Found a problem with the Holman Christian Standard Bible

[TomVols]

According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.

"Conservative" men do not follow academic fads.

Such a sweeping generalization is uncalled for and disappointing.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Such a sweeping generalization is uncalled for and disappointing.

I don't think that Rev. Winzer was intending to make a "sweeping generalization". I think that he was simply pointing out that, by definition, a conservative person is not one who is apt to follow new thinking that has not been firmly established. Those of us who prefer the AV are not trying to imply that newer versions are neccesarily inferior, we are simply not as convinced of the superiority of the CT as the scholars are. One might argue that these scholars are experts, and as such we should listen to them. We are not denying that they experts, but many experts in many different fields have been absolutely sure about things one day only to change their tune when more evidence was discovered. A conservative man is more influenced by 400 years of history than by what scholars would say.

 

[Herald]

Such a sweeping generalization is uncalled for and disappointing.

I don't think that Rev. Winzer was intending to make a "sweeping generalization". I think that he was simply pointing out that, by definition, a conservative person is not one who is apt to follow new thinking that has not been firmly established. Those of us who prefer the AV are not trying to imply that newer versions are neccesarily inferior, we are simply not as convinced of the superiority of the CT as the scholars are. One might argue that these scholars are experts, and as such we should listen to them. We are not denying that they experts, but many experts in many different fields have been absolutely sure about things one day only to change their tune when more evidence was discovered. A conservative man is more influenced by 400 years of history than by what scholars would say.

Bill, most who hold to the preservation view of the AV do believe the CT is inferior. That's why the debate is so vigorous. If it's simply a matter of preference then there is no debate.

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Bill, most who hold to the preservation view of the AV do believe the CT is inferior. That's why the debate is so vigorous. If it's simply a matter of preference then there is no debate.

I think we all know that there are some seriously crazy people out there who think that the KJV is superior to even the original Greek texts. I don't think that Rev. Winzer nor myself would fall into that category.

 

[TomVols]

I don't think that Rev. Winzer was intending to make a "sweeping generalization". I think that he was simply pointing out that, by definition, a conservative person is not one who is apt to follow new thinking that has not been firmly established.

Then that's what should've been said. I agree, by the way, with what you're saying.

A conservative man is more influenced by 400 years of history than by what scholars would say.

It goes deeper than this, however. Is something right because it's been held for a long time? Of course not. Something is accurate or not based on evidence. It would be equally fallacious to say that Reformed theology must be jettisoned because it's in vogue, or a "fad."

Thanks! Take care of my buddy Dr. Akin

 

[DMcFadden]

Ecclesia semper reformanda est.

If we truly believe in the Reformational principle of semper reformanda, I would think that we would be desirous of conserving that which is good and not yielding to fads, theological or ecclesiastical, and simultaneously approaching our tradition with fresh eyes and hearts open to progressing wherever possible.

In practice, however, most of tend to err on one end of the continuum or the other. We either dig in our heels to such an extent that we could give lessons in stubbornness to mules or we kick over the traces in our race to the next new thing.

I appreciated hearing from an actual translator of the HCSB since it is one of my two favorite CT translations (second only to the ESV).

And, since my knowledge of textual criticism is far from adequate respecting the Hebrew text, my opinions here are much less well informed than with regard to the NT where the arguments for the Byzantine text have had a significant impact on my thinking.

 

[TomVols]

If we truly believe in the Reformational principle of semper reformanda, I would think that we would be desirous of conserving that which is good and not yielding to fads, theological or ecclesiastical, and simultaneously approaching our tradition with fresh eyes and hearts open to progressing wherever possible.

Well said and worth saying.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Thanks! Take care of my buddy Dr. Akin

I will do my best to take care of him, he has certainly been good to us. Dr. Patterson ran off all the liberals, and Dr. Akin made it safe for Calvinists.

 

[MW]

"Conservative: disposed to maintain existing institutions." "Conservative" men do not follow academic fads.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

So, David, Bible translations are now judged based on their fidelity to preferred theological works? That's backwards. No translator should base his considerations on how R. C. Sproul uses a passage. The HCSB translation doesn't lose anything, because anyone who believes in immutability still has ample reasons to believe in it, whereas someone who doesn't believe in immutability could still point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew. In other words, the fact that it could be translated either way means that this verse can't single-handedly carry the argument.

By the way, the Septuagint translates the verb as a perfect (ουκ ηλλοιωμαι), as does the German Elberfelder Bibel (ich habe mich nicht geändert). So, the HCSB isn't a unilateral departure.

Translating Malachi 3:6 the way the HCSB did is unreasonable and makes me lose all faith in it.

Unreasonable is a person who, ignorant of the original languages, decides that he is qualified to make snap judgments, not only of translation choices, but also of the translators' competency. Unreasonable is condemning an entire translation on the basis of a single translational preference.

No bible translators aren't judged on their fidelity to documents. They are judged to their fidelity to scripture and in this case all other major translations agree with the writers of those particular documents we all love. So who is the odd man out here? The HCSB. Are you saying the HCSB is superior in this decision to the NASB, ESV, and NKJV? I don't see it. I'm no expert of the original languages but I'm not exactly "ignorant" either.

Regarding the passage, it is indeed an important one. It is one many have and I currently do use to defend immutability often against synergists and open theists. I simply feel like a change there does indeed destroy the credibility of the whole translation. It certainly makes it one I won't be using for "apologetics"

So you don't like the HCSB because the translation is no longer practical for you? Really?

The verb phrase "have changed" is in the present perfect tense. It can refer to an act completed at any time before the present OR it can refer to an act begun in the past and continued in the present. I think the latter applies to Malachi 3:6. I (God) have not changed (and I still am not changing).

In our Latin studies, I find verb tense to be the most difficult aspect of translation. My boys have the same struggle in Greek. I can only venture to guess it's not an exact science in Hebrew either. On top of that, Americans are not known for their grammar knowledge (especially when it comes to verb tense). That's why we do an intense study of English grammar along with Latin and Greek in our homeschool.

Let me clarify. I do not like the translation of Malachi 3:6 in the Holman. I disapprove of it, think it's silly and fadlike and because of that I am suspicious and disinclined to use the Holman as a prooftexting bible in apologetis and evangelical efforts, because there is no telling what else I will find if they have totally changed the meaning of a verse as high profile and often used by calvinists like me in prooftexting as that. I'm sure I will use it periodically as reference in private study, but I do not plan to use it beyond that. I'm not burning it or trashing it or anything. I just don't think it is suitable for prooftexting. When I use a translation for prooftexting it will be either the ESV, NASB, NKJV, or KJV. The Holman looked promising but just doesn't qualify in my mind.

Basically I'm upset because they changed the meaning of one of my favorite passages for proof of God's immutability and made the whole classic argument based on that text look silly.

The ironic humor of the situation is my copy of the Holman text is the Apologetics Study Bible...

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I just don't think it is suitable for prooftexting

Honestly, you can prooftext and support virtually any doctrine imaginable. That is why it is important to have a solid biblical theology, then our doctrine does not rest upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.

 

[py3ak]

According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.

Andrew, I've heard this kind of remark about many different ideas, and over time it's lost a lot of its force for me. Because the simple truth about inconsistent, fallen humanity is that we can be quite right on many, even most points, and still get things wrong with regard to something else. A person may be godly overall, or conservative overall, but on a specific point be ungodly or progressive. Now this is not a comment about the translation of John 3:16, but simply about the argument you deployed. Luther's or Dabney's excellent qualities don't render their areas of failure admirable, although overall they are of course properly honored.

It is on the basis that "so" might suggest the degree (how much) whereas the original only intends the manner (in what way) God loved. Compare John 3:8, 14. "So" is the perfectly natural English translation. Holman is going out of its way to make a theological point and stilts the translation in the process.

Thank you. It seems like making a big deal out of a change that has no positive value.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I just don't think it is suitable for prooftexting

Honestly, you can prooftext and support virtually any doctrine imaginable. That is why it is important to have a solid biblical theology, then our doctrine does not rest upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.

CH Spurgeon was into prooftexting. I assure you the following article wouldn't have been written referencing the HCSB.

The Immutability of God by CH Spurgeon

 

[Notthemama1984]

I assure you the article would have been written using different verses. It isn't that this verse is the only passage dealing with immutability.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.
CH Spurgeon was into prooftexting. I assure you the following article wouldn't have been written referencing the HCSB.

All of us prooftext to an extent, but we must never allow our doctrine to hinge on a single passage. For example, I could present Genesis 6:5-7 as evidence that God does indeed change, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Of course I know that that isn't true, but if I was ignorant of the bible as a whole, I could easily be convinced by this passage.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.
CH Spurgeon was into prooftexting. I assure you the following article wouldn't have been written referencing the HCSB.

All of us prooftext to an extent, but we must never allow our doctrine to hinge on a single passage. For example, I could present Genesis 6:5-7 as evidence that God does indeed change, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Of course I know that that isn't true, but if I was ignorant of the bible as a whole, I could easily be convinced by this passage.

Observing the law of non contradiciton the definitive statement in Malachi 3:6 that "I do not change" would direct how you were free to interpret passages that led you to believe he may have changed. That definitive doesn't exist in the HCSB because they changed it an left it open to change.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Observing the law of non contradiciton the definitive statement in Malachi 3:6 that "I do not change" would direct how you were free to interpret passages that led you to believe he may have changed. That definitive doesn't exist in the HCSB because they changed it an left it open to change

Hey, I completely agree that the HCSB is an odd version. But I think the doctrine of God's immutability is still clearly established and cannot be changed even by poor translation.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Observing the law of non contradiciton the definitive statement in Malachi 3:6 that "I do not change" would direct how you were free to interpret passages that led you to believe he may have changed. That definitive doesn't exist in the HCSB because they changed it an left it open to change

Hey, I completely agree that the HCSB is an odd version. But I think the doctrine of God's immutability is still clearly established and cannot be changed even by poor translation.

I agree. There are other passages in there that can be used to arrive at the idea of immutability.

However, there are none so clear and definitive as "I do not change" Also I do not believe that the Holeman has done the church a service in this regard. We have already seen a Hebrew translator who worked on the bible in this thread say that "I do not change" is indeed the better rendering. So, I would like to see the Holeman come out with a revision that changes this passage back to what it should read.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I agree. There are other passages in there that can be used to arrive at the idea of immutability.

However, there are none so clear and definitive as "I do not change" Also I do not believe that the Holeman has done the church a service in this regard. We have already seen a Hebrew translator who worked on the bible in this thread say that "I do not change" is indeed the better rendering. So, I would like to see the Holeman come out with a revision that changes this passage back to what it should read

I agree that the proper translation should be "I do not change." Unfortunately, most bible scholars do not translate passages based on the testimony of other passages, they simply decide what they think the original meant based on their own experience and linguistic considerations. Perhaps now you can see the point that myself and others who prefer the KJV make when we point out that the ESV and most other modern versions dilute the doctrine of the deity of Christ. They don't eliminate or change it, they just weaken it. Much like the HCSB has done to God's immutibility.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree. There are other passages in there that can be used to arrive at the idea of immutability.

However, there are none so clear and definitive as "I do not change" Also I do not believe that the Holeman has done the church a service in this regard. We have already seen a Hebrew translator who worked on the bible in this thread say that "I do not change" is indeed the better rendering. So, I would like to see the Holeman come out with a revision that changes this passage back to what it should read

I agree that the proper translation should be "I do not change." Unfortunately, most bible scholars do not translate passages based on the testimony of other passages, they simply decide what they think the original meant based on their own experience and linguistic considerations. Perhaps now you can see the point that myself and others who prefer the KJV make when we point out that the ESV and most other modern versions dilute the doctrine of the deity of Christ. They don't eliminate or change it, they just weaken it. Much like the HCSB has done to God's immutibility.

I understand the position of prefering the KJV over other translations. I respect it and I see nothing wrong with it. I love the KJV and prefer it in many respects. I was raised ont he KJV. I also use an Allan Longprimer KJV for personal study from time to time.

However, the KJV has lost a lot of respect with many so it has to be defended often if it is used publically for prooftexting. Defending your translation choice takes away from the message that you are trying to convey and that is unfortunate. People who use the KJV for prooftexting virtually always hve to defend against allegations of KJV onlyism right off the bat.

I chose to use the ESV exclusively on my blog because it is good for prooftexting and it is rare that it need be defended because it is so widely accepted as a solid scholarly translation. So, usually peple focus on the text when you use the ESV as opposed to focusing on translation issues, there are certainly exceptions though. I was secretly hoping the HCSB was solid and could be used as well. But as explained, I see the need to leave it in the category of personal study.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

To be fair and balanced, I saw a copy of the HCSB study bible. It looks great. I checked the notes on the passage Malachi 3:6 and it did indeed deal with immutability in a positive way. I still wish they would change the text to what it should say, but I do plan to purchase the HCSB study bible for personal study.

If you haven't seen one of these it is certainly worth a look: HCSB Study Bible

 

[matthew11v25]

David,
Not sure if you have come across this interview with the General Editor for the HCSB (check out the other links listed with the interview), but it may shed some light on the presuppositions the translators had: It’s Here! The HCSB Second Edition Interview « Anwoth

Personally, I like the HCSB a lot (primarily for the use of "Yahweh" in the OT and "Slave" in the NT)... BUT the HCSB does not used traditional renderings. While some would say they got some verses wrong, I am guessing their reply would be that they FINALLY got em right (eg John 3:16, Mal 3:6, etc). I finished reading through the HCSB this year and I will say there are some renderings in the HCSB that I love and others that I am not so thrilled about... Not excited about "Temple Police" in Acts instead of "guards", etc.

I like most of the HCSB study bible (beautiful design). BUT for someone in the PCA I generally do not recommend at my church since it leans towards the credo baptist and dispensational positions.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I still wish they would change the text to what it should say

according to you

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

HCSB online here:

MyStudyBible.com

Sample from the HCSB:

http://g.christianbook.com/netstorage/pdf/sample/404574.pdf (a 38Mb file!)

The bible has one of the best uses of colors and layout of any study bible currently available. Very easy on the eyes.

AMR

 

[Osage Bluestem]

HCSB online here:

MyStudyBible.com

Sample from the HCSB:

http://g.christianbook.com/netstorage/pdf/sample/404574.pdf (a 38Mb file!)

The bible has one of the best uses of colors and layout of any study bible currently available. Very easy on the eyes.

AMR

Ok. I have purchased a HCSB Study Bible and have read through Genesis and half of Exodus. I have sampled various passages against older translations. I'm surprised to say that the only passage I have taken issue with so far is Malachi 3:6, but the study notes in the Study Bible edition make up for it as they address immutability directly. The rest of it has proven to be quite a solid transaltion. Reading through Genesis and Exodus has been very fluid and natural. The images are clear and the wording is still precise.

I have to say that I repent of my first impression and I do believe the Holman is a solid translation! I am really enjoying reading it and studying from it and I may indeed even use it for proof texting at some point.

So, I'm glad I bought the Study Bible and gave it another chance. It's a good translation. It's more literal than the NIV and just a smidgion less literal than the ESV.

I'm happy. I can't wait to finish reading it.

By the way, in this study bible are a multitude of word study notes from the original languages. I'm finding that tool is worth the purchase of the study bible alone.

 

[pepper]

The HCSB translation of the term "have not changed" does not carry over the idea in the Hebrew that God has not changed and is still not changing. The English "does not change" or "changes not" is giving the right sense of the Hebrew.

 

[matthew11v25]

David -

I am glad you are enjoying the HCSB. Even though my church uses the ESV, I find myself returning to the HCSB because on a personal level I enjoy reading it and renderings tend to stick with me ... the feel of the renderings is very "to the point" especially in the Psalms - which follows sense the word count is 719,000 compared to say the ESV which is 757,439 (A Comparison of the HCSB with Other Major Translations [Edwin Blum] | Faith & Reason | "CLASSIC" THIS LAMP (reset your bookmarks)).

On a different note: Since the HCSB is fairly unique, I wonder what it's longevity will be like? According to the CBA list it has held 6th place behind the ESV for a while. This is interesting since the HCSB pretty much DOES NOT market (up until recently) and the ESV is a marketing machine (since it's conception).

CBA List (May: http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/bsls/bible_translations.pdf).

 

[DMcFadden]

None of us are in much of a position to know how current translations will stand up over the next couple of decades. The KJV took nearly 50 years to "take" with readers. Our attention spans seem a lot shorter than in those days.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

None of us are in much of a position to know how current translations will stand up over the next couple of decades. The KJV took nearly 50 years to "take" with readers. Our attention spans seem a lot shorter than in those days

Occassionally I will have a nightmare where in 100 years everyone is a Message-onlyist.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have to say that I repent of my first impression and I do believe the Holman is a solid translation! I am really enjoying reading it and studying from it and I may indeed even use it for proof texting at some point.

Kudos to you, brother, for the courage to admit this!

Make this your next purchase:

http://www.wordsearchbible.com/catalog/HCSB_Old_and_New_Testament_Reverse_Interlinear_3487.html

Logos will likely offer the same sometime soon, too.


AMR