PDA

View Full Version : Christian Standard Bible?



MaryFreeman
Mar 6th 2010, 06:17 PM
Can anyone share thoughts and opinions on this version? I have read a bit.... And compared it to trusted versions.... I feel as if some input from you all would be a comfort.... :confused I haven't seen anything yet that would make me question....

Have you?

Amos_with_goats
Mar 6th 2010, 06:26 PM
Can anyone share thoughts and opinions on this version? I have read a bit.... And compared it to trusted versions.... I feel as if some input from you all would be a comfort.... :confused I haven't seen anything yet that would make me question....

Have you?

I have no knowledge of this version, but have to say that the name makes me smile. I like the idea of a "Christian Standard Version" but somehow think it will not be published on paper... (but be seen face to Face, when we no longer have need for the sun, for the Son shall be our light...) :)

Blessings,.

Jemand
Mar 6th 2010, 06:57 PM
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is a product of the Southern Baptist Convention with some help from non-Baptists. It is a little bit more literal than the NIV, but very much less literal than NASB. The HCSB was produced largely because the SBC is moving away from the NIV toward the NASB, and the SBC was not able to purchase the copyright to the NASB. All of this is explained in detail, along with very much more information, in an article here:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb.html

MaryFreeman
Mar 6th 2010, 07:03 PM
Thank you guys!

grit
Mar 6th 2010, 07:20 PM
I agree with Jemand. The HCSB and the ESV were developed by conservative American Christians in response to the planned major tinkering with the NIV they'd grown to love. The Southern Baptist Convention decided it couldn't continue to trust some other on-going translation committee be responsible for what it's members relied upon as God's Word, so they designed to formulate the HCSB as a literal but reader-friendly translation.

-SEEKING-
Mar 7th 2010, 01:07 AM
I love to use this version as my everyday reading version. :thumbsup:

crossnote
Mar 7th 2010, 01:30 AM
I never heard of this version. It sounds like it makes a great 'reading' bible but a half page short of a study bible.
BTW what group was 'tinkering' with the NIV?

Amos_with_goats
Mar 7th 2010, 01:33 AM
I still think the idea of the 'standard Christian' is interesting to ponder......:hmm:

MaryFreeman
Mar 7th 2010, 02:02 AM
I still think the idea of the 'standard Christian' is interesting to ponder......:hmm:
Sounds boring Amos :lol:

NO but seriously.... I was taking a look at it and it reminded me of the NLT (which I love as a reading bible!) except more.... Well.... Literally translated.... I didn't see anything missing though....

Gave one to my hubbs is why I asked.... He's new round these parts.....

MaryFreeman
Mar 7th 2010, 02:04 AM
I agree with Jemand. The HCSB and the ESV were developed by conservative American Christians in response to the planned major tinkering with the NIV they'd grown to love. The Southern Baptist Convention decided it couldn't continue to trust some other on-going translation committee be responsible for what it's members relied upon as God's Word, so they designed to formulate the HCSB as a literal but reader-friendly translation.
Oh no! It's a BAPTIST bible????

:lol:

Just kidding my brother :D

I like it so far....

MaryFreeman
Mar 7th 2010, 02:07 AM
It has the same general editor as the NEW KING JAMES VERSION!!!:pp

grit
Mar 7th 2010, 08:52 PM
I never heard of this version. It sounds like it makes a great 'reading' bible but a half page short of a study bible.
BTW what group was 'tinkering' with the NIV?More or less the copyright holder. Most translations that are not old enough to be in the public domain (where most anyone can tinker with it and publish it), are under some form of management by those who hold the copyright on that particular translation, just as the KJV was for a number of years. Some also maintain the publishing rights. For the NIV, back in the mid 1990's when the controversy hit, there were several entities involved. The International Bible Society (ICB, which is now Biblica) was the primary translation sponsor for the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) which exercised sole oversight for the NIV translation, for which Zondervan Publishers held the publishing rights. Like many other translations, the NIV was tweaked every few years to keep it current with modern English changes. The NLT recently underwent a similar process, where older forms of the version were phased out and a newer one introduced, replacing the former edition. Most users rarely even notice this, although you can usually look in the front of a Bible and see the dates where it has been re-edited. The NASB was updated in 1995, but its copyright holder, the Lockman Foundation, decided to make it well-known and easily identifiable to folk, calling it the NASB-95, or NASB-updated version.

To make a long story short, the ICB had become somewhat liberal, with intentions to introduce gender-neutral language into the NIV. They experimented with it as the NIVI in Britain, which seemed to accept it, but World Magazine broke the story in 1995 of their designs through the CBT on a major revision of the NIV in the States (World (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/229) has several articles on the matter, of what they termed the "Stealth Bible" (cf. the Kept the Faith chronicle (http://www.keptthefaith.org/world_articles.htm)). It caused quite an uproar for years to come, with the American publisher Zondervan finally promising not to offer a revised NIV or publish such a revision, which they eventually did anyway as the TNIV (Today's New International Version), but which is now being discontinued as of 2010, with another major revision of the NIV scheduled for 2011, due to replace both the NIV and TNIV.

The HCSB has also recently been updated, with published updates introduced in February 2010 and continuing through the HCSB Study Bible in October. They especially wanted to be more consistent in translation of the transliterated tetragrammaton (YHWH, or God's name) as "Yahweh".

MaryFreeman
Mar 7th 2010, 10:00 PM
More or less the copyright holder. Most translations that are not old enough to be in the public domain (where most anyone can tinker with it and publish it), are under some form of management by those who hold the copyright on that particular translation, just as the KJV was for a number of years. Some also maintain the publishing rights. For the NIV, back in the mid 1990's when the controversy hit, there were several entities involved. The International Bible Society (ICB, which is now Biblica) was the primary translation sponsor for the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) which exercised sole oversight for the NIV translation, for which Zondervan Publishers held the publishing rights. Like many other translations, the NIV was tweaked every few years to keep it current with modern English changes. The NLT recently underwent a similar process, where older forms of the version were phased out and a newer one introduced, replacing the former edition. Most users rarely even notice this, although you can usually look in the front of a Bible and see the dates where it has been re-edited. The NASB was updated in 1995, but its copyright holder, the Lockman Foundation, decided to make it well-known and easily identifiable to folk, calling it the NASB-95, or NASB-updated version.

To make a long story short, the ICB had become somewhat liberal, with intentions to introduce gender-neutral language into the NIV. They experimented with it as the NIVI in Britain, which seemed to accept it, but World Magazine broke the story in 1995 of their designs through the CBT on a major revision of the NIV in the States (World (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/229) has several articles on the matter, of what they termed the "Stealth Bible" (cf. the Kept the Faith chronicle (http://www.keptthefaith.org/world_articles.htm)). It caused quite an uproar for years to come, with the American publisher Zondervan finally promising not to offer a revised NIV or publish such a revision, which they eventually did anyway as the TNIV (Today's New International Version), but which is now being discontinued as of 2010, with another major revision of the NIV scheduled for 2011, due to replace both the NIV and TNIV.

The HCSB has also recently been updated, with published updates introduced in February 2010 and continuing through the HCSB Study Bible in October. They especially wanted to be more consistent in translation of the transliterated tetragrammaton (YHWH, or God's name) as "Yahweh".

Just a question.... Is gender neutral harmful?

Kudo Shinichi
Mar 7th 2010, 10:38 PM
Can anyone share thoughts and opinions on this version? I have read a bit.... And compared it to trusted versions.... I feel as if some input from you all would be a comfort.... :confused I haven't seen anything yet that would make me question....
Have you?

My church elders who do every Sunday sermons prefers NIV bibles but I personally prefer NLT bibles because it's easy to understand the way English language is being translated. Then, my BK teacher said that try to avoid other kind of newer bibles which isn't correct translation from Hebrew for Old Testaments whereas from Greek for New Testaments.

th1bill
Mar 8th 2010, 02:05 AM
Just a question.... Is gender neutral harmful?

It is a dirert contradiction of the original manuscripts. Several time we are admonisghed to never add to or to delete from the Scriptures as revealed by God and gender neitral does both.

grit
Mar 8th 2010, 01:37 PM
Just a question.... Is gender neutral harmful?Yeah, like bill said, it is when it's inaccurate and made to deceive God's people, even if there is continuing debate on translating the original languages of Scripture to make them more culturally relevant.

MaryFreeman
Mar 8th 2010, 04:05 PM
Yeah, like bill said, it is when it's inaccurate and made to deceive God's people, even if there is continuing debate on translating the original languages of Scripture to make them more culturally relevant.
And gender neutral is words like "one" where it should be "he" or "she" right? Words that do not denote a specific gender?

grit
Mar 8th 2010, 05:58 PM
And gender neutral is words like "one" where it should be "he" or "she" right? Words that do not denote a specific gender?Yes, though it can get quite a bit more complex when discussing the "should be"; with aspects often involving particulars of interpretive philosophy (hermeneutics), cultural assessments (as with anthropological distinctives varying between modern Christian English cultures and the roots of Biblical origins), societal and Christian value differences (as in conservative or liberal), or a variety of other scholastic or ethical considerations surrounding the processes of translating. For example, certainly our English language has historically favoured masculine pronouns even where gender neutrality is meant; and even given your example there may arise difficulties between plural and singular considerations of having "one" mean either "he" or "she" (one or the other gender), both "he" and "she" (that is, inclusive of both genders), or a specific neutrality non-specific of either "he" or "she". Mix all this into trying to accurately preserve the original Bible meanings into English usage and "one" comes up with quite a challenge.

I don't mean to overwhelm the thread with it, but here's a link to several articles (http://www.bible-researcher.com/links12.html) on the issue. And here follows links to some of the previous Bibleforums discussions, if found helpful (some of them were found to merit a cooling off period), though it's been a while since we specifically addressed gender-neutrality with its own thread:
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?197222-Women-in-the-Bible
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?197171-Great-Version-Of-The-Bible-For-Daughters-The-Genderless-God-Bible
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?186465-Allow-not-a-Woman
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?188209-New-NIV-translation-to-come-out-in-2011
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?184779-Gender-and-Language
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?183227-Women-Being-Pastors

MaryFreeman
Mar 8th 2010, 06:04 PM
Thanks Grit!......................

crossnote
Mar 8th 2010, 10:07 PM
For God so loved the world, that [that Person] gave [that Person's] only begotten [Offspring], that whosoever believeth in [that Person's Offspring] should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:16)

Boy, ...Oops... Gosh, what lengths we will have to go to please an agenda driven crowd.

The C.S.B. is not one of those neutered bibles is it?

grit
Mar 8th 2010, 10:23 PM
For God so loved the world, that [that Person] gave [that Person's] only begotten [Offspring], that whosoever believeth in [that Person's Offspring] should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:16)

Boy, ...Oops... Gosh, what lengths we will have to go to please an agenda driven crowd.

The C.S.B. is not one of those neutered bibles is it?

No, here's (http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/hcsb/gender.asp) their statement on the issue, although here's (http://www.baptiststandard.com/2002/4_1/pages/niv_sbc.html) one of their own's comparisons with the KJV, NIV, and TNIV which indicates some neutrality, where they found the Bible writers intended it.

crossnote
Mar 8th 2010, 10:49 PM
I believe those differences are innocuous and have no detriment to the text.

Steven3
Mar 9th 2010, 12:56 AM
Can anyone share thoughts and opinions on this version? I have read a bit.... And compared it to trusted versions.... I feel as if some input from you all would be a comfort.... :confused I haven't seen anything yet that would make me question....

Have you?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible

Seems to be more dynamic-equivalent than NASB or NRSV/ESV which personally (as a commercial translator) I don't mind. But does leave verses more open to theological colouring.

Amos 4:6

HCSB I gave you absolutely nothing to eat in all your cities, a shortage of food in all your communities, yet you did not return to Me. This is the Lord's declaration.

KJV And I also have given you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and want of bread in all your places: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

NASB But I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities and lack of bread in all your places, yet you have not returned to Me, declares the Lord.

ESV I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities, and lack of bread in all your places, yet you did not return to me, declares the Lord.

NIV I gave you empty stomachs in every city and lack of bread in every town, yet you have not returned to me, declares the Lord.

Do westerners really need idioms like "cleanness of teeth" ironed out? Probably yes.

MaryFreeman
Mar 9th 2010, 01:35 AM
And how about the LITV? Seems no different from the KJV? Well almost no different?

Steven Yes westerners do.... My mother took that exact passage as a sign God would fix her teeth.... When it is talking about starvation and famine....

MaryFreeman
Mar 9th 2010, 01:36 AM
For God so loved the world, that [that Person] gave [that Person's] only begotten [Offspring], that whosoever believeth in [that Person's Offspring] should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:16)

Boy, ...Oops... Gosh, what lengths we will have to go to please an agenda driven crowd.

The C.S.B. is not one of those neutered bibles is it?

Man that robs that verse of substance and authority! Oi!

roaring tiger
Mar 9th 2010, 08:37 AM
Man that robs that verse of substance and authority! Oi!

Hi!!!SisterMary greetings;
And you deliver the nutrients and holiness of on it.Gotcha???
in love of Christ./RT.

grit
Mar 9th 2010, 01:33 PM
And how about the LITV? Seems no different from the KJV? Well almost no different?
Yes, Jay P. Green just passed in 2008. He was quite critical of many other translations, and all of his translating works are based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV. He popularized his King James II back in the 70's, which is now revised into the KJ3, but I think it's fair to group most of his literal-styled translations together, which also includes the LITV, Modern King James Version, and the King James Version - Twentieth Century Edition. Compared with the KJV, which had significant political influence and heavy reliance on earlier English renderings, his work more accurately translates the TR into English in many places, but it's still indeed quite similar to the KJV in many respects. He still offers the most popular single-volume interlinear of the whole Bible, the Interlinear Bible or The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, in One-Volume, which contains the Hebrew with English interlinear in the Old Testament, the Greek with English interlinear in the New Testament, and his Literal Translation in a side column throughout.

MaryFreeman
Mar 9th 2010, 05:24 PM
Yes, Jay P. Green just passed in 2008. He was quite critical of many other translations, and all of his translating works are based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV. He popularized his King James II back in the 70's, which is now revised into the KJ3, but I think it's fair to group most of his literal-styled translations together, which also includes the LITV, Modern King James Version, and the King James Version - Twentieth Century Edition. Compared with the KJV, which had significant political influence and heavy reliance on earlier English renderings, his work more accurately translates the TR into English in many places, but it's still indeed quite similar to the KJV in many respects. He still offers the most popular single-volume interlinear of the whole Bible, the Interlinear Bible or The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, in One-Volume, which contains the Hebrew with English interlinear in the Old Testament, the Greek with English interlinear in the New Testament, and his Literal Translation in a side column throughout.

Ah.... Well then why not just read the KJV??

-SEEKING-
Mar 9th 2010, 05:41 PM
Ah.... Well then why not just read the KJV??

So I don't need a old English to Contemporary English dictionary. :D

MaryFreeman
Mar 9th 2010, 05:44 PM
So I don't need a old English to Contemporary English dictionary. :D
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :pp

crossnote
Mar 10th 2010, 12:12 AM
So I don't need a old English to Contemporary English dictionary. :D

If it was truly old English even the KJVonly'ers wouldn't be able to read it.

roaring tiger
Mar 10th 2010, 10:30 AM
Ah.... Well then why not just read the KJV??

Hi!!!Sister Mary:
Yes, indeed I read KJV because it is the one and only bible I own given by a friend.By the way your
quote in #25 and the later one completed the greetings made by mother of Jesus to his cousin
Elizabeth which was also pregnant with JTB which make the babe jump in his mother's womb and
this also glorify our Lord Jesus Christ.
in love of Christ./RT.

newinchrist4now.
May I borrow your fav.phrase...
I think therefore I am..I think.
thank you.

Theophilus
Mar 10th 2010, 12:43 PM
Late to the game, but I have a HCSB, and like it...it's my "daily reader" as well, although I'm currently reading through the ESV this year (I read through a different translation every year...next is the NASB).

MaryFreeman
Mar 10th 2010, 03:36 PM
I don't know if you will remember me Theophilus.... I was here three years ago as IVBNSETFREE.... Til I lost the net :D

MaryFreeman
Mar 10th 2010, 03:44 PM
Hi!!!Sister Mary:
Yes, indeed I read KJV because it is the one and only bible I own given by a friend.By the way your
quote in #25 and the later one completed the greetings made by mother of Jesus to his cousin
Elizabeth which was also pregnant with JTB which make the babe jump in his mother's womb and
this also glorify our Lord Jesus Christ.
in love of Christ./RT.
Hello brother RT! There is an application you can find online and it is called ESWORD.... It is a computer bible.... It comes with KJV but there are several good free versions as well!

http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
It even has a spot for study notes and topic notes! And a dictionary and search engine! I use it all the time for my blog SHOOT'N FROM THE HIP.... It is a wonderful tool! God bless you sir!

MaryFreeman
Mar 10th 2010, 03:50 PM
If it was truly old English even the KJVonly'ers wouldn't be able to read it.
I know right!!!

Theophilus
Mar 10th 2010, 04:03 PM
I don't know if you will remember me Theophilus.... I was here three years ago as IVBNSETFREE.... Til I lost the net :D

The name rings a bell...you were gone longer than I was! Many happy returns...

Kudo Shinichi
Mar 13th 2010, 02:06 AM
Bible Quotes (http://www.raptureready.com/featured/graham/g115.html)
Hereís something currently being advanced in todayís culture. I read recently about new Bibles being designed and promoted that will change Godís word to read completely politically correct. Just one example of this change is that the book of Revelation will be eliminated all together. Think of it, the inerrant word of God as we now know it gone, taken away. All that would be left is a horribly watered down contrivance of the original document with no Gospel message and no power at all to change lives.

newinchrist4now
Mar 13th 2010, 04:48 AM
Hi!!!Sister Mary:
Yes, indeed I read KJV because it is the one and only bible I own given by a friend.By the way your
quote in #25 and the later one completed the greetings made by mother of Jesus to his cousin
Elizabeth which was also pregnant with JTB which make the babe jump in his mother's womb and
this also glorify our Lord Jesus Christ.
in love of Christ./RT.

newinchrist4now.
May I borrow your fav.phrase...
I think therefore I am..I think.
thank you.

Sure you can :)

BadDog
Mar 13th 2010, 07:03 PM
Well, haven't visited this forum for a few months... things have really changed. Hmmm. I used to have about 7000 posts... only 700 left. :P

I'll address the original question and the one on gender-inclusive translations. (The expression "gender-neutral" is typically used by those who oppose gender-inclusive translations... the idea being that they are in some manner neutralizing gender - which is not the intention or what occurs.)

I really like the HCSB. I have been using it since its inception--actually even before it was published. It started as what was called Logos-21 - by Art Farstad (the editor of the NKJV) as a new translation once the NKJV was finished in 1984, whose NT was taken from majority text Greek manuscripts. When the NIVI (a gender-inclusive revision of the NIV, like the TNIV) came out in '98 some conservative well-known and respected authorities (but not translators) opposed it. The reaction of the SBC was to approach Farstad and offer to help him finish up his rough draft work--I think they bought it from him. He died in 98, shortly after the agreement, and it was converted into a critical text translation.

It is a solid translation, a bit more "word-for-word" (FE) than the NIV, but fairly solid in the middle--less FE than the ESV, for example. It is much less G-I than the TNIV, and it follows all of the very conservative guidelines of the Colorado Springs Guidelines (CSG) for gender issues which was agreed upon by those who opposed the NIVI. IOW, it is G-I, but very conservatively done. No one who opposes the TNIV or the NLT for gender reasons (such as Wayne Grudem) opposes the HCSB. Personally, I wish it was a bit more G-I. It is the SBC's version of a gender-inclusive translation which is very carefully done.

I personally have little concerns regarding G-I translations. I personally went through all 906 or so of the translation cases listed for the TNIV concerning the CSG - and felt that about 2/3 were fine, and did not in any way change the intended meaning of the original language. The other 1/3 were minor issues for the most part. People tend to overreact out of ignorance and misunderstanding what it is about. A G-I translation tries to make texts originally intended to reference both men and women to continue to do so in today's speech. They do not attempt to make the Father both feminine and masculine, or to remove masculine leadership teachings for the family or church or any such thing.

You can check out the specific references Wayne Grudem was concerned about at the CBMW website (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womenhood). You can check it out here:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-7-No-2/A-Brief-Summary-of-Concerns-About-the-TNIV

Mark Strauss, with whom I generally agree, and an actual Bible translator and authority on Bible translation, has a website on the issue here:
http://keptthefaith.org/doc_examples1.htm
(An article by Mark Strauss dealing with specific allegations against the TNIV. BTW, in 2011 the NIV will be upgraded to include gender-enhancement changes. I hope the controversy is finally over.)
and here's the TNIV site:
http://www.biblica.com/bibles/tniv/

FWIW, I personally feel that the HCSB is as accurate as they come. My personal preference used to be the the NASB or the RSV (the ESV is a very mild revision of the RSV). BTW, the HCSB refers to its translation philosophy as "optimal equivalent." The idea is to be as accurate as possible, and follow a FE (formal equivalent - such as followed by the NASB or the KJV) philosophy or DE (dynamic equivalent - such as with the NIV) depending on whichever most accurately communicates the original intended thoughts/ideas. It is similar to the RSV's ("as literal as possible, as free as necessary.")

I have The Apologist Bible, which is an excellent HCSB study Bible. The only issue is that it doesn't have a chain reference.

Take care, don't know when I'll be checking back again.

BD