# Found a problem with the Holman Christian Standard Bible



## Osage Bluestem

I am not pleased with the translation.

Malachi 3:6 HCSB
6 "Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed

The HCSB has ruined this passage that has traditionally taught God's immutability by leaving the possibiliy of change open and taking the traditionally definitive passage out of the definitive catagory.

I'm quite dissapointed in it really.

Translations of Malachi 3:6 for comparison.

KJB: 6For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

ESV: 6"For I the LORD do not change;therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

NKJV: 6 “ For I am the LORD, I do not change; 
Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob. 

NASB: 6"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed. 

NIV: 6 “I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Sorry, David. Every Bible renditions from the original languages has its share of drawbacks. These newcomers keep wanting to throw something "fresh" at us. Just keep Holman on your reference-shelf, and it may come in handy sometime.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The HCSB is truly an interesting translation. Lifeway first thought of doing a new translation because so many Baptists and other conservative evangelicals were unhappy with the NIV. It was originally supposed to be done under the direction of Arthur Farstad, who oversaw the NKJV, and it was supposed to use the TR or the Majority text for its textual base. Farstad died before it was started, and the translation commitee then decided to go with the Critical Text instead, except that some of the members of the translation team has some issues with the CT. What ended up resulting is a translation that is mostly based on the CT, but occassionally will give a reading based on either the TR or the MT. It is truly an eclectic version and I don't neccesarily mean that in a positive way.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I enjoy reading the Psalms in the HCSB. They may be bad Hebrew translations (I would have no clue), but I like the way it reads. I have noticed that other passages did seem quite odd in its wording.


----------



## MarieP

Well, you do have to appreciate the HCSB's translation of John 3:16...

"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."


----------



## MW

MarieP said:


> Well, you do have to appreciate the HCSB's translation of John 3:16...
> 
> "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life."


 
I can't appreciate the imprecision of it. Also, where is the "only begotten Son?" I will adhere to the translations made by "men of our profession."


----------



## MW

Osage Bluestem said:


> Ridiculous! I can't stand it. Translating Malachi 3:6 the way the HCSB did is unreasonable and makes me lose all faith in it. What in the world were they thinking?


 
I think Rev. Buchanan summed it up -- novelty. The reader is right to lose faith in a translation which is made by men who have failed to show good faith towards the Bible-believer.


----------



## AThornquist

armourbearer said:


> I can't appreciate the imprecision of it. Also, where is the "only begotten Son?" I will adhere to the translations made by "men of our profession."



According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

AThornquist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't appreciate the imprecision of it. Also, where is the "only begotten Son?" I will adhere to the translations made by "men of our profession."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.
Click to expand...

 
The Greek word translated "only begotten"in the KJV is _monogenes_. It is properly translated as unique or special. While begotten is certainly not a perfect translation, it is alot better than "one and only" which is how most modern versions render it. This word is also used in Hebrews to describe Isaac, so the meaning certainly can't be one and only. Abraham had other sons, but Isaac was his unique son, just as all men are the sons of God, but Jesus is His unique son.


----------



## torstar

Isn't it great how new translations make everyone think they are a higher critic and think their version is holier because they like a turn of phrase better than other versions?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

torstar said:


> Isn't it great how new translations make everyone think they are a higher critic and think their version is holier because they like a turn of phrase better than other versions?


 
HCSB fan?


----------



## baron

Osage Bluestem said:


> Malachi 3:6 HCSB
> 6 "Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed
> 
> The above is a reason enough to not take it seriously. The HCSB has absolutley ruined this passage that has traditionally taught God's immutability by leaving the possibiliy of change open and taking the traditionally definitive passage out of the definitive catagory.



I do not understand what you are saying. I think I understand, but when I read the whole book it in context, I do not come to the same conclusion you do. Is this not proving that God is immutable? It could be that I'm mistaken. Is not Malachi writing because the people are saying God has changed? In 1:2 But you ask: How have You loved us? So a simple statement from God saying: Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed.

As I said I see no problem in the passage. These people are looking at God as He has changed. But God say's He did not change. 

I guess what I'm asking is should not this verse be taken in context with the whole book of Malachi and not just by itself?

Even the note for 3:6 reads: In reply to charges that He had been unfaithful, God declared that if He were not the immutable God who did not lie, was not capricious, and whose purposes and promises were irrevocable [Num 23:19: Ps 89:33-34: Is 46:3-4, Rm11:26-29: Heb 6:17-18], Israel's rebellion would have destroyed them long ago like Edom's in Mal 1:2-5: cp Ps 124: Hs11:9. From HCSB page 1594.


----------



## ClayPot

Osage Bluestem said:


> Malachi 3:6 HCSB
> 6 "Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed
> 
> The above is a reason enough to not take it seriously. The HCSB has absolutley ruined this passage that has traditionally taught God's immutability by leaving the possibiliy of change open and taking the traditionally definitive passage out of the definitive catagory.
> 
> Regarding the notes and articles in the Apologetics Study Bible, I can't recommned them. An article on God's Sovereignty and Free Will is done by William Craig who is a Molinist! The notes in Romans 9 say that Jeremiah 18 teaches clearly that God has possible outcomes to events and will change his actions according to what people decide to do...



A quick question David. Is the passage incorrectly translated from the Hebrew or do you simply not like the way they rendered the passage? John 3:16 has been rendered (and consequently misunderstood) for generations now, (i.e., God loved the world SO MUCH that he sent his only begotton Son . . .). The HCSB is actually the best mainstream Bible on the market regarding accurate translation of this passage, but you might dislike the rendering of that passage also.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

baron said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Malachi 3:6 HCSB
> 6 "Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed
> 
> The above is a reason enough to not take it seriously. The HCSB has absolutley ruined this passage that has traditionally taught God's immutability by leaving the possibiliy of change open and taking the traditionally definitive passage out of the definitive catagory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not understand what you are saying. I think I understand, but when I read the whole book it in context, I do not come to the same conclusion you do. Is this not proving that God is immutable? It could be that I'm mistaken. Is not Malachi writing because the people are saying God has changed? In 1:2 But you ask: How have You loved us? So a simple statement from God saying: Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed.
> 
> As I said I see no problem in the passage. These people are looking at God as He has changed. But God say's He did not change.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking is should not this verse be taken in context with the whole book of Malachi and not just by itself?
> 
> Even the note for 3:6 reads: In reply to charges that He had been unfaithful, God declared that if He were not the immutable God who did not lie, was not capricious, and whose purposes and promises were irrevocable [Num 23:19: Ps 89:33-34: Is 46:3-4, Rm11:26-29: Heb 6:17-18], Israel's rebellion would have destroyed them long ago like Edom's in Mal 1:2-5: cp Ps 124: Hs11:9. From HCSB page 1594.
Click to expand...

 
Malachi 3:6 has traditionally been the one verse definitive that shows conclusively that God does not change. When he says "I do not change" he is addressing his immutability. That is the way it has always been understood. There are many books on the sovereignty of God and many commentaries that would have made no sense if the verse read. "I have not changed" I have not changed does not communicate will not change. I do not change does communicate that.

---------- Post added at 09:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:25 AM ----------




jpfrench81 said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Malachi 3:6 HCSB
> 6 "Because I, Yahweh, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed
> 
> The above is a reason enough to not take it seriously. The HCSB has absolutley ruined this passage that has traditionally taught God's immutability by leaving the possibiliy of change open and taking the traditionally definitive passage out of the definitive catagory.
> 
> Regarding the notes and articles in the Apologetics Study Bible, I can't recommned them. An article on God's Sovereignty and Free Will is done by William Craig who is a Molinist! The notes in Romans 9 say that Jeremiah 18 teaches clearly that God has possible outcomes to events and will change his actions according to what people decide to do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A quick question David. Is the passage incorrectly translated from the Hebrew or do you simply not like the way they rendered the passage? John 3:16 has been rendered (and consequently misunderstood) for generations now, (i.e., God loved the world SO MUCH that he sent his only begotton Son . . .). The HCSB is actually the best mainstream Bible on the market regarding accurate translation of this passage, but you might dislike the rendering of that passage also.
Click to expand...


I think that the Hebrew has been incorrectly represented, unless Strong's is wrong. I highly doubt it is.

Mal 3:6 KJV ForH3588 IH589 am the LORD,H3068 I changeH8138 not;H3808 therefore yeH859 sonsH1121 of JacobH3290 are notH3808 consumed.H3615 

H8138
שׁנה
shânâh
shaw-naw'
A primitive root; to fold, that is, duplicate (literally or figuratively (); by implication to transmute (transitively or intransitively): - do (speak, strike) again, alter, double, (be given to) change, disguise, (be) diverse, pervert, prefer, repeat, return, do the second time.

H3808
לה לוא לא
lô' lô' lôh
lo, lo, lo
lo; a primitive particle; not (the simple or abstract negation); by implication no; often used with other particles: - X before, + or else, ere, + except, ig [-norant], much, less, nay, neither, never, no ([-ne], -r, [-thing]), (X as though . . . , [can-], for) not (out of), of nought, otherwise, out of, + surely, + as truly as, + of a truth, + verily, for want, + whether, without.

Regarding John 3:16. I do not like the way it is worded in the HCSB. It is awkward and strange. But I can accept only or one and only used instead of begotten.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

HCSB translated John 3:16 better than just about everyone else.


----------



## iainduguid

Disclaimer #1: I think the best translation of this passage is "I the Lord do not change..."

Disclaimer #2: I'm not an entirely neutral party on this: I did the initial translation of Ezekiel 26-48 for the HCSV, as well as the notes on Judges and Ruth in the HCSV Study Bible. I happen to think it's a pretty good translation, having used it in my Hebrew classes for the past few years. But I don't think it's certainly not perfect, not even the part I worked on (especially after the English style editors finished!).

Having said that, it's perfectly possible to defend the translation "I have not changed.." as a good translation of the Hebrew; in fact, the Hebrew of the verse is an exactly parallel construction between the two halves of the verse: "I have not changed...therefore you have not been destroyed". If the definite perfect is an allowable translation of the second part, it cannot be impossible for the first part. This is how the Jewish Tanakh translation of the Old Testament renders it, and Douglas Stuart argues for this translation in the commentary edited by McComiskey (see his substantial argumentation there). I don't know who translated Malachi for the HCSV, but it is possible that it was Stuart, since he was a contributor to the HCSV.

Either way, Sturat does not deny divine immutability, nor can it rest simply on a verb form that clearly can legitimately be translated in more than one way. If you want a one verse summary, Num. 23:19 would be a better place to go, since it predicates God's not changing on the difference between God and man. Malachi 3 simply illustrates that truth by the fact that God has not (as a matter of fact) changed in his faithful love in spite of Israel's long history of rebellion. Now since that fact flows out of his character (see Num 23:19), it is perfectly appropriate to translate the Hebrew perfect here with a gnomic present ("I do not change") as most English translations do, and I did in my commentary. But it is not a marker of orthodoxy or heresy.

This is one reason why I encourage students to learn Hebrew: to discover how hard the task of a translator is, and to be able to evaluate the text for themselves rather than being dependent upon their favorite translations! Translators don't get to write half a page justifying why you chose a particular translation, and it is easy to find verses in any translation that you don't like. That will be true for every single translation (anyone care to defend the KJV of Prov. 29:18, for example?). 

Iain


----------



## Osage Bluestem

iainduguid said:


> Disclaimer #1: I think the best translation of this passage is "I the Lord do not change..."
> 
> Disclaimer #2: I'm not an entirely neutral party on this: I did the initial translation of Ezekiel 26-48 for the HCSV, as well as the notes on Judges and Ruth in the HCSV Study Bible. I happen to think it's a pretty good translation, having used it in my Hebrew classes for the past few years. But I don't think it's certainly not perfect, not even the part I worked on (especially after the English style editors finished!).
> 
> Having said that, it's perfectly possible to defend the translation "I have not changed.." as a good translation of the Hebrew; in fact, the Hebrew of the verse is an exactly parallel construction between the two halves of the verse: "I have not changed...therefore you have not been destroyed". If the definite perfect is an allowable translation of the second part, it cannot be impossible for the first part. This is how the Jewish Tanakh translation of the Old Testament renders it, and Douglas Stuart argues for this translation in the commentary edited by McComiskey (see his substantial argumentation there). I don't know who translated Malachi for the HCSV, but it is possible that it was Stuart, since he was a contributor to the HCSV.
> 
> Either way, Sturat does not deny divine immutability, nor can it rest simply on a verb form that clearly can legitimately be translated in more than one way. If you want a one verse summary, Num. 23:19 would be a better place to go, since it predicates God's not changing on the difference between God and man. Malachi 3 simply illustrates that truth by the fact that God has not (as a matter of fact) changed in his faithful love in spite of Israel's long history of rebellion. Now since that fact flows out of his character (see Num 23:19), it is perfectly appropriate to translate the Hebrew perfect here with a gnomic present ("I do not change") as most English translations do, and I did in my commentary. But it is not a marker of orthodoxy or heresy.
> 
> This is one reason why I encourage students to learn Hebrew: to discover how hard the task of a translator is, and to be able to evaluate the text for themselves rather than being dependent upon their favorite translations! Translators don't get to write half a page justifying why you chose a particular translation, and it is easy to find verses in any translation that you don't like. That will be true for every single translation (anyone care to defend the KJV of Prov. 29:18, for example?).
> 
> Iain


 
Great post! It's nice to have a Hebrew translator who actually worked on the unit chime in.

Thank you for clarifying that it is an option to translate it that way. So, now we know that it's not simply a mistake.

However, it is such a high profile passage. Many reformed books and articles and footnotes dealing with God's sovereignty and immutability have pointed to Malachi 3:6. The Reformation Study Bible note on Malachi 3:6 uses it as a proof text for immutability even.

With such a constant as the translation of Malachi 3:6 why would anyone want to change it? The rendering I have not changed doesn't communicate the same thing.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> With such a constant as the translation of Malachi 3:6 why would anyone want to change it?



Because they felt their translation was more faithful to the meaning of the text?

There are many who are going to ask the same question about the HCSB's John 3:16. They have always seen "so" as an intensifier vs. "in this manner." There is no doubt that the Greek gives the latter translation. Should we keep the "so" because that it what we grew up on? I don't think so. Familiarity is not the purpose of translations, rather faithfulness to the text is.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> With such a constant as the translation of Malachi 3:6 why would anyone want to change it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they felt their translation was more faithful to the meaning of the text?
> 
> There are many who are going to ask the same question about the HCSB's John 3:16. They have always seen "so" as an intensifier vs. "in this manner." There is no doubt that the Greek gives the latter translation. Should we keep the "so" because that it what we grew up on? I don't think so. Familiarity is not the purpose of translations, rather faithfulness to the text is.
Click to expand...

 
I think you are absolutely right that faithfulness to the text is the most important thing. I also think that sometimes people make their own interpretation of a text regardless of how it is rendered. The word "so" in John 3:16 does not neccesarily have to be an intensifier. It could be used in the sense of asking a question and someone responding "like so" as opposed to the way it is generally misinterpreted as "so much." No matter how you translate John 3:16, Arminians will still cling to it as the Holy Grail of free will salvation. What we need to do is teach people to interpret verses in context. If someone reads the entire third chapter of John, as opposed to just verse 16, they will get a much fuller picture of the true nature of salvation.


----------



## py3ak

Unashamed 116 said:


> HCSB translated John 3:16 better than just about everyone else.


 
I've heard this claim multiple times, but haven't understood it. Why is the HCSB superior here?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Chaplainintraining said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> With such a constant as the translation of Malachi 3:6 why would anyone want to change it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they felt their translation was more faithful to the meaning of the text?
> 
> There are many who are going to ask the same question about the HCSB's John 3:16. They have always seen "so" as an intensifier vs. "in this manner." There is no doubt that the Greek gives the latter translation. Should we keep the "so" because that it what we grew up on? I don't think so. Familiarity is not the purpose of translations, rather faithfulness to the text is.
Click to expand...

 
But he just said that Malachi 3:6 is better translated as "I do not change" as opposed to "I have not changed" So, since we have a translator that worked on that bible here saying that the traditional translation is better, why would the translator of Malachi pick the other? It doesn't make any sense to me. It literally undermines many works such as Boettner, Pink, Hodge, Sproul...all of these guys have referenced Malachi 3:6 as a proof text for immutability, with this new traslation in the HCSB it simply doesn't communicate what all of these guys referenced it as communicating so the HCSB makes their work irrelevant if it is indeed a "standard" text. It really bothers me.


----------



## CharlieJ

So, David, Bible translations are now judged based on their fidelity to preferred theological works? That's backwards. No translator should base his considerations on how R. C. Sproul uses a passage. The HCSB translation doesn't lose anything, because anyone who believes in immutability still has ample reasons to believe in it, whereas someone who doesn't believe in immutability could still point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew. In other words, the fact that it could be translated either way means that this verse can't single-handedly carry the argument.

By the way, the Septuagint translates the verb as a perfect (ουκ ηλλοιωμαι), as does the German Elberfelder Bibel (ich habe mich nicht geändert). So, the HCSB isn't a unilateral departure. 



> Translating Malachi 3:6 the way the HCSB did is unreasonable and makes me lose all faith in it.



Unreasonable is a person who, ignorant of the original languages, decides that he is qualified to make snap judgments, not only of translation choices, but also of the translators' competency. Unreasonable is condemning an entire translation on the basis of a single translational preference.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> But he just said that Malachi 3:6 is better translated as "I do not change" as opposed to "I have not changed" So, since we have a translator that worked on that bible here saying that the traditional translation is better, why would the translator of Malachi pick the other?



Iain felt "I do not change" was the best translation, but he was not the one doing the translating of this passage. Whoever translated Malachi felt for whatever reasons that "have not changed" was more in line with the context.

The NET has : Since, I, the Lord, do not go back on my promises, you, sons of Jacob, have not perished. This seems to be more in line with what is going on in the passage.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

CharlieJ said:


> So, David, Bible translations are now judged based on their fidelity to preferred theological works? That's backwards. No translator should base his considerations on how R. C. Sproul uses a passage. The HCSB translation doesn't lose anything, because anyone who believes in immutability still has ample reasons to believe in it, whereas someone who doesn't believe in immutability could still point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew. In other words, the fact that it could be translated either way means that this verse can't single-handedly carry the argument.
> 
> By the way, the Septuagint translates the verb as a perfect (ουκ ηλλοιωμαι), as does the German Elberfelder Bibel (ich habe mich nicht geändert). So, the HCSB isn't a unilateral departure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translating Malachi 3:6 the way the HCSB did is unreasonable and makes me lose all faith in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unreasonable is a person who, ignorant of the original languages, decides that he is qualified to make snap judgments, not only of translation choices, but also of the translators' competency. Unreasonable is condemning an entire translation on the basis of a single translational preference.
Click to expand...

 
No bible translators aren't judged on their fidelity to documents. They are judged to their fidelity to scripture and in this case all other major translations agree with the writers of those particular documents we all love. So who is the odd man out here? The HCSB. Are you saying the HCSB is superior in this decision to the NASB, ESV, and NKJV? I don't see it. I'm no expert of the original languages but I'm not exactly "ignorant" either. 

Regarding the passage, it is indeed an important one. It is one many have and I currently do use to defend immutability often against synergists and open theists. I simply feel like a change there does indeed destroy the credibility of the whole translation. It certainly makes it one I won't be using for "apologetics"


----------



## athanatos

Chaplainintraining said:


> The NET has : Since, I, the Lord, do not go back on my promises, you, sons of Jacob, have not perished. This seems to be more in line with what is going on in the passage.



This is how I would read/interpret the HCSB's rendering...


----------



## Bethel

Osage Bluestem said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, David, Bible translations are now judged based on their fidelity to preferred theological works? That's backwards. No translator should base his considerations on how R. C. Sproul uses a passage. The HCSB translation doesn't lose anything, because anyone who believes in immutability still has ample reasons to believe in it, whereas someone who doesn't believe in immutability could still point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew. In other words, the fact that it could be translated either way means that this verse can't single-handedly carry the argument.
> 
> By the way, the Septuagint translates the verb as a perfect (ουκ ηλλοιωμαι), as does the German Elberfelder Bibel (ich habe mich nicht geändert). So, the HCSB isn't a unilateral departure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translating Malachi 3:6 the way the HCSB did is unreasonable and makes me lose all faith in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unreasonable is a person who, ignorant of the original languages, decides that he is qualified to make snap judgments, not only of translation choices, but also of the translators' competency. Unreasonable is condemning an entire translation on the basis of a single translational preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No bible translators aren't judged on their fidelity to documents. They are judged to their fidelity to scripture and in this case all other major translations agree with the writers of those particular documents we all love. So who is the odd man out here? The HCSB. Are you saying the HCSB is superior in this decision to the NASB, ESV, and NKJV? I don't see it. I'm no expert of the original languages but I'm not exactly "ignorant" either.
> 
> Regarding the passage, it is indeed an important one. It is one many have and I currently do use to defend immutability often against synergists and open theists. I simply feel like a change there does indeed destroy the credibility of the whole translation. It certainly makes it one I won't be using for "apologetics"
Click to expand...

 
So you don't like the HCSB because the translation is no longer practical for you? Really?

The verb phrase "have changed" is in the present perfect tense. It can refer to an act completed at any time before the present OR it can refer to an act begun in the past and continued in the present. I think the latter applies to Malachi 3:6. I (God) have not changed (and I still am not changing).

In our Latin studies, I find verb tense to be the most difficult aspect of translation. My boys have the same struggle in Greek. I can only venture to guess it's not an exact science in Hebrew either. On top of that, Americans are not known for their grammar knowledge (especially when it comes to verb tense). That's why we do an intense study of English grammar along with Latin and Greek in our homeschool.


----------



## Michael

py3ak said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HCSB translated John 3:16 better than just about everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this claim multiple times, but haven't understood it. Why is the HCSB superior here?
Click to expand...


Bump


----------



## MW

AThornquist said:


> According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.


 
"Conservative" men do not follow academic fads.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HCSB translated John 3:16 better than just about everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this claim multiple times, but haven't understood it. Why is the HCSB superior here?
Click to expand...

 
It is on the basis that "so" might suggest the degree (how much) whereas the original only intends the manner (in what way) God loved. Compare John 3:8, 14. "So" is the perfectly natural English translation. Holman is going out of its way to make a theological point and stilts the translation in the process.


----------



## athanatos

py3ak said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HCSB translated John 3:16 better than just about everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard this claim multiple times, but haven't understood it. Why is the HCSB superior here?
Click to expand...

 
What Rev Winzer said, but also the use of "everyone who believes" (which implies a definite group) rather than "anyone" (an indefinite group, depending on the individual), as time and time again I hear Arminians say "but it says, that 'WHOSOEVER' believes they shall not perish, not that if the 'ELECT' believes they shall not perish" ... which is absolutely petty to me. And a misunderstanding of what Calvinists get at.


----------



## TomVols

armourbearer said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Conservative" men do not follow academic fads.
Click to expand...

 Such a sweeping generalization is uncalled for and disappointing.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

TomVols said:


> Such a sweeping generalization is uncalled for and disappointing.



I don't think that Rev. Winzer was intending to make a "sweeping generalization". I think that he was simply pointing out that, by definition, a conservative person is not one who is apt to follow new thinking that has not been firmly established. Those of us who prefer the AV are not trying to imply that newer versions are neccesarily inferior, we are simply not as convinced of the superiority of the CT as the scholars are. One might argue that these scholars are experts, and as such we should listen to them. We are not denying that they experts, but many experts in many different fields have been absolutely sure about things one day only to change their tune when more evidence was discovered. A conservative man is more influenced by 400 years of history than by what scholars would say.


----------



## Herald

Bill The Baptist said:


> TomVols said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a sweeping generalization is uncalled for and disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Rev. Winzer was intending to make a "sweeping generalization". I think that he was simply pointing out that, by definition, a conservative person is not one who is apt to follow new thinking that has not been firmly established. Those of us who prefer the AV are not trying to imply that newer versions are neccesarily inferior, we are simply not as convinced of the superiority of the CT as the scholars are. One might argue that these scholars are experts, and as such we should listen to them. We are not denying that they experts, but many experts in many different fields have been absolutely sure about things one day only to change their tune when more evidence was discovered. A conservative man is more influenced by 400 years of history than by what scholars would say.
Click to expand...

 
Bill, most who hold to the preservation view of the AV do believe the CT is inferior. That's why the debate is so vigorous. If it's simply a matter of preference then there is no debate. 

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Herald said:


> Bill, most who hold to the preservation view of the AV do believe the CT is inferior. That's why the debate is so vigorous. If it's simply a matter of preference then there is no debate.



I think we all know that there are some seriously crazy people out there who think that the KJV is superior to even the original Greek texts. I don't think that Rev. Winzer nor myself would fall into that category.


----------



## TomVols

Bill The Baptist said:


> I don't think that Rev. Winzer was intending to make a "sweeping generalization". I think that he was simply pointing out that, by definition, a conservative person is not one who is apt to follow new thinking that has not been firmly established.


Then that's what should've been said. I agree, by the way, with what you're saying. 


Bill The Baptist said:


> A conservative man is more influenced by 400 years of history than by what scholars would say.


It goes deeper than this, however. Is something right because it's been held for a long time? Of course not. Something is accurate or not based on evidence. It would be equally fallacious to say that Reformed theology must be jettisoned because it's in vogue, or a "fad." 

Thanks! Take care of my buddy Dr. Akin


----------



## DMcFadden

_Ecclesia semper reformanda est. _

If we truly believe in the Reformational principle of _semper reformanda_, I would think that we would be desirous of *conserving *that which is good and not yielding to fads, theological or ecclesiastical, and simultaneously approaching our tradition with fresh eyes and hearts open to *progressing* wherever possible.

In practice, however, most of tend to err on one end of the continuum or the other. We either dig in our heels to such an extent that we could give lessons in stubbornness to mules or we kick over the traces in our race to the next new thing.

I appreciated hearing from an actual translator of the HCSB since it is one of my two favorite CT translations (second only to the ESV).

And, since my knowledge of textual criticism is far from adequate respecting the Hebrew text, my opinions here are much less well informed than with regard to the NT where the arguments for the Byzantine text have had a significant impact on my thinking.


----------



## TomVols

DMcFadden said:


> If we truly believe in the Reformational principle of semper reformanda, I would think that we would be desirous of conserving that which is good and not yielding to fads, theological or ecclesiastical, and simultaneously approaching our tradition with fresh eyes and hearts open to progressing wherever possible.


Well said and worth saying.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

TomVols said:


> Thanks! Take care of my buddy Dr. Akin



I will do my best to take care of him, he has certainly been good to us. Dr. Patterson ran off all the liberals, and Dr. Akin made it safe for Calvinists.


----------



## MW

"Conservative: disposed to maintain existing institutions." "Conservative" men do not follow academic fads.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bethel said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, David, Bible translations are now judged based on their fidelity to preferred theological works? That's backwards. No translator should base his considerations on how R. C. Sproul uses a passage. The HCSB translation doesn't lose anything, because anyone who believes in immutability still has ample reasons to believe in it, whereas someone who doesn't believe in immutability could still point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew. In other words, the fact that it could be translated either way means that this verse can't single-handedly carry the argument.
> 
> By the way, the Septuagint translates the verb as a perfect (ουκ ηλλοιωμαι), as does the German Elberfelder Bibel (ich habe mich nicht geändert). So, the HCSB isn't a unilateral departure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translating Malachi 3:6 the way the HCSB did is unreasonable and makes me lose all faith in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unreasonable is a person who, ignorant of the original languages, decides that he is qualified to make snap judgments, not only of translation choices, but also of the translators' competency. Unreasonable is condemning an entire translation on the basis of a single translational preference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No bible translators aren't judged on their fidelity to documents. They are judged to their fidelity to scripture and in this case all other major translations agree with the writers of those particular documents we all love. So who is the odd man out here? The HCSB. Are you saying the HCSB is superior in this decision to the NASB, ESV, and NKJV? I don't see it. I'm no expert of the original languages but I'm not exactly "ignorant" either.
> 
> Regarding the passage, it is indeed an important one. It is one many have and I currently do use to defend immutability often against synergists and open theists. I simply feel like a change there does indeed destroy the credibility of the whole translation. It certainly makes it one I won't be using for "apologetics"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't like the HCSB because the translation is no longer practical for you? Really?
> 
> The verb phrase "have changed" is in the present perfect tense. It can refer to an act completed at any time before the present OR it can refer to an act begun in the past and continued in the present. I think the latter applies to Malachi 3:6. I (God) have not changed (and I still am not changing).
> 
> In our Latin studies, I find verb tense to be the most difficult aspect of translation. My boys have the same struggle in Greek. I can only venture to guess it's not an exact science in Hebrew either. On top of that, Americans are not known for their grammar knowledge (especially when it comes to verb tense). That's why we do an intense study of English grammar along with Latin and Greek in our homeschool.
Click to expand...

 
Let me clarify. I do not like the translation of Malachi 3:6 in the Holman. I disapprove of it, think it's silly and fadlike and because of that I am suspicious and disinclined to use the Holman as a prooftexting bible in apologetis and evangelical efforts, because there is no telling what else I will find if they have totally changed the meaning of a verse as high profile and often used by calvinists like me in prooftexting as that. I'm sure I will use it periodically as reference in private study, but I do not plan to use it beyond that. I'm not burning it or trashing it or anything. I just don't think it is suitable for prooftexting. When I use a translation for prooftexting it will be either the ESV, NASB, NKJV, or KJV. The Holman looked promising but just doesn't qualify in my mind. 

Basically I'm upset because they changed the meaning of one of my favorite passages for proof of God's immutability and made the whole classic argument based on that text look silly.

The ironic humor of the situation is my copy of the Holman text is the Apologetics Study Bible...


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> I just don't think it is suitable for prooftexting



Honestly, you can prooftext and support virtually any doctrine imaginable. That is why it is important to have a solid biblical theology, then our doctrine does not rest upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.


----------



## py3ak

AThornquist said:


> According to many conservative, godly men, "only begotten Son" shouldn't be there.



Andrew, I've heard this kind of remark about many different ideas, and over time it's lost a lot of its force for me. Because the simple truth about inconsistent, fallen humanity is that we can be quite right on many, even most points, and still get things wrong with regard to something else. A person may be godly overall, or conservative overall, but on a specific point be ungodly or progressive. Now this is not a comment about the translation of John 3:16, but simply about the argument you deployed. Luther's or Dabney's excellent qualities don't render their areas of failure admirable, although overall they are of course properly honored.



armourbearer said:


> It is on the basis that "so" might suggest the degree (how much) whereas the original only intends the manner (in what way) God loved. Compare John 3:8, 14. "So" is the perfectly natural English translation. Holman is going out of its way to make a theological point and stilts the translation in the process.



Thank you. It seems like making a big deal out of a change that has no positive value.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't think it is suitable for prooftexting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, you can prooftext and support virtually any doctrine imaginable. That is why it is important to have a solid biblical theology, then our doctrine does not rest upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.
Click to expand...

 
CH Spurgeon was into prooftexting. I assure you the following article wouldn't have been written referencing the HCSB.

The Immutability of God by CH Spurgeon


----------



## Notthemama1984

I assure you the article would have been written using different verses. It isn't that this verse is the only passage dealing with immutability.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.
> CH Spurgeon was into prooftexting. I assure you the following article wouldn't have been written referencing the HCSB.



All of us prooftext to an extent, but we must never allow our doctrine to hinge on a single passage. For example, I could present Genesis 6:5-7 as evidence that God does indeed change, "Then the LORD* saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them**.” 

Of course I know that that isn't true, but if I was ignorant of the bible as a whole, I could easily be convinced by this passage.*


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> upon one or two verses, but the entire testimony of scripture.
> CH Spurgeon was into prooftexting. I assure you the following article wouldn't have been written referencing the HCSB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of us prooftext to an extent, but we must never allow our doctrine to hinge on a single passage. For example, I could present Genesis 6:5-7 as evidence that God does indeed change, "Then the LORD* saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them**.”
> 
> Of course I know that that isn't true, but if I was ignorant of the bible as a whole, I could easily be convinced by this passage.*
Click to expand...

*

Observing the law of non contradiciton the definitive statement in Malachi 3:6 that "I do not change" would direct how you were free to interpret passages that led you to believe he may have changed. That definitive doesn't exist in the HCSB because they changed it an left it open to change.*


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> Observing the law of non contradiciton the definitive statement in Malachi 3:6 that "I do not change" would direct how you were free to interpret passages that led you to believe he may have changed. That definitive doesn't exist in the HCSB because they changed it an left it open to change



Hey, I completely agree that the HCSB is an odd version.  But I think the doctrine of God's immutability is still clearly established and cannot be changed even by poor translation.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Observing the law of non contradiciton the definitive statement in Malachi 3:6 that "I do not change" would direct how you were free to interpret passages that led you to believe he may have changed. That definitive doesn't exist in the HCSB because they changed it an left it open to change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I completely agree that the HCSB is an odd version.  But I think the doctrine of God's immutability is still clearly established and cannot be changed even by poor translation.
Click to expand...


I agree. There are other passages in there that can be used to arrive at the idea of immutability.

However, there are none so clear and definitive as "I do not change" Also I do not believe that the Holeman has done the church a service in this regard. We have already seen a Hebrew translator who worked on the bible in this thread say that "I do not change" is indeed the better rendering. So, I would like to see the Holeman come out with a revision that changes this passage back to what it should read.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Osage Bluestem said:


> I agree. There are other passages in there that can be used to arrive at the idea of immutability.
> 
> However, there are none so clear and definitive as "I do not change" Also I do not believe that the Holeman has done the church a service in this regard. We have already seen a Hebrew translator who worked on the bible in this thread say that "I do not change" is indeed the better rendering. So, I would like to see the Holeman come out with a revision that changes this passage back to what it should read



I agree that the proper translation should be "I do not change." Unfortunately, most bible scholars do not translate passages based on the testimony of other passages, they simply decide what they think the original meant based on their own experience and linguistic considerations. Perhaps now you can see the point that myself and others who prefer the KJV make when we point out that the ESV and most other modern versions dilute the doctrine of the deity of Christ. They don't eliminate or change it, they just weaken it. Much like the HCSB has done to God's immutibility.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Bill The Baptist said:


> Osage Bluestem said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. There are other passages in there that can be used to arrive at the idea of immutability.
> 
> However, there are none so clear and definitive as "I do not change" Also I do not believe that the Holeman has done the church a service in this regard. We have already seen a Hebrew translator who worked on the bible in this thread say that "I do not change" is indeed the better rendering. So, I would like to see the Holeman come out with a revision that changes this passage back to what it should read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that the proper translation should be "I do not change." Unfortunately, most bible scholars do not translate passages based on the testimony of other passages, they simply decide what they think the original meant based on their own experience and linguistic considerations. Perhaps now you can see the point that myself and others who prefer the KJV make when we point out that the ESV and most other modern versions dilute the doctrine of the deity of Christ. They don't eliminate or change it, they just weaken it. Much like the HCSB has done to God's immutibility.
Click to expand...

 
I understand the position of prefering the KJV over other translations. I respect it and I see nothing wrong with it. I love the KJV and prefer it in many respects. I was raised ont he KJV. I also use an Allan Longprimer KJV for personal study from time to time. 

However, the KJV has lost a lot of respect with many so it has to be defended often if it is used publically for prooftexting. Defending your translation choice takes away from the message that you are trying to convey and that is unfortunate. People who use the KJV for prooftexting virtually always hve to defend against allegations of KJV onlyism right off the bat.

I chose to use the ESV exclusively on my blog because it is good for prooftexting and it is rare that it need be defended because it is so widely accepted as a solid scholarly translation. So, usually peple focus on the text when you use the ESV as opposed to focusing on translation issues, there are certainly exceptions though. I was secretly hoping the HCSB was solid and could be used as well. But as explained, I see the need to leave it in the category of personal study.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

To be fair and balanced, I saw a copy of the HCSB study bible. It looks great. I checked the notes on the passage Malachi 3:6 and it did indeed deal with immutability in a positive way. I still wish they would change the text to what it should say, but I do plan to purchase the HCSB study bible for personal study. 

If you haven't seen one of these it is certainly worth a look: HCSB Study Bible


----------



## matthew11v25

David,
Not sure if you have come across this interview with the General Editor for the HCSB (check out the other links listed with the interview), but it may shed some light on the presuppositions the translators had: It’s Here! The HCSB Second Edition Interview « Anwoth

Personally, I like the HCSB a lot (primarily for the use of "Yahweh" in the OT and "Slave" in the NT)... BUT the HCSB does not used traditional renderings. While some would say they got some verses wrong, I am guessing their reply would be that they FINALLY got em right (eg John 3:16, Mal 3:6, etc). I finished reading through the HCSB this year and I will say there are some renderings in the HCSB that I love and others that I am not so thrilled about... Not excited about "Temple Police" in Acts instead of "guards", etc.

I like most of the HCSB study bible (beautiful design). BUT for someone in the PCA I generally do not recommend at my church since it leans towards the credo baptist and dispensational positions.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Osage Bluestem said:


> I still wish they would change the text to what it should say



according to you


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

HCSB online here:

MyStudyBible.com

Sample from the HCSB:

 http://g.christianbook.com/netstorage/pdf/sample/404574.pdf (a 38Mb file!)

The bible has one of the best uses of colors and layout of any study bible currently available. Very easy on the eyes.

AMR


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> HCSB online here:
> 
> MyStudyBible.com
> 
> Sample from the HCSB:
> 
> http://g.christianbook.com/netstorage/pdf/sample/404574.pdf (a 38Mb file!)
> 
> The bible has one of the best uses of colors and layout of any study bible currently available. Very easy on the eyes.
> 
> AMR


 
Ok. I have purchased a HCSB Study Bible and have read through Genesis and half of Exodus. I have sampled various passages against older translations. I'm surprised to say that the only passage I have taken issue with so far is Malachi 3:6, but the study notes in the Study Bible edition make up for it as they address immutability directly. The rest of it has proven to be quite a solid transaltion. Reading through Genesis and Exodus has been very fluid and natural. The images are clear and the wording is still precise. 

I have to say that I repent of my first impression and I do believe the Holman is a solid translation! I am really enjoying reading it and studying from it and I may indeed even use it for proof texting at some point.

So, I'm glad I bought the Study Bible and gave it another chance. It's a good translation. It's more literal than the NIV and just a smidgion less literal than the ESV.

I'm happy. I can't wait to finish reading it. 

By the way, in this study bible are a multitude of word study notes from the original languages. I'm finding that tool is worth the purchase of the study bible alone.


----------



## pepper

The HCSB translation of the term "have not changed" does not carry over the idea in the Hebrew that God has not changed and is still not changing. The English "does not change" or "changes not" is giving the right sense of the Hebrew.


----------



## matthew11v25

David - 

I am glad you are enjoying the HCSB. Even though my church uses the ESV, I find myself returning to the HCSB because on a personal level I enjoy reading it and renderings tend to stick with me ... the feel of the renderings is very "to the point" especially in the Psalms - which follows sense the word count is 719,000 compared to say the ESV which is 757,439 (A Comparison of the HCSB with Other Major Translations [Edwin Blum] | Faith & Reason | "CLASSIC" THIS LAMP (reset your bookmarks)).

On a different note: Since the HCSB is fairly unique, I wonder what it's longevity will be like? According to the CBA list it has held 6th place behind the ESV for a while. This is interesting since the HCSB pretty much DOES NOT market (up until recently) and the ESV is a marketing machine (since it's conception). 

CBA List (May: http://www.cbaonline.org/nm/documents/bsls/bible_translations.pdf).


----------



## DMcFadden

None of us are in much of a position to know how current translations will stand up over the next couple of decades. The KJV took nearly 50 years to "take" with readers. Our attention spans seem a lot shorter than in those days.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

DMcFadden said:


> None of us are in much of a position to know how current translations will stand up over the next couple of decades. The KJV took nearly 50 years to "take" with readers. Our attention spans seem a lot shorter than in those days



Occassionally I will have a nightmare where in 100 years everyone is a Message-onlyist.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Osage Bluestem said:


> I have to say that I repent of my first impression and I do believe the Holman is a solid translation! I am really enjoying reading it and studying from it and I may indeed even use it for proof texting at some point.


Kudos to you, brother, for the courage to admit this! 

Make this your next purchase:

http://www.wordsearchbible.com/catalog/HCSB_Old_and_New_Testament_Reverse_Interlinear_3487.html

Logos will likely offer the same sometime soon, too.


AMR


----------

