My church uses the NIV. I am surprised that there aren't more Baptist churches using the HCSB.
It's all in the marketing. The HCSB was quite poorly marketed. One blogger commented that back on black Friday the HCSBSB was $10 @ Lifeway, and he didn't see a single person walk out of his local (busy) Lifeway store with one in hand. Obviously, that's anecdotal, but you cannot buy it in local stores (which is still primarily where your older population will purchase things) and then even some of the larger non-Christian book retailers don't carry them or carry very few.
Additionally, Holman pretty much started out marketing the HCSBSB, HCSB Apologetics Bible, and then a bunch of hokey specific Bibles like the "Airman's Bible" and that was pretty much it. It was difficult for a while to find the assorted types (thinline, large print, etc) outside of a few websites.
This is pure speculation on my end, but I think the primary value of the HCSB for the SBC was in the literature material; they no longer needed to pay royalties. I don't know that they anticipated it being a "good" translation that would catch on beyond SBC and SBC-associated circles. It has a very small toe-hold in some Lutheran and Presbyterian circles. They didn't do what Crossway did with the ESV in terms of media, and they were also far behind the NIV which is pretty much the de facto Bible version on major Bible sites like Bible Gateway.
However, resources like MyStudyBible.com are getting the HCSB out there more. I did notice that it jumped the ESV on the CBA list for this month. Obviously that changes (the CEB was outselling it a few months ago), but I think the HCSB has a better chance of being the next NIV than the ESV.
As for the NLT, I think it a solid translation. You do lose much of the figurative language, but to me it's still the Bible. I actually use it for my youth, but I do incorporate other versions as well.
However, I agree that only one translation, whether that be NLT, NIV, KJV, NASB, ESV, etc, should not be the sole translation used for sermons and Bible studies. For preachers and Bible teachers who don't know the original languages, a comparison of a range of English translations should give a guide to the meaning of the original languages.
I agree; the only rub I think comes in the ability/temptation to select the Bible version that makes my "point" the best. A number of folks hold to the KJV because certain arguments can be made out of it because of translation choices. I think the same error can come about with using too many different translations for everything. There's a nice middle ground that the good pastors and teachers find that take advantage of the blessing side of the many versions we have.
I used to be a part of the Gideon's ministry, and I am still a card carrying member, and I can tell you, and as a pastor you are probably aware, we were always instructed to carry the KJV as our public copy and all of our regular reading was from the KJV. One of the reasons that I am no longer a participating part of that ministry is the stir I would sometimes cause because I would bring an NIV translation to the Saturday morning prayer and reading meetings.
Ted, that's pretty much how I understand it. I've heard that the NKJV was considered, but that it was a cost-prohibitive choice, so Gideons stuck with the KJV. I would assume the usual TR/MT arguments apply in this case.
