A nice review! I really like the HCSB in the study Bible version partly due to your earlier review. Seems like every translation has it pluses and minuses so one has to somewhat compromise! No “perfect” translation!! Oh well!
I have a 2004, but mine is the 4th printing. I followed along with mine and it's identical to yours. I much prefer the font in this old Hcsb, to the csb font. I find the font of the csb, difficult to read, because the letters are tall. Thankful to have this 2004 Hcsb.
May I know your opinion on 1Timothy 1:19..... Because the verse from the HCSB 2004 edition is different to that of the CSB 2017 edition... the HCSB 2004 states ".....having faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected THESE and have...".....while the CSB 2017 states "....having faith and a good conscience, WHICH some have rejected..." In the 2004 HCSB faith and good conscience were rejected while in the 2017 CSB only good conscience was rejected. I was able to read a commentary on I Timothy by John Stott and the commentary says that what was rejected was conscience..... May I know your position on this ... Thank you...
I preferred the HCSB to the CAB but gave all the HCSB Bibles to others. Kind of wish I had kept an HCSB, but I have an ESV, NASB, NKJV (although the print is too small now unless I’m in an area where there’s a lot of light), and of course KJV. Good review.
If only the NASB 2020 and the LSB had followed the HCSB in using corner brackets instead of continuing to use italics. Please stop shouting at me, Lockman Foundation. In regards to the CSB, though, I actually prefer the less invasive formatting of the newest edition: in a translation that isn't pedantically literal, I want the text to be as free of visual clutter as possible. The HCSB was trying too hard to be the NASB when it's much closer in literalness to the NRSV. The same thing could be said about the theological words they chose to mark with bullet points: that's a feature that would actually be nice to see in the NASB, but it feels out of place in this translation. That also goes for the capitalized deity pronouns of the 2004 text, which are distracting and needlessly interpretive in any translation. So too, a translation in this range should have some level of gender-accurate language, and the CSB handles this matter far more successfully than the earlier HCSB. I don't necessarily mind this version's limited use of the Tetragrammaton in transliterated form, which can be useful if it's done sparingly and in the appropriate contexts. (The LSB's decision to do it consistently has the unfortunate effect of reinserting the Unitarian bias of the original ASV!)
I’m so disappointed. You didn’t actually *COMPARE* the 2004 version with the 2009. When I saw the title of this video, I was expecting to hear actual comparisons of what was changed in the 2009 revision compared to the 2004. I bought a copy of the 2009 version specifically because of its decision to use the name Yahweh in way more scriptures (in place of LORD), because that’s what should have been used. The other thing the 2009 revision did was to use the CORRECT translation of the Greek word “doulos” as *slave* instead of“servant” or “bondservant”, in a lot more places than the 2004 vers. There’s a big difference between a servant and a slave. A servant is paid for working, but a slave is *owned*. The 2017 CSB revision completely ruined all of that. For some reason it took out those uses of Yahweh and replaced it with LORD again. And it removed those usages of “slave” and changed it back to the wrong, but more politically correct word, “servant”. The 2009 version was *bold* and did what other Bible translations were afraid to do. It’s sad that today’s CSB is now just like all the others. Anyway, I knew what *some* of the the 2009 changes were, but I didn’t know all of them, and I was really hoping this video was going to examine those things.☹️
I like how the 2004 logo foreshadows where the name of the translation is headed.
A nice review! I really like the HCSB in the study Bible version partly due to your earlier review. Seems like every translation has it pluses and minuses so one has to somewhat compromise! No “perfect” translation!! Oh well!
This is one of my very favorite translations, along with the nkjv
I have a 2004, but mine is the 4th printing. I followed along with mine and it's identical to yours.
I much prefer the font in this old Hcsb, to the csb font. I find the font of the csb, difficult to read, because the letters are tall. Thankful to have this 2004 Hcsb.
Thanks for the review Tim. 👍
May I know your opinion on 1Timothy 1:19..... Because the verse from the HCSB 2004 edition is different to that of the CSB 2017 edition... the HCSB 2004 states ".....having faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected THESE and have...".....while the CSB 2017 states "....having faith and a good conscience, WHICH some have rejected..." In the 2004 HCSB faith and good conscience were rejected while in the 2017 CSB only good conscience was rejected. I was able to read a commentary on I Timothy by John Stott and the commentary says that what was rejected was conscience..... May I know your position on this ... Thank you...
I preferred the HCSB to the CAB but gave all the HCSB Bibles to others. Kind of wish I had kept an HCSB, but I have an ESV, NASB, NKJV (although the print is too small now unless I’m in an area where there’s a lot of light), and of course KJV. Good review.
If only the NASB 2020 and the LSB had followed the HCSB in using corner brackets instead of continuing to use italics. Please stop shouting at me, Lockman Foundation. In regards to the CSB, though, I actually prefer the less invasive formatting of the newest edition: in a translation that isn't pedantically literal, I want the text to be as free of visual clutter as possible. The HCSB was trying too hard to be the NASB when it's much closer in literalness to the NRSV. The same thing could be said about the theological words they chose to mark with bullet points: that's a feature that would actually be nice to see in the NASB, but it feels out of place in this translation.
That also goes for the capitalized deity pronouns of the 2004 text, which are distracting and needlessly interpretive in any translation. So too, a translation in this range should have some level of gender-accurate language, and the CSB handles this matter far more successfully than the earlier HCSB. I don't necessarily mind this version's limited use of the Tetragrammaton in transliterated form, which can be useful if it's done sparingly and in the appropriate contexts. (The LSB's decision to do it consistently has the unfortunate effect of reinserting the Unitarian bias of the original ASV!)
I’m so disappointed. You didn’t actually *COMPARE* the 2004 version with the 2009. When I saw the title of this video, I was expecting to hear actual comparisons of what was changed in the 2009 revision compared to the 2004. I bought a copy of the 2009 version specifically because of its decision to use the name Yahweh in way more scriptures (in place of LORD), because that’s what should have been used. The other thing the 2009 revision did was to use the CORRECT translation of the Greek word “doulos” as *slave* instead of“servant” or “bondservant”, in a lot more places than the 2004 vers. There’s a big difference between a servant and a slave. A servant is paid for working, but a slave is *owned*.
The 2017 CSB revision completely ruined all of that. For some reason it took out those uses of Yahweh and replaced it with LORD again. And it removed those usages of “slave” and changed it back to the wrong, but more politically correct word, “servant”. The 2009 version was *bold* and did what other Bible translations were afraid to do. It’s sad that today’s CSB is now just like all the others.
Anyway, I knew what *some* of the the 2009 changes were, but I didn’t know all of them, and I was really hoping this video was going to examine those things.☹️
This bibles are not representing original