Comments on: Why I Chose the HCSB over the ESV

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 17 May 2011 04:15:06 +0000

I used to be an NIV fan, but am disappointed that the 2011 NIV, which is replacing the original NIV, is now gender-modified. I thoroughly enjoy the 2nd edition of the HCSB and also appreciate the ESV. I am also excited about the current release of the International Standard Version. It is currently available in e-versions and will soon be available in print versions. The ISV is exceptionally readable and provides translators" notes on the literal translation when a dynamic translation (academic paraphrase) is utilized.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 17:56:55 +0000

Excellent discussion. I am personally an NASB guy, but I do enjoy using the other translations in study to compare each one's take on a specific verse. I am unfamiliar with HCSB, so I will be using it more. As one of my professors said, "The best translation you can read is the one that you read each day." Not to say that every translation is as good as another, but I think that if people are reading daily, they will be living out what they're reading.

By: gord42

gord42 — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 03:31:11 +0000

I've only recently begun spending any time with the HCSB translation. Traditionally I use mostly NIV because I appreciate it's readability. I also appreciate the ESV being closer to the original language. The NET is also a good translation, especially when all their notes are taken into consideration.
In my humble opinion, THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to take away from this conversation is that we should never be reading less than 2 translations. Personally I keep the ESV, NIV, NLT, NET and the Message (yes, I know…) on my bookshelf for to compare verses that capture my attention.

By: Another Great HCSB Review | ChurchETHOS

Another Great HCSB Review | ChurchETHOS — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:16:14 +0000

[...] many of my readers know, I use the HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible) translation of the Bible for many [...]

By: J.

J. — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:19:47 +0000

I am really taking a good look into the HCSB, however I would liek to correct you….the NIV is an optimal equivalent translation as well. Not just a thought for thought translation.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 02:29:33 +0000

The NIV is not a paraphrase, it uses the literal method where possible, but if it does not follow current english idiom, then it reorganizes the words to make sense. All translations add an additional word here or there. I know the NIV translators have taken some liberties where they should not have. The majority of the worlds translations are made idiomatic. Martin Luther made his idiomatic(and he took many liberties when he translated the bible) and his is still used today, even by amish groups in the USA. There are many places where the NIV translates better than the ESV or the NASB. I have a NASB which I use WITH my 2008 edition large print NIV study Bible. This study bible has a 200 page topical index, the best I have ever seen, and the notes are the best in any study bible (even the ESV), because if a divisive issue comes up (like tongues) it gives the pros and cons of both sides, so you can make a decision, it does not tell you what to believe, but it presents the info for you to make an educated choice. Any two translations beat any one translation anyday.

By: A.Admin

A.Admin — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:10:56 +0000

I enjoyed reading your post, but if you don’t mind me adding something,

The purpose of the NIV isn’t to paraphrase like John Piper says. The NIV is more literal than it is functional. The NIV only moves in colloquially when the modern reader will not understand what’s being stated. Common misconceptions about the NIV are created by Piper, Crossway and Fundamentalist King James Only types. The NIV definitley doesn't qualify as a fully thought-for-thought translation. If you don't believe me, compare the NIV with a New Living Translation.

By: Nathan Creitz

Nathan Creitz — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:13:39 +0000

Thanks Aaron,

It's kind of funny but my posts about the HCSB and the ESV have become the most popular topic. I'm not really that passionate about it, even though I am really impressed with the HCSB. But, for ESV lovers or KJV lovers or even NIV lovers I see no reason why someone should change.

We will definitely keep thinking together about the church and I also appreciate your insights.

By: Aaron L

Aaron L — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:05:43 +0000

Hey Nathan, thanks for the email the other day. It was good to hear from you and it got me back on your blog (it's been a while). It sounds like you and I have similar passions regarding the local church – I look forward to bouncing stuff off one another.

Thanks for posting this. I am aware of the ESV's cult like following and its connection to the new Reformed movement, but I haven't spent any time comparing it to other translations. Great to hear your thoughts about the different translations. Good stuff.

By: Nathan Creitz

Nathan Creitz — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:17:28 +0000

I don't place the NIV all the way to the left either. It's just that in my post I was talking about the ESV as compared to the HCSB as compared to the NIV. The HCSB is squarely in the middle of those two. There are dozens of other translations that we could talk about but I'm not as familiar with all of them. I have used the NLT but beyond that those other dynamic equivalent translations are not for me. I think the NIV and the ESV and the NASB for that matter are good translations. I just think the HCSB is better for contemporary English speakers and scholars alike.