I should mention the other thing that surprised me about the book store was how popular the amplified bible is. They had about a 1/2 dozen different versions of it. I don’t know anyone who uses the AMP online. Very very different culture.

Here’s a look at a more traditional HCSB.

I don’t think I’d rate a bible on how well they handle Psalms since its a different sort of literary motif.

Agreed – it was just the first comparison that I thought of. At one point I had started a second version of my “Wretched Translations” post (most popular post on the site) adding the TNIV and NET, but put it aside at one point and never came back to it.

The “I use paper and don’t own it” makes sense. It is a pricey bible.

If they produced a decently bound hardback of the full version, I’d probably get it. I don’t understand why they’ve chosen not to make an inexpensive hardback version available. In any case, I’ll try to use their online tools in some future posts and see how they compare.

Greek + English + details on all the tricky translations (from the notes).

_____

In terms of the HCSB vs. the NET and verbosity. Interesting point. I’ll keep my eye on that one. I have never taken a serious look at the HCSB till the Illustrated version. The NET I’ve been a fan of for years. I don’t think I’d rate a bible on how well they handle Psalms since its a different sort of literary motif.

I love Marlow’s site and his review of the NET in my Isaiah 7:14 I cite him as the best example of giving an apology for the opposite position than the one I advocate. I need to find that Hosea article he mentioned I didn’t know he did a second review.

My feeling about the NET (electronic) is that between the notes and their Greek tools you get a really strong sense of the text. Sort of a good quality reverse interlinear. At the same time if you ignore the notes you have a bible as readable as the NIV.

But again I wasn’t lobbying for the NET to be included I was just wondering why you and TC … tended not to include it in your verse articles. The “I use paper and don’t own it” makes sense. It is a pricey bible.

You very often have good stuff say but I often have trouble understanding your comments the first time through

.

I see some good on that.

Anyway the point of my question was whether it had already been excluded for some reason. Given I’m not sure I quite follow your comment my response would be that neither the TNIV nor the HCSB explains their translation choices nearly as well. Further the NET doesn’t read the NT LXX back into the MT/OT the way the TNIV and HCSB does. Also at least in my experience the NET seems pretty accurate for an evangelical translation. It seems to be one of the best in capturing tense, position of negation….

CD-Host, I’m in complete agreement in not reading back the New into the translation of the Old Testament.

I hope this is free of cryptic-language.

That is true of almost every other English translation and I’d be hard pressed to argue against the NET if translation notes were your primary selection criteria.

I will explain my response in a little more detail, allowing TC to reply on his own terms. In the comparisons I’ve done, the NET has struck me as using a mix of NIV language and KJV/ESV language, much like the HCSB, but with a much more verbose writing style. Perhaps this is more accurate to the Hebrew or Greek, but the HCSB struck me as more concise and idiomatic in its English.

For an example, see this post and this post from my Psalm 91 series.

Further the NET doesn’t read the NT LXX back into the MT/OT the way the TNIV and HCSB does.

I agree. For some more discussion specifically about the NET along these lines, see this post.

You very often have good stuff say but I often have trouble understanding your comments the first time through.
I don’t know what the CBD is.

Anyway the point of my question was whether it had already been excluded for some reason. Given I’m not sure I quite follow your comment my response would be that neither the TNIV nor the HCSB explains their translation choices nearly as well. Further the NET doesn’t read the NT LXX back into the MT/OT the way the TNIV and HCSB does. Also at least in my experience the NET seems pretty accurate for an evangelical translation. It seems to be one of the best in capturing tense, position of negation….

CD-Host, I reference the NET online from time to time, but like Elshaddai said, versions like the TNIV and the HCSB have what you’re already looking for in a good translation.

I purchased a copy from CBD but sent it back. I plugged out $50.00, but when I got to Romans 3:21-26, I had a problem. I always look up every translation on that section, for it’s my favorite.

I couldn’t get passed “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in the NET for all the money I paid. If it were a $20 Hardcover, then yes, but not geniune leather for $50.

Modern scholarship still favors “faith in Jesus,” treating the genitive as objective, not the subjective “faithfulness of Jesus.” That’s another post, by the way.

Nothing nefarious, just using the tools I have on my bookshelf… But, because you asked, here is the NET on these verse:

4 For my sins overwhelm me; like a heavy load, they are too much for me to bear.
5 My wounds are infected and starting to smell, because of my foolish sins.