Holman Christian Standard Bible

You missed my point here - you should give yourself a pat on the back. For my staying away from this forum is not because of your great defense of the modern versions but because your attitude - Your "style" may sit well with your moderators but it leaves me cold.

BTW - one final time with feeling - I know you cannot see this but there is a difference between faith of vs. faith in.

Let's look at your resoning here...Let's take the verses you presented as they stand...

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

Now let's look at some questions here...
Rom 5:1 - Whose faith is it there yours or Christ's? According to Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 it is Christ's.

Gal. 3:26 - The verse does not even include the word justified in any form. The issue here is not who or what justifies - this comes from Rom. 3:22, Gal. 2:16 and finally....

Rom 8:33 "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth"....not man's faith.

You have yet to show where man's faith can justify. Rom. 8:33 says only God can justify.

Simple English definition:
Justify -In theology, to pardon and clear form guilt; to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the application of Christ's atonement to the offender.

Can you absolve your guilt? Can you pardon yourself? Only God can and he does this because of Calvary.

The issue is...Which texts are right - those from Wescott and Hort/Origen or those of the King James BIble came from? It is one or the other. Anyway - as mentioned earler I do not need Greek or Hebrew to see which is superior I just compare the versions in English.

BTW - a good lawyer can "convince" a juror that a murderer is innocent when in truth he could be truly guilty. Infallible is more clear and exact. One can be "first " (Col. 1:18) for in Germany during the 1930's and 40's Hitler was first but according to the English definiton he was not preeminent. Preeminence is a better word to describe the Saviour. And there are many more such examples and if it wasn't for a very sore wrist I'd be glad to provide them without referring to Dr. Ruckman, etc.

Fianlly - Robo - It appears you will never accept anything I present for if you think Dr. EF Hills and the others I mentioned are in the "ignorance.stupidity pool" then you will never listen to the likes of a lowly saint like me. Though I appreciated you at least spending time on your responses (which shows a desire to be thorough of which I commend you for) your posts still come across as borderling a "mocking" like manner. It is funny how many blast Dr. Ruckman for his "caustic" manner and then you sound just like him to me.

Finally - I don't panick if a person is not "KJV only" - I've got more grace than that. Many of the old writers I read took liberties with the text and some corrected it - doesn't shake me or make me think less of them as saints or writers.

My concern is this modern age defense of the modern versions. We are in the last days where sound doctrine is not endured - it is painfully obvious.

God bless

 

Sorry, I don't think it is hardly that simple, for this leaves out an important word, namely, "through", for starters. I'll only get into one of your examples, namely Gal. 2:16., which reads? :

I use the NKJV, so that is what I usually cite. I cited the NASB for three reasons. IMO, unlike either the KJV, NKJV, or HCSB, the NASB along with the YLT, ASV and ESV correctly translates "δια πιστεως" as 'through faith', as opposed to 'by faith', as through is the normal rendering of δια with a genitive (or ablative), as here.

The second reason, I cite is because it correctly renders "πιστεως" ,here, as "faith" (along with the NKJV), and not as "the faith, as the KJV and (unexpectedly to me, anyway) the YLT, as there is no definite article even hinted at in the Greek texts I have access to, ergo the "the" is not warranted.

And the third is because the NASB and NKJV render as "believed in Christ Jesus", which is also completely unwarranted, as to reversing what is the other versions rendered as "Jesus Christ".

In other words, when the KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, or any of the hundreds of other translations (in any language) give an incorrect rendering, it's time to call their hand on it. As some others have said, 'no translation is perfect'. I agree. For when they are/were translated, especially given what is/was available to work with, some are excellent; some are very good; some are pretty good; some are fair; some are so-so; some leave a little to be desired; some leave a lot to be desired; some are out and out 'heretical' done to support some particular agenda, such as the "XYZ" 'Translation', done for the purposes of the "Calvminian" "Last Great Real Grace Advential Baptist Apostolic Millenialist Full Gospel Missionary Fellowsh... " - you get the picture!
And this does not even count any versions that are effectively or intentionally paraphrases.

Thus the real question is actually that of "through faith 'of Christ'" vs. "through faith 'in Christ'". Either is possible from this construction here; neither is demanded! That is the bottom line for this verse!

However, given what is found in other Scriptures, I tend to lean toward 'theologically understanding' this as 'faith'/'believe' in Jesus Christ. See Romans 4; John 3; John 6; among others. But as I have already stated, neither is demanded by (or was that in? :laugh: :laugh Gal. 2:16.

And lest I be guilty of the same, as one once wrote on another thread, "A text out of context is a pretext to a proof-text."

Ed

 

Tsk! Tsk! Facts and details! :tongue3: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

The one in my hands says...Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:

Again with feeling - the one in my hands is right. Firstborn belongs there - it is more accurate. You keep yours that omits it - fine with me.
The King James is more clear and accurate.

Just don't understand why so many educated folk have issues with a book God blessed so much.
Well, maybe I do understand.

God bless

 

what's funny is how much it bothers you that we like and use the KJV.

It would be so much simpler if we hated and degraded it--your arguments would have validity then.

 

Would you understand why a farmboy might post as I did when up until now you have been speaking of Matt. 1:21? As opposed to Matt. 1:25, which you are now citing? Sorry, this is NOT 'rocket science'. And I merely tried to follow your own idea of

I did exactly that, took what you presented and let it stand. It is not my job to correct your quotes.

I have no issues with the KJV or any other version, per se, for the most part, as another thread I posted in should show. My real preference was the 1967 New Scofield Reference Black Letter Wide Margin Edition, which was a KJV, albeit with a few word changes from some archaic words, which was taken from my cab several years ago. I tried to replace it, but was unable to do so, and had to settle for something else. Since I was familiar with the notes of the New Scofield, and am not a big fan of DE, as in the NIV, the next best thing I could find with a fairly wide margin and fairly large print, was a New? Scofield Reference Bible, NKJV. Although this was in red-letter (which I personally detest) the wide margin and the nickels in the purchase price convinced me to get one, as the best that could be made of a bad situation. If one person came to salvation by someone taking my Bible with 30 years of unreplacable notes, it will have been worth it. Outside of that, I would still happily pay three times what it is worth just to get it back, no questions asked.
So you see, it is not the KJV or HCSB that I was questioning. It was someone misusing it by copying, or at least not checking what they posted, which turned out to be careless handling of the Word of God. If you are going to cite something, at least make sure what you are citing is what is actually said, be it the KJV, HCSB, or another version. You might note that whenever I "quote" a verse, I give the version as well.

That to me is a useful and worthwhile detail.

Ed

 

EdSutton: //If you are going to cite something, at least make sure what you are citing is what is actually said, be it the KJV, HCSB, or another version. You might note that whenever I "quote" a verse, I give the version as well.
That to me is a useful and worthwhile detail.//

Amen, Brother EdSutton - Preach it! :thumbs:

This is especially true because I have
three different KJVs.

 

It seems quite apparent you know exactly why you are doing this - you seek to discredit the HCSB.

If the HCSB left out the word "firstborn" then so did the KJV, Wycliffe (1395), Tyndale (1526), Coverdale (1535), The Bishops' Bible (1568), and The Geneva Bible (1587). These older versions are in agreement with the modern versions in that none of them include "firstborn" here. Apparently there is no manuscript evidence to support your contention.

I could go on refuting your claims but others have already addressed your claims very ably. There is no point in rehashing it all.

Yes, the HCSB is a good translation. The more I look at it the more I become convinced that the translators did a very good job.

 

I read the HCSB through last year and found it to be a very good translation. I also read and think highly of the NIV, the NKJV, and the KJV (1769 is the only one I own). Like all translations, the HCSB has a few verses that leave me scratching my head - Ps23:6 is one example, but those are minimal. I believe the HCSB to be a trustworthy translation that you can depend on to be the Word of God speaking to you in modern English. Bruce

 

Once again referring to Strong's, the word translated in the KJV as "for ever" and in the HCSB as "as long as I live" was yowm. Strong's goes on to give the following definition:

The writer of the 23rd Psalm likely did not mean that he would dwell in the house of the Lord eternally as we think of forever, but for as long as he lived. This would make the rendering of the HCSB not only more accurate but more understandable to modern readers than the KJV reading "for ever."

 

Amen, Brother Keith M -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

The HCSB may be a good translation of the Bible, but because it has been translated within the confines of one particular branch of the Christian church, it is always going to be open to the criticism that it has biases which reflect that particular theological perspective. The fact that a high profile Southern Baptist has made a public comment about having a Bible translation that "we can control" hasn' t helped that perception.

For that reason, I won't use the HCSB.

 

Since I was raised Southern Baptist I was thinking that Southeren Baptist is the only correct denomination! (lol, rofl, pulling your leg, tongue in my cheek, etc.)

Seriously, I have heard that the SBC has said the HCSB is not really a Baptist Bible, but I just don't see how the Southern Baptist influence could have been kept completely out if the translation.

 

AVBunyan:You missed my point here - you should give yourself a pat on the back. For my staying away from this forum is not because of your great defense of the modern versions but because your attitude - Your "style" may sit well with your moderators but it leaves me cold.

I have been lied to & on, railed at, & been told so many fishing stories by KJVOs that I have a rather cynical attitude toward them. And I find both mirth and disgust in their convoluted attempts to defend a doctrine that has no supporting evidence.

BTW - one final time with feeling - I know you cannot see this but there is a difference between faith of vs. faith in.

Yes, I know it. That's why I asked what the faith OF Christ is, since He sees all-knows all.

Let's look at your resoning here...Let's take the verses you presented as they stand...

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

Now let's look at some questions here...
Rom 5:1 - Whose faith is it there yours or Christ's? According to Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:22 it is Christ's.

Well, do YOU have faith IN Jesus Christ? I do, and that includes that He will present me spotless before His father.

Gal. 3:26 - The verse does not even include the word justified in any form. The issue here is not who or what justifies - this comes from Rom. 3:22, Gal. 2:16 and finally....

Rom 8:33 "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth"....not man's faith.

You have yet to show where man's faith can justify. Rom. 8:33 says only God can justify.

But WHY does God justify? Because JESUS says we are His.

Simple English definition:
Justify -In theology, to pardon and clear form guilt; to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the application of Christ's atonement to the offender.

Can you absolve your guilt? Can you pardon yourself? Only God can and he does this because of Calvary.

You have faith in Jesus Christ, I assume? Therefore God will justify you because Jesus says you are His.

The issue is...Which texts are right - those from Wescott and Hort/Origen or those of the King James BIble came from? It is one or the other. Anyway - as mentioned earler I do not need Greek or Hebrew to see which is superior I just compare the versions in English.

But without the source texts, you're just HOPING the translation is correct.

BTW - a good lawyer can "convince" a juror that a murderer is innocent when in truth he could be truly guilty. Infallible is more clear and exact. One can be "first " (Col. 1:18) for in Germany during the 1930's and 40's Hitler was first but according to the English definiton he was not preeminent. Preeminence is a better word to describe the Saviour. And there are many more such examples and if it wasn't for a very sore wrist I'd be glad to provide them without referring to Dr. Ruckman, etc.

First...I shall pray that your wrist heals. Being a former semipro football player, I can sympathize with anyone's having a sore wrist(or almost any other body part, for that matter!) I occasionally have a bout of arthritis in a wrist, & it aint no fun.

Let's look at the Greek in Col. 1:18 for 'preeminence'. It's "proteuo", which means 'be FIRST'. it appears that the AV men embellished the definition a little.

Now, the greek for 'infallible' in Acts 1:3 is "tekmerion", which means 'a sure or convincing proof'. It comes from 'tekmar', a fixed limit or goal. "Convincing" is certainly not incorrect in this verse.

(Cont. next post...this'n's gittin' long!)

 

Fianlly - Robo - It appears you will never accept anything I present for if you think Dr. EF Hills and the others I mentioned are in the "ignorance.stupidity pool" then you will never listen to the likes of a lowly saint like me.

Actually, a lowly saint like me would rather listen to a lowly saint like you because we lowly saints are often free of the hooey invented by those who think their mucho academics makes then superior to the resta us. However, it appears you may have taken some of their guesswork and fishing tales at face value without checking them out for yourself as I and many others have done. Otherwise, youda seen long ago that the KJVO myth is without merit.


Though I appreciated you at least spending time on your responses (which shows a desire to be thorough of which I commend you for) your posts still come across as borderling a "mocking" like manner. It is funny how many blast Dr. Ruckman for his "caustic" manner and then you sound just like him to me.

Same as the other KJVOs, Ruckie simply cannot present any evidence showing the KJVO myth is the least bit true. And again, I have become cynical of the KJVO camp in general because, when pressed for evidence they repeat the same mantras over and over...stuff that's been proven wrong long ago. One example is the "Psalm 12:7 thingie " which the AV 1611 itself proves wrong...but since it's found in Wilkinson's book, the "party-line" KJVO authors have repeated it lock-step in their books & articles. And others such as Dr. lawrence vance and Terry Watkins have shown SHEER IGNORANCE! (At least I HOPE that's what it is insteada deliberate lies.) Vance pushes the silliness that God's word has undergone seven purifications, culminating in the KJV. POPPYCOCK! GOD'S words were pure the instant He uttered them! No mere man could 'purify' them! and watkins hollers about MVs calling Joseph Jesus' father in Luke 2:33. What makes this both ignorant and amusing is that THE KJV AND ALL OTHER VALID VERSIONS DO THE SAME THING AT LUKE 2:41 & 48! But yet most KJVOs repeat that garbage...and then wonder why I & other Freedom Readers mock them from a position of pure cynicism!

Finally - I don't panick if a person is not "KJV only" - I've got more grace than that. Many of the old writers I read took liberties with the text and some corrected it - doesn't shake me or make me think less of them as saints or writers.

But you don't hesitate to diss almost any other version, do you? Dontcha realize that the HCSB may be the ONLY BV that some English readers have? Now, if it was a bogus bible such as "Good As New", I would chime right in with my own dissing, but I've the HCSB to be an accurate translation of the mss its translators used. By calling someone else's Bible bogus when it really ISN'T, you may be interfering with GOD'S WORK! You REALLY don't wanna do THAT, do ya?

My concern is this modern age defense of the modern versions. We are in the last days where sound doctrine is not endured - it is painfully obvious.

MY concern is that the KJVOs are spreading a lie...that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version...and that it may cause many to doubt their Bibles. Obviously, KJVO is NOT sound doctrine...it's entirely MAN-MADE and not supported whatsoever by SCRIPTURE. There's but ONE valid reason to be KJVO...and that's PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

There's nothing seriously wrong with the HCSB...just saying "it aint the kjv" doesn't count.

As for the textual issues...dontcha believe God can, & does, take care of His word? One can argue He caused Tischendorf to rescue Sinaiticus from the trash and the RCC to overlook Vaticanus in their searches to find & burn that they thought to be corrupt mss. I believe GOD chose to preserve them for His own reasons, whether WE wanna believe it or not. The textual issue is very far from being either settled or certain.

God bless

God bless YOU, also. I say this in all sincerity and not in sarcasm. Again, I pray your wrist heals.

 

1. Depends on how you look at it - with the number of versions out there I believe this has raised even more doubts and confusion - I even had a Islam cleric tell me that the reason they are right is because they have only 1 version (false BTW) while Christians have 100's! Even a Moslem sees the confusion.

Imagine what it would be like if there were but one - basically used to be that way from 1611 to around 1900 or so (except for the Roman versions) and look at what God did with those folks during that time.

2. Robo - I take what I believe by faith as the scriptures demand. How does anyone kno which "source" ones are the real ones anyway?

Regarding infallible and preeminence - which one in the English describes Christ better - the KJV or the modern versions? Infallible and preeiminence are better regardles of the different definitons of the Greek - folks can see different Greek definition all the time - that is why I stick with the English - the Greek can be shown to be a lot of things depending on the writer and the manuscript.

3. Show me where multiple and conflicting bibles is supported by scripture - I'll go further - show me from scripture where only the originals are inspiried. Show me from scripture where the originals are inspired. I can take any verions (I guess and show yoou that what Timothy had was inspired and that he most likely did not have the "originals".

4. I believe you to be sincere here and I thank you for your prayers.

God bless

 

AVBunyan: //Show me where multiple and conflicting bibles is supported by scripture ... //

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

AVBunyan: // Robo - I take what I believe by faith as the scriptures demand.//

Tee hee, so does Bro Robocop3.
He just believes something different than you
which happens to be better. He doesn't tie up God's
Hands and limit the Creator of the Universe to expressing
Himself in ONE AND ONLY ONE book.
He lets God by OmniPotent and able to express Himself
in both 17th Century (1601-1700) English
and 21st Century (2001-2100) English.

 

So Ed - are you saying God likes multiple and conlicting versions to express himself?

Which is better - one book that is consistent or multple conflicting and inconsistent versions?

Or maybe Ed you and others don't like to be pinned down to one authority. The flesh likes room to "breath".

And please Ed - your "tee hees" sound so...well...just don't know how to respectfully describe them.

 

AVBunyan: //And please Ed - your "tee hees" sound so foolish.//

Excuse me, Sir.
A short history of the smilie:

1974-1982 teehee
1983-1992
1993-2002
2003-whenever :1_grouphug:

What were you doing in 1982 when one had to use
the 'teehee'?

AVBunyan: ///Or maybe Ed you and others don't like
to be pinned down to one authority. The flesh likes room to "breath".//

There is one authority: God Almighty and His Holy Spirit within us.

Eph 4:4-6 (KJV1611 Edition):
There is one body,
and one spirit,
euen as yee are called in one hope of your calling.
5 One Lord,
one Faith,
one Baptisme,
6 One God and Father of all,
who is aboue all, & through all, & in you all.

Where is the 'one book'?

 

Ed Edwards:
//He doesn't tie up God's
Hands and limit the Creator of the Universe to expressing
Himself in ONE AND ONLY ONE book.//

AVBunyan: //So Ed - are you saying God likes multiple
and conlicting versions to express himself?//

Of course not. You brought "multiple and conflicting
versions" to the discussion. Go support my topic:
Deconflicting the Bible at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33814

instead of doing your exercise: Jumping to Conclusions TeeHee

AVBunyan: //Which is better - one book that is consistent
or multple conflicting and inconsistent versions?//

Instead of berating many versions of the Bible
with "multple conflicting and inconsistent version" please:
Go support my topic:
Deconflicting the Bible at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33814

instead of doing your exercise: Jumping to Conclusions TeeHee