# The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!



## InSlaveryToChrist

I was both shocked and disappointed to hear this about the HCSB which I thought was such a good translation:

The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed

There is no denying it, right? The HCSB is violating Revelation 20:19.


----------



## Kim G

I wouldn't worry about it. The HCSB must be using a different family of texts than the KJV. I looked up some of these verses in the ESV, NIV, and NASB (all reliable texts), and they all agree with the HCSB. And even though the NKJV keeps some of the KJV differences, there are footnotes that explain that some of these phrases are NOT in some manuscripts.

When the KJV translators wrote the translation, they had to decide what to keep and what to leave out based on what was in their manuscripts. The translators of the HCSB, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. had to do the same thing, only they had hundreds of more manuscripts to give them help in knowing what phrases were most likely in the originals. I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## kodos

The article makes the following inflammatory claims:
"The HCSB also agrees *totally* with the Jehovah’s Witness Bible which means you can’t get anymore corrupt than that. *Why would any Christian want to use a Bible which the Jehovah’s Witnesses use?"*​and

After reading the comparisons, there are only two summaries which can be arrived at:

1) The HCSB is as corrupt as the NWT, or
2) The NWT is as accurate as the HCSB​
Once a raving author says something like that, they should be totally dismissed. Famously the NWT translates John 1:1 such that it says the Word was *a* god. HCSB says, "the Word was God". The author has an agenda obviously.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ivan

kodos said:


> The author has an agenda obviously.


 
And their number are legion.


----------



## KMK

This is not an 'article'. It is a 'blog'. There is a big difference. Just check out the rest of the website.


----------



## SolaScriptura

The HCSB is the only English Bible that gets John 3:16 right.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Kim G said:


> I wouldn't worry about it. The HCSB must be using a different family of texts than the KJV. I looked up some of these verses in the ESV, NIV, and NASB (all reliable texts), and they all agree with the HCSB. And even though the NKJV keeps some of the KJV differences, there are footnotes that explain that some of these phrases are NOT in some manuscripts.
> 
> When the KJV translators wrote the translation, they had to decide what to keep and what to leave out based on what was in their manuscripts. The translators of the HCSB, ESV, NIV, NASB, etc. had to do the same thing, only they had hundreds of more manuscripts to give them help in knowing what phrases were most likely in the originals. I wouldn't worry about it.


 
I'm not sure if I understand. Are you suggesting that the KJV translators, who lived in the 17th century, possessed the original manuscripts that the translators of modern translations, such as HCSB, ESV, NIV and NASB, no longer possess? Are you suggesting that the NIV translators, who deleted over 64,000 words including over 40 whole verses from the KJV (THINK ABOUT THAT!), did so because they supposedly did no longer have the original manuscripts that the KJV translators had a half century ago? You think that amount of material perished along the way? Well, other modern translations show otherwise.

---------- Post added at 10:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 AM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> The HCSB is the only English Bible that gets John 3:16 right.


 
And it also gets the Christian's true indentity right -- the Greek word 'doulos has been rightly interpreted 'slave' everywhere it occurs, whereas most other english translations change it 'servant'. NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.


----------



## SolaScriptura

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.



I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps _added_ those words and/or used texts that included those passages.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

SolaScriptura said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps _added_ those words and/or used texts that included those passages.
Click to expand...

 
"Perhaps"? Have you any proof of this? Wouldn't it be logical to think: the older the manuscript, the more faithful to the original text?


----------



## Notthemama1984

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps _added_ those words and/or used texts that included those passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Perhaps"? Have you any proof of this? Wouldn't it be logical to think: the older the manuscript, the more faithful to the original text?
Click to expand...

 
If you believe this, then you are saying the newer translations are more accurate. The Greek texts that the HCSB, ESV, and every other non-KJV use is older than the Greek texts that the KJV guys used. In fact at times the KJV used the latin translations because they did not even have Greek texts for certain parts of the NT.


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!



Samuel, any time I see the word "Exposed!" used in the title of an article like this, red flags go up and I'll tell you why: the site this article is on is yet another "Discernment ministry"-type site. These sites specialize in claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them, use the King James Bible (including foreign translations, by the way), or vote their way is not really a Christian. These folks are generally inflammatory, schismatic, and obnoxious and I generally just ignore what they say. Just look at the language he uses!



> The Holman publishers allow me to use 250 verses without written permission. In the King James Bible, God allows me to use all 31,101 verses without written permission. According to the Copyright office in Washington, D.C., you cannot copyright God’s word but you can copyright man’s word. HINT! HINT!



Obviously, this guy has never heard the term "public domain" (which means that if a translation hasn't had a copyright renewed on it in seventy years, you can freely copy and distribute it). The guy also clearly thinks that the KJV is inspired---seriously? It's a great translation and all, but it ain't perfect and we ain't bound by it. The Bible is God's word, and King Jim's committee was only translating.

Again, I've seen this kind of site before, and it's neither credible nor useful. The article makes assertions without honestly wrestling with the textual and factual issues that underlie the differences in translation. The whole Roman Catholic tampering nonsense is also bogus (particularly given the liberal use of the Latin Vulgate text as a translation aid for the KJV).


----------



## Jack K

From the article: "Any Christian who uses this book as their version of choice will be using a cursed book because God does not bless the corruption of His word and no Christian will ever grow in the faith using a false version."

Come on now. Who made this guy the fellow who decides what God blesses and whom God will allow to grow?

The differences he cites seem mainly to come down to the differences between the ancient texts available and used by the KJV translators and those used in most translations today. The debate over which ancient texts _should_ be used is an old one much discussed on this board. It's worthy of discussion, but not in the arrogant and condemning manner this guy employs.



InSlaveryToChrist said:


> And it also gets the Christian's true indentity right -- the Greek word 'doulos has been rightly interpreted 'slave' everywhere it occurs, whereas most other english translations change it 'servant'.



That's not a matter of the texts used, but of the translators' judgment in deciding which English word will best help modern readers properly understand the meaning. Since slavery and servanthood as we're familiar with them aren't exactly like slavery as the Greek world knew it, it's hard to know exactly what word fits best for a translation aimed at modern, Western readers.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel, any time I see the word "Exposed!" used in the title of an article like this, red flags go up and I'll tell you why: the site this article is on is yet another "Discernment ministry"-type site. These sites specialize in claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them, use the King James Bible (including foreign translations, by the way), or vote their way is not really a Christian. These folks are generally inflammatory, schismatic, and obnoxious and I generally just ignore what they say. Just look at the language he uses!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Holman publishers allow me to use 250 verses without written permission. In the King James Bible, God allows me to use all 31,101 verses without written permission. According to the Copyright office in Washington, D.C., you cannot copyright God’s word but you can copyright man’s word. HINT! HINT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, this guy has never heard the term "public domain" (which means that if a translation hasn't had a copyright renewed on it in seventy years, you can freely copy and distribute it). The guy also clearly thinks that the KJV is inspired---seriously? It's a great translation and all, but it ain't perfect and we ain't bound by it. The Bible is God's word, and King Jim's committee was only translating.
> 
> Again, I've seen this kind of site before, and it's neither credible nor useful. The article makes assertions without honestly wrestling with the textual and factual issues that underlie the differences in translation. The whole Roman Catholic tampering nonsense is also bogus (particularly given the liberal use of the Latin Vulgate text as a translation aid for the KJV).
Click to expand...

 
First, I put the title just because it was the title of the article or whatever that was on the website. I'm not all hyped about exposing the HCSB. Second, I'm not saying I agree with everything the guy says. In fact, I also partly ignored his message, because of his King James onlyist mindset. What I'm saying is what is obvious and undeniable: you see passages missing from the modern translations in question that we find in _most_ other Bible translations, not modern only, but conservative also.

---------- Post added at 12:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------




Chaplainintraining said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEVERTHELESS, the HCSB seems to cut off important passages from the Bible, and that I'm not going to approve of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should take a deep breath and realize that maybe they didn't "take away" words or verses but rather the older version perhaps _added_ those words and/or used texts that included those passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Perhaps"? Have you any proof of this? Wouldn't it be logical to think: the older the manuscript, the more faithful to the original text?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe this, then you are saying the newer translations are more accurate. The Greek texts that the HCSB, ESV, and every other non-KJV use is older than the Greek texts that the KJV guys used. In fact at times the KJV used the latin translations because they did not even have Greek texts for certain parts of the NT.
Click to expand...

 
I ment to say just the opposite. You misunderstood my use of the word 'older'.


----------



## Philip

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> What I'm saying is what is obvious and undeniable: you see passages missing from the modern translations in question that we find in most other Bible translations, not modern only, but conservative also.



But in that case, make an argument from a more credible and scholarly source, not from one that is deliberately inflammatory with a KJV-only bias. This is something I have to do all the time in my academic work: examine the sources to find out if they're credible or not. not

I briefly looked up several of the passages cited by the author in the ESV (which many of our reformed churches here in the States use) and discovered that in most cases it agrees with the Holman and not with the KJV. It's a textual issue, so argue this on the basis of the text, not translation. If you want to make an argument over _Textus Receptus_ vs. Critical Text, then by all means do so, but don't go citing poor scholarship such as that displayed by this author. I happen to think that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue, given the large number of discussions over that I've seen on this board (I rarely enter into them, given my ignorance on the issue). But let's not go condemning our brothers who disagree simply because they use a different translation. The difference here is one of textual tradition, not one of translation.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

P. F. Pugh said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is what is obvious and undeniable: you see passages missing from the modern translations in question that we find in most other Bible translations, not modern only, but conservative also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in that case, make an argument from a more credible and scholarly source, not from one that is deliberately inflammatory with a KJV-only bias. This is something I have to do all the time in my academic work: examine the sources to find out if they're credible or not. not
> 
> I briefly looked up several of the passages cited by the author in the ESV (which many of our reformed churches here in the States use) and discovered that in most cases it agrees with the Holman and not with the KJV. It's a textual issue, so argue this on the basis of the text, not translation. If you want to make an argument over _Textus Receptus_ vs. Critical Text, then by all means do so, but don't go citing poor scholarship such as that displayed by this author. I happen to think that there are legitimate arguments on both sides of this issue, given the large number of discussions over that I've seen on this board (I rarely enter into them, given my ignorance on the issue). But let's not go condemning our brothers who disagree simply because they use a different translation. The difference here is one of textual tradition, not one of translation.
Click to expand...

 
I apologize for my foolish prejudice. I think I need some education of the right principles of study of the original manuscripts. Any good books you would recommend on examining textual tradition?


----------



## JonathanHunt

Yes.

Amazon.com: King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (9780764206054): James R. White: Books


----------



## LawrenceU

I'll second that recommendation.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

JonathanHunt said:


> Yes.
> 
> Amazon.com: King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (9780764206054): James R. White: Books


 
I've heard of the book and White's other argumentations against KJV onlyists, but never really bothered to listen. I think I'll get this book as fast as I can. But before that, I would like to hear opinions from others on this book and if there are any other good resources regarding the issue of translations.


----------



## Puritan Scot

*The King James Version Defended* by *Edward F. Hills* is also well worth consulting

KJV Defended Download


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Samuel,

If you have time check out Steve's blog for a defense of the Majority / Textus Receptus / Received Text manuscript over the Eclectic text manuscripts. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/jerusalem-blade/index1.html

I do hold to his position for the most part. It is a long hard study but well worth the study.

Also you might check out a book on google books that a friend of mine published. He is gone home to be with the Lord. 

Unholy Hands on the Bible - Google Books

And Theodore Letis is one of the most brightest men. If you have a chance read his stuff also. He was definitely a scholar that many Reformed men look to. 

Theodore P. Letis Resources

Your brother,
Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Theodore P. Letis on James White's KJV Controversy. 

http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/tape04_James_White_Critique_August_4_&_7,2000.mp3


----------



## JM

In the first edition of White's book he doesn't really deal with Hill's argument, does he in the second?...I recommend reading both White and Hill.

Along with this: Jerusalem Blade’s Posts « Feileadh Mor


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I know I have read Whites book. I think Dr. Letis does a good analysis of it in the link I posted above.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Thank you all a lot! I'll dig into the resources in no time!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> In the first edition of White's book he doesn't really deal with Hill's argument, does he in the second?...I recommend reading both White and Hill.
> 
> Along with this: Jerusalem Blade’s Posts « Feileadh Mor



I can't remember and I don't have the book by White any longer. It has probably been at least 18 years ago since I have read it along with a book by D. A. Carson on the same subject. I have read Hill also. But my poor mind just doesn't retain stuff like it use to.


----------



## TheElk

This was my textbook for Bible Introduction at MBI: Amazon.com: Journey from Texts to Translations, The: The Origin and Development of the Bible (9780801027994): Paul D. Wegner: Books

I liked it. From this and other readings, I believe that the current eclectic texts are closer to the autographs.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The one thing I did appreciate about White's book was that I think he did concede that 1 Timothy 3:16 probably should read God was manifest in the flesh. Maybe someone can check that for me. 



> (1Ti 3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.



But Letis was correct in his interview about the book and how White just lumped people all together in an unfortunate way.


----------



## KSon

Samuel,

As someone who survived a season in a rabid KJVO Fundy Baptist church, my counsel would be to be cautious regarding the sources of certain paths of argumentation.

A scholarly, irenic, logical case for the supremacy of the TR/Byzantine platform can be made, with the basis of the case being that this text was the traditional text and the one favored by the Reformers. On the other end of the spectrum is the vitriol that comes from sources such as the one you linked, typically IFBers who do not want to hear any iron-sharpening counter arguments, as they are convinced in their mind that they are right and any disagreement is merely end-times compromise. For an example of the former, I agree with Randy that the PB is an excellent resource. Search for the posts of Elder Rafalsky, Rev. Winzer, Thomas Weddle, and Dr. Ferguson to get some historical and theological context behind the reasoning for such a position. In the absence of that, you really are just dealing with strawmen and caricatures. 

Above all, maintain a humble, Christ-like attitude towards those who end up with different conclusions than yours regarding this topic, realizing godly men who have been used mightily in the Kingdom exist on both sides of this topic.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Kipp.


----------



## Gord

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Amazon.com: King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (9780764206054): James R. White: Books
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> I believe the KJVO is just another cult. They spend more time falsely defending an imagination than actually reading and studying the words. They waste time looking for defense and not gospel salvation.
> 
> *Think about it*, did God really wake up one day and say,
> 
> 
> 
> "I think I better give the world an infallible and 100% account of what really happened 1611 years ago, and hey what better man than King James himself, who has an axe to grind politically with reformers and the church of England."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any child who studied history at a grade 8 level of England knows why James needed his own bible version, devoid of those Dutch reformed notes and comments found in the Geneva bible, and God had nothing to do with making it any more or less accurate than what already was for the information available to the translators of that time. That is probably why it is 98% a word for word duplicate of the Geneva bible.
> 
> My roaming of the internet has found that most KJVO believers are Baptist, and from the Southern USA. Which probable explains the lack of grade 8 history of England that the rest of the world knows about.
> 
> Are KJVO Christian's, I believe so, but God only knows the answer to that, but yes they are truly misguided in there version theology that is for sure.
> 
> None of this garbage have I read in any translation. Satan sets the trap, man walks right in with eyes wide shut.
Click to expand...


----------



## Notthemama1984

Gord,

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


----------



## jayce475

KSon said:


> Samuel,
> 
> As someone who survived a season in a rabid KJVO Fundy Baptist church, my counsel would be to be cautious regarding the sources of certain paths of argumentation.
> 
> A scholarly, irenic, logical case for the supremacy of the TR/Byzantine platform can be made, with the basis of the case being that this text was the traditional text and the one favored by the Reformers. On the other end of the spectrum is the vitriol that comes from sources such as the one you linked, typically IFBers who do not want to hear any iron-sharpening counter arguments, as they are convinced in their mind that they are right and any disagreement is merely end-times compromise. For an example of the former, I agree with Randy that the PB is an excellent resource. Search for the posts of Elder Rafalsky, Rev. Winzer, Thomas Weddle, and Dr. Ferguson to get some historical and theological context behind the reasoning for such a position. In the absence of that, you really are just dealing with strawmen and caricatures.
> 
> Above all, maintain a humble, Christ-like attitude towards those who end up with different conclusions than yours regarding this topic, realizing godly men who have been used mightily in the Kingdom exist on both sides of this topic.


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


----------



## Philip

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

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


----------



## Gord

Chaplainintraining said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## bookslover

What do you want to bet that "Dr." Ken Matto's "doctorate" is either honorary or (ahem) made up? If you want the skinny on the HCSB, go to Bible Research by Michael Marlowe and check out his pages on the various translations.


----------



## Gord

P. F. Pugh said:


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



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


----------



## jayce475

[/COLOR]


Gord said:


> InSlaveryToChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Amazon.com: King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (9780764206054): James R. White: Books
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> I believe the KJVO is just another cult. They spend more time falsely defending an imagination than actually reading and studying the words. They waste time looking for defense and not gospel salvation.
> 
> *Think about it*, did God really wake up one day and say,
> 
> 
> 
> "I think I better give the world an infallible and 100% account of what really happened 1611 years ago, and hey what better man than King James himself, who has an axe to grind politically with reformers and the church of England."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any child who studied history at a grade 8 level of England knows why James needed his own bible version, devoid of those Dutch reformed notes and comments found in the Geneva bible, and God had nothing to do with making it any more or less accurate than what already was for the information available to the translators of that time. That is probably why it is 98% a word for word duplicate of the Geneva bible.
> 
> My roaming of the internet has found that most KJVO believers are Baptist, and from the Southern USA. Which probable explains the lack of grade 8 history of England that the rest of the world knows about.
> 
> Are KJVO Christian's, I believe so, but God only knows the answer to that, but yes they are truly misguided in there version theology that is for sure.
> 
> None of this garbage have I read in any translation. Satan sets the trap, man walks right in with eyes wide shut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gord, caricatures like your post are why even fair-minded attempts to discuss the issue degenerate into unedifying arguments.
> 
> There are cultic Ruckmanites who have brought much confusion to the issue. But to call all of us TR/MT supporters cultic is a bit of a stretch. I don't support the KJV, but the manuscripts underlying the KJV. Yes the manner of presentation on these websites supporting the KJV may be lacking, but so are many other sites that support Calvinism. Doesn't make Calvinism any less true. But yes, everyone can be more charitable and irenic. Please read Hills and Letis if you would.
> 
> Listen to our Singaporean Bible-Presbyterian ministers on the web and see if we "spend more time falsely defending an imagination than actually reading and studying the words" and "waste time looking for defense and not gospel salvation". What you will find that we have a solid theological and historical foundation on which to defend the TR/MT (and hence the Authorised Version) and we do truly preach the full counsel of God as well. The same applies to the Free Presbyterian Church from Northern Ireland. From what I have gathered from PB people, there are a few other Continental Reformed and Presbyterian denominations in the US that support the TR/MT.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phil D.

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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

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


----------



## Gord

PuritanCovenanter said:


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


I am truly sorry for running this off into the ditch, if you could point me in some direction of 'puritan' based fact of KJV I will gladly put the time into it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

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

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


----------



## JM

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

Peace.

jm


----------



## Prufrock

Chaplainintraining said:


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



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


----------



## bookslover

Phil D. said:


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


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


----------



## Prufrock

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

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

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

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

*[/Moderator]*


----------

