformed leaning congregations, I find myself using the ESV almost exclusively nowadays.
 

KaphLamedh

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm curious with the use of "weaker" in past posts in the thread. Do you mean that a verse in HCSB did not impact you as much as the KJV,ESV, or ASV does?

I agree, the ESV and the long line behind it has a certain "archaic" sound that people (including me) find to be great and allows us to connect to our Bible. But, why do we need "maidens", "beseech", etc. to get closer to the meaning of a text? Wouldn't we be able to connect (but still connect to our reformed minds) with a Bible written in modern English?
I am not sure the ESV even has that much archaic vocabulary. It suffers more from phraseology problems than vocabulary in my experience, although it does keep around "behold." The two examples you gave, maidens occurs once and has a footnote explaining what the word means; beseech does not appear at all. I've noticed more archaic vocabulary in the HCSB than the ESV.
The ESV is not chock full of archaisms. But it seems to me that the ESV has a bit more archaic words than the NASB, particularly the '95 Update. But that helps it "sound more like the Bible" of course.
ESV is somehow little "KJV-like", in comparison to NASB and NIV.
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
I think I found some strange wording in the ESV that I would like you opinion on.

[BIBLE]Hebrews 3:12[/BIBLE]

This translation of the verse seems to convey a message of reprobates having a power to lead people astray and into the reprobate group. This is complete falsehood which I'm sure you would agree with. Lets read how the HCSB puts it.

Hebrews 3:12
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
12 Watch out, brothers, so that there won’t be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart that departs from the living God.

Much more clearer. Wait, here's more translations

Hebrews 3:12
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart [a]that falls away from the living God.

Hebrews 3:12
American Standard Version (ASV)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God:

Hebrews 3:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.

Hebrews 3:12
New International Version (NIV)
12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.

Hebrews 3:12
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.


Now, the ESV could be trying to convey the same meaning as the past translations but why use that way in doing so? It leaves the verse open for false beliefs while the others do not, at least, for me.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I like it more than the ESV, because the ESV has a habit of translating into poor English. As an example, consider the ESV's ridiculous way of translating Hebrew "vav" and Greek "de" and "kai" as "and" in the majority of cases (for the most ludicrous examples, see the ESV translation of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5, which is horrible English!). The English word "and" is not formally equivalent either to Hebrew "vav" or to Greek "de" and "kai." The Hebrew "vav," when used in a vayyiqtol, simply marks a continuation of the narrative. The English "and" indicates a very close connection in thought between clauses. In other words, the English conjunction is a "tighter" word than the Hebrew "vav" or Greek "de" and "kai." A perfectly adequate translation of narrative "vav" would be to print the English text in paragraphs. This won't work for all instances, of course (what is one going to do with the vav that begins Exodus, for instance?). However, this will work worlds better than the blockheadedness of defaulting on translating Hebrew vav by "and" ad nauseum. Furthermore, it is poor English style to start multiple sentences with a conjunction. It is not an absolutely rule that sentences must never start with conjunctions. But (!), if you are going to make a point, you use it for special effect. It is ludicrously bad English style to start 5 sentences in a row with "and."
While what you are saying here is true, I would just add in defense of the ESV translators that often in Greek sentences go on for pages. While this may be acceptable in Greek, it is not acceptable in English, and so the translators often insert periods to create new sentences in places where there were no periods, and so what we end up with is a series of sentences that begin with "and" or "but", etc. While this may not be very good English, it is certainly preferable to the alternative which is a sentence that goes on for two pages.
 

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
This translation of the verse seems to convey a message of reprobates having a power to lead people astray and into the reprobate group. This is complete falsehood which I'm sure you would agree with.
Sorry can't see that meaning at all. All the translations appear fine and essentially saying the same thing.
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
"Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God."

It seems like the author is telling his brothers in Christ to be weary of anyone with an evil, unbelieving heart for they will lead them to fall away.

I'm sure Wayne Grudem didn't mean for it to come out that way but it still is tricky wording.
 

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually is it not saying to each person to make sure that they themselves do not have within themselves a heart which would lead them from Christ? There is no reference as far as I can see whatsover to anyone leading a different person away from Christ. And do you know Wayne Grudem translated this section? (Genuine question).
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
To answer the Grudem question, I have no knowledge of him translating this section. I do know that he did serve on the committee overseeing the translation, so he could have caught it. Evens so, the committee was using a democratic system of voting for settling of disputes (at least for the word "slave" they did) so if one did see this tricky wording, it would only be changed by majority vote. Grudem also served as General Editor for ESV Study Bible so that he could at least address the issue in there. I can't say whether he did or not, I don't have the book with me.

I understand what the ESV is trying to say, but after a couple of re-reads and reading the HCSB(among other trans.)
 

iainduguid

Puritan Board Sophomore
Before this thread dies, I'd just like to reiterate my request for any specific verses in the HCSV that seem to you oddly translated, especially in the OT. So far we have Mal 3:6 (I'd actually defend the HCSV there, but it's helpful to have the reminder and probably worth thinking about as a committee) and the word order in Eph. 1. Feel free to regard this as an open invitation to PM me in future too, for those of you who use the HCSV on a regular basis. Don't feel that you have to justify the question based on a vast knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. I'd just value all of those extra eyes reading through and helping to flag places where the original translation may potentially have flaws.
 

GulfCoast Presbyterian

Puritan Board Junior
My wife is a huge fan of the HCSV Study Bible. Since she is a lifelong presbyterian, I tell her that it makes people think she is a Baptist. :) I read the ESV, KJV and HCSB pretty regularly in bible study, although I carry an ESV.
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
I'm probably going to use HCSB for carry around daily reading while use the NASB wide margin for home study.
 
Last edited:

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
I like the ESV. When I first began reading the Bible I used an NLT Bible and briefly an NIV before, on a whim really, buying an ESV and an ESV Study Bible. I haven't read the HCSV but this thread has made me want to poke around on their Study Bible site. I will still use the ESV because I believe it has the best chance of becoming the most common new English Bible translation among Reformed Evangelicals.
 

Wynteriii

Puritan Board Freshman
I will never be ever to leave the ESV because of what I invested into it.

I bought
Reformation Study Bible
ESV Study Bible
Reverse Greek Interlinear
ESV Concordance
ESV Wide Margin

The ESV was once dear to me, and I might still use it instead of NASB for home study. But, I think the ESV translation team admits to it not being as literal as NASB. Wouldn't I want the most literal for study? However, there was post on the board that I liked that described the NASB being to literal by using the Greek syntax. We should use the English syntax because that is what we use.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
The ESV was once dear to me, and I might still use it instead of NASB for home study. But, I think the ESV translation team admits to it not being as literal as NASB. Wouldn't I want the most literal for study?
It is certainly good for a Bible to be literal, but it is possible to be overly literal. Sometimes it is best to translate a phrase or expression in a way that is less literal for the sake of clarity. Just to give an example, if I were to translate the English expression "it is raining cats and dogs" strictly literally into a different language, there is a good chance that they would not understand the meaning of the original. But if I translated it into an equivalent expression in their language that meant the same thing, this would better convey the meaning of the original even though it was technically less literal.
 

Zach

Puritan Board Junior
I will never be ever to leave the ESV because of what I invested into it.

I bought
Reformation Study Bible
ESV Study Bible
Reverse Greek Interlinear
ESV Concordance
ESV Wide Margin

The ESV was once dear to me, and I might still use it instead of NASB for home study. But, I think the ESV translation team admits to it not being as literal as NASB. Wouldn't I want the most literal for study? However, there was post on the board that I liked that described the NASB being to literal by using the Greek syntax. We should use the English syntax because that is what we use.
I think, for serious study, one should learn the original languages. Our daily reading should be faithful translations of these languages into our common "vulgar language" as the Confession puts it.
 

KaphLamedh

Puritan Board Freshman
I will never be ever to leave the ESV because of what I invested into it.

I bought
Reformation Study Bible
ESV Study Bible
Reverse Greek Interlinear
ESV Concordance
ESV Wide Margin

The ESV was once dear to me, and I might still use it instead of NASB for home study. But, I think the ESV translation team admits to it not being as literal as NASB. Wouldn't I want the most literal for study? However, there was post on the board that I liked that described the NASB being to literal by using the Greek syntax. We should use the English syntax because that is what we use.
ESV is a good choice. Holman's translation is not bad at all, but ESV is better, and more literal than HCSB and readable than NASB.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
ESV is a good choice. Holman's translation is not bad at all, but ESV is better, and more literal than HCSB and readable than NASB
The best Bible is the one you read. No matter how good or bad a translation may be, if you don't read it and meditate on it daily, it is useless.
 

KaphLamedh

Puritan Board Freshman
ESV is a good choice. Holman's translation is not bad at all, but ESV is better, and more literal than HCSB and readable than NASB
The best Bible is the one you read. No matter how good or bad a translation may be, if you don't read it and meditate on it daily, it is useless.
I read few translation in English and Finnish. In English I prefer King James and ESV. It matters how bad translation is. Translation like The Message is not even Bible.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
I read few translation in English and Finnish. In English I prefer King James and ESV. It matters how bad translation is. Translation like The Message is not even Bible.
True, but if your choices are reading the Message or reading no Bible at all, I would say go ahead and read the Message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top