I was just doing some checking and I found that the HCSB Study Bible site is up and running. On the site you will find all of the promo videos for the HCSB Study Bible and also some information on the scholarly contributors. It appears that there will be a blog, a resource section, and a community section. This should be an exciting resource to go along with the actual study Bible itself. Check it out!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?w=676)
When I first pondered the idea of creating a post which would call for recommendations/thoughts from those who are familiar with the HCSB, I originally envisioned it as calling for scholars and pastors to weigh in on the translation. After some wise counsel, I have deemed it better to include graduate students and bloggers in the conversation. So, I hope that many will share their thoughts about this fine translation of the Scriptures. Leave your comments on the post below, “Who will recommend the HCSB?”
This has bothered me for some time now. I believe that the HCSB is an excellent translation of the Scriptures. The only problem is that there is not a comprehensive list of scholars and pastors (graduate students and bloggers) who recommend the HCSB. I think that those who are supporters of the HCSB should work to remedy this problem. Any person can do a simple web search and find that the ESV has a long list of scholars and pastors (graduate students and bloggers) who heartily recommend this respective translation.
The HCSB is a very well done translation and I am certain that there are plenty of scholars and pastors who would heartily recommend the HCSB. My challenge for you who support the HCSB (including Graduate students and bloggers), write a paragraph (I emphasize paragraph) about why you recommend the HCSB. Let’s see if a comprehensive list of HCSB supporters could be compiled. Who is willing to help?
Update:After a time of setting the HCSB to the side out of loyalty to the NASB and familiarity with the same, I have again began seriously examining the HCSB as a primary study and preaching Bible. There are many things to like about the HCSB.
There is one thing that I would absolutely love for B&H to produces is a regular size reference Bible for the HCSB, not a thinline. It would be great if it were a black letter Bible also. This is my hope.
I am persuaded now that the updated HCSB will be my choice for study and preaching in the future. It is an excellent translation of the Bible. When you read the litany of promises regarding the ESV which report accuracy and readiblity, check out the HCSB and you will find in actuality what is only promised in the ESV.
I have been considering the varying philosophies of translation that biblical scholars are employing to produce the most recent versions of the Bible and have begun to wonder about the shift in focus. The translations that come from the Tyndale line followed a formal-equivalence philosophy of translation. The reason for this seems to be a respect for the nature of the task. The Scriptures are not just some ordinary letter being translated for just any people. The Scriptures are God-breathed. This led the translators to be very cautious in their renderings of the original languages into English. They were reluctant to over-translate or paraphrase the text because it is God’s Word.
Today, it seems that translators have learned so much that they are more inclined to put more of their interpretive ideas into the translation of the original languages of Scripture. The thought that keeps coming to my mind is that the modern translators are not nearly as cautious about using a dynamic-equivalence translation philosophy because they do not seem to be as awestruck about the task they are undertaking. The thought of translating the inspired Word of God for a contemporary audience is a huge and scary responsibility. In my opinion, I think there needs to be more awe in the hearts and minds of some translators. I believe that this would cause the translators to not be so free in their renderings but reverently translating the text as clearly as possible without sacrificing the accuracy of the original languages.
These are just some thoughts. Does this seem to make any sense to anyone else?
I have at least one copy of each of the modern Bible translations in either electronic format or hard copy. I have read the NIV and never fell in love with it. There are too many places where the translators were too free in their rendering for my liking. I have read the 2007 ESV. There are some places where they have updated how the NASB has rendered a passage. Yet, there are still some very awkward Anglicisms in the text. I still believe that Crossway’s marketing department has portrayed/made the ESV as something that it is not, a more idiomatic translation. I know that some will respond to that statement by pointing out that it is a formal-equivalence translation. Yes, I agree it is. The translators aimed for that form of translation. The advertisments lean more toward a functional-equivalence translation. I just have an issue with how many people are waxing eloquent about the ESV being so accurate, yet readable. I would say it is accurate for the most part, be less readable than many are portraying it. The HCSB on the other hand does seem to be more of what the ESV is being portrayed as. I like the HCSB. There are still some places where I am not as comfortable with the translators choice of rendering. I can see and understand why they made the choices that they did. There are just enough unique choices to make me cautious to jump on the bandwagon. This is a switch from my previous opinion.
This brings me back to the NASB. I know that many label it as “too wooden.” I really believe that this is an unfair characteriziation. The translation is a formal-equivalence work. There are many places where the NASB is more readable than the ESV. I have found that when it comes down to trusting a translation “getting it right” I choose the NASB. The scholars are/were conservative evangelicals. I write this post because of the “jockeying for position” that is going on among evangelicals over Bible translation. I trust the NASB, I believe that it is accurate and as readable as possible without becoming a commentary rather than a translation. I appreciate that the exegesis is left up to the reader rather than the translator. I appreciate the ministry of the Lockman Foundation.
I truly believe that we must be very careful with the modern tendency of leap-frogging from translation to translation. No translation is perfect. Yet, this hopping around leaves fellow believers a bit confused and less confident in the accurate modern translation they currently use.
Finally, Broadman & Holman has updated their HCSB site. The video that they created to promote the HCSB is pretty slick also. I hope that this continues to improve. I really like the translation and have purchased the 2009 update on Word-Search. Crossway has really outpaced B&H with marketing and interesting editions of the ESV. I really believe that the HCSB is a superior translation but Crossway has marketed the ESV as being literal and understandable. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. Crossway has marketed the ESV as being what the HCSB is in actuality. Hopefully B&H will pick up the slack. The translation deserves more attention than it has been getting. Here is a link for the updated site hcsb.org