Bible Study The Holman Christian Standard Bible - a short review

[brandplucked]

The 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible

The Holman CSB is the latest in a long line of modern bible versions that rejects the Traditional Greek New Testament readings, as found in such English Bibles as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, and the King James Bible.

The Holman version also frequently rejects the Hebrew Masoretic text and instead follows the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, Vulgate, or in some cases, just makes up its own text as it goes along.

In its Introduction the HCSB makes several statements that reveal the nature of this translation. It says the basis for the New Testament translation is the Nestle-Aland 27th, and United Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition.

A closer examination of the Holman text reveals that they generally have omitted over 2000 words that are found in the King James Bible, but neither have they strictly followed the Nestle text nor the UBS. The N.T. text of the Holman version is not always like that of the NASB, NIV, RSV, or ESV (the 2002 English Standard Version) - in fact, none of these versions are exactly like that of each other. All of them pick and choose different textual readings and give different meanings to the same texts in literally hundreds of verses.

The Nestle-Aland, UBS texts often omit entire verses or phrases that the Holman places in brackets, indicating that they do not consider them to be inspired Scripture.

Entire Verses in Brackets

The Holman introduction says: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

These Scriptures are either God inspired and they belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all. I firmly believe they are inspired Scripture.

Among the readings the Holman version places in brackets, and are not part of the UBS Greek text they say they are using, are the following:

Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the glory, and the power, for ever. Amen" - The NIV, ESV omit these words entirely. NASB in brackets.

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.

Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore yue shall receive the greater damnation." NIV, RSV, ESV omit; NASB in brackets.

Even though the textual support for hundreds of other words is the same as for these bracketed verses, the Holman chooses to entirely omit them. Just a very few of the hundreds of examples are the following:

The Holman version omits these words, even though the textual evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of including them.

Matthew 5:44 "Bless them that curse you"

Matthew 19:9 "And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

Matthew 20:16 "For many be called but few chosen."

Matthew 27:35 "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet..."

The entire verse of Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." is omitted by the UBS text and the NIV, ESV. The NASB places it in brackets, but the Holman this time places the verse in the N.T. text WITHOUT brackets! Go figure.

The Holman CSB also brackets the following verses: Mark 9:44, 46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"; 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." ; and all of Mark 16:9 through 20 !!!

In brackets and thus not considered "original" by the Holman editors are Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left"; and Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast." These verses are omitted by the UBS text, the NIV, RSV and ESV versions, while the NASB puts them in brackets.

The Holman version again demonstrates its total inconsistency in Luke 23:34 where we read: "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." These inspired words from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ have overwhelming textual support and not even the NIV, NASB, ESV place them in brackets, but the Holman version does!!!

The Holman version likewise omits "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." from Luke 9:55-56; and it omits the following words from the Lord's prayer in Luke 11:2-4 "Our...which art in heaven...Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth...but deliver us from evil." Again, these are only a few of the many examples that could be given.

The Holman again brackets John 5:3-4 about the angel coming down and troubling the water.

The Holman brackets Acts 8:37 which the NIV, ESV omit, and Acts 24:6-7, and Acts 28:29, and Romans 16:24.

Here are just a few verse comparisons to give you a better idea of what the Holman version is like.

KJB - Exodus 14:25 "the LORD...took off their chariot wheels"

Holman - "caused their chariot wheels to swerve"

"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" is the reading of Tyndale 1530, Coverdale 1535 (smote the wheels from their chariots), Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the predecessor of the NASB), the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Darby, the Living Bible and 1998 New Living Bible, Green's interlinear, MKJV, the NIV and the Spanish versions - quitó las ruedas.

However the "scholarly" NASB tells us : "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the brand new 2004 Holman Christian Standard version.

Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.

The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "take away the frogs"; in 8:31 "he removed the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses took off the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah took off his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah removed the covering of the ark".

Deuteronomy 32:5

Tremendous error and contradiction have been introduced into this section of Scripture by the NKJV, NIV, RSV, Holman, ESV and NAS “biblesâ€Â. This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: “I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.â€Â

The next verse is where the lies of the modern versions enter. The true Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?â€Â

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods. God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6) , His people and inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as “his sons and daughtersâ€Â. They are His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

God’s children did corrupt themselves with strange gods, and the spot or blemish they received belonged to the idolatrous practices of other people, but they are still His children, bought by God and belonging to Him as the rest of the chapter shows.

Now look at the NKJV in verse 5. “They have corrupted themselves: They are not His children, Because of their blemish.†The NAS is similar with its: “They are not His children because of their defectâ€Â. The Holman Standard says: "this is their defect - they are not His children." These versions tell us they are not His children, and then in the very next verse tell us they are His children because He is their Father and He bought them!

For a couple more examples of how the Holman Standard destroys the grace of God see my article on this at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/gracdes.html

1 Samuel 13:1

KJB - "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..."

Holman - "Saul was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned 42 years over Israel."

(There is no Hebrew text or any other text that reads this way. They simply made these numbers up out of thin air, just like the NASB, NIV did here.)

1 Samuel 6:19

KJB - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Holman - "God struck down the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked inside the ark of the Lord. He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men. The people wept because the Lord struck them with a great slaughter."

(Again, the HCSB has not followed the Hebrew reading. Not even the NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other bible version I am aware of has rendered this verse as has the Holman Standard.) For an excellent article by Marty Shue on this verse, see http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/50070.html

2 Samuel 14:14

KJB - "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

(We all die, regardless of social status, nationality, or spiritual condition)

Holman - "For we will certainly die and be like water poured out on the ground, which can't be recovered. BUT GOD WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY A LIFE; He would devise plans so that the one banished from Him does not remain banished."

(Direct contradiction of many Scriptures. God does take away life. He kills and He makes alive. See Deut. 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 12:15; Luke 12:5) The King James Bible correctly states many times that God is no respector of persons. Yet the Holman Standard has changed this reading to "God shows no favoritism." This is wrong and a false teaching, yet most today would not even recognize it. For my article showing the difference between "no respector or persons" and "shows no favoritism" see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/respect.html

2 Chronicles 22:2

KJB - "FORTY AND TWO years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

Holman - "Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king..." (Footnote: Some LXX mss. and Syriac say 22; the Hebrew Masoretic texts read 42)

For an explanation of this apparent contradiction see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html

2 Chronicles 36:9

KJB - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days."

Holman - "Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king..."

Again, the Holman Standard rejects the Hebrew reading and follows the LXX. For an examination of this apparent contradiction see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html

Isaiah 19:3

KJB - "And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and TO THE CHARMERS, AND TO THEM THAT HAVE FAMILIAR SPIRITS, and to the wizards."

(These are those who conjure up devils who impersonate dead people and deceive)

Holman - "Then they will seek idols, GHOSTS, SPIRITS OF THE DEAD, and spiritists."

(There are no ghosts, and the spirits of the dead cannot be accessed. This is a false teaching. See my article on "ghosts" http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/ghosts.html

Jeremiah 8:8 The pen of the Scribes is in Vain

KJB "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." (The scribes did NOT ALTER the Scriptures, but the people were not obeying the law.)

Holman - "In fact, the lying pen of the scribes has produced falsehood." (Teaches the scribes DID ALTER the Scriptures) See my article on this at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jer.8-8.html

Daniel 9:26

KJB - "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

(He died for His people and purchased His church)

Holman - "After those 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off AND WILL HAVE NOTHING."

Micah 5:2

KJB - "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, from everlasting."

Holman Christian Standard - "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. HIS ORIGEN is from antiquity, from eternity."

(Did Christ have an "origen"? How can you have an eternal origen? "Origen" is the reading of the Jehovah Witness version, who teach that Christ was a created being.)

Acts 13:33

KJB - "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

(This speaks of His resurrection, when Christ became the first-begotten from the dead.)

Holman - "God has fulfilled this to us their children by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm:You are My Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

(Was there a time when Christ was not the eternal Son of God? No Greek text reads as does the Holman here. In fact, the Holman again agrees with the Jehovah Witness version) See my article on the only begotten Son and the meaning of Acts 13:33 at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

1 John 5:7

Apparently the Holman editors did not consider the strongest verse in the Bible about the Holy Trinity to have enough "undeniable antiquity" or "value for tradition" since 1 John 5:7 did not make the cut. The Holman version omits these important words from 1 John 5:7 "in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..."

KJB - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Holman - "For there are three that testify:"

John 1:14, 18; 3:16

KJB "the only begotten Son"

HCS "the One and Only Son"

Why is this a problem? This is an error! Jesus is not the only son of God. Every Christian is a son of God, but Jesus is the "only begotten" Son. See my article on the theological importance of this term "the only begotten Son" at http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jn1-18.html

John 1:42

KJB "Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

HCS "Cephas (which means Rock)."

If you are familiar with the Roman Catholics church's teaching concerning Peter being the rock upon which the church is based, you will know why this is a problem. Oh, and by the way, the Greek is "petros" -"a small stone" here. Not "petra" - "rock".

John 3:13

KJB "Son of man, which is in heaven."

HCS "Son of man."

The words "which is in heaven" are completely out of the text (following Nestle-Aland corrupt text). This is the only verse in the New Testament that clearly teaches the omnipresence of Christ while He was here on earth. That is, Jesus was present in the 3rd heaven WHILE he was talking to Nicodemus on earth. And no doctrine is affected in the new versions, right?

John 9:35, 36

KJB "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? ... Who is he, Lord"

HCS "Do you believe in the Son of Man? ... Who is He, Sir"

What is the problem here? Well, aside from the fact that anytime someone changes God's words it is a problem, these two do not say the same thing. "Son of God" is a term used (especially in John's Gospel) to refer to the deity of Christ. "Son of man", however, more commonly refers to His humanity. No one had any problem in accepting his humanity. It was His deity that people had a problem with.

John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

John 10:33 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

If you choose to use the Holman Christian Standard, you are free to do so if you wish, but don't be fooled into thinking it is the inerrant, unchanging, pure and inspired words of God - it isn't.

Will Kinney

 

[FreeGrace]

Uh, "short" review?! :D

Well, I apologize for the extreme length of this post. I've never posted anything this long before!

But Will posted a lengthy expose of the HCSB, which IMO was unfair. I needed to address his arguments point-by-point. I mean no disrespect either for Will, who has spent much time researching this issue, or for the KJV, which Will feels is the only "true" Bible. I hope you'll bear with me.

Will, please accept my apology if I appear to come across critically of you at times. This was not intended.

Thx,

FG

The 2003 Holman Christian Standard Bible

The Holman CSB is the latest in a long line of modern bible versions that rejects the Traditional Greek New Testament readings, as found in such English Bibles as Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, and the King James Bible.

The Holman version also frequently rejects the Hebrew Masoretic text and instead follows the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, Vulgate, or in some cases, just makes up its own text as it goes along.

FG - Actually, I have been following the HCSB development for some time. The original translator was a personal (though not close) friend of mine, Art Farstadt. He was the editor of the NKJV, FYI. BTW, I noticed that you didn't include the NKJV in that long line of tradition, though it is based on the same tradition - the textus receptus - as is the KJV. I don't know if that was intentional.

You may not know that the HCSB, originally called Logos21, was originally based on the Greek Majority text as developed by Art and Zane Hodges.

You see, perhaps you should know that I am a supportor of the majority text (the TR is in that family). I provided some editing assistance in the translation of the WEB for a couple of years, which is also based on the majority text (MT). I say this so that you know that I am familiar with this issue, and have been a supporter of the MT for some time. I was not happy when the SBC bought out the Logos21 work and converted it to be UBS-based (critical text - CT). But because it was originally MT-based, the conversion did not rid it of every MT text.

But it is a good translation. My favorite translation is the NASB. It may not be based on the MT, but it is an excellent work and very accurate.

Now you said, "frequently rejects the Hebrew Masoretic text and instead follows the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, Vulgate, or in some cases, just makes up its own text as it goes along." Could you give us some specific instances in which this is true? Because in the preface it says that it followed the Masoretic text.

In its Introduction the HCSB makes several statements that reveal the nature of this translation. It says the basis for the New Testament translation is the Nestle-Aland 27th, and United Bible Societies' 4th corrected edition.

FG - As do nearly every modern translation. I am not a critical text supporter. But the TR has its problems as well.

A closer examination of the Holman text reveals that they generally have omitted over 2000 words that are found in the King James Bible, but neither have they strictly followed the Nestle text nor the UBS. The N.T. text of the Holman version is not always like that of the NASB, NIV, RSV, or ESV (the 2002 English Standard Version) - in fact, none of these versions are exactly like that of each other. All of them pick and choose different textual readings and give different meanings to the same texts in literally hundreds of verses.

FG - FYI, part of that reason for the HCSB is due to its earlier development as a MT work, and later conversion to CT. But you arerightthat all CT translations are eclectic. I assume you're not complaining that it agrees with the KJV more often than does most modern translations... because it does.

The Nestle-Aland, UBS texts often omit entire verses or phrases that the Holman places in brackets, indicating that they do not consider them to be inspired Scripture.

FG - Well, at least the HCSB does include them, though in brackets. And there is much evidence that some of those texts indeed are definitely not part of the original Greek text.

Entire Verses in Brackets

The Holman introduction says: "In a few places in the N.T., large square brackets indicate texts that the HCSB translation team and most biblical scholars today believe WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT." They say they include them for "their undeniable antiquity" and their "value for tradition".

These Scriptures are either God inspired and they belong in the Holy Bible, or they are spurious additions that have no place in any bible version at all. I firmly believe they are inspired Scripture.

FG - Good point. But IMO it is still better to at least include those passages which the translators do not think were part of the original Bible text... because they're not absolutely sure. Better to be "safe," and of course, I'm glad that they included them.

BTW, I asked Zane Hodges about 3 months ago what he thought of the new HCSB. His response was neither critical (as he is of the NIV) nor very supportive. He just said, "It's OK - a fair translation." But this by a man who is one of the leading supporters of the KJ tradition - perhaps the leading scholar.

Among the readings the Holman version places in brackets, and are not part of the UBS Greek text they say they are using, are the following:

Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the glory, and the power, for ever. Amen" - The NIV, ESV omit these words entirely. NASB in brackets.
FG - This is a textual difference between the MT and the CT. All CT translations take this position. But only the NASB and the HCSB include it - though in brackets. That seems to speak of a more conservative and tolerable position among CT translations.

Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.
FG - Again, this is a textual difference between the MT and the CT. All CT translations take this position. But only the NASB and the HCSB include it - though in brackets, which speaks of a more conservative and tolerable position among CT translations.

Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.

FG - See above.


Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore yue shall receive the greater damnation." NIV, RSV, ESV omit; NASB in brackets.

FG - Actually, the MT is evenly split over this one, and many older manuscripts do not have this text. So this text is very questionable both from a CT and a MT perspective, FYI.


Even though the textual support for hundreds of other words is the same as for these bracketed verses, the Holman chooses to entirely omit them. Just a very few of the hundreds of examples are the following:

The Holman version omits these words, even though the textual evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of including them.

FG - See my comments below.. the evidence is not overwhelming for all of those texts below.


Matthew 5:44 "Bless them that curse you"
FG - You are right that the support is similar. But no other CT translation, including the NASB, includes that text either.

Matthew 19:9 "And whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

FG - In this case, the HCSB, NASB and all other translations which left that text out did the right thing. It is ONLY found in the TR. The MT does not include that text, nor does the CT. It has very weak textual support. Neither Hodges/Farstadt nor Robinson/Pierpont include it. (Both have written Greek majority texts. They are not CT adherants!) This text has also been used by Satan, IMO, to confuse many on the teaching of scripture about divorce.


Matthew 20:16 "For many be called but few chosen."

FG - You are right that the support is similar. But no other CT translation, including the NASB, includes that text either. (IMO it should have been included.)


Matthew 27:35 "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet..."

FG - Actually, in this case, again the HCSB, NASB and all other translations which left that text out did the right thing. It is ONLY found in the TR. The MT does not include that text, nor does the CT. It has very weak textual support. Neither Hodges/Farstadt nor Robinson/Pierpont include it.


The entire verse of Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." is omitted by the UBS text and the NIV, ESV. The NASB places it in brackets, but the Holman this time places the verse in the N.T. text WITHOUT brackets! Go figure.

FG - Complaining? :D Perhaps this one just slipped by the CT radar in the conversion process.


The Holman CSB also brackets the following verses: Mark 9:44, 46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"; 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." ; and all of Mark 16:9 through 20 !!!

FG - Mark 16:9ff is very questionable text. Very few MT or CT adherrants support it (though Zane does - even though only a small percentage of the MT include it). But regarding Mark 9 and 15 - I agree - the textual evidence is similar to that for the bracketed texts.


In brackets and thus not considered "original" by the Holman editors are Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left"; and Luke 23:17 "For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast." These verses are omitted by the UBS text, the NIV, RSV and ESV versions, while the NASB puts them in brackets.

FG - Actually, again, the textual support for this text is very weak. Neither Zane nor Robinson include it. The TR and a very few of the MT manuscripts have it. IOW, the MT does not have it, and neither does the CT. So just because the KJV includes it, with very little Greek textual support, should we also include it in such instances as this one?


The Holman version again demonstrates its total inconsistency in Luke 23:34 where we read: "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." These inspired words from the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ have overwhelming textual support and not even the NIV, NASB, ESV place them in brackets, but the Holman version does!!!
FG - Yeah, not sure about why they did this, except that theCT issplit on it - so it's notquite as overwhelming as it appears. In such an instance, a note in the margin would have been sufficient.

The Holman version likewise omits "and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." from Luke 9:55-56; and it omits the following words from the Lord's prayer in Luke 11:2-4 "Our...which art in heaven...Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth...but deliver us from evil." Again, these are only a few of the many examples that could be given.

FG - Again, FYI, the MT overwhelmingly supports it, while the CT is split on it.


The Holman again brackets John 5:3-4 about the angel coming down and troubling the water.
FG - In this case, the CT doesn't have it (overwhelmingly) andthe MT does.

The Holman brackets Acts 8:37 which the NIV, ESV omit, and Acts 24:6-7, and Acts 28:29, and Romans 16:24.

Here are just a few verse comparisons to give you a better idea of what the Holman version is like.

KJB - Exodus 14:25 "the LORD...took off their chariot wheels"

Holman - "caused their chariot wheels to swerve"

"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" is the reading of Tyndale 1530, Coverdale 1535 (smote the wheels from their chariots), Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the predecessor of the NASB), the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Darby, the Living Bible and 1998 New Living Bible, Green's interlinear, MKJV, the NIV and the Spanish versions - quitó las ruedas.

However the "scholarly" NASB tells us : "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the brand new 2004 Holman Christian Standard version.

Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.

The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "take away the frogs"; in 8:31 "he removed the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses took off the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah took off his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah removed the covering of the ark".

FG - And I'm glad it is - it's actually perhaps more accurate. Here's what the NET translation note on it has to say:

64tn The word in the text is rs^Y`w~ (wayyasar), which would be translated “and he turned aside†with the sense perhaps of removing the wheels. The reading in the LXX, SP, and Syriac suggests a root rsa (‘asar), “to bind.†The sense here might be “cloggedâ€â€presumably by their sinking in the wet sand†(Driver, 120).

So "turned aside" would be the most literal. It could mean "removed," or it could indicate a "binding." Words usually have more than one meaning, and context helps us to understand the intended meaning. In the case of the frogs, to "turn them aside" clearly refers to the"remove" meaning. But in the case of the red sea, "turning aside" would make more sense to be "swerve" (which is actually closer to the root meaning, is it not) or "bogged." BTW, the NKJV has a footnote there: "F13: Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, and Syriac read 'bound.'" Let's face it. This is no attempt to weaken a miracle of God. It's merely an attempt to understand how best to translate the text - how God did it.



Deuteronomy 32:5

Tremendous error and contradiction have been introduced into this section of Scripture by the NKJV, NIV, RSV, Holman, ESV and NAS “biblesâ€Â. This is part of the song of Moses which says in verses 3-5: “I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.â€Â

The next verse is where the lies of the modern versions enter. The true (FG - "true"?? And what makes it "true?"!) Holy Bible says: “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?â€Â

If you look at the context, in the previous chapter God told Moses that the people would enter the promised land and would go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land and turn to other gods. God knew this before He brought them into the land, so their entering the land did not depend on their foreseen obedience to the law, but rather because of the covenant of grace made with Abraham.

They are still His children whom He bought (verse 6) , His people and inheritance (verse 9) and verse 19 still refers to them as “his sons and daughtersâ€Â. They are His children even though disobedient, just as your child is still your child no matter what he does.

God’s children did corrupt themselves with strange gods, and the spot or blemish they received belonged to the idolatrous practices of other people, but they are still His children, bought by God and belonging to Him as the rest of the chapter shows.

Now look at the NKJV in verse 5. “They have corrupted themselves: They are not His children, Because of their blemish.†The NAS is similar with its: “They are not His children because of their defectâ€Â. The Holman Standard says: "this is their defect - they are not His children." These versions tell us they are not His children, and then in the very next verse tell us they are His children because He is their Father and He bought them!

FG - Well, here's two NET translation notes on it:
[quote:0c07c]6tn Heb “(they are) not his sons.â€Â
7tn Heb “defect.†This highly elliptical line suggests that Israel’s major fault was its failure to act like God’s people; in fact, they acted quite the contrary.

It appears that the KJV is not a very good one here. Literally it reads, "...not His sons." Incidently, the KJV is fairly gender-inclusive here, translating "sons"as "children." But the HCSB has it: "His people have acted corruptly toward Him; this is their defect -they are not His children but a devious and crooked generation." Sounds accurate to me.

The Complete Jewish Bible has it, "He is not corrupt; the defect is in his children, a crooked and perverted generation." and the WEB has it, "They have dealt corruptly with him, [they are] not his children, [it is] their blemish; [They are] a perverse and crooked generation." while Darby's literal translation has, "They have dealt corruptly with him, [they are] not his children, [it is] their blemish; [They are] a perverse and crooked generation." and Webster's has, "They have corrupted themselves, their spot [is] not [the spot] of his children: [they are] a perverse and crooked generation." As you can see, there is much question regarding the intended meaning here, so how can we be too critical about this one?

For a couple more examples of how the Holman Standard destroys the grace of God see my article on this at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/gracdes.html

FG - When I get a chance, I'll look at it. I am a very strong proponent of grace. But based on what I've seen so far, it appears that you are lambasting the HCSB unfairly. Just my opinion, but not an uninformed one.

1 Samuel 13:1

KJB - "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..."

Holman - "Saul was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned 42 years over Israel."

(There is no Hebrew text or any other text that reads this way. They simply made these numbers up out of thin air, just like the NASB, NIV did here.)

FG - I think we both know that this is a textual issue. It's unclear what the text is saying.
Here's the Bible Knowledge Comm. commentary on it:

If the setting of the reaffirmation of Saul’s kingship and Samuel’s address on that occasion is the first anniversary of his coronation, it may be that the events of this chapter occurred after his second anniversary. This is a possible interpretation of the textually difficult passage translated by the NIV as Saul was 30 years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel 42 years. The Hebrew is literally, “Saul was years old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel.†Obviously a figure has dropped out of the first part of the statement, and the second part cannot mean that he reigned for a total of only two years. Old Testament chronology impliesâ€â€and Paul in his address at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:21) distinctly teachesâ€â€that Saul reigned for 40 years, no doubt a round number but close to the actual figure. There is no reason to think that the number “two†is suspect, however, for all manuscripts and versions retain it. It is only the desire to see 1 Samuel 13:1 as a regular formula for kingship (as in 2 Sam. 2:10; 5:4; 1 Kings 14:21; 22:42; etc.) that leads many scholars to postulate that “40†or some other figure is missing. In the context, however, the historian is not introducing a kingship formula (why do so here, well into Saul’s reign?), but is probably indicating that the Ammonite threat had come in Saul’s first year and now, in his second, the Philistines must be encountered.
A problem remains with the first part of the Hebrew statement, “Saul was years old. . . .†Many scholars, following Origen (ca. a.d. 185-254), postulate “30†(so niv). Since Jonathan, Saul’s son, was already grown then and served as a military commander, Saul would have been older than 30. It is more likely that the figure to be supplied is “40†though this too is difficult to reconcile with the description (1 Sam. 9:2) that Saul was, at the time of his anointing, “an impressive young man.†Of course “young†in this latter passage may not be a good translation for the Hebrew baµh\uÆr, a word that could be rendered “choice.â€Â
The best translation of 13:1 would seem to be, “Saul was [40] years old when he began to reign, and he reigned over Israel for two years.†This is further supported by the next verse which begins with a verb in the preterite tense, a construction indicating a close connection with the previous clause. “Saul chose . . . †(v. 2) implies that after he had reigned for two years Saul began to select and train a regular army, not the larger militia he had used previously.
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

And Here's the NET trans. note:

1tc The MT does not have “thirty.†A number appears to have dropped out of the Hebrew text here, since as it stands the MT (literally, “a son of a yearâ€Â) must mean that Saul was only one year old when he began to reign! Although most LXX mss lack the entire verse, some Greek mss have “thirty years†here (while others have “one yearâ€Â). The Syriac Peshitta has Saul’s age as twenty-one. But this seems impossible to harmonize with the implied age of Saul’s son Jonathan in the following verse. Taking into account the fact that in v. 2 Jonathan was old enough to be a military leader, some scholars prefer to supply in v. 1 the number forty (cf. NASB). The present translation (“thirtyâ€Â) is a possible but admittedly uncertain proposal.
2tc The MT has “two years†here. If this number is to be accepted as correct, the meaning apparently would be that after a lapse of two years at the beginning of Saul’s reign, he then went about the task of consolidating an army as described in what follows. But if the statement in v. 1 is intended to be a comprehensive report on the length of Saul’s reign, the number is too small. According to Acts 13:21 Saul reigned for forty years. The NIV, taking this forty to be a round number, adds it to the “two years†of the MT and translates the number in 2 Sam 13:1 as “forty-two years.†While this is an acceptable option, the present translation instead replaces the MT’s “two†with the figure “forty.†Admittedly the textual evidence for this decision is weak, but the same can be said of any attempt to restore sense to this difficult text. The Syriac Peshitta lacks this part of v. 1.

Why be so critical when everyone is quite uncertain of the meaning?

1 Samuel 6:19

KJB - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people FIFTY THOUSAND AND THREESCORE AND TEN men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.

Holman - "God struck down the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked inside the ark of the Lord. He struck down 70 men out of 50,000 men. The people wept because the Lord struck them with a great slaughter."

(Again, the HCSB has not followed the Hebrew reading. Not even the NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other bible version I am aware of has rendered this verse as has the Holman Standard.) For an excellent article by Marty Shue on this verse, see http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/50070.html

FG - :D Interesting. Here's the NET note, which supports your finding:

12tc The number 50,070 is surprisingly large, although it finds almost unanimous textual support in the MT and in the ancient versions. Only a few medieval Hebrew mss lack “50,000,†reading simply “70†instead. However, there does not seem to be sufficient external evidence to warrant reading 70 rather than 50,070, although that is done by a number of recent translations (e.g., NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). The translation reluctantly follows the MT and the ancient versions here.

So, though the NET is "reluctant" to translate it that way, they did do so. But the desire here is not merely to show a God who is not so apparently vindictive, but to understand such a strange number... 50,070. ??? The Bible has consistently used quite round numbers in such instances, so I can see why some would assume a possible meaning of "70 out of 50,000 men." IOW, I agree with you here, but this is a difficult to reconcile verse.

2 Samuel 14:14

KJB - "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

(We all die, regardless of social status, nationality, or spiritual condition)

Holman - "For we will certainly die and be like water poured out on the ground, which can't be recovered. BUT GOD WOULD NOT TAKE AWAY A LIFE; He would devise plans so that the one banished from Him does not remain banished."

(Direct contradiction of many Scriptures. God does take away life. He kills and He makes alive. See Deut. 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 12:15; Luke 12:5) The King James Bible correctly states many times that God is no respector of persons. Yet the Holman Standard has changed this reading to "God shows no favoritism." This is wrong and a false teaching, yet most today would not even recognize it. For my article showing the difference between "no respector or persons" and "shows no favoritism" see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/respect.html

FG - Again, nearly every other translation has "take away life" here. I haven't had time to read your article here yet.

<snip>

Jeremiah 8:8 The pen of the Scribes is in Vain

KJB "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain." (The scribes did NOT ALTER the Scriptures, but the people were not obeying the law.)

Holman - "In fact, the lying pen of the scribes has produced falsehood." (Teaches the scribes DID ALTER the Scriptures) See my article on this at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jer.8-8.html

FG - Again, the meaning of this text is much debated. Here's the NET commentary (translation note) on it:

23tn Heb “The lying pen of the scribes have made [it] into a lie.†The translation is an attempt to make the most common interpretation of this passage understandable for the average reader. This is, however, a difficult passage whose interpretation is greatly debated and whose syntax is capable of other interpretations. The interpretation of the NJPS, “Assuredly, for naught has the pen labored, for naught the scribes,†surely deserves consideration within the context; i.e. it hasn’t done any good for the scribes to produce a reliable copy of the law, which the people have refused to follow. That interpretation has the advantage of explaining the absence of an object for the verb “make†or “labored†but creates a very unbalanced poetic couplet.

The main reason for rejecting the KJV translation is bcause it upsets the Hebrew couplet structure.


Daniel 9:26

KJB - "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

(He died for His people and purchased His church)

Holman - "After those 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off AND WILL HAVE NOTHING."

FG - literally - "have no one." Here's the BKC note:

When the Anointed One would be cut off, Daniel was told, he would have nothing. The word translated “cut off†is used of executing the death penalty on a criminal. Thus the prophecy clearly points to the crucifixion of Christ. At His crucifixion He would “have nothing†in the sense that Israel had rejected Him and the kingdom could not be instituted at that time. Therefore He did not then receive the royal glory as the King on David’s throne over Israel. John referred to this when he wrote, “He came to that which was His own [i.e., the throne to which He had been appointed by the Father] but His own [i.e., His own people] did not receive Him†(John 1:11). Daniel’s prophecy, then, anticipated Christ’s offer of Himself to the nation Israel as her Messiah, the nation’s rejection of Him as Messiah, and His crucifixion.
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

The NET is much stronger - saying that the KJV cannot be defended in the Hebrew:

69sn The expression have nothing is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.†The KJV rendering “but not for himself,†apparently suggesting a vicarious death, cannot be defended.

The point is that these are all very questionable texts, which you are trying to present as distorions.

Micah 5:2

KJB - "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD, from everlasting."

Holman Christian Standard - "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; One will come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. HIS ORIGEN is from antiquity, from eternity."

(Did Christ have an "origen"? How can you have an eternal origen? "Origen" is the reading of the Jehovah Witness version, who teach that Christ was a created being.)

FG - Well, the NET says,

9tn Heb “his goings out.†The term may refer to the ruler’s origins or to his activities.

And here's the BKC again, which rejects the KJV reading again:

This Ruler’s origins (lit., â€Âgoings out,“ i.e., His victories in Creation, theophanies, and providential dealings) are from of old, from ancient times. The KJV renders â€Âancient times“ as â€Âeverlasting,“ but the NIV translation is preferable for the Hebrew is literally, â€Âdays of immeasurable time.“ Other verses such as John 1:1; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 1:8 point up the eternality of Jesus Christ
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

Acts 13:33

KJB - "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE."

(This speaks of His resurrection, when Christ became the first-begotten from the dead.)

Holman - "God has fulfilled this to us their children by raising up Jesus, as it is written in the second Psalm:You are My Son; TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER."

(Was there a time when Christ was not the eternal Son of God? No Greek text reads as does the Holman here. In fact, the Holman again agrees with the Jehovah Witness version) See my article on the only begotten Son and the meaning of Acts 13:33 at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

FG - See my comments below regarding "begotten."


1 John 5:7

Apparently the Holman editors did not consider the strongest verse in the Bible about the Holy Trinity to have enough "undeniable antiquity" or "value for tradition" since 1 John 5:7 did not make the cut. The Holman version omits these important words from 1 John 5:7 "in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..."

KJB - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Holman - "For there are three that testify:"

FG - Oops - you really missed the textual criticism boat on this one. This Greek text was completely manufactured. Before Erasmus began developing his TR no such manuscript existed. It was "manufactured" by an Irish scribe so that Erasmus would feel some pressure to include this text. This text as NOT in Erasmus' 1st version of his TR either, and that Greek text did not exist before this time either. No Greek manuscript has been found beforethe 16th century with this text. It came from the latin Vulgate. If I'd realized that you were going to pull this card, I would never have bothered to prepare this stuff. Obviously you're a KJ-only guy, and completely close-minded to considering anything else. But fortherest of you, here's a little historical summary of just what happened in this 1 John comma - much of which comes from Dr. Daniel Wallace - a textual critic and one of the foremost living Greek scholars. His Greek Grammar - Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics - is the foremost advanced greek grammar used in seminaries today. I have a copy of it in my library - it's very good:

With the invention of the printing press and with Greek learning returning to Europe, there was a felt need for the first Greek NT. The rush was on! And the first one done would almost certainly be a sloppy production.

The Roman Catholic priest and Dutch humanist, Erasmus, met the challenge. On March 1, 1516 he published the first GNT. Exactly 20 months later the Reformation would begin because Luther had read Erasmus’ Greek text. And when he read Romans in Greek for the first time, he was converted to Christ. In a very real sense, the Reformation began because of the Greek NT. Luther himself said that he never would have challenged the Pope without first reading the Greek NT.

The battle cry of the Reformation was ad fontesâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“back to the sources!†This meant back to the original text. For too long the Church had been enslaved to tradition and to biblical interpretation that was given to it by others. The only way to get past tradition, and to test anyone’s interpretation of the Bible was to know the original languages.

Erasmus took his Greek text through five editions. All of them were Latin-Greek diglots, never Greek alone. The reason? Erasmus’ motive was not primarily to produce a Greek NT, but rather to prove that his Latin translation was an improvement over Jerome’s Vulgate (done 1000 years earlier). The Vulgate had been the authorized Bible of the western Church ever since its production.

MS basis: about half a dozen, none earlier than 10th to 12th century. Today we have 5600 MSS, with some as early as 2nd century.

The 1516 edition was called by one scholar the ‘most poorly edited book in the world.’ Erasmus himself admitted that it was pasted together rather than edited.

The response to Erasmus’ efforts was not altogether positive. The Roman Catholic hierarchy complained that the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5.7-8 (see below) was not in Erasmus’ text and thus his text must surely be defective. But Erasmus responded in the Annotationes of his second edition (1519) that he did not put in the famous text about the Trinity because he did not find it in any Greek MSS.4

Erasmus’ text read as follows: “There are three who bear witnessâ€â€the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.â€Â

Latin Vulgate (late copies): For there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three who bear witness on earthâ€â€the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.â€Â

But these words of the Latin Vulgate were not found in any Greek MS until one was ‘made to order’ for Erasmus (who implied that he would not publish a NT with such words unless he could find them in a Greek text) in 1520 by a scribe named Roy, working in Oxford. It somehow was ‘discovered’ before Erasmus published his third edition.5

In the 3rd edition of 1522, the Trinitarian formula of the late Latin Vulgate MSS was added. To date, only four Greek MSS are known to have this reading (all from the sixteenth century or later) and four others have marginal readings to this effect.6 The source of the wording has been traced to a homily on the passage, written in the eighth century, in a Latin allegorical commentary on this text.

I would love for this verse to be in the original! But the doctrine of the Trinity does not live or die with 1 John 5.7!

Please explain how you have stooped to using this argument?! Not a single living Greek textual critical scholar supports the existence of this spurious text. Not one. You have come across as being an expert on this stuff, and obviously you have done a lot of research - for which you are to be heartily commended. I was tracking with you some... until you played this ridiculous card. There are many people who love their KJVs and support it, many who support the MT, many who also support the TR, yet acknowledge that it is not perfect and admit where it is in error. Well, I've go to post this to expose the unfairness of this attack. I hope you understand. This is not personal. I have tried to be very fair and respectful in my previous comments, but this last argument is... well, just unfair and completely inaccurate to use to attack the HCSB.

John 1:14, 18; 3:16

KJB "the only begotten Son"

HCS "the One and Only Son"

Why is this a problem? This is an error! Jesus is not the only son of God. Every Christian is a son of God, but Jesus is the "only begotten" Son. See my article on the theological importance of this term "the only begotten Son" at http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jn1-18.html

FG - Actually, the Greek does mean "one and only, unique." The HCSB is accurate here. The theological importance of this term is not lost with the HCSB's translation, but who knows what "begotten" means these days?

John 1:42

KJB "Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

HCS "Cephas (which means Rock)."

If you are familiar with the Roman Catholics church's teaching concerning Peter being the rock upon which the church is based, you will know why this is a problem. Oh, and by the way, the Greek is "petros" -"a small stone" here. Not "petra" - "rock".

FG - Again, this is much overblown. It literally means "rock or stone." The BKC has, "Peter is the Greek translation of Cephas ('rock')." The HCSB is accurate, as is the KJV. This argument to show RCC wrong is actually not a sound one. It makes too much of the Greek distinctives here.


John 3:13

KJB "Son of man, which is in heaven."

HCS "Son of man."

The words "which is in heaven" are completely out of the text (following Nestle-Aland corrupt text). This is the only verse in the New Testament that clearly teaches the omnipresence of Christ while He was here on earth. That is, Jesus was present in the 3rd heaven WHILE he was talking to Nicodemus on earth. And no doctrine is affected in the new versions, right?

FG - Well, the NET is middle of the road here. They acknowledge much support for including this phrase:

30tc Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A[*] Q Y 050 Ë1,13 àlatt syc,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven†(oJ w]n ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, Jo wn en tw ouranw). A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven†(e syc), or “the one who is from heaven†(0141 pc sys). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (ÃŒ66,75 àB L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading oJ w]n ejn tw'/ oujranw'/ is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,†“the one who is from heaven,†and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem. And if v. 13 was viewed in early times as the evangelist’s statement, “the one who is in heaven†could have crept into the text through a marginal note. Other internal evidence suggests that this saying may be authentic. The adjectival participle, oJ w[n, is used in the Fourth Gospel more than any other NT book (though the Apocalypse comes in a close second), and frequently with reference to Jesus (1:18; 6:46; 8:47). It may be looking back to the LXX of Exod 3:14 (ejgwv eijmi oJ w[n). Especially since this exact construction is not necessary to communicate the location of the Son of Man, its presence in many witnesses here may suggest authenticity. Further, John uses the singular of oujranov" (ourano", “heavenâ€Â) in all 18 instances of the word in this Gospel, and all but twice with the article (only 1:32 and 6:58 are anarthrous, and even in the latter there is significant testimony to the article). At the same time, the witnesses that lack this clause are very weighty and must not be discounted. Generally speaking, if other factors are equal, the reading of such mss should be preferred. And internally, it could be argued that oJ w[n is the most concise way to speak of the Son of Man in heaven at that time (without the participle the point would be more ambiguous). Further, the articular singular oujranov" is already used twice in this verse, thus sufficiently prompting scribes to add the same in the longer reading. This combination of factors suggests that oJ w]n ejn tw'/ oujranw'/ is not a genuine Johannism. Further intrinsic evidence against the longer reading relates to the evangelist’s purposes: If he intended v. 13 to be his own comments rather than Jesus’ statement, his switch back to Jesus’ words in v. 14 (for the lifting up of the Son of Man is still seen as in the future) seems inexplicable. The reading “who is in heaven†thus seems to be too hard. All things considered, as intriguing as the longer reading is, it seems almost surely to have been a marginal gloss added inadvertently to the text in the process of transmission. For an argument in favor of the longer reading, see David Alan Black, “The Text of John 3:13,†GTJ 6 (1985): 49-66.

But I agree that it should be included. Hodges' MT does also, though the MT is a bit split on this one.

John 9:35, 36

KJB "Dost thou believe on the Son of God? ... Who is he, Lord"

HCS "Do you believe in the Son of Man? ... Who is He, Sir"

What is the problem here? Well, aside from the fact that anytime someone changes God's words it is a problem, these two do not say the same thing. "Son of God" is a term used (especially in John's Gospel) to refer to the deity of Christ. "Son of man", however, more commonly refers to His humanity. No one had any problem in accepting his humanity. It was His deity that people had a problem with.

FG - This is a MT/CT issue. The MT is strongly behind "God," (THEOS) while the CT is strongly behind "man." (ANTHROPOS). But remember that the expression "Son of man" was Jesus' favorite expression for Himself. It spoke of the Messiah (Dan. 7). It is not at all a "weaker" statement. BTW, the issue in the early Christian church as not the deity of Christ, but His humanity. Cerenthus and Nicolaus caused all kinds of problems there for the apostle John. Too bad it's likely THEOS... would have been very strong as "man" - God come in the flesh. Bu tplease do not imply that the HCSB weakens the arguments for the deity of Christ!
<snip>

If you choose to use the Holman Christian Standard, you are free to do so if you wish, but don't be fooled into thinking it is the inerrant, unchanging, pure and inspired words of God - it isn't.

Will Kinney[/quote:0c07c]
Will,

I do choose to use the HCSB.

We could list the many instances in which the KJV has flaws in translation. 1 John 5:7, 8 being a key one (which you, for some reason, defended!). But I do not like to put down works of translation. The men who did this translation of the HCSB, as well as those who did the NIV and the KJV, are godly men who dedicated their lives to such work. There was little monitary gain. It was a labor of love for their Savior. Personally, I do not like the NIV. I do like the NKJV, the NASB and the HCSB. They are good translations. But I will not put down the NIV. It is a decent work.

I also have a lot of respect for the KJV and the KJ tradition. I don't use it personally because of the archaic language. But I do not criticize it. I had to point out where the KJV was actually in error above, instead of modern translations, but I hate doing that.

Those of you who prefer the KJV, you are in good hands. It is a good, reliable, accurate translation. But so is the NASB and the HCSB.

FWIW,

FG

 

[brandplucked]

God's perfect words

Free grace>>>You see, perhaps you should know that I am a supportor of the majority text (the TR is in that family). I provided some editing assistance in the translation of the WEB for a couple of years, which is also based on the majority text (MT). I say this so that you know that I am familiar with this issue, and have been a supporter of the MT for some time. I was not happy when the SBC bought out the Logos21 work and converted it to be UBS-based (critical text - CT). But because it was originally MT-based, the conversion did not rid it of every MT text.

But it is a good translation. My favorite translation is the NASB. It may not be based on the MT, but it is an excellent work and very accurate. "


Hi Free, it is obvious that you have no firm convictions about what God's words are and what they are not. You "support" the Majority text, "was not happy" to see the HCSB go to the Critical text, and yet your favorite translation is the nasb, which is the critical text!

It is good to see you are so accepting and ecumenical and not at all offensive about taking a stand on God's inerrant words. "Hey, whatever. Probably close enuf is good enough for me".

Free>>>>Now you said, "frequently rejects the Hebrew Masoretic text and instead follows the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, Vulgate, or in some cases, just makes up its own text as it goes along." Could you give us some specific instances in which this is true? Because in the preface it says that it followed the Masoretic text."


Free, I gave several examples in the article. The 22 to 42; the 8 to 18, the 50,070 to whatever. You also might try looking at Exodus 32:29 where the HCSB clearly says it followed the Vulgate and LXX and not the Hebrew reading.


Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." NIV, ESV omit. NASB in brackets.
FG - Again, this is a textual difference between the MT and the CT. All CT translations take this position. But only the NASB and the HCSB include it - though in brackets, which speaks of a more conservative and tolerable position among CT translations.

Free, when you put something in brackets it accomplishes the same thing as Satan's first question - "Yea, hath God said...?"


Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore yue shall receive the greater damnation." NIV, RSV, ESV omit; NASB in brackets.

FG - Actually, the MT is evenly split over this one, and many older manuscripts do not have this text. So this text is very questionable both from a CT and a MT perspective, FYI.

No, Free, this text is in the Majority of all texts out there. You waffle a whole lot, don't you? No firm convictions about what is and what is not God's word.


As for the chariot wheels, many modern versions admit in their own footnotes that the Hebrew says "removed".

You talk about "much debated" meanings and textual differences, and other bible versions that read differently, and various scholars opinions, and you end up with uncertainty, doubt and confusion.

That is your position and everyone else who has no final, inspired, complete, inerrant Bible.

Holman - "For there are three that testify:"

FG - Oops - you really missed the textual criticism boat on this one. This Greek text was completely manufactured. Before Erasmus began developing his TR no such manuscript existed. It was "manufactured" by an Irish scribe so that Erasmus would feel some pressure to include this text. ...I would love for this verse to be in the original! But the doctrine of the Trinity does not live or die with 1 John 5.7!

Please explain how you have stooped to using this argument?! Not a single living Greek textual critical scholar supports the existence of this spurious text. Not one.


Free, again, you are misinformed about 1 John 5:7.

And there are several living scholars who support this reading.

Here is an article I put together showing the huge amount of ancient support for this reading, and a list of some of the men throughout history who believed and do believe it is Scripture.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html


Again, Free, you are wrong about the meaning of "only-begotten".

You have no infallible Holy Bible to give us at all, do you? Just a bunch of multiple choice Probably Close Enuf conflicting versions that may or may not kind of give us a general idea of what God probably said and meant for us to have, but we are not really sure.

My, what pillars of faith and strong defenders of the truth of God you guys are.


I do appreciate the thought and effort you put into your response, but I totally disagree with your conclusions.

Will Kinney

 

[FreeGrace]

Will,

I can see I'm going to get nowhere with you. You said in that article:

The Greek texts include 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).

Notice that none of these are old manuscripts.

In your article you quote some of the church fathers and others from the reformation period - after Erasmus. But what we know is that there was a note in the margin of an old Greek manuscript - like a commentary on the verse. We do not have a single old manuscript with that as part of the text - not one. It is believed that when Jerome translated his Latin Vulgate that he included that note in the margin as part of his Latin text.

James Price - Temple Baptist Seminary responded to a question about why that text was still in the NKJV:

It is difficult for me to believe that anyone with any knowledge of textual criticism could make an argument for the latter ("Trinitarian")reading. In Bruce Metzger's _The Text of the New Testament_, Metzger gives the strange story of how that reading came to be included in the TR tradition. Erasmus was inclined to exclude the "heavenly witnesses," but promised that if one manuscript could be found that supported the reading, he would include it. A manuscript, Greg. 61, was found (or more likely manufactured). This manuscript exists today at Trinity College in Dublin, and is dated to about 1520, written in Oxford by a Franciscan named Froy or Roy. This manuscript was apparently based on the Latin Vulgate. The earliest Greek manuscript today which includes the "heavenly witnesses" is a twelfth-century mss. Greg. 88, which has the disputed passage in the margin rather than the text.

It is instructive for us that even Zane Hodges' _The Majority Text_ does not include the heavenly witnesses. When I checked his work this morning before answering this posting, my respect for him increased. The next question is why the New King James, which I believe rests upon Hodges' text, includes these disputed witnesses.

Of course, without venturing too far into the realm of theology (which always ends up frustrating most list members), I would affirm my own commitment to the Trinity based on other New Testament passages.

Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Price's response:
Regarding the NKJV and Hodges' Majority Text:
The New King James Version is not based on Hodges' MT, but upon the traditional Textus Receptus. The NKJV is not a new translation but a revision of the KJV. As such it was appropriate to follow the same text as the original translators followed. This decision was supplemented by the incorporation of footnotes at those places in the text where significant variants occur. At 1John 5:7 the NKJV footnote reads: "NU, M omit the rest of v. 7 and through *on earth* of v. 8, a passage found in only four or five very late Greek mss."
James D. Price

Here's some more detailed commentary by Zane Hodges - a majority text supporter and textual critic - indeed at one time considered the leader of the MT movement and the KJV's biggest defender. This is taken from the Bible Knowledge Commentary:

Hodges, BKC, p. 901:
"These verses are famous because because they involve the addition of material that is inadequately attested by the Greek manuscripts. The words enclosed above in brackets are well known because they were first introduced into an early printed edition of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus, the editor. They are often called 'The Johannine Comma' and they became part of the KJV when they were adopted by the translators of the first edition of 1611. But they are not found in the overwhelming majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts, their absence from these is a fatal argument against their originality.

Brown, Epistles, pp. 779-80, repeats the well-known story about how Erasmus was criticized for leaving the disputed words (the Johannine Comma) out of his first two editions of the Greek New Testament (1516, 1519). One of his critics, an Englishman named E. Lee, confronted Erasmus about the absence of the Comma from his editions and Erasmus replied that if he had found the words in a Greek manuscript he would have included them in his editions. Very conveniently, between May 1520 and June 1521, Erasmus was shown that the Comma was found in Greek in the Codex Montfortianus. This is an early 16th century manuscript copied from an earlier Codex (326 in the standard list) which did not contain the Comma in Greek. Along with some other insertions from the Latin Vulgate, the Comma was undoubtedly translated into Greek and introduced into Montfortianus. Erasmus proceeded to introduce the Comma into his third edition (1522), where it remained also in his fourth and fifth editions (1527, 1535). Since it already appeared in the Greek of the Complutension Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes (printed in 1514), but only published in 1522), after Erasmus adopted it subsequent editors of this general period tended to include it as well. Thus, it was found in Theodore Baza's 5th edition of the Greek New Testament (1598), which most probably was the Greek Testament used most by the translators of the KJV who put it into their translation. (CF. F.H.A. Scrivener, ed, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed by The Authorized Version together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version, New Ed., [Cambridge: at the University Press, 1894].)

The fact remains, however, that the Greek manuscript evidence supporting the Johannine Comma is numerically small and late in date. As presented in Nestle-Aland (27th ed.), the Greek support consists of the following:

a: Have it in the text: manuscripts 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century).

b: Have it as a variant reading: 88 (12th century [18th century variant]: 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

It should be obvious that no reasonable theory of textual criticism can possibly account for such rare, and late, Greek attestation if the Comma was part of the autograph of the First Epistle. Nor does a claim to divine preservation of the original text carry any weight in a case like this, since such a claim carries its own refutation on its face. Clearly the sovereign hand of God on the transmissional process is far better seen when it is admitted that the original text has been preserved for 1 John 5:7-8 and that the original did not contain the Comma.

Here's a link to an excellent article by Dr. Daniel Wallace - a leading textual critic:

http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

Now I think I've got nothing further to say here. I've presented some overwhelming evidence, IMO, and I'll just let the readers make up their own minds. I don't think there's anything I could ever do to convince you. I've learned that about KJ-only people. They may be very sincere, but they appear to be close-minded to even considering evidence that opposes their view on this issue. I don't mean to sound superior.

Thx for the article though. Got some more dates for the Greek MSS. But I think that Zane's is best with those dates. You see, he actually checks the MSS and the actual reading in Greek. He and Art did that for every single variant of the Greek MT. They also compared every single variant to the CT Greek text - the UBS/NA.

I think I'll just ignore the digs you made about my lack of convictions concerning God's Word. You see, I like the MT. I have one problem with the TR - it's a poor representative of the MT and the original records. Erasmus only had a handful of MSS to work with. None of them had the last portion of Revelation, so he back-translated that from the Latin Vulgate. Now there are many places in which I prefer the TR Greek reading over that of the CT... but it has many errors as well.

You see, it's not just the Greek text source that matters in translation - the translation philosophy is the most critical - and the NASB translators did an excellent job of translating the Greek. That's why I like it.

Thx,

FG

 

[brandplucked]

God's Book

Hi Free, you are a very confused individual. I appreciate your not wishing to talk to me anymore. It would be a waste of time for us both. Here are a few of your quotes:


My favorite translation is the NASB. It may not be based on the MT, but it is an excellent work and very accurate. the NASB translators did an excellent job of translating the Greek. That's why I like it.



I am not a critical text supporter.

FG - Actually, the Greek does mean "one and only, unique." The HCSB is accurate here. The theological importance of this term is not lost with the HCSB's translation, but who knows what "begotten" means these days?

Free, you say you are not a Critical text supporter, yet your favorite version is the nasb. Duh.

Then you criticise the use of "only begotten" Son, yet your favorite nasb also says "only-begotten Son".

You think Daniel Wallace is some kind of brilliant scholar. I think he is a buffoon who has no idea where the true words of God are found.

Here is a good article written by Marty Shue about Dan Wallace and 1 John 5:7.

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html


Have a nice day.

Will Kinney

 

[antitox]

Even if I thought the HSB was ok, being an RSV die-hard... I wouldn't change (even tho I have other versions for ref). No, I personally wouldn't use the HSB. I think we've got enough translations on the shelf already...do we really need any more?

 

[Bryan]

I have one problem with the TR - it's a poor representative of the MT and the original records. Erasmus only had a handful of MSS to work with. None of them had the last portion of Revelation, so he back-translated that from the Latin Vulgate. Now there are many places in which I prefer the TR Greek reading over that of the CT... but it has many errors as well.

I agree. This is why, IMO, if one is truly striving to find the most accurate translation, you basically have no choice but to throw the KJV out in its entirety and start from scratch.