Holman Christian Standard Bible

If the HCSB really does follow the Majority Text, then I have to get me one of those!

No need for examples. If "at the mouth of 2 witnesses or 3 witness let he who is worthy of death be put to death" is the rule, then I think there are enough people supporting this view that I can go along. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

From another thread I found a place where
the HCSB does NOT follow the MT
(BTW, the KJV frequently follows the
LXX instead of the Majority Texts

Proverbs 11:30 (HCSB):

The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,
but violence takes lives*.

Footnote:
* LXX, Syr, MT reads but a wise one

Proverbs 11:30 (KJV1611 Edition):
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life:
and hee that winneth soules, is wise.

 

Thanks, Ed. However, looking at the footnote above from the HCSB says "but a wise one" comes from the LXX AND the MT (Masoretic Text) The Majority Text refers to the New Testament texts doesn't it? If "but a wise one" is from these, from where did the HCSB get their translation? I'm saying it is wrong but from where did it come.

Thanks again for your help. I appreciate your studies and candor.:thumbs:

 

Correction to my previous post...

I wrote "I'm saying it is wrong but from..."
What I intended to write was "I'm not saying it is wrong but from..."

Sorry

 

Phil310: //from where did the HCSB get their translation?//

Here we go from post #15 above:

From BibleGateway.com:

 

Just not sure why I m doing this but here goes…The below observations were done after just comparing the usual suspect verses with a modern AV1611. No real study here just about 10 minutes of work. Could have compared a lot more.

Holman – Mat. 1:21 - She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus
Firstborn is out thus making Rome happy.

Holman - Luke 2:33 - His father and mother Other mss read But Joseph and His mother were amazed at what was being said about Him
Joseph was not Jesus’ earthly father – this can be confusing.

Holman - I Tim. 6: 10 - For the love of money is a root Or is the root of all kinds of evil,
Now we see the love is just “a” root not “the” root. It appears somebody likes making money off versions.

Holman - Mark 1:1-3 – The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Look, I am sending My messenger ahead of You,who will prepare Your way.
A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: vs. 3 “Prepare the way for the Lord;make His paths straight!”
This makes the Holman inerrant? I thought vs. 3 came from Malachi? Never understood this.

Holman - Matt 19:17 - “Why do you ask Me about what is good?”
The question was not about “what is good” but was...” Why callest thou me good?” Jesus said he was good and only God was good thus Jesus was declaring his deity. The Holman hides this and makes the issue confusing.

Holman - Acts 1:3 - After He had suffered, He also presented Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs
Infallible is concrete – case closed. “Convincing” is not “convincing” enough.

Holman - Gal. 2:16 - yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ
The sinner cannot be justified by “his faith” in Christ – his faith cannot justify. Only God can justify, thus “faith of” is doctrinally correct while “faith in” is false doctrine. Th issue is justification.

Holman - Col. 1:18 - He might come to have first place in everything.
Preeminence carries with it integrity, superior, outstanding, etc. (English definition) – being in “first place” doesn’t necessarily mean this. Which word better describes Christ? I believe preeminence is more exact and correct here.

Holman - Mic 5:2 - His originis from antiquity, from eternity.
Though “eternity” was thrown in it is still confusing. Jesus had no “origin” and was not from just “antiquity”(Ancient times; former ages), which hints at time. Jesus is eternal. Which is it Holman – is Jesus from eternity (eternal) or from antiquity (time)?

Summary – while Holman doesn’t line up with Egypt and the modern versions 100% it still follows Egypt in enough places that tells me it is “unreliable” at best – trying to be nice here and not ruffle any delicate feathers.

God bless

 

AVBunyan: //Summary – while Holman doesn’t line up with Egypt
and the modern versions 100% it still follows Egypt in enough
places that tells me it is “unreliable” at best – trying to be
nice here and not ruffle any delicate feathers.

AVBunyan: //God bless//

I don't have time to address your post point by point
Thank you

IMHO the Authorized Version (AV) of the Southern Baptists
translated into 21st Century English
trumps the Authorized Version (AV)
translated into 17th Century (1601-1700) English
by Baby Baptizin' Anglican Catholics. (unless you have
a large group of people who speak 17th Century English.

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
All Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction,
for instrution in righteousnesse,

IMHO 'all scripture' means also the HCSB which is an
Authorized Version (AV)which was authorized
by God
God Bless.

 

I understand not all translations are perfect, but some of the verses you beat up on don't jive...

What does this have to do with Rome? If you are talking about the RCC, they have their own Bible...complete with apocrypha, like your AV1611. Are you trying to make Rome happy, too?

I think the opposite would have been confusing, and the HCSB was trying to avoid any confusion in the future when Jesus prays to His Father in Heaven. Joseph was Jesus' earthly father. This shows the true deity...and true humanity of Christ.

I would like to know how rape, murder, drunkeness and gluttonly stem from the love of cash. The HCSB has it right.

I don't understand your beef here. Miracles are either convincing to someone, or they are not.

You are beginning to reach. If we are "in Christ", we are justified. Period.

And for the lay person, preeminence means....? Exactly.

Antiquity (time) or eternity (eternal)? Both, unless you either don't believe Jesus has always been God (eternity), or He was never born at a specific point in time.

The only thing I see as unreliable is your interpretations of the HCSB. What would concern me more about reliability is the inclusion of the apocrypha in ANY Bible.

 

AVBunyan: //Holman – Mat. 1:21 -
She will give birth to a son,
and you are to name Him Jesus
Firstborn is out thus making Rome happy.//

Uh? read this:

Matthew 1:21 (KJV1611 Edition):
And she shall bring forth a sonne,
and thou shalt call his Name Iesus:
for hee shall saue his people from their sinnes.

You are critizing the HCSB for something the KJV does????

 

Isn't the HCSB the translation made by the SBC at Lifeway? The one that is the result of Al Mohler's statement that Southern Baptists needed a translation of the Bible that they could "control"?

I don't trust a translation made by just one segment of the Christian community. There's too much room for bias and error.

 

That was discussed already a few pages back.

 

Here is a list & short description of the HCSB Translators:

http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...ge=201566&sp=71561&event=1003HCSB|30102|71561

 

Seems the KJV makes the same mistake...

 

AVBunyan:Just not sure why I m doing this but here goes…The below observations were done after just comparing the usual suspect verses with a modern AV1611. No real study here just about 10 minutes of work. Could have compared a lot more.

There's no modern AV 1611...it's 395 years old. The currently-used KJVs are not AV 1611s.

And '10 minutes of work' was most likely reading some bunk by Riplinger, Moorman, Watkins, Vance, etc.

Holman – Mat. 1:21 - She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus
Firstborn is out thus making Rome happy.

How silly. Obviously, in the context, this was Mary's first pregnancy.

Holman - Luke 2:33 - His father and mother Other mss read But Joseph and His mother were amazed at what was being said about Him
Joseph was not Jesus’ earthly father – this can be confusing.

It SHOULDN'T be...Joseph WAS Jesus' earthly father, under both Jewish and Roman law, as he had married Jesus' mother before He was born. And the KJV and others call J His father in Luke 2:41, 48. Another wrong argument.

Holman - I Tim. 6: 10 - For the love of money is a root Or is the root of all kinds of evil,
Now we see the love is just “a” root not “the” root. It appears somebody likes making money off versions.

Actually, "a" root is CORRECT. Recently, near my 'hood, a jealous woman eliminated a rival for her boyfriend's affections by running her down with her car. This was evil, of course, and seeing as how all three people involved were on welfare, it certainly wasn't over money. And the diaper-heads blowing themselves up, along with whoever is near them, is evil, but certainly not over love of money.


Holman - Mark 1:1-3 – The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Look, I am sending My messenger ahead of You,who will prepare Your way.
A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: vs. 3 “Prepare the way for the Lord;make His paths straight!”
This makes the Holman inerrant? I thought vs. 3 came from Malachi? Never understood this.

Prolly a copyist error somewhere, same as Kings giving Jehoiachin's age at the beginning of his reign as 18, while Chronicles gives it as eight.

Holman - Matt 19:17 - “Why do you ask Me about what is good?”
The question was not about “what is good” but was...” Why callest thou me good?” Jesus said he was good and only God was good thus Jesus was declaring his deity. The Holman hides this and makes the issue confusing.

It SHOULDN'T...context, context, context.

(Cont. next post)

 

(Cont. from last post...reply to AV Bunyan)

Holman - Acts 1:3 - After He had suffered, He also presented Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs
Infallible is concrete – case closed. “Convincing” is not “convincing” enough.

A matter of semantics...one must be CONVINCED that something is infallible. A very poor argument.

Holman - Gal. 2:16 - yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ
The sinner cannot be justified by “his faith” in Christ – his faith cannot justify. Only God can justify, thus “faith of” is doctrinally correct while “faith in” is false doctrine. Th issue is justification.

Again, silly. GOD justifies BECAUSE OF 'faith in..

Holman - Col. 1:18 - He might come to have first place in everything.
Preeminence carries with it integrity, superior, outstanding, etc. (English definition) – being in “first place” doesn’t necessarily mean this. Which word better describes Christ? I believe preeminence is more exact and correct here.

Again, a silly semantics argument. If a team is in first place, is it not pre-eminent in the standings? And a team can be pre-eminent talent-wise and still not be in first place.

Holman - Mic 5:2 - His originis from antiquity, from eternity.
Though “eternity” was thrown in it is still confusing. Jesus had no “origin” and was not from just “antiquity”(Ancient times; former ages), which hints at time. Jesus is eternal. Which is it Holman – is Jesus from eternity (eternal) or from antiquity (time)?

Again, semantics and guesswork. The Hebrew here, AVBunyan:Just not sure why I m doing this but here goes…The below observations were done after just comparing the usual suspect verses with a modern AV1611. No real study here just about 10 minutes of work. Could have compared a lot more.

There's no modern AV 1611...it's 395 years old.

Holman – Mat. 1:21 - She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus
Firstborn is out thus making Rome happy.

How silly. Obviously, in the context, this was Mary's first pregnancy.

Holman - Luke 2:33 - His father and mother Other mss read But Joseph and His mother were amazed at what was being said about Him
Joseph was not Jesus’ earthly father – this can be confusing.

It SHOULDN'T be...Joseph WAS Jesus' earthly father, under both Jewish and Roman law, as he had married Jesus' mother before He was born. And the KJV and others call J His father in Luke 2:41, 48. Another wrong argument.

Holman - I Tim. 6: 10 - For the love of money is a root Or is the root of all kinds of evil,
Now we see the love is just “a” root not “the” root. It appears somebody likes making money off versions.

Actually, "a" root is CORRECT. Recently, near my 'hood, a jealous woman eliminated a rival for her boyfriend's affections by running her down with her car. This was evil, of course, and seeing as how all three people involved were on welfare, it certainly wasn't over money. And the diaper-heads blowing themselves up, along with whoever is near them, is evil, but certainly not over love of money.


Holman - Mark 1:1-3 – The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: Look, I am sending My messenger ahead of You,who will prepare Your way.
A voice of one crying out in the wilderness: vs. 3 “Prepare the way for the Lord;make His paths straight!”
This makes the Holman inerrant? I thought vs. 3 came from Malachi? Never understood this.

Prolly a copyist error somewhere, same as Kings giving Jehoiachin's age at the beginning of his reign as 18, while Chronicles gives it as eight.

Holman - Matt 19:17 - “Why do you ask Me about what is good?”
The question was not about “what is good” but was...” Why callest thou me good?” Jesus said he was good and only God was good thus Jesus was declaring his deity. The Holman hides this and makes the issue confusing.

It SHOULDN'T...context, context, context.

Holman - Acts 1:3 - After He had suffered, He also presented Himself alive to them by many convincing proofs
Infallible is concrete – case closed. “Convincing” is not “convincing” enough.

A matter of semantics...one must be CONVINCED that something is infallible. A very poor argument.

Holman - Gal. 2:16 - yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ
The sinner cannot be justified by “his faith” in Christ – his faith cannot justify. Only God can justify, thus “faith of” is doctrinally correct while “faith in” is false doctrine. Th issue is justification.

Again, silly. GOD justifies BECAUSE OF 'faith in..

Holman - Col. 1:18 - He might come to have first place in everything.
Preeminence carries with it integrity, superior, outstanding, etc. (English definition) – being in “first place” doesn’t necessarily mean this. Which word better describes Christ? I believe preeminence is more exact and correct here.

Again, a silly semantics argument. If a team is in first place, is it not pre-eminent in the standings? And a team can be pre-eminent talent-wise and still not be in first place.

Holman - Mic 5:2 - His originis from antiquity, from eternity.
Though “eternity” was thrown in it is still confusing. Jesus had no “origin” and was not from just “antiquity”(Ancient times; former ages), which hints at time. Jesus is eternal. Which is it Holman – is Jesus from eternity (eternal) or from antiquity (time)?

Again, semantics and guesswork. The Hebrew here, 'mowtsa'ah'. certainly means 'origin'.

Summary – while Holman doesn’t line up with Egypt and the modern versions 100% it still follows Egypt in enough places that tells me it is “unreliable” at best – trying to be nice here and not ruffle any delicate feathers.

God bless

While not 'ruffling my feathers', your arguments certainly 'tickled my funny bone'. I have seen from your other posts that you're obviously a devout Christian and an intelligent man, so I wonder why you touch upon the realm if the ignorant and stupid by following their "party lines"? The Joseph-Jesus' father thingie is one of the most amazingly-STUPID arguments I've ever seen made by the homeboys of a certain man-made false doctrine. (They obviously didn't read Luke 2:41 & 48 in their KJVs!)That's why I wonder why YOU, who are NOT stupid, would repeat THEIR stupidity !

And the whole 'Egypt' thingie is another one of their crocks. Yes, Egypt sinned. Yes, God punished her severely, she lost her sovereignty for over 2600 years, and she's still poor and militarily weak. But if God hates her all that much, why does He call her "My people" in Isaiah 19:25? Why does He say He will smite her & then heal her in V22?

This prophecy has come to pass:
Isaiah 19:17 "The land of Judah will terrify Egypt; whenever Judah is mentioned, Egypt will tremble because of what the LORD of Hosts has planned against it."

Right now, God is slowly ending His punishment of Egypt But He isn't gonna do it overnight, just as He didn't end the Jews' punishment overnight. I 110% believe that ALL the prophecies concerning Egypt(and Israel, and for that matter, all prophecy PERIOD) will come to pass in God's time.

Summary: Certain people are gonna blast any other BV but their own fave, even if they hafta draw their "blasts" from the ignorance/stupidity pool.. Problem they have is a LACK OF PROOF for their assertions. The HCSB deserves its place among the best English BVs made over the years.

 

1. Well, I glad I was at least able to bring you some humor.

2. Wasn’t meant to refer to the “Egypt as a type of the world” view. I was referring to the origin of the modern versions which are based on Origen’s Egyptian texts.

3. Favorites don’t enter in here – I can compare verses with verses to see which version is more clear and exact in the doctrine withoout any reference to any Greek or Hebrew.

4. I would not include Burgon, EF Hills, Ray, Fuller, Reagan, Kinney, Ruckman and others in your “the ignorance/stupidity pool”. You might but I wouldn’t.

5. I guess if it doesn’t violate your conscience to read it then go for it – it violates mine. You know consciences do become seared with a hot iron after a while.

All you did was to call my examples silly. I can see my examples convinced you of nothing and your responses convinced me of nothing.


BTW - If you still think one's faith justifies then it appears we are far apart on justification. The "faith of" refers to Christ's faith while the "faith in" refers to man's faith - Which one are you going to trust?

Also your "And '10 minutes of work' was most likely reading some bunk by Riplinger, Moorman, Watkins, Vance, etc." deamnds a comment....
I can read and think on my own thank you . See my #3 response.

Now I am reminded of why I left this forum and all others. I’m kicking myself in the head for even posting. :BangHead:

But it was nice chatting with you though. :thumbs:

God bless

 

AVBunyan: //I was referring to the origin of the modern versions
which are based on Origen’s Egyptian texts.//

AVBunyan: //I would not include Burgon, EF Hills, Ray, Fuller,
Reagan, Kinney, Ruckman and others in your
“the ignorance/stupidity pool”.//

Your statments are not internally consistant.
Several of these authors (the ignorance/stupidity pool)
continue the myth that Origen had something to do with
the alledgely Alexandrian manuscripts.

Strangely, the article on Origen in:
Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (Kregel Publications, 1996)
goes on for almost two columns and never even mentions
any mythical copies of the Bible made or used by Origen.
Logically I know there is no proof from silence; practically
it is obvious: this is a fiction: "modern versions
which are based on Origen’s Egyptian texts".

BTW, itsn't it a logical flaw to paint all
'modern version' in one broad brush stroke.
I define 'Modern Version (MV)' to mean any version
published after 1650. The main KJV used today is
the set of versions I call 'the KJV1769 Edition'.
the KJV is an MV. So by this broad brush, the KJV
is based on Origen's Egyptian Text :tear: Sorry, KJV lovers,
but I love the BIBLE as found in the HCSB.

 

AVBunyan: 1. Well, I glad I was at least able to bring you some humor.

Kewl. Some homeboys of a certain false doctrine are good at it while not trying to be.

2. Wasn’t meant to refer to the “Egypt as a type of the world” view. I was referring to the origin of the modern versions which are based on Origen’s Egyptian texts.

So Origen is today's bird cage liner today for your group? What happened to Westcott/Hort? problem is, mosta the bad stuff attributed to Origen just isn't true.

3. Favorites don’t enter in here – I can compare verses with verses to see which version is more clear and exact in the doctrine withoout any reference to any Greek or Hebrew.

If you don't refer to the Greek or the Hebrew, you're counting on MAN.

4. I would not include Burgon, EF Hills, Ray, Fuller, Reagan, Kinney, Ruckman and others in your “the ignorance/stupidity pool”. You might but I wouldn’t.

I include all but Burgon, who wasn't nearly as KJVO as some would like to believe.

5. I guess if it doesn’t violate your conscience to read it then go for it – it violates mine. You know consciences do become seared with a hot iron after a while.

Yes, especially when the chickens of a false doctrine come home to roost.

All you did was to call my examples silly. I can see my examples convinced you of nothing and your responses convinced me of nothing.

I call'em as I see'em. And if you cannot see just how ignorant the "Joseph-earthly father of Jesus" thingie is, especially in light of the fact that the KJV twice calls Joseph His father, I cannot help you.


BTW - If you still think one's faith justifies then it appears we are far apart on justification. The "faith of" refers to Christ's faith while the "faith in" refers to man's faith - Which one are you going to trust?

From your own fave Bible version:
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith , we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ :
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus .

I believe the Scriptures over any man.

Now what would the faith OF Christ be? Biblical faith is substance and evidence. (Hebrews 11:1) What has Christ not seen? What does He not know? Though we have not SEEN Him, we have faith IN Him.




Also your "And '10 minutes of work' was most likely reading some bunk by Riplinger, Moorman, Watkins, Vance, etc." deamnds a comment....
I can read and think on my own thank you . See my #3 response.

Many of your comments followed their "party line" so closely that they couldn't help but to lead others to believe that they were gleaned directly from some of the groddy works by those I named. If it LOOKS like a rose, SMELLS like a rose.....

Now I am reminded of why I left this forum and all others. I’m kicking myself in the head for even posting.

Yes, because hardly anyone here will buy your incorrect 'reasoning'. You cannot prove the HCSB isn't a valid version. Just because it doesn't match YOUR fave is no indication that it's wrong. You're just assuming YOURS is automatically correct over any others at every verse. That's circular reasoning, as you're assuming what you're trying to prove is already automatically correct.

But it was nice chatting with you though.

Same here. But I hope you find another set of authors to study before ya try to hawk your myth again through the doggie door. By depending upon them for a philosophy & then trying to get someone to bite, you're merely gluing feathers onto a hippo, hoping it'll fly. Sorry, Sir, NO SALE for your myth.

God bless

Same to you, Sir. May He open your eyes to the falsehood of the myth you've acquired, so you don't criticize Him for presenting His word AS HE CHOOSES, be it in the KJV, HCSB, or any other version He chooses or has chosen.

 

I'm pretty sure that either and/or both of these statements are completely and absolutely true. However, not reading or knowing any Hebrew...

As to easin' yo' conscience, my alter-ego is "Language Cop", who is not on the force of 'thought patrol'. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I'd bet if I took no more than, say, ten minutes, I could come up with at least a wild, if plausible, guess as to the "Why?"! Whaddya' think? :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:

God bless, as well to you.

Ed