Like Joe, I could see myself using the ESV more (the HCSB is my main translation right now) but the English is just too choppy and unnatural in many places.  I would rather have a translation that had a little more DE in it (HCSB) that reads naturally than one that presents difficulties in reading – that will always distract from the message.

The only reason I have one, is because I got the study bible, I am always looking for background/culture type information which these notes sometimes do a great job on. If they did not come out with the study bible, I would just be using the free online versions.

Brent, I really like the NET as well. I got the 1st edition with NT Diglot.

The HCSB revisions (some of which are OK, others not so much) are leading me to believe they are inching more towards the dynamic equivalence side. So we may just need to start using it in that way.

I too think the NET does not receive enough attention. No one else in my congregation probably even knows about it :-). Perhaps I will start using it if I really dislike all the HCSB revisions!

The NLT is nice too, there are some passages which seem to be slanted a particular way that I do not care for.  I can probably say this about every translation though right :-), it is just more common with dynamic equivalence.

I had read the John sample/draft(?) of SENT (the Spoken English New Testament), and there was something that bugged me enough to put it away. Since then, I have, I guess what is in print, and what bugged me, no longer seems to be there. Sweet! I think I’d like to see the ESV sound more like the Spoken English New Testament. There are some useful footnotes too in this. Do you know if a Old Testament is planned? What would they call that? The SEOT?