Holman Translation

I suppose if he were to refer to them as sugar dumped into the tea, he would have been complaining that he was a diabetic and couldn't drink the tea, regardless he complained about them.

 

The translation is "controlled" only in such a way as that Broadman/Holman is an entity/agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, and that royalties are not paid by the SBC agencies to some other entity for this. I've already posted some of this in my post # 11.

Pleaase check out these links, and truly get "the rest of the story":

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=77

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm#hcsb

http://www.bible-researcher.com/csb.html

Thes allegations, repeated without checking them out, are insinuations and gossip. In fact, maybe a third of the translators were So. Baptist; the remainder were of other institutions and denominations. The first Chief Editor, again, was the late Dr. Arthur L. Farstad, an outstanding Greek scholar, who earned his ThM and ThD from Dallas where he was an instructor in Greek, prior to accepting the position as Chief Editor for the NKJV (which is actually more of a "Baptist" translation, by 'Nelson' with a much higher percentage of Baptists as translators than the HCSB). Dr. Farstad was also, along with Zane Hodges, co-author of the Greek New Testament, According To The Majority Text; and was Editor of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society; and then was selected to be Chief Editor of the HCSB. This is hardly a "Southern Baptist', by lineage, and I don't recall anything about Dallas Seminary ever being considered a "So. Baptist" institution.

At Dr. Farstad's untimely and unexpected homegoing at the age of 62, the Associate Chief Editor, Dr. Edwin A. Blum assumed the Chief Editor position. Dr. Blum earned his B.A. from Bob Jones University, and the ThM and ThD from Dallas, as did Dr. Farstad, and was a Professor at DTS, as well, and is actually, personally, a very strong 'Calvinist', I believe. I don't think many consider Bob Jones to be a So. Baptist institution, either.

One may or may not like or agree or disagree with the HCSB. I personally don't care, but one should report fairly and accurately, IMO, and not just repeat what someone else said.

Ed

 

I note the word 'DUMPED' is NOT used in the KJB
(it hadn't been invented yet. Leads me to wonder
why an Jacobian era linguist would recognize
the term?)
I note the word 'DUMP' is NOT used in the KJB.

If the word 'dump' was used in the KJB , it would have this
meaning noted at:

http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=dump

Note how these two translations of the Bible convey the
same Message from God:

Matthew 5:11-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
Blessed are ye, when men shall reuile you,
and persecute you, and shal say all manner of euill
against you falsly for my sake.
12 Reioyce, and be exceeding glad: for great
is your reward in heauen: For so persecuted
they the Prophets which were before you.

Matthew 5:11 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible ):
"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you,
and say every kind of evil against you falsely because of Me.
12 Be glad and rejoice, because your reward
is great in heaven. For that is how they persecuted
the prophets who were before you.

 

My English Language advisor suggests that
'dump' as used above is a verb (the 'ed' at the end
gives a clue). Verbs do NOT have antecedents.

Bad question

It is pronouns which have antecedents.
Here 'antecedent' means the noun
(or nouns) for which the pronoun stands.

 

Note how these two translations of the Bible convey the
same Message from God:

Matthew 7:1-2 (KJV1611 Edition):
Iudge not, that ye be not iudged.
2 For with what iudgment ye iudge, yee shall be iudged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you againe.

Matthew 7:1-2 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible ):
"Do not judge, so that you won't be judged.
2 For with the judgment you use, you will be judged,
and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

Amen, Brother EdSutton -- Preach it! :thumbs:

It is a strange Double Standard that teaches a translation
by baby baptizin' Anglicans is unphased by Anglican doctrine (that is good)
but a translation partially by Believer baptizin' Baptists (that is evil).

 

What then has caused HCSB's sales downfall? A year ago, it was number six on the CBA list of best selling translation, but now has dropped from the list. Even NCV and NIRV outsells it. If it was the translation of the SBC, why doesn't it sell better? my church is a very large SBC church with our own Lifeway store and they do not endorse it in any way.

 

I just read a thread lately that had the HCSB along with the NIV and the NLT2 at the top. I guess it depends on the poll. I love the HCSB, BTW. Of the 25 translations I have on esword, it's the one I use most often.

 

'Sales' of the HCSB are actually far better than this list could ever show, since it is undoubtedly a list of complete Bibles sold. As the HCSB is now used in most, if not all of the SBC literature as the 'version in modern language', and as there are probably millions of pieces of literature sold annually, and all the royalties are 'in house', as well as the portions of Scripture used in the literature, this figure is probably somewhat, although unintentionally, misleading.

Ed

 

My, my, my! Such pride! And since you regularly participate in the "mindless blah blah blah" that means you are no different than anyone else who participates here, Jim! It is just as "mindless" when it comes from you as when it comes from someone else!

 

I agree with Ed S . that there are other sources for the ranking of Bibles sales . Amazon has their own system for instance .

I agree with Webdog ( and that's saying something because of our big theological differences ) in that I too favor the HCSB .

I disagree with Keith once more . The alleged differences between the HSSB and TNIV are fractional . They are minimal in degree . They have much more in common with one another . Some would like a wedge placed between them for their own purposes though .

There is a lot of inconsistency with those who value the NET text and yet disparage the TNIV . The same applies to those who appreciate the NLT2 and yet distain the TNIV . They are shooting their own foot to make points they can't win .

I'd like to ask Keith if he thinks the TNIV is a " legitimate version " ( a phrase he uses on these threads a great deal .) . Does it deny or downplay any doctrine ? Can someone come to a saving knowlege of The Lord Jesus Christ with it ? Is the NIV in the same distained position as the TNIV though the latter is altered only some 7% in the NT ?

Keith , do you own TNIV in hardback ? Have you taken the time to evaluate it apart from the negative hype over the last several years ? In side-by-side comparisons the HCSB and the TNIV come out very close to one another .

To dismiss TNIV as so beneath most versions is an indication you haven't taken enough time to really examine the claims you make . Do you think it is overly dynamic ? Do you put it in the same category as The Message ?

It's instructive how TNIV and NLT2 do in comparison with the HCSB as far as being literal goes . For instance the word "arm" in the Scripture refers to the Lord's power and authority . But in the following references the HCSB does not use "arm" at all . What you may call loose translations actually give it a literal rendering at times .

Isaiah 51:9 -- both TNIV and NLT2 are more literal than the HCSB .

Isaiah 40:10 -- both TNIV and NLT2 are more literal than the HCSB .

Isaiah 33:2 -- the NLT2 is more literal than TNIV and HCSB .

Psalm 77:15 -- both TNIV and NLT2 are more literal than the HCSB .

2 Chron. 32:8 -- TNIV is more literal than the HCSB .

I do not wish to infer that the renderings of the HCSB in the above are substandard , they aren't . But there are enough times in which the HCSB is not as literal as TNIV and even the usually more dynamic NLT2 . In general the HCSB is a tad more literal than the TNIV . A tad , not a bunch . In other words promoting big differences between these translations is missing the mark by a mile .

 

Yeah , I really appreciated my thoughts in the last post .:laugh: I sometimes am curious as to what I actually said in the past . Hurray for the HCSB,TNIV ,NLTse , NET and the guy on the block -- the ISV !

 

New way to a thread, Rippon?

Ed

 

There's a writer's strike going on Ed. I am rerunning this thread .

 

IMHO the HCSB is better than any Horse Racing News.

Jesus of the HCSB is a SURE BET;
those horses are phony

 

Now that's a good one, Ripoff, 'er I mean Rippon. I beg a thousand pardons, please, for getting your handle wrong, accidentally. On Purpose! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

CS,

Well, I see that this thread was started several months ago. But here's my input anyway. I like the HCSB. I consider it to be similar in balance to the NIV, but IMO it's more accurate. I knew Art Farstad, the person who really developed the HCSB. (Originally called Logos21.) He had the rough draft completed when the SBC came to him in reaction to the NIVI, TNIV controversy and asked about helping him finish it. He died in 98, shortly after the HCSB project was started, and it is surprising that Holman doesn't even mention him, though the translation is essentially his.

I mention this because it is not really a Southern Baptist translation, though Farstad was SB. I live in the south now, and hence most fundamental churches here are SB, so I'm attending one myself now. But the SBC was probably just saving NIV royalties in their Sunday school material.

Anyway, I have been using the HCSB as my main Bible for about 5 years now.

Incidently, Logos21 was unique in that it was to be a Byzantine text original translation based on Hodges & Farstad's Greek Majority Text. But after his death it was converted to an Alexandrian text-base.

FA

 

The ESV Bible Blog has a post regarding Bible Text Stats . I'll just give some fractional info in comparing the HCSB to the ESV .

Sentences

HCSB -- 46,394
ESV ---- 36,457

I find the Holman reaches a better range with this number compared to the ESV . There are too many lengthy sentences in the ESV . The HCSB reads more smoothy . ( BTW , even the NIV didn't do so well here at 39,873 sentences . )

Words

HCSB -- 872,271
ESV ---- 804,566

That's kind of a tossup . And the amount of words doesn't necessarily reflect how good a version may or may not be .


Syllables per word

HCSB --1.4
ESV ----1.3

Well , here the ESV came out ahead .



Words per sentence

HCSB -- 18.8
ESV ---- 22.1

That's a difference of 3.3 words per sentence . That adds up in time . It's best to use fewer, rather than more words . But I don't recommend 9.1 as is the case of the NIrV . The latter is ideal for young children and people who speak English as a second or third language . However , it makes sentences too bite-size for most of us . I like the 14.8 which the NLT is listed as having . ( I don't know if it is the 1996 version or the 2004 .) The mid-teen range is best .

 

// Incidently, Logos21 was unique in that it was
to be a Byzantine text original translation based
on Hodges & Farstad's Greek Majority Text.
But after his death it was converted to
an Alexandrian text-base. //

I respectfully disagree.

I find the HCSB (Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003)
agreeing with the KJVs more
often than not. The HCSB does agree with the
KJVs more than the nKJV (new King James
Version agrees with the KJVs.

However, the available Bible
sources were used by the HCSB Translators
just like the KJVs translators used
the then available Bible sources. The variants
are noted in the footnotes JUST LIKE THE
original KJV1611 Edition had - translator
footnotes.

IMHO Translator Footnotes being helpful
to understanding God's Preserved & Holy
Written Words share the inerrancy received
from the original texts.

Caveat: there is nothing inerrant about the
commentary found in Bibles -- a good idea or a few,
but not inerrancy.

 

Ed E. : I think that the ESV readings may be closer to the renderings of the KJV's than the HCSB . What do y-o-u think ? And if that is the case , that does not make the ESV any more accurate on that account .