The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kim G

Puritan Board Junior
I wouldn't worry about it. The HCSB must be using a different family of texts than the KJV. I looked up some of these verses in the ESV, NIV, and NASB (all reliable texts), and they all agree with the HCSB. And even though the NKJV keeps some of the KJV differences, there are footnotes that explain that some of these phrases are NOT in some manuscripts.

When the KJV translators wrote the translation, they had to decide what to keep and what to leave out based on what was in their manuscripts. The translators of the HCSB, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. had to do the same thing, only they had hundreds of more manuscripts to give them help in knowing what phrases were most likely in the originals. I wouldn't worry about it.
 

kodos

Puritan Board Junior
The article makes the following inflammatory claims:
"The HCSB also agrees totally with the Jehovah’s Witness Bible which means you can’t get anymore corrupt than that. Why would any Christian want to use a Bible which the Jehovah’s Witnesses use?"
and

After reading the comparisons, there are only two summaries which can be arrived at:

1) The HCSB is as corrupt as the NWT, or
2) The NWT is as accurate as the HCSB

Once a raving author says something like that, they should be totally dismissed. Famously the NWT translates John 1:1 such that it says the Word was *a* god. HCSB says, "the Word was God". The author has an agenda obviously.
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
This is not an 'article'. It is a 'blog'. There is a big difference. Just check out the rest of the website.
 

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior
I wouldn't worry about it. The HCSB must be using a different family of texts than the KJV. I looked up some of these verses in the ESV, NIV, and NASB (all reliable texts), and they all agree with the HCSB. And even though the NKJV keeps some of the KJV differences, there are footnotes that explain that some of these phrases are NOT in some manuscripts.

When the KJV translators wrote the translation, they had to decide what to keep and what to leave out based on what was in their manuscripts. The translators of the HCSB, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. had to do the same thing, only they had hundreds of more manuscripts to give them help in knowing what phrases were most likely in the originals. I wouldn't worry about it.

I'm not sure if I understand. Are you suggesting that the KJV translators, who lived in the 17th century, possessed the original manuscripts that the translators of modern translations, such as HCSB, ESV, NIV and NASB, no longer possess? Are you suggesting that the NIV translators, who deleted over 64,000 words including over 40 whole verses from the KJV (THINK ABOUT THAT!), did so because they supposedly did no longer have the original manuscripts that the KJV translators had a half century ago? You think that amount of material perished along the way? Well, other modern translations show otherwise.

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------

The HCSB is the only English Bible that gets John 3:16 right.

And it also gets the Christian's true indentity right -- the Greek word 'doulos has been rightly interpreted 'slave' everywhere it occurs, whereas most other english translations change it 'servant'. NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.
 

SolaScriptura

Puritanboard Brimstone
NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.

I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps added those words and/or used texts that included those passages.
 

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior
NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.

I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps added those words and/or used texts that included those passages.

"Perhaps"? Have you any proof of this? Wouldn't it be logical to think: the older the manuscript, the more faithful to the original text?
 

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.

I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps added those words and/or used texts that included those passages.

"Perhaps"? Have you any proof of this? Wouldn't it be logical to think: the older the manuscript, the more faithful to the original text?

If you believe this, then you are saying the newer translations are more accurate. The Greek texts that the HCSB, ESV, and every other non-KJV use is older than the Greek texts that the KJV guys used. In fact at times the KJV used the latin translations because they did not even have Greek texts for certain parts of the NT.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!

Samuel, any time I see the word "Exposed!" used in the title of an article like this, red flags go up and I'll tell you why: the site this article is on is yet another "Discernment ministry"-type site. These sites specialize in claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them, use the King James Bible (including foreign translations, by the way), or vote their way is not really a Christian. These folks are generally inflammatory, schismatic, and obnoxious and I generally just ignore what they say. Just look at the language he uses!

The Holman publishers allow me to use 250 verses without written permission. In the King James Bible, God allows me to use all 31,101 verses without written permission. According to the Copyright office in Washington, D.C., you cannot copyright God’s word but you can copyright man’s word. HINT! HINT!

Obviously, this guy has never heard the term "public domain" (which means that if a translation hasn't had a copyright renewed on it in seventy years, you can freely copy and distribute it). The guy also clearly thinks that the KJV is inspired---seriously? It's a great translation and all, but it ain't perfect and we ain't bound by it. The Bible is God's word, and King Jim's committee was only translating.

Again, I've seen this kind of site before, and it's neither credible nor useful. The article makes assertions without honestly wrestling with the textual and factual issues that underlie the differences in translation. The whole Roman Catholic tampering nonsense is also bogus (particularly given the liberal use of the Latin Vulgate text as a translation aid for the KJV).
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
From the article: "Any Christian who uses this book as their version of choice will be using a cursed book because God does not bless the corruption of His word and no Christian will ever grow in the faith using a false version."

Come on now. Who made this guy the fellow who decides what God blesses and whom God will allow to grow?

The differences he cites seem mainly to come down to the differences between the ancient texts available and used by the KJV translators and those used in most translations today. The debate over which ancient texts should be used is an old one much discussed on this board. It's worthy of discussion, but not in the arrogant and condemning manner this guy employs.

And it also gets the Christian's true indentity right -- the Greek word 'doulos has been rightly interpreted 'slave' everywhere it occurs, whereas most other english translations change it 'servant'.

That's not a matter of the texts used, but of the translators' judgment in deciding which English word will best help modern readers properly understand the meaning. Since slavery and servanthood as we're familiar with them aren't exactly like slavery as the Greek world knew it, it's hard to know exactly what word fits best for a translation aimed at modern, Western readers.
 

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior
The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!

Samuel, any time I see the word "Exposed!" used in the title of an article like this, red flags go up and I'll tell you why: the site this article is on is yet another "Discernment ministry"-type site. These sites specialize in claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them, use the King James Bible (including foreign translations, by the way), or vote their way is not really a Christian. These folks are generally inflammatory, schismatic, and obnoxious and I generally just ignore what they say. Just look at the language he uses!

The Holman publishers allow me to use 250 verses without written permission. In the King James Bible, God allows me to use all 31,101 verses without written permission. According to the Copyright office in Washington, D.C., you cannot copyright God’s word but you can copyright man’s word. HINT! HINT!

Obviously, this guy has never heard the term "public domain" (which means that if a translation hasn't had a copyright renewed on it in seventy years, you can freely copy and distribute it). The guy also clearly thinks that the KJV is inspired---seriously? It's a great translation and all, but it ain't perfect and we ain't bound by it. The Bible is God's word, and King Jim's committee was only translating.

Again, I've seen this kind of site before, and it's neither credible nor useful. The article makes assertions without honestly wrestling with the textual and factual issues that underlie the differences in translation. The whole Roman Catholic tampering nonsense is also bogus (particularly given the liberal use of the Latin Vulgate text as a translation aid for the KJV).

First, I put the title just because it was the title of the article or whatever that was on the website. I'm not all hyped about exposing the HCSB. Second, I'm not saying I agree with everything the guy says. In fact, I also partly ignored his message, because of his King James onlyist mindset. What I'm saying is what is obvious and undeniable: you see passages missing from the modern translations in question that we find in most other Bible translations, not modern only, but conservative also.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.

I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps added those words and/or used texts that included those passages.

"Perhaps"? Have you any proof of this? Wouldn't it be logical to think: the older the manuscript, the more faithful to the original text?

If you believe this, then you are saying the newer translations are more accurate. The Greek texts that the HCSB, ESV, and every other non-KJV use is older than the Greek texts that the KJV guys used. In fact at times the KJV used the latin translations because they did not even have Greek texts for certain parts of the NT.

I ment to say just the opposite. You misunderstood my use of the word 'older'.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
What I'm saying is what is obvious and undeniable: you see passages missing from the modern translations in question that we find in most other Bible translations, not modern only, but conservative also.

But in that case, make an argument from a more credible and scholarly source, not from one that is deliberately inflammatory with a KJV-only bias. This is something I have to do all the time in my academic work: examine the sources to find out if they're credible or not. not

I briefly looked up several of the passages cited by the author in the ESV (which many of our reformed churches here in the States use) and discovered that in most cases it agrees with the Holman and not with the KJV. It's a textual issue, so argue this on the basis of the text, not translation. If you want to make an argument over Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text, then by all means do so, but don't go citing poor scholarship such as that displayed by this author. I happen to think that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue, given the large number of discussions over that I've seen on this board (I rarely enter into them, given my ignorance on the issue). But let's not go condemning our brothers who disagree simply because they use a different translation. The difference here is one of textual tradition, not one of translation.
 

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior
What I'm saying is what is obvious and undeniable: you see passages missing from the modern translations in question that we find in most other Bible translations, not modern only, but conservative also.

But in that case, make an argument from a more credible and scholarly source, not from one that is deliberately inflammatory with a KJV-only bias. This is something I have to do all the time in my academic work: examine the sources to find out if they're credible or not. not

I briefly looked up several of the passages cited by the author in the ESV (which many of our reformed churches here in the States use) and discovered that in most cases it agrees with the Holman and not with the KJV. It's a textual issue, so argue this on the basis of the text, not translation. If you want to make an argument over Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text, then by all means do so, but don't go citing poor scholarship such as that displayed by this author. I happen to think that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue, given the large number of discussions over that I've seen on this board (I rarely enter into them, given my ignorance on the issue). But let's not go condemning our brothers who disagree simply because they use a different translation. The difference here is one of textual tradition, not one of translation.

I apologize for my foolish prejudice. I think I need some education of the right principles of study of the original manuscripts. Any good books you would recommend on examining textual tradition?
 

InSlaveryToChrist

Puritan Board Junior

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Samuel,

If you have time check out Steve's blog for a defense of the Majority / Textus Receptus / Received Text manuscript over the Eclectic text manuscripts.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jerusalem-blade/index1.html

I do hold to his position for the most part. It is a long hard study but well worth the study.

Also you might check out a book on google books that a friend of mine published. He is gone home to be with the Lord.

Unholy Hands on the Bible - Google Books

And Theodore Letis is one of the most brightest men. If you have a chance read his stuff also. He was definitely a scholar that many Reformed men look to.

Theodore P. Letis Resources

Your brother,
Randy
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
In the first edition of White's book he doesn't really deal with Hill's argument, does he in the second?...I recommend reading both White and Hill.

Along with this: Jerusalem Blade’s Posts « Feileadh Mor

I can't remember and I don't have the book by White any longer. It has probably been at least 18 years ago since I have read it along with a book by D. A. Carson on the same subject. I have read Hill also. But my poor mind just doesn't retain stuff like it use to.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
The one thing I did appreciate about White's book was that I think he did concede that 1 Timothy 3:16 probably should read God was manifest in the flesh. Maybe someone can check that for me.

(1Ti 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

But Letis was correct in his interview about the book and how White just lumped people all together in an unfortunate way.
 

KSon

Puritan Board Junior
Samuel,

As someone who survived a season in a rabid KJVO Fundy Baptist church, my counsel would be to be cautious regarding the sources of certain paths of argumentation.

A scholarly, irenic, logical case for the supremacy of the TR/Byzantine platform can be made, with the basis of the case being that this text was the traditional text and the one favored by the Reformers. On the other end of the spectrum is the vitriol that comes from sources such as the one you linked, typically IFBers who do not want to hear any iron-sharpening counter arguments, as they are convinced in their mind that they are right and any disagreement is merely end-times compromise. For an example of the former, I agree with Randy that the PB is an excellent resource. Search for the posts of Elder Rafalsky, Rev. Winzer, Thomas Weddle, and Dr. Ferguson to get some historical and theological context behind the reasoning for such a position. In the absence of that, you really are just dealing with strawmen and caricatures.

Above all, maintain a humble, Christ-like attitude towards those who end up with different conclusions than yours regarding this topic, realizing godly men who have been used mightily in the Kingdom exist on both sides of this topic.
 

Gord

Puritan Board Freshman
"

I believe the KJVO is just another cult. They spend more time falsely defending an imagination than actually reading and studying the words. They waste time looking for defense and not gospel salvation.

Think about it, did God really wake up one day and say,
"I think I better give the world an infallible and 100% account of what really happened 1611 years ago, and hey what better man than King James himself, who has an axe to grind politically with reformers and the church of England."

Any child who studied history at a grade 8 level of England knows why James needed his own bible version, devoid of those Dutch reformed notes and comments found in the Geneva bible, and God had nothing to do with making it any more or less accurate than what already was for the information available to the translators of that time. That is probably why it is 98% a word for word duplicate of the Geneva bible.

My roaming of the internet has found that most KJVO believers are Baptist, and from the Southern USA. Which probable explains the lack of grade 8 history of England that the rest of the world knows about.

Are KJVO Christian's, I believe so, but God only knows the answer to that, but yes they are truly misguided in there version theology that is for sure.

None of this garbage have I read in any translation. Satan sets the trap, man walks right in with eyes wide shut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top