Comments on: Not another Bible, please

By: MetaCatholic » Catholics translate the Bible too

MetaCatholic » Catholics translate the Bible too — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:03:44 +0000

[...] to this interview with Dr. Ed Blum, General Editor of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I have previously criticised this translation for what I think are inconsistencies and biases, though I’m quite prepared to accept other [...]

By: doug

doug — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:35:40 +0000

Gary, I’ve tried to explore what needs to be worked at to move in this direction in a more recent post.

By: Gary Zimmerli

Gary Zimmerli — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:04:47 +0000

So, Doug, how do they come up with a universally acceptable text when people disagree so vociferously about what is acceptable and what is not?

By: E pluribus unum… In search of a common Bible « He is Sufficient

E pluribus unum… In search of a common Bible « He is Sufficient — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:23:00 +0000

[...] for the HCSB after years with the KJV, NIV and NASB. In contrast, Doug at Metacatholic found little to like in the text or the philosophy behind the [...]

By: doug

doug — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:42:59 +0000

ElShaddai, that comment was made about lots of different Bibles being published for lots of different target groups, not about translations as such. I don’t think there is a translation that serves as a universal text, but I am sure that translators should aim for a universally acceptable text rather than a partisan one.

By: ElShaddai Edwards

ElShaddai Edwards — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:40:22 +0000

It seems to derogate from the universality of the one gospel.

So what translation, then, do you recommend that does (or should) serve as a universal text? Just curious…

By: doug

doug — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:36:12 +0000

Peter, you said:
I don’t think you should reject something just because it is commended by Pat Robertson, just as I don’t reject this post because it is commended by Jim West.
Fair enough, but it is enough to make me very suspicious, not least of the translators’ sanity in soliciting a commendation from him.

By: Peter Kirk

Peter Kirk — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:10:20 +0000

Doug, I agree in having serious reservations about “The idea of customised Bibles for target audiences”. It is indeed appalling if there are Bibles for wives, husbands etc etc but none for other groups of people. But it is slightly less appalling if no one is left out. So, given that there are customised Bibles for other groups, it is right that there is also one for gays etc. I say this without intending to take any position on wider gay issues.

the words of Jesus in red … surely a typographical denial of the inspiration of scripture

Well said!

I see it is commended by, among others, Pat Robertson.

I don’t think you should reject something just because it is commended by Pat Robertson, just as I don’t reject this post because it is commended by Jim West.

“Highly Conservative Southern Baptist” version

Chuck, is this name intended to imply that there are Southern Baptists who are not highly conservative?

By: Chuck Grantham

Chuck Grantham — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:54:04 +0000

I’ve joking referred to the HCSB as the “Highly Conservative Southern Baptist” version. Fellow Southern Baptists have told me to be quiet.

It reputedly came about as a way for Lifeway to avoid paying large fees for use of the NIV in church literature.

While I think the trend for these ever smaller and more bizarre target audience bibles miss the point in a big way, I can’t say I blame the publishers for trying to maximize the sales of a limited product line somehow.

By: Iyov

Iyov — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:03:30 +0000

I used to think that the Holman Christian Standard Bible was poorly named, but now I’ve changed my opinion: it is perfectly named — the title indicates that it is a sectarian fundamentalist translation, and I cannot disagree with this self-assessment.