I received a very encouraging comment from Greg this morning on this post. I wanted to share it with you because I think many people may find themselves in Greg’s position.

I grew up in an independent, fundamental Baptist church. Guess which translation we used. When I was a senior in high school, I gave my mother a heart attack (not literally, but almost) when I joined a Southern Baptist church. My translation of choice then and throughout college and seminary was the NIV. When the ESV was published, I couldn’t adopt it quickly enough. I never liked the NIV because I thought (and still think) the translation was a little too loose. Perhaps that will be corrected in the 2011 update.

Two things kept me from adopting the HCSB when it was published, although I liked it very much from the start:

1. it had only been about 2 or 3 years since I changed translations and I didn’t want to do it again, and
2. I didn’t want to think of myself as a SBC “fanboy.”

I owned a few copies of the HCSB; I just rarely picked them up.

I hold to Reformed doctrine, so the fact that all of the modern “heroes” vociferously approved of the ESV gave me great comfort. But I always thought that Holman had done the best job of any Bible publisher at laying out the page. They simply hit a home run there with typography and textual aids. The ESV, on the other hand, was simply text (albeit good text) printed on the page with little visual appeal.

Still, the HCSB’s stigma as the Southern Baptist Bible held me back. Now, after about 48 hours straight of researching (much of which was aided by your site), I have made the decision that the ESV will move to the back burner as a comparative translation and the HCSB will be the translation I carry around with me and teach from.

I was unaware that there was an update coming. I’m glad to see it. I kind of liked the brackets (I understand your argument against them, but at least liked to have the information they provide) and I wish they had footnoted 1 Cor 13:8 (#4 above mentions that this would be the case, but unfortunately they decided against it; I would probably categorize that as one of the only “Baptist biases” in this translation). But the other updates seem to be a nice improvement.

Thanks for the help in making this decision. It’s not one I took lightly and it was a much harder decision than I thought it would be.

And in a follow-up email, Greg wrote this:

Just wanted to say thanks for your posts on the HCSB and for making a Reformed guy not feel so awkward for using something other than the ESV.

Found this at the Stuff Fundies Like Facebook page. It was too funny not to share:

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian’s chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and saviour

4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.

5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.

6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner’s Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner’s Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I’ve got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.

16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God’s entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.

17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.

18. Q: I’m so happy, what’s the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!

19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.

20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys’ Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.

21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.

22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.

23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.

24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our hands, close our heads, and fold our eyes.

25. Q: What doth the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord’s Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.

26. Q: What’s the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.

27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul’s health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.

28. Q: Who is on the Lord’s side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.

29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.

30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.

31. Q: What is the Lord’s Supper?
A: The Lord’s Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ’s command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.

32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.

33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.

34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.

35. Q: What meaneth “The Priesthood Of All Believers”?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.

36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.

37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.

38. Q: When will be the “Last Days” of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The “Last Days” are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.

39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.

40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.

41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.

42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!

43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!

44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.

45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.

46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”

47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.

48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men.

HT: Chuck Huckaby

10. A woman already crossed. We don’t follow women.

9. We don’t believe the road is safe. It wasn’t built between 1500-1700 A.D.

8. We believe that “road crossing” ceased with the death of the last Apostle or the completion of the New Testament.

7. The crossing guard was only helping people cross from one side to the other, so we are suspicious. Is this a denial of double pre-destination?

6. Neither Romans 9 or John 6 say anything about crossing roads. Therefore, it is unbiblical.

5. The “Walk” sign was gender neutral. It made us mad.

4. John Wesley said that God’s prevenient grace would pave the way, but we have to take the steps ourselves. What a load!

3. We were not elected to cross before the foundation of the road.

2. Piper said that God is most glorified when we are most satisfied on our side of the road.

1. The pub is on this side of the road.

In Ezekiel 16 God is strongly rebuking Israel for their forsaking of the covenant. It is a very graphic chapter–not the kind of reading that makes you go, “Well bless my soul!”

Quite the opposite.

When God tells his chosen people that they have committed spiritual prostitution, he pulls no punches in describing their sin. In fact, if this were in a high school Bible class text book, it would probably be banned from most of our schools.

When Prostitution Is Not Prostitution

Yet, there is something more going on here than actual sexual misconduct on Israel’s part. This is a story that God is telling, and it’s very likely that he is describing Israel’s abandonment of the covenant in terms of marital unfaithfulness. Indeed, they may have been involved in these great atrocities, such as:

• sacrificing children as burnt offerings to idols
• creating statues of men and engaging in sexual acts with them
• lavishing sexual favors on strangers

Those are the kinds of things God describes through Ezekiel. But I’m not sure that this is meant to be literally understood. The whole beginning of this chapter is a kind of parable or moral story if you will. God pictures his relationship with Israel as one of rescuing a damsel in distress and claiming her as his bride. Then the new bride proves unfaithful to her husband.

But this prostitution may be symbolic for other great atrocities of covenant unfaithfulness.

What’s Worse Than Homosexuality

When we get to verses 44 and beyond, God describes several other cities as being a “mother” or “sister” to Israel. By which he doesn’t mean, of course, that they literally gave birth to Israel or are somehow genetically related to her. Rather, he means that Israel is acting just like them, “Like mother like daughter,” he says in verse 44.

So in verse 49 God says, “Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: ________________.”

What do you think goes in that blank? Homosexuality, right? I mean, that’s what we all know the story of Sodom is about. It was such a terrible place because of what men were doing with men and women with women.

Wrong.

Here’s how that verse goes: “Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn’t support the poor and needy.”

When God wants to describe the defining sin of Sodom, he describes it as a neglect for the disadvantaged, the helpless.

How the American Church Is Too Much Like Sodom

So the next time the political right tries to co-opt the church into its issue-driven agenda, ask yourself this question:

Are we consistently and effectively demonstrating Christ-like love to the poor and needy or are we using an anti-homosexuality agenda to cover up our sin of neglect?

Let’s face it: people tend to forget about the things you’re not doing when you talk loudly about the things you are doing. The Church in America has for so long focussed on trying to stop one particular sinful act they she has failed to engage in positive acts of love.

Since when is the Church supposed to be known primarily for what she is against? If you were to ask Americans to describe the Church, you would probably get answers like this:

• They’re against abortion
• They’re against same-sex marriage
• They’re against immigration

I doubt you would get an answer like this: They love the poor and generously help the needy. We have bumper stickers proclaiming our anti-gay-marriage stance. Where are the bumper stickers that read, “Sell a car. Give the money to the poor.”?

Our reputation is that we are too much like Sodom in our neglect of the poor and needy. The American Church is the wealthiest collection of believers in the world. Yet we spend our money on big buildings, big programs, big houses and nice cars. And we claim that we must have the nice buildings and big programs if we’re going to attract people. But the reality is that the only people we will attract with that philosophy are the relatively rich.

What if we were to build a church building as simply as possible, with no air conditioning, only lots of windows to let the wind blow through?

What if we were to cancel all our programs and sell all our fancy desks and equipment?

What kind of people would we attract to our meetings? Do you think the poor would come? More importantly, do you think it would free us financially and socially to be more engaged with the poor and to help them more generously?

I don’t know what the Church ought to do or how it ought to look, but I do know that it’s time for some radical thinking and acting in the Church in America. Business as usual will only lead us further down the road of Sodom’s sin.

How does language change people at all levels? Identity, faith, reality, what cultural engagement is, what the Bible is and who God is--all these things we get a handle on through the language we use.

I had the privilege of interviewing two professional rhetoricians who are both committed Christians and influential in their field. Camille Lewis and Mark Steiner are both concerned about the language that the Church uses and how the Church has neglected to think deeply about the way it engages culture rhetorically.

Dr. Lewis is a part of Mitchell Road Presbyterian Church in Greenville, S.C., and Dr. Steiner is a part of Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church in Suffolk, VA.

You can listen to the interview, download the mp3 or watch the video below.

Download audio file (Lewis_Steiner_Interview.mp3)

Click here to download the mp3 file.

Here are the videos, in four parts:

Part 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIOzOfB5YkA

Part 2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSeQG-5r3Jo

Part 3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7GgJNLuZt0

Part 4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBVB-M50gaU

Mentioned in the Interview

Dr. Lewis’s blog

Kenneth Burke at Wikipedia

“The Manhattan Declaration”

Rhetoric at Wikipedia

The Rhetoric of Operation Rescue: Projecting the Christian Pro-life Message (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies)

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

Communication as Culture, Revised Edition: Essays on Media and Society (Media and Popular Culture 1)

Mustard Seed vs. McWorld: Reinventing Life and Faith for the Future

Selling God: American Religion in the Marketplace of Culture

unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity... and Why It Matters

Since the release of the updated HCSB has been delayed until October 2010, I thought I’d put together my wish list of changes:

Formatting

1. No more brackets. From what I understand, this wish may already have been granted!

2. No more bullets. Actually I’d be fine with the bullets if they looked like the ones in the Apologetics Study Bible. They’re not too obtrusive there. Maybe this would be a good place to use italics?

3. No red letters. Dr. Blum told me in my first interview with him, “virtually everybody who worked on this translation hates red-letter editions.” The problem is that publishers virtually require red letter editions because people (“the market”) want them. Gotta love capitalism, right?

4. Stop capitalizing pronouns that supposedly refer to deity. Besides being an outdated practice, this makes interpretive decisions at times that should be left up to the reader.

Translation

5. Genesis 47:28 — “Now Jacob lived in the land of Egypt 17 years, and his life span was 147 years.” The phrase “life span” is awkward. Could we not say, “Now Jacob lived in the land of Egypt 17 years, and he lived to be 147 years old”?

6. Psalm 100:3 — “He made us, and we are His — His people, the sheep of His pasture.” The repetition of “His” is a little confusing. Here’s my suggested alternative: “He made us, and we are his — We are his people, the sheep of his pasture.”

7. Isaiah 6:5 — “Then I said: Woe is me, for I am ruined.” I can’t say that I have a great suggestion for a change here, but “Woe is me” just sounds awfully archaic.

8. Blessed vs. Happy — In the Psalms, the HCSB tends to use the word “happy” where other translations use “blessed.” But in Matthew 5, for example, they use “blessed.” I think the word “blessed” is fine (as long as you don’t pronounce it bless-ed). That would provide some consistency throughout the translation as well as connecting the idea to the covenant blessings.

9. Matthew 6:9 — “Our Father in heaven, Your name be honored as holy.” This isn’t a big deal, I suppose, but I really like the NLT here: “Our Father in heaven, may your name be kept holy.” It’s more succinct.

10. Ephesians 1:11 — “In Him we were also made His inheritance.” They have a footnote which has, I believe, a much better translation: “In Him we also received an inheritance.” The context (cf. 1:14) seems to bear this out.

Marketing

11. Stop marketing to niche audiences. Here are some of the niche Bibles available in the HCSB:

• The Celtic Bible
• The Doctor’s Bible
• The Airman’s Bible
• The Firefighter’s Bible
• The Men’s Fraternity Bible
• The Keepsake Bride’s Bible
• The Drill Bible
• The Golfer’s Bible
• The Varsity Colors Bible (comes in different school colors)

12. Start thinking in fewer categories. It seems as if B&H has tried to find every little sub-culture to market the HCSB to rather than marketing to the several largest sub-cultures. This is an area where B&H could really take some helpful tips from Crossway. Here are some of the ESV editions that B&H needs to explore as possibilities for the HCSB:

• Journaling Bible
• One Year Bible
• Reverse Interlinear Bible (cool idea)
• Literary Study Bible (approaching Scripture as literature)
• Study Bible (I know it’s coming, but this should have been one of the first big projects of B&H, in my opinion)
• Reformation Study Bible (a study Bible in the HCSB with a Reformed approach could help shed some of the Baptist stigma)

13. Drop the “H” in the name. This has been said over and over, but I’ll say it again: Before people outside the Baptist world are going to take the HCSB seriously, it must become simply the CSB. Do whatever it takes, B&H, to drop the “Holman” in the title.

14. Focus on that website. The new website, www.hcsb.org, is a vast improvement over the old site, but it still needs work. We need more features.

15. Give us buttons! We bloggers who love the HCSB want to promote it on our websites with buttons like the ESV offers.

16. Update the copyright info with Biblegateway.com to allow us to embed the verse of the day on our websites. For some reason, Biblegateway.com gives this error message: “Sorry. Due to copyright issues, we cannot provide the verse of the day in this version (Holman Christian Standard Bible).” That also means we can’t use their HTML embed code to put the verse of the day from the HCSB on our websites.

What About You?

What changes would you make to the HCSB? Since the release of the updated edition has already been delayed, let’s see if we can get some ideas to B&H to consider.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn1Wl8N6FTA

Unfamiliar with the HCSB? Here’s a great video that helps explain the philosophy behind the translation:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSr9y8xzZnc

I recently read an article in a series on worship that I thought was helpful. The very idea of worship has taken on strange cultural meanings in American evangelicalism. The advent of the Christian music industry has virtually reshaped the definition and practice of worship in our churches.

I hope to write a series of articles on the topic in the near future, but for now, here are six helpful rules to consider when thinking about worship:

1) The direction of the service should be removed entirely from the hands of the worship leaders, and solidly and unequivocally returned to, and made the whole responsibility of, the pastoral authority of the church. If a worship leader is retained, he must understand that he is wholly subordinate to that authority, having no standing whatever as such to determine the form or content of the service.  (I would also add that giving this person pastoral status and title does not fix the problem.  If that is done, one must say explicitly that the responsibility is that of the teaching authority of the church, normally vested in the Senior Pastor.)

2) The attraction of inquirers to the principal service of worship—which, after all, should culminate in a communion in which they cannot yet participate—is to be subordinated to the theological and doxological integrity of the service itself.

3) Words to all music sung in the service must be studied and approved by pastoral authority as theologically sound, and unapologetically rejected when not, no matter how beautiful the music to which they are set, or how beloved by the congregation.

4) The service of worship is not to be conducted as if it were a show in which some of the worshippers are performing for others, but rather all present should be worshipping God in every aspect of the proceedings. Musicians should be placed and used so as to give glory to God rather than themselves, and should present themselves accordingly both in dress and demeanor. Prayers should not, for example, be used as an opportunity to move about or change settings.

5) It must be understood and attended to by the pastoral authority that the service does not take place in a vacuum where it is free to innovate as it will, but participates in the worship of the whole church in heaven and earth, to which it is called not only to add its own unique voice, but to conform that voice to a pattern that lies outside itself. This conformance should be a matter of constant study and meditation on the part of the pastor and elders of the church. To leave it to the tastes of the congregation or to a professional worship leader is a dereliction of pastoral duty.

6) It must be understood and accepted that what results from this, while it should be of firm integrity and deep beauty, may not be a “popular” product for that very reason. No proportion is to be expected between faithfulness in these matters and congregational size.

To read the entire article and the series from Mere Comments, click here.

If you haven’t seen Seeds Family Worship yet, you need to visit their website.

Seeds Family Worship was planted when worship leader, Jason Houser, was asked to write some songs to help kids remember the verses from his church’s summer Bible school.

Jason began writing songs and singing them for the kids and families at church. The songs were well-crafted, catchy, and taken straight from scripture. Families liked them. . . a lot.

I know our family does. I lead children’s choir at our church, and we will be singing a couple of songs from Seeds albums this year.

On the Seeds website you can listen to all their songs, download Scripture memory cards for your kids, activities and ideas for family worship, chord charts for the songs, and even find out how to host a Seeds event at your church.

Check out their YouTube channel here. Here’s a video from their channel with the song our kids are singing today:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc9pEb-Ej7U

• Click here to become a fan of Seeds Family Worship on Facebook!
• Follow Seeds on Twitter for tips for family worship in 120 characters or less.
• Click here for short downloadable radio shows about family worship.

We read the Jesus Storybook Bible every night before bed. Even if I wanted to skip a night, my kids won’t let me! Here’s why we love this kid’s Bible so much, and why you will too:

1. A good overview of redemptive history for children can be hard to find. For that matter, a good overview of redemptive history for adults can be hard to find. So whether you’re 3, 23, 43, or 73 you’ll love reading through many of the stories of Scripture as they all tell one big narrative–the story of creation, fall and God’s plan to rescue and re-create!
2. Seeing all of Scripture as pointing to God’s work in the Messiah is not usually a hallmark of children’s Bibles. In the Jesus Storybook Bible, though, “every story whispers his name.”
3. Kid-friendly artwork that doesn’t look cheesy takes incredible skill. Apparently Jago, the artist behind the Jesus Storybook Bible, has that incredible skill. Your kids will love looking at the pictures while you read the stories.
4. Most children’s Bibles try to rhyme everything. The Jesus Storybook Bible is not one of those. It’s refreshing to read quality children’s literature. Sally Lloyd-Jones has a gift for writing to children. You’ll enjoy reading it just as much as (if not more than) your children will enjoy listening to it.

I recently taught a class for teachers at our church, and I encouraged all of them to go to our book table and buy a copy of the Jesus Storybook Bible…for themselves! If you don’t yet own the Jesus Storybook Bible, you need to.

Jesus Storybook Bible Resources

The Deluxe Edition is scheduled to be released in October and will include an audio CD with the entire book read by David Suchet. They have also just opened up their new website which you can access by clicking here.

Want to read one of the stories for yourself? Click here.

Want to hear some of the audio files from the Deluxe Edition? Click here.

Want to buy your own copy? Of course you do! Click here.

Here’s my earlier review of the Jesus Storybook Bible.

I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Ed Blum, the General Editor for the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I have been using the HCSB for several years now, and it is by far my favorite translation. I think this interview will be helpful to clear up misconceptions about the HCSB as well as to help people unfamiliar with this translation learn a little about what has become a very influential translation.

The interview is divided into four parts. You can read the whole thing or jump to the parts that interest you the most. They are:

• Distinctives
• History
• Translation
• Marketing

If you’re looking for the interview about the updated HCSB, you can find it here.

Distinctives of the HCSB

Will: In your mind, what makes this translation distinct from other translations? I’m particularly interested in its distinction from the ESV, which seems to be one of its biggest competitors, if I can use that term.

Ed: The ESV comes from the King James tradition. The King James was revised continuously until about 1750. In 1870 they did a major revision of the King James which never became really popular which was called the English Revised Version, and I think popularly known as the Revised Version. It actually came out in 1881. The Americans who worked on it weren’t happy with it, but they had signed an agreement not to publish for 20 years, so they came out in 1901 with the American Standard Version, their revision of the King James tradition. And that stayed in print until the mid 1930s and the National Council of Churches who owned the copyright started on the RSV. And the RSV NT was done in 1946, and the OT was finished in the early 1950s. Everybody thought the NT was fairly decent, but the OT, they had a number of Jewish scholars and they felt that it wasn’t quite what they wanted. So a group of Americans from the Lockman foundation took the old American Standard Version and made the New American Standard Version. That one began as a revision of the King James tradition. And then there was the revision done by Thomas Nelson; they did the NKJV. Then the NASB was revised again in 1995. The English Standard Version took the old RSV and revised about 7% of it. So it’s not a new translation; it’s a revision of the King James tradition. Although they worked on a lot of things, if you really compare them you’ll see that it’s still the King James tradition. They’ve taken King James word order, much of the vocabulary is still the same. The HCSB is a new translation from the original text. For example, the standard Hebrew lexicon that we used is the most recent one. The ESV is a lot closer to the NASB95 and the King James tradition. For example, how often do you use the word “shall”?

Will: Not very often.

Ed: Right. Not very often. Usually in a stylized phrase like, you might say to your wife, “Shall we eat out tonight?” But that is sort of stylized. The ESV has the English word “shall” 6,389 times. The HCSB has it zero. So for example, “Thou shalt not,” is stylized. “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is traditional. We would say in English today, “Do not commit adultery. “ So the ESV uses outmoded English expressions of language. How often do you use the word “behold”?

Will: I try not to.

Ed: Okay, “behold” is in ESV 1,102 times. HCSB has it once. ESV retains the old form “Oh” plus the vocative: “Oh, King, live forever.” “Oh, Lord.” The TNIV has taken almost all the “Oh” plus vocative out. ESV follows the King James and has “Oh” plus the vocative 1,129 times. We have it in the HCSB 10 times, and in the next edition that will come out in 2009 there will be zero. The use of “whom” is declining. When you answer the phone do you say, “Whom do you wish to speak to?” Or do you say, “Who do you want to talk to?” King James has “whom” 763 times. NKJ has it 760 times. NASB has it 755 times. ESV has it 740 times. NIV has cut it down to 394. HCSB second edition coming out has it only 142. So, it’s dropping. If you got engaged, how would you introduce your fiancé? Would you say, “She’s my betrothed”?

Will: Probably not.

Ed: ESV’s got it 15 times. We have it zero. Here’s an interesting one. You’ll find that very few translations have this correct. ESV, NIV, a lot of them use the expression “strong drink.” Most people think “strong drink” is whiskey or rum or gin or something like that, but distillation was not discovered until the 9^th century ad. So our translation correctly translates it “beer.” ESV continues to use the old terms like “leper.” But then they add a footnote every time they use it, and they have the same footnote 20 times. There’s a confusion in popular thinking about Hansen’s disease. Whatever it was in the Bible period—it grew on the walls and grew on clothing and so on—was not Hansen’s disease. ESV uses old terms like “tithe.” What is a tithe in your mind?

Will: Ten percent.

Ed: Ten percent. And “tithe” is just an old English word meaning “tenth.” So why not use “a tenth”? We have several special features that help the average Bible reader. We have these bullet notes. For example, ESV has the same footnote in the book of Revelation 15 times. We would just have a bullet note that takes you to that section in the reverse.

History of the HCSB

Will: Let me ask you a little bit about the history of the HCSB. Dr. Farstad, you knew him personally?

Ed: Art Farstad, we both taught at Dallas Seminary. He only taught there about 3 or 4 years, and then he went to work for Thomas Nelson, and he was the Executive Editor for the NKJ tradition. He was an adherent of the Majority Text (MT) position.

Will: Okay, when he was doing the NT work on the HCSB, he was using the MT?

Ed: Well, it’s a little bit more complicated than that. He wanted to do a MT translation of the NT. The Southern Baptists who were paying the freight, they agreed to do a parallel translation. We would do a critical text translation, and we would have an electronic MT translation that would be given to Art at the completion of the project. Unfortunately Art only lived 5 months into the project, and so that was dropped. So, our translation is based on the Nestle text.

Will: Now, is it correct that he was working on this translation from the mid 1980s for about 14 years before you took over the project?

Ed: Art had always had an interest in textual criticism. He and Zane Hodges published their own critical text. But they made a distinction between the Textus Receptus (TR) and the MT. So they published this critical text with Thomas Nelson and there were 2 editions done of it, so he was interested in the MT tradition, not necessarily the TR which was the translation that the KJV was based on. So when he was working on the NKJV, he wanted to change the text in about 260 places that he felt the KJV text did not represent the MT. In other words, he made a distinction between TR, the Byzantine tradition and the critical text. And they did publish an interlinear, and each time there’s a variant reading, down at the bottom it will say, “Critical Text,” “TR,” or “MT,” so you’ll be able to tell which is which. But the people who were backing the NKJV did not want to do any textual critical changes. So he was not too happy with that. The TR is based on one manuscript, and that manuscript was written in the 16^th century. So, as he had time, Art wanted to do a modern translation that was based on the MT. He would write it out, and his cousin would put it in a database. And he was working on that in 1995, and there was a foundation in Glide, Oregon. The guy had a bunch of money he had made in computer chips, and he had a foundation he had set up called Absolutely Free. The purpose of the foundation was to provide Bibles or portions of the Bible and evangelistic booklets for various purposes, and when Art was working with them, they distributed something like 9 million different booklets. One that was done was called “Living Water,” and it was based on this text that Art was working on. When I came back to Dallas, Texas in ’96, they already had the gospel of John in print, and Art asked me if I would want to work with him on the translation of these booklets. So we worked on Matthew, Mark and Luke, and we were starting work on Acts and Romans, and the people who were funding the thing decided that they didn’t want to fund a whole new translation. So, at that point, Broadman and Holman, who wanted to have their own translation—and that’s another reason you’ll see why that was done—Southern Baptists liked the NASB. They published Sunday school literature in it, and so on. They tried to buy the NASB three times, and they had it under contract, and the guy renigged, so, they looked at three or four other translations that were in process, and they came back to Art, because Art had been the Executive Editor of the NKJV, and they thought that he had the expertise and so on. So they made a deal, and Art was going to get a version of the MT translation, and he would have to have someone else work on the OT.

Will: Okay, that’s very helpful. I think that also answers why once Broadman and Holman took over, why they were so quick to publish the four gospels, because they were already in the works, is that correct?

Ed: For example, the gospel of John that Art had worked on, you can still find copies; it’s called “Living Water.” When we did our first thing, the first thing that we published was the gospel of John, but none of that was published while Art was alive. We started in April and at the end of August he had major surgery, and a clot broke loose, and he died. So he was only there 5 months, so I became the General Editor, and we worked on the gospel of John. We went through the text of the gospel of John 21 times. Now, actually, it would be nice if you could do that on every book. For example, Isaiah, we only got through 4 times. I think I spent 7 months on Isaiah. We used the software called Accordance. So we had a lot of advantages, so we were able to do a better product in a shorter amount of time for less money.

Will: When the project was in the works before Broadman and Holman took over did it have a name? Was it just called the Christian Standard Bible?

Ed: Actually Art had tried to use the term “Tyndale 21,” but he got an objection from Tyndale publishing house. So he changed the name from “Tyndale 21” to “Logos 21”—the Word for the 21^st century is what he had in mind.

Will: Along those lines, why did Broadman and Holman decide to call the translation the Holman Christian Standard Bible? Why not just the CSB?

Ed: That’s a very good question. If you’ll notice, more recent editions on the spine say “Holman” in small letters and in big letters “CSB.” There is a small publishing company called “Christian Standard Publishing.” They had published a magazine for maybe 70 or so years. They objected to “Christian Standard” being used. It actually went to arbitration, and the arbitration went in favor of Broadman and Holman. But they felt like they would use “Homan Christian Standard Bible” to help these people with their objection. But I think legally in the future you’ll see it being used as CSB.

Will: So we may see editions in the future that are just called the Christian Standard Bible.

Ed: Right.

Translation of the HCSB

Will: One of the things I really appreciate about the HCSB is the translation philosophy. How did you come up with the term “optimal equivalence” to describe the translation philosophy you used?

Ed: The way the term actually arose was, there was a guy who was one of our OT editors, named Price, and he had published a four volume study of the Masoretic accents. His name is James D. Price. James Price had written a little booklet called “Optimal Equivalence.” So we really owe that term to him.

Will: It seems that the HCSB has changed several familiar passages to reflect a more accurate rendering of the original text, such as John 3:16.

Ed: John 3:16 is probably the most famous. Mounce sent us an emailing saying that we’re the first translation that actually got John 3:16 correct. Instead of “for God so loved,” it’s actually, “God loved the world in this way.”

Will: What kind of discussions did you have about how changes like that might affect this version’s reception with a readership that may not understand the changes.

Ed: For example, LifeWay is a large company that is a revision of the old Southern Baptist Sunday School Board. As such it has trustees that are chosen from all the states, and they meet probably two to four years each. The guy that was the chairman of the trustee board at that time was also the head of the Gideons. The Gideons will not distribute a Bible that doesn’t have “only begotten Son.” Most Gideon Bibles are either King James or New King James. Zondervan did allow an edition of their Bible to be altered to appease the Gideon’s objections. So there’s actually a John 3:16 Gideon Bible in NIV. We had discussions on that and decided we wanted to go where the evidence lead. We actually would have liked to use the term his “unique Son.” If you say, “God gave his only Son,” or even like we have, “one and only Son,” there is a slight problem since we are called sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. But we couldn’t find a better term. We thought about using, “God sent his unique Son,” but the problem with “unique” is there are these word associations. For example, if a guy comes in the room, and you say, “There’s so-and-so; he’s rather unique,” it may have the connotation of oddness. We just felt that unique is a better word; it means really “one of a kind,” but the way it’s used in modern English, it has that hangover of oddness to it. Another thing you’ll find is that our translation has a lot more notes than any other standard translation. Ours also has twice as many textual footnotes of any translation. We have a lot more and more accurate footnotes. Here are three books that, if you ask me what the three most difficult books in the Bible are, I’d say 1 John, Song of Solomon and the book of Revelation. The reason 1 John is difficult—easiest Greek—but most difficult because it does not have as many connectives, there’s no historical background, and it uses a lot of abstract language, like light, love, and so on. Song of Solomon, people don’t even agree about whether it’s talking about a married couple, two horny teenagers in the back of a chariot, God and Israel or God and the Church. So, people don’t even know whether there are two characters or three characters. Song of Songs is very, very tough. The book of Revelation of course has its own unique things. For example, ESV has 10 notes on 1 John. HCSB has 35. ESV has 29 on Song of Solomon. HCSB has 85. ESV has 65 notes on Revelation, but 15 are the same note on the word “bondservant.” HCSB on Revelation has 251 footnotes, plus an additional 29 bullet notes. So we have a lot more information if a person is trying to find out exactly what the book of Revelation is saying. For example, we clarify terms like “Armageddon.” Also, we’re one of the few translations besides the Jerusalem Bible—it’s a Roman Catholic translation, but they use Yahweh consistently. We have Yahweh 75 times. The King James has Jehovah in 6 or 7 places. ESV follows the traditional LORD, but Lord is not a name, it’s a title. So in the 75 places in your Bible where the word “name” occurs, like it says, “Yahweh is my name; my glory I will not give to another,” so we’re sort of breaking new ground here. Everybody’s following the traditional LORD for the name of God.

Will: So did you decide to use Yahweh only in places where God says, “This is my name,” or where there is some association with the name? For example, in Joshua 24 God is making a clear distinction between himself and the pagan Gods, yet you’ve translated it Lord instead of Yahweh.

Ed: In the second edition that will come out in 2009, we’ll have Yahweh in it around 400 times. The only reason Yahweh’s in there at all is that I had to fight tooth and nail; even all the Hebrew guys wanted to stick with the tradition. You’ll find it interesting that the NLT second edition has put the name Yahweh in a few places. Bruce Waltke’s OT theology has just come out, and interestingly enough he doesn’t particularly like “Yahweh.” He’s published three different books. In one book he published—his Proverbs commentary—he used “LORD.” He used “Yahweh” in his Genesis commentary. Now in his OT theology he uses “I AM,” which I think is a little odd. I mean, there’s no tradition for the use of “I AM.” Also, regarding the controversy over the translation of doulos, all the English translations except ours translates doulos either as “servant” or “bondservant.” But there is a big difference between a slave and a servant. A servant gets paid, has certain rights, can quit, can change owners, etc. A slave doesn’t get paid, belongs to somebody, and so on. Murray Harris of Trinity Seminary has written a book on the slave of Christ showing that there’s a loss of a significant Pauline metaphor by mistranslating doulos as “servant” or “bondservant.” ESV feels like they have to put a footnote every time, and every time that they do it, they say, “or slave.” Then they say, “Greek, ‘bondservant,’” but if you look at a standard Greek lexicon, BDAG, it’s against this. In other words, an ESV reader would think he’s getting insight into what the Greek really says, but the standard Greek lexicon says that only English translations in America are using the stupid translation of “servant” or “bondservant”; the word is “slave.” If you read a text that says, “You are not your own; you’ve been bought with a price,” you’re really a slave; you belong to him. Now obviously it’s a metaphor, you’re a son, but you’re a slave; but we’re the only translation that has that one right. For example there’s a Hebrew expression that’s carried over into NT Greek; it wasn’t really translated, “Amen, Amen.” Now I suppose you could do, “Amen, Amen.” We have a note, we translate it as, “I assure you.” ESV goes with, “Truly, truly.” How many people say “Truly, truly” or “verily, verily”? Also I think you’ll find that the Hebrew word torah is better translated as “instruction” or “teaching.” The modern Hebrew lexicons all favor this. ESV sticks with “the Law” as in Psalm 1. We have “the Lord’s instruction.” Torah is the term that the Jews use for the first 5 books of the Bible. Genesis is Torah, which is God’s instruction, but it doesn’t contain the Laws as we use the term—so like in Psalm 1, “Blessed is the man who meditates on the Lord’s instruction,” rather than on “the Law.” The Law is 613 commands, positive and negative. I don’t know anybody who meditates day and night on those 613. What does the modern reader make of these words: Molech, Asheroth, Astoreth, Samirtan, firstfruits, atonement, propitiation? See, we offer explanations and definitions for all of them; ESV does not.

Will: Speaking of words, what drove the decision to keep some very technical theological terms like propitiation, justification and sanctification?

Ed: Romans chapter 3, verse 24, “They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood.” And we have a footnote, and the footnote is fairly long. It says, “Or as a propitiatory sacrifice, or as an offering of atonement, or as a mercy seat; see Heb 9:5. The word propitiation has to do with the removal of divine wrath. Jesus’ death is the means that turns God’s wrath from the sinner; see 2 Co 5:21.” We could have done Romans 3:25 without the word propitiation. We could have said that Jesus is God’s means of turning his wrath away from the sinner by the person believing in the death of his son, but we decided that we wanted to keep traditional theological language but make it understandable.

Will: Just a couple of other word choices that come up every time this discussion takes place it seems would be why you chose “deluge” instead of “flood” in Genesis, and why “atmospheric domain” in Ephesians 2?

Ed: Yes, we got rid of that. That’ll be changed. “Atmospheric domain” is gone. That’s actually a definition in one of the lexicons and is probably a bad choice. And we got rid of “deluge” too. Here’s a number of words that were in the HCSB that we revised. For example, “hewn” or “hewed,” “estranged,” “execration,” most of these we have changed or taken out, like “scabbard,” normally people use the word “sheath” now. So we do have a number of words we have changed. For example, TNIV, and a lot of people would say the TNIV is a very modern translation, here are these words that we found a little strange in the TNIV: “astir,” “to no avail,” “nought,” “self-abasement,” “kindred,” not necessarily bad, but unusual, “suckling,” “slew,” “unsandled,” “unwary.” Here’s a couple that are interesting: “nor,” TNIV’s got it 322 times, NIV’s got it 328, we have it 42 times. “Upon,” rather than just say “on,” NIV had “upon” 351 times, TNIV cut it down to 97. We have it only 4 times. “Toil” we don’t use at all, they use it 39 times. “Thus” NIV has it 32 times, TNIV has it 29 times, we have it zero. Our goal was to be more accurate than the NASB, and to be as readable as the NIV if possible. Sometimes we can’t be as readable because they’re paraphrasing, and a paraphrase is easier. But we tried to make it easy to read. You’ll see some people say, “Well, you’re not really more accurate than the NASB are you?” And I would say, “Oh yes we are.” For example, 1 Corinthians 7:36, the question is what does it mean when it says, “If any man thinks he is acting improperly toward his virgin”? If you look at HCSB we have a footnote, and we give 4 different understandings of the word “virgin”: (1) a man’s fiancé, (2) his daughter, (3) his Levirite wife, or (4) a celibate companion. We would say we’re more accurate; we give you four choices, and we put them in the order of our preference.

Will: Why did you choose the lower corner brackets instead of italics to indicate supplied words?

Ed: That was a decision, I think, long ago when we started, that Art was pretty insistent on. He says that the average person thinks that something that’s in italics is more important. And what we’re really saying if you use them is that it’s not there. So the average reader who picks up a Bible and sees an italicized word, he doesn’t know that that’s a supplied word; he thinks it’s an important word.

Will: Well let me kind of turn the question around and ask why even use brackets or italics at all? It seems like the philosophy of optimal equivalence would make that unnecessary.

Ed: I think that’s true, but there are some places, particularly in the OT where the Hebrew is very, very terse, and you might have to add 3 or 4 words in order to get meaning out of a sentence, particularly in a book like Jeremiah. There we just sort of felt that some of these we want to let the reader know with a footnote saying, “The Hebrew is difficult” or something like that.

Will: That sounds, though, like just a natural part of the translation process.

Ed: Yes, you could do that. I suppose one of the reasons for doing it was to be able to say that we are as literal as possible.

Will: What about capitalized pronouns for terms relating to deity?

Ed: That’s a difficult one; I wasn’t in agreement on that, but that was a decision that was made early on by Art. There are several things when you work on a translation that you don’t have much choice on. For example, virtually everybody who worked on this translation hates red-letter editions. But most publishers argue that everybody wants them, the market, that is. So I personally don’t use a red-letter edition. The HCSB is out in a Minister’s Bible that does not have red-letter. Art was opposed to it; he argued that 7-8% of American males are color blind. So the red letter is harder to read for a significant number of men. Also it has bad theology that these words are more important than the other words. But it’s a tradition that goes back a long time. Even in the medieval period people did purple lettering and red lettering, and I think really the American Bible publishers around the turn of the century added that as one of their features on their boxes that they ship the stuff on: “words of Christ in red.” We have argued and argued and argued, but to no avail on that one.

Will: Would you mind clarifying a little bit the position you took on the gender issue when approaching the HCSB. I know there is info in the preface, but maybe elaborate a little bit.

Ed: KJV and even NIV are overly “masculine” judged by modern standards.  In the Introduction to the HCSB, our policy is explained. As an example, NIV in Romans 12:6-9 has  “man”, “his”, or “him”  nine times in their text where the Greek does not have a masculine word.  On the other hand the TNIV has gone overboard to become “gender neutral” and removed (or changed to plurals) “he” , “him” or “man” from places where the Hebrew or the Greek  does have a masculine form (see Psalm 1).  Our goal was to be “gender accurate”. The  book “The TNIV and The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy” (494 pp.) written by Poythress and Grudem and published by B & H explores and clarifies the issues involved.

Marketing of the HCSB

Will: Speaking of marketing, let me ask you just a few marketing questions. There seems to be a feeling at times that this is a Baptist translation.

Ed: Yes, there are a couple of things you probably want to clarify to people to help them. First of all Art was not a Baptist; he was Brethren. I’m not a Baptist; I’m a Presbyterian. So the General Editor in both cases was not a Baptist. The Southern Baptist contingent was maybe 1/3 of the translators. Also, you might remember that the Southern Baptists at 16 million members are by far the largest Protestant denomination. So if we worked on a numerical basis, we probably would have had more Southern Baptists. They are the largest of the seminaries as well, so there would be a lot more people to choose from.

Will: The endorsements for the HCSB seem to be somewhat lacking. When I look on the HCSB website, the list there is not a list that’s full of great theologians and scholars. There are some popular men on the list as well as some theologians, but in addition it’s a short list. But when I look at the endorsements, for example, on the ESV website, there’s a very long list of very highly respected theologians, pastors and scholars. So, two questions: first, is Broadman and Holman trying to get more and better endorsements, and secondly, why do you think that the ESV was able to garner that kind of support while the HCSB was not?

Ed: That’s an interesting question. ESV might be better marketers. Sometimes people are given something if they give an endorsement. It’s customary in the publishing industry if a person gives an endorsement that you send them a nice bound copy of that Bible. ESV started out probably 2 years before us, so they had the jump. By the way, I’m not sure if you know this, but ESV is not selling half as well as we are.

Will: Actually, I have in front of me CBA’s recent list of best-sellers, and based on dollar sales I see that HCSB is at number 5 and ESV is at number 7.

Ed: Here’s something else that the average person doesn’t realize. When you publish a Bible you pay usually 7% to the holders of the copyright. So if Broadman and Holman wanted to do an NIV apologetics study Bible they would have to go to Zondervan to get permission not only for the text, but also for the concept. If Zondervan wanted to publish it themselves, they would be permitted to do it. Broadman and Holman wanted to do a translation because they thought the Bible was too important to leave up to Zondervan or the International Bible Society to determine what text you’re going to have available. Also, they wanted to do certain products and publications, and they didn’t want to have to share whatever they’re doing with Zondervan before they publish it.

Will: What about the HCSB website? Any chance we’ll see an update to that soon?

Ed: I have very little knowledge of it. I think it’s hard to use, and if you go to Broadman and Holman you can send a recommendation in to them.

Will: There seem to be a lot of people who want information about the HCSB.

Ed: There are a lot people who have misinformation too. One of the blogs, the guy wrote that this was a translation that the SBC did to put in their Sunday school literature in place of the NIV. The fact of the matter is the SBC never endorsed or promoted this translation. And if you know about the Southern Baptists, each church is independent and can use whatever translation they want. The SBC did come out later against the NIV’s change to the unisex. When we started this project, though, the SBC had nothing to do with it. LifeWay corporation paid the bills, but that’s a different entity than the convention. It’s not a Baptist translation. I was at one of the Southern Baptist booths and we had pastors come up and some of them wanted us to put “immersion” in every place where it says baptism. I said, “Well, are you going to change the name of your church to the First Immersionist Church?” Of course they’re not going to do that. Certain things are traditional. A lot of people will say the motives were all financial. Of course none of us made any royalties. No individual got royalties. That’s different from the Philips version or The Message where they own the copyright.

Will: Let me ask you, just to wrap up here, what kind of study Bibles or study tools can we expect to see in the future that use the HCSB?

Ed: There’s an edition of the Scofield Bible with the HCSB now. Oxford of course has made a lot of money off the Scofield. You can get a Scofield in NIV, NASB and ESV, so they’re just trying to sell Bibles. In fact, the story goes that Oxford publishing would have gone down the drain if they had not published the Scofield Bible. But that’s a nice edition if you like the Scofield. The Apologetics study Bible has notes that are more related to apologetic issues. That one is out. The study Bible we’re working on will come out in 2009.

Will: Is there anything else you would like for people to know about the HCSB?

Ed: I would think that one of the things that is sort of surprising to me is that I have not seen any kind of extensive review in any of the theological journals that I look at. Evidently they don’t really review translations that often. You don’t really see reviews of translations very often at all. I don’t know that there’s a big discussion of the values of the language and so on. But it’s a little disappointing in a way that there has not been a descent review of the HCSB.

Will: You’re working on a paper for ETS, correct?

Ed: Yes, I’m planning on it. That should attract a certain amount of attention.

Will: Well, thank you, Dr. Blum for the interview.

Ed: Thank you.

If you were looking for a new Bible these days, you could easily become overwhelmed with the plethora of translations to choose from. From humanistic and irreverent paraphrases and “Biblezines” to interlinear multi-language study Bibles, there is certainly no lack of translations available across the theological spectrum. So why have the folks at Holman Publishers (now B&H Publishing Group) decided to grace us with another new translation?

I grew up on the KJV and had no trouble understanding basic Elizabethan English by the time I was in Jr. High. When I went to college I began using the NASB in an effort to force me to pay closer attention to the text rather than simply breezing across passages that sounded very familiar. It was amazing how I had come to take the text for granted and how simply reading in a new translation helped me pay closer attention to the text.

When I began working with teens several years ago, I began using the NIV. I noticed that when I asked teens to read from their King James Bibles they could not explain the passages at all. When I had them read from an updated English translation, however, they quickly grasped the main ideas of the text. We cut out a lot of “wasted” time simply updating the language for 21st century English speakers.

So why am I now considering switching to yet another new translation? Am I caught up in the “new translation” fads? I don’t think so! With each translation change I have been delighted and frustrated simultaneously. With the switch to the NASB I was thrilled with the accuracy of translation that included recent scholarly studies, but I was disappointed with its reading difficulty. With the change to the NIV I was excited about its reading ease and its translation accuracy, but I was frustrated several times with translation choices (e.g., the translation of sarx in Romans as “sinful nature”).

I began reading the Holman Christian Standard Bible online several months ago and was greatly impressed. My dad bought me a print version several weeks ago, and I have been more than impressed…I have been thrilled! Here are some of the features of the HCSB that have made me a “convert” to this fantastic translation.

1. Reading Ease — The HCSB reads like a well-written work of literature. The dialogue sounds like dialogue and the narrative sounds like narrative and the poetry sounds like poetry. It’s enjoyable to read and to listen to.

2. Translation Courage — The HCSB does not bow to tradition, but to accuracy when it comes to translation. For years I have been frustrated over the misinterpretation of John 3:16 as, “God loved the world so much that….” The HCSB correctly translates the houtos in that phrase as “in this way.” “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, HCSB). This and other translation acuracies demonstrate the commitment the tranlators have to the meaning of the original text.

3. Interpretation Options — The HCSB leaves purposely ambiguous phrases as such instead of selecting a particular interpretation. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 has an awkward phrase that often gets interpreted in translations. The HCSB leaves the phrase vague so that different interpretations are possible. NOTE: Of course it is not a good idea to leave phrases vague that should be and could be translated in a specific way, but texts about which there may be legitimate differences of interpretation, the HCSB is honest about and leaves vague.

4. Theological Terms — The HCSB retains theological terms such as grace, propitiation, justification, righteousness, etc.

There are many other features of the HCSB that I have thoroughly enjoyed. I’m sure as I continue to use this translation over the coming years I may find things that I would do differently, but I would definitely give the Holman Christian Standard Bible high marks! I used to use the NASB for studying and the NIV for teaching/preaching. With the HCSB I now have one translation that works well for both. I encourage you to read it online at hcsb.broadmanholman.com. Or, better yet, go buy the $8 paperback version and feast on the Word! Let me know if you do and what you think.