HCSB Study Bible

[baron]

Just recieved my new HCSB Study Bible. I know its a SBC translation. I just enjoy the ease of reading it. It just seems to flow. It is not that much diffrent from the ESV. Was not supposed to come out till Oct.1. I purchased the Black Genuine Leather. One thing I do not like is the weight of the bible. It is pretty heavy compaired to my other study bibles. It has 2,272 pages. Plus all the pages are stuck together and some difficulty seperating pages. But I am excited to have it.

Excited and sad, that for us it is so easy to obtain a Bible, while Christian's in other countries have such a hard time acquiring one.

Anyone else on the boadr order it? Would like your thoughts on it.

 

[rbcbob]

As I was recently searching for a good genuine leather NKJ bible I considered the HCSB. With some research I found two particulars that caused me to pass it by:


1. HCSB uses the optimal equivalence approach, "which seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence by applying each method to translate the meaning of the original with optimal accuracy."

2. the HCSB indicates that its textual base is the "Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies’s Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition."

 

[greenbaggins]

Bob, I can understand why someone would pass by the HCSB when one considers the second particular you mentioned. If a person believes in the Textus Receptus, that person would not want a translation based on the NA27. However, I am a bit puzzled and curious as to your first reason for rejecting the HCSB. Let me demonstrate. If we were to translate "pig in a poke" literally, word for word, into another language, most people speaking that other language would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. They wouldn't know that we are talking about something that we are buying without seeing. Every language has things like this, called "idioms." Not only this, but even taking a particular word, say the word "lie." How do we know whether such a word means "lie down on the sofa" or "tell a lie?" The way we know is the inherent levels of meaning that we use in communicating to one another. Another way of saying it is "context." But there are more contexts that just the phrase in which the word appears. There is the word level of meaning, the phrase level, the clause level, the sentence level, the paragraph level, the chapter level, the book level, and then the whole Scripture level. Every one of these levels contributes to the meaning of any one word or passage. All the HCSB is trying to do is to give weight to these various levels of meaning. I think they do it remarkably successfully. The HCSB and the ESV are my two favorite translations.

 

[baron]

the HCSB indicates that its textual base is the "Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies’s Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition."

I am sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you explain? In the mean time I guess I will need to google this.

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

HCSB uses the optimal equivalence approach, "which seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence by applying each method to translate the meaning of the original with optimal accuracy."

I thought this would be a good thing, seeing it would clarify the scriptures while holding to the truth of scripture.

But I must say I am igorant regarding your two points.

 

[rbcbob]

Greetings Lane,
I am not wanting to bash anyone’s favorite bible version. Opinions were sought regarding the HCSB and I offered two reasons that caused me to pass by that particular one. The first one caused you some surprise. The reason is that of translation philosophy. Dynamic translation, a philosophy popularized by such men as Eugene Nida, does a disservice, in my opinion to the English-only reader.

If we were to translate "pig in a poke" literally, word for word, into another language, most people speaking that other language would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about.

But such words as propitiation, centurion, and phylacteries in an English translation are not going to be readily understood by someone untaught in Biblical and World history. Nevertheless they are words that need to be retained and learned. As for “pig in a poke”, if the inspired biblical narrative had employed such an idiom then we could learn it just as other such expressions which are peculiar at first exposure, e.g. “lake of fire.”

 

[greenbaggins]

Greetings Lane,
I am not wanting to bash anyone’s favorite bible version. Opinions were sought regarding the HCSB and I offered two reasons that caused me to pass by that particular one. The first one caused you some surprise. The reason is that of translation philosophy. Dynamic translation, a philosophy popularized by such men as Eugene Nida, does a disservice, in my opinion to the English-only reader.

If we were to translate "pig in a poke" literally, word for word, into another language, most people speaking that other language would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about.

But such words as propitiation, centurion, and phylacteries in an English translation are not going to be readily understood by someone untaught in Biblical and World history. Nevertheless they are words that need to be retained and learned. As for “pig in a poke”, if the inspired biblical narrative had employed such an idiom then we could learn it just as other such expressions which are peculiar at first exposure, e.g. “lake of fire.”

I am not offended by your comment. I was merely seeking to ascertain whether you were aware of the true nature of the HCSB's translation philosophy, which is NOT dynamic equivalence, but optimal equivalence. The difference is that dynamic equivalence tends to ignore the definitions of words, such as the ones you describe. Optimal equivalence seeks to take into account every single aspect of verbal information available in the text on the various levels, including the word level. In other words, they seek to combine certain aspects of word for word formal equivalence with certain other aspects of dynamic equivalence. They do not forget the technical meaning of words like "propitiation" at all, for instance. And yet, the translation flows more smoothly than word for word translations do, as a general rule.

 

[rbcbob]

They do not forget the technical meaning of words

So when the ESV for του μονογενους υιου θεου gives us "the only Son of God" and most English translations give us "the only begotten Son of God" (KJV, NKJ, AV, NAS), and the NIV gives us "God's one and only Son" - What does the HCSB give us?

 

[greenbaggins]

They do not forget the technical meaning of words

So when the ESV for του μονογενους υιου θεου gives us "the only Son of God" and most English translations give us "the only begotten Son of God" (KJV, NKJ, AV, NAS), and the NIV gives us "God's one and only Son" - What does the HCSB give us?

It says "the One and Only Son from the Father." Of course, there is very heavy debate on what that bolded word means. Does it mean "unique" or does it mean "only begotten?"

 

[rbcbob]

the HCSB indicates that its textual base is the "Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition, and the United Bible Societies’s Greek New Testament, 4th corrected edition."

I am sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you explain? In the mean time I guess I will need to google this.

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

HCSB uses the optimal equivalence approach, "which seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence by applying each method to translate the meaning of the original with optimal accuracy."

I thought this would be a good thing, seeing it would clarify the scriptures while holding to the truth of scripture.

But I must say I am igorant regarding your two points.

The one point pertains to the Philosophy of Translation which is what Lane and I discuss in this thread. The other point pertains to the debate over which Greek manuscript tradition is followed and really should take place in another thread which is tightly monitored due to many lively disagreements in the past.

 

[JennyG]

If we were to translate "pig in a poke" literally, word for word, into another language, most people speaking that other language would have absolutely no idea what we are talking about.

don't forget the KJV translated some comparable phrases literally, and they went on to become idioms deeply embedded in English.
"the apple of his eye", "the skin of my teeth", etc. Even those that didn't pass into common use were understandable - "..I gave you cleanness of teeth" meaning famine for eg, and probably lots of others I can't think of.
Of course the universa;l exposure the KJV enjoyed would have helped that along, so maybe it doesn't count!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A HCSB sample for those interested:

http://g.christianbook.com/netstorage/pdf/sample/404574.pdf

AMR

---------- Post added at 07:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 AM ----------

I would be interested in knowing what the notes have to say in the HCSB about the Romans 7:14-25 passage.

I think the HCSB translation of John 3:16 is wonderfully clear.

Update: found the study bible version online here:

MyStudyBible.com


AMR

---------- Post added at 07:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 AM ----------

Very surprised to see the HCSB Study Bible on line and freely available!

 

[baron]

I would be interested in knowing what the notes have to say in the HCSB about the Romans 7:14-25 passage.

I went to the link you posted and it would not work for me, so I tried my best on copying the notes for you to read.

Notes on Roman 7:14-25 from the HCSB Study Bible Page 1938.

This section is probably the most difficult and controversial passage in the letter to the Romans. For the most part the Eastern Church has interpreted it as referring to an unregenerate person [e.g. Paul before his conversion]. The Western Church has followed Augustine, Luther, and Calvin in thinking it refers to a regenerate person [Paul after his conversion]. Some suggest a mediating position. One such view interprets the subject as an OT believer who loves the Law [Pss 1; 119] but struggles to perform it. Living before Christ and Pentecost , this person does not have the permanent and empowering gift of the Holy Spirit, as do new covenant believers. Another view holds that the subject is almost converted to Christ and is now under conviction of sin by the Law.

The view that the subject of 14-25 is a regenerate person is sometimes modified in the following ways (1) The subject is saved but has not had “baptism” in the Pentecostal sense or a second work of grace (as held in some types of Wesleyan theology). (2) The subject is an immature believer, not yet equipped for warfare with his fleshly desires. (3) The subject is a believer trying to become sanctified by legalism.

The view outlined here takes the position that the subject is a regenerated believer, most obviously Paul himself but generically every believer. Paul describes the new man in relation to the law of God and is looking at only one aspect of the person. The new man will be considered in relation to the Holy Spirit in the next section where the Holy Spirit is mentioned 21 times. The main reason for the position offered here is a consideration of what this man’s problem really is. In verse 14 he is said to be made out of flesh [Gk sarkinos, not sarkikos]. Many translations confuse these two Greek words. The first word emphasizes composition while the second emphasizes tendency [“fleshy” vs “fleshly”]. In verse 18 in my flesh means the whole fallen nature that needs the resurrection body [Php. 3:21]. In verse 24 the wretched man cries out to be rescued [“out,” Gk ek} from this dying body. As a believer in Christ, Paul longed to be delivered from the fallen human body which still has indwelling sin.

The law is from God and is therefore spiritual, but Paul is made out of flesh [a metaphorical reference to spiritual fallenness] and thus finds himself conflicted with the heavenly law of God.

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

I think the HCSB translation of John 3:16 is wonderfully clear.

I agree. I read some where by (Mounce) I think about the Greek stressing in this way refering to God that He gave His One and Only Son. Where most people read or stress For God loved the world.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The link works just fine for me. Don't know why anyone is having a problem. And I like the view assumed for the passage in question.


AMR

 

[baron]

The link works just fine for me.

Tried link this morning and it works fine now. Was most likely just my computer acting up. Thanks for link.