The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CIT

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Gord,

One of the Scottish denominations is KJV only (I can't remember which) as well as some Dutch Reformed guys (Beeke being one of them). It is not merely a Baptist thing from guys who do not have an 8th grade education.
 

jayce475

Puritan Board Freshman
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.

I second Kipp too. However, it may be helpful to go digging into the field with the knowledge that there are different positions that we KJV supporters take as well.
 

Philip

Puritan Board Graduate
Gord, I have to agree with Boliver. There's a good argument for KJVO: it just doesn't come from fundy independent Baptist types. There are folks on this board who argue the position for textual reasons, not the "God-inspired-the-King-James" nonsense. And actually, truth be told, the KJV is a good translation and there's a reason why eventually even the Puritans accepted it.

I say this as a non-KJVO, by the way.
 

Gord

Puritan Board Freshman
Gord,

One of the Scottish denominations is KJV only (I can't remember which) as well as some Dutch Reformed guys (Beeke being one of them). It is not merely a Baptist thing from guys who do not have an 8th grade education.

That still does not lend any credibility to the lie. I don't hold out any argument of being an expert on the subject, but common sense and grade 8 English history tells us why James had his committee of men re tweaked the already established written English bibles of that time.

I don't take away from it, most of my memory of scripture holds fast to the KJV, it holds a great place in history, and language, but the argument of it being the infallible and 100% accurate and only inspired by God version, and all the other nonsense about translation is all smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps in my own narrow mindedness, I have allowed those "southern Baptist" type to NOT let me look at it intellectually.
 
Last edited:

Gord

Puritan Board Freshman
Gord, I have to agree with Boliver. There's a good argument for KJVO: it just doesn't come from fundy independent Baptist types. There are folks on this board who argue the position for textual reasons, not the "God-inspired-the-King-James" nonsense. And actually, truth be told, the KJV is a good translation and there's a reason why eventually even the Puritans accepted it.

I say this as a non-KJVO, by the way.

I would be thrilled to look at this argument from a 'Puritan' stand point. Some thing I hope that is based on fact, and not what I have come to believe is KJVO fantasy. PM me the links, so I know where to start.
 

jayce475

Puritan Board Freshman
[/COLOR]
"

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.

Gord, caricatures like your post are why even fair-minded attempts to discuss the issue degenerate into unedifying arguments.

There are cultic Ruckmanites who have brought much confusion to the issue. But to call all of us TR/MT supporters cultic is a bit of a stretch. I don't support the KJV, but the manuscripts underlying the KJV. Yes the manner of presentation on these websites supporting the KJV may be lacking, but so are many other sites that support Calvinism. Doesn't make Calvinism any less true. But yes, everyone can be more charitable and irenic. Please read Hills and Letis if you would.

Listen to our Singaporean Bible-Presbyterian ministers on the web and see if we "spend more time falsely defending an imagination than actually reading and studying the words" and "waste time looking for defense and not gospel salvation". What you will find that we have a solid theological and historical foundation on which to defend the TR/MT (and hence the Authorised Version) and we do truly preach the full counsel of God as well. The same applies to the Free Presbyterian Church from Northern Ireland. From what I have gathered from PB people, there are a few other Continental Reformed and Presbyterian denominations in the US that support the TR/MT.
 
Last edited:

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
KJVO is not necessarily the argument. Gord you need to look a bit more deeply and patiently into this topic. There are good scholarly men who are not KJVO who discuss this issue based upon the manuscript family and history. You have painted a straw man and are throwing darts at the picture you have made. King James Version Only advocacy is one thing. It is easy to punch holes in the Ruckman's and Riplinger's of the world.

BTW, listen to the Letis Mp3. He goes to the Puritans. Check out the site I linked to above for him. Gord calm down please. No more broad brush swipes.
 

Gord

Puritan Board Freshman
KJVO not necessarily the argument. Gord you need to look a bit more deeply and patiently into this topic. There are good scholarly men who are not KJVO who discuss this issue based upon the manuscript family and history. You have painted a straw man and are throwing darts at the picture you have made. King James Version Only advocacy is one thing. It is easy to punch holes in the Ruckman's and Riplinger's of the world.
I am truly sorry for running this off into the ditch, if you could point me in some direction of 'puritan' based fact of KJV I will gladly put the time into it.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I listed Letis above. Start with him. I also linked to J. P. Greens book Unholy Hands on the Bible. That is a good place to start. You have a lot of reading to do. You might also look at Reverend Winzer's arguments in past threads. This topic has been discussed very intently on the Puritanboard. Keep in mind that there are good men on both sides of this issue. Please.

addition... This isn't just a KJVO or KJV thing. So stop thinking it is. Please. It is a manuscript issue.
 

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
Br. Gord, if you have a chance to read Rev. Winzer's posts on the subject, along with the link I posted above you'll soon see we (who hold to the confessionally Reformed text position) are not loons. We use faith, logic and reason.

Peace.

jm
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
One of the Scottish denominations is KJV only (I can't remember which) as well as some Dutch Reformed guys (Beeke being one of them). It is not merely a Baptist thing from guys who do not have an 8th grade education.

I think it needs to be clarified that a Reformed denomination which uses the AV exclusively in corporate worship is not "KJV Only" in any sense of the term - I know of no Reformed church which believes that the AV is the one repository of sacred truth, that it is immediately inspired, that it takes precedent over other language's scriptures, or that it is and will always be the only English bible based on a priori reasons, etc etc. There is a massive difference between "KJV Only" people and churches which use only the AV in their worship.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
I generally don't like to drag third parties into discussions like this, but the PB's own Rev. Lane Keister, for whom I have the highest respect in the area of bible scholarship and criticism (among others!), is favorably disposed toward the HCSB. Also see here and here.

Interesting quotes from Lane, Phil. In May, 2009, Lane thought that the ESV and the HCSB were more or less equivalent. Ten months later, however, by March, 2010, he had changed his mind and was preferring the HCSB to the ESV. Guess the Baptists got to him!
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
[Moderator]
I'm going to close this thread, simply because enough information has already been presented to answer the original question. I'm not closing it because I think any misconduct or inappropriate dialog has occurred, but simply to keep the thread to its original question.

Samuel, as has been pointed out in this thread, a translator of the biblical text has to face the question of what to do with textual variants in our copies of the Greek manuscripts. Fundamentally, there are two approaches to this problem in history. The first approach finds representation in the older English translations of the New Testament. This approach bases itself in the Greek manuscripts as they have come down to the church through the use of the church. Variants were addressed by comparing current manuscripts with current manuscripts, believing God preserved his word in the manuscripts passed down. You will find this textual philosophy in the older English translations (such as the Geneva or the King James Version), and in related way in the New King James Version. The other approach in history approaches variants in the current text, not by comparing with other current manuscripts, but by attempting to correct errors by using the oldest texts: it is an attempt to use critical methods and the oldest manuscripts to reconstruct a text which its proponents think represents the New Testament in a more "pristine" state before errors, variants and additions crept in. This is the approach of almost every contemporary English translation: the HCSB, as well as the ESV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NIV, etc; so it is certainly not unique to the HCSB.

You will find that the issue of which textual philosophy is more a.) Biblical and b.) Confessional has been discussed very much here on the PB, so there are plenty of resources for you to sift through, toward which it appears many have already begun to point you. I will close this thread for now, since the issue of "What's going on with the HCSB?" has been clarified and the thread is now digressing unto other topics. If you do have questions as to the differing textual positions, then please do feel free to start a thread asking any questions you might have - there will be many ready responders.

(If any mods want to reopen the thread if they think it will be profitable, I have no objections.)

[/Moderator]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top