HCSB Right or Wrong here?

Oh My!!!!! I'm sure our "charismatic" brethren will go into a tailspin over THAT!!!

Greg Sr.

 

The meaning of "the Kings English" was always pretty clear to me when taken in the "context" in which it was given.....and that my dear brothers was that "tongues" meant languages(human)that were miraculously given as a gift to men who hadn't ever naturally spoken those particular languages previously....for the purpose of spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a multi-national audience.Many were saved on the day of Pentecost and thereafter by this method as the Holy Ghost used men to spread His Word BEFORE the canon of scripture was complete.While I don't believe this gift is in operation today,I do believe that theoretically it is still possible that it could be given for use today if a circumstance occurred where the PRINTED Word of God was not available in a particular language.I don't want to open a can of worms here but has anybody ever heard of or documented any such modern day circumstance?I think if so the qualifier would have to be that people got SAVED as a result of it.JMO

Greg Sr.

 

The HCSB is in serious error on this issue and very little imagination is required to come to an understanding as to why the HCSB has chosen to use a sub-standard translation when translating passages having to do with the gift of tongues. There is no question whatsoever that the prevailing word in the English language today to express the concept expressed in the Greek New Testament is “tongues” and not “languages.” We do not refer to the “language” issue in the church; we refer to the “tongues” issue in the church. We do not ask, “Do you believe the gift of languages is in operation in the church today?” Instead, we ask, “Do you believe the gift of tongues is in operation in the church today?”

There are only two justifiable reasons for departing from the usage found in standard translations of the Bible:

1. New and compelling research in the Biblical languages that demonstrates that that the translation used in standard translations of the Bible are incorrect.

2. Changes have taken place in the receptor language (in this case English) which make the translation used in standard translations of the Bible obsolete.

Neither of these things have occurred, and departing from the usage found in standard translations of the Bible for the purpose of favoring the theology of the translators is not only unethical, but it degrades the usability of translations in which such practices have been employed. The HCSB very much reminds me of the Watchtower Society’s NWT in which very similar practices were employed for very similar reasons, discrediting not only the Watchtower Society but their translation as well.

We have today some very excellent translations of the Bible, i.e., the NASB, ESV, and the NKJV, as well as other very scholarly but somewhat liberal translations, i.e., the RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJB, NEB and the REB, so I see no justification for using a sub-standard translation like the HCSB.

 

__________________________________________________

Which "Literal" translation are you refering to?

Young's Literal

Ac 2:4
and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, according as the Spirit was giving them to declare.
Ac 2:5
¶ And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation of those under the heaven,
Ac 2:6
and the rumour of this having come, the multitude came together, and was confounded, because they were each one hearing them speaking in his proper dialect,
Ac 2:7
and they were all amazed, and did wonder, saying one unto another, `Lo, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
Ac 2:8
and how do we hear, each in our proper dialect, in which we were born?

I fail to see it here. I do not have the HCSB, therefore cannot comment on it.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

As Dr. Bob has pointed out, the context of the word in question means the language or dialect of the people. So, the HCSB is not wrong here. Tradition is no reason to nullify the Word of God as found in the HCSB. The comparison to the watchtower and the NWT is also unwarrented.

 

Phillip,

Had you actually read my post, you would have read the answer to the question:

There are only two justifiable reasons for departing from the usage found in standard translations of the Bible:

1. New and compelling research in the Biblical languages that demonstrates that that the translation used in standard translations of the Bible are incorrect.

2. Changes have taken place in the receptor language (in this case English) which make the translation used in standard translations of the Bible obsolete.

Neither of these things have occurred, and departing from the usage found in standard translations of the Bible for the purpose of favoring the theology of the translators is not only unethical, but it degrades the usability of translations in which such practices have been employed.

And as for this comment,

Please explain to me how the translators of the Geneva Bible and the King James translation of the Bible believed in today’s Pentecostal version of "tongues".

Anyone who believes that the translators of the GB, KJV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJB, NEB and the REB all shared the same theological bias is a fruitcake. The translators who changed the translation to fit their theological bias are the ones who are biased, and the whole world, except for Phillip, knows that these are the translators of the HCSB.

 

This is NOT what Dr. Bob has pointed out nor do several of the contexts of the word in question mean the “language or dialect of the people.”

No one here is arguing for any traditions. The concept originally expressed in the donor language is most accurately expressed in the receptor language using the word “tongues” because that is the word in the receptor language that comes the closest to expressing the concept originally expressed in the donor language. If you don’t believe me, type the word “languages” into your search engine and compare the results with typing in the word “tongues.”

Apples should be compared with apples; and oranges with oranges. Deliberately distorting a translation to suit one’s theological bias is unethical, regardless of who is doing it.

 

In the question asked in the OP, tongues certainly means languages.

And you are comparing apples and bananas. In Acts and 1 Cor. tongues = languages. So, either one is acceptable.

 

Phillip,

You can be very funny at times. I only wish that you were as honest in what you post as you are funny. I am NOT Pentecostal and my views of Pentecostalism are based on academic studies—something that Pentecostals are NOT especially noted for.

As for the HCSB, my displeasure with it is that it is a distinctly sub-standard translation and their use of the word “languages” where the use of the word “tongues” would be very much more appropriate has very little to do with my appraisal of the translations as a whole.

 

Yes you are. You stated that because earlier English Bible translations used the word tongues, the HCSB is wrong to use languages even though the underlying Greek word is refering to a spoken language.

Here, you are appealing to the masses. Sometimes the masses are wrong.

 

At least we agree that the HCSB is a fruity translation. If reading it makes you happy and gay, go for it.

 

Who's the most important man this country ever knew?
Do you know what politician I have reference to?
Well, it isn't Mr. Bryan, and it isn't Mr. Hughes.
I've got a hunch that to that bunch I'm going to introduce:
(Again you're wrong and to this throng I'm going to Introduce
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.
Barney Google bet his horse would win the prize.
When the horses ran that day, Spark Plug ran the other way.
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.

Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.
Barney Google had a wife three times his size
She stood Barney for divorce
Now he's living with his horse

Who's the greatest lover that this country ever knew?
And who's the man that Valentino takes his hat off to?
No, it isn't Douglas Fairbanks that the ladies rave about.
When he arrives, who makes the wives chase all their husbands
out?
Why, it's Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.
Barney Google is the guy who never buys.
Women take him out to dine, then he steals the waiter's dime.
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.

Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.
Barney Google is the luckiest of guys.
If he fell in to the mud, he'd come up with a diamond stud.
Barney Google with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.

Who's the greatest fire chief this country ever saw?
Who's the man who loves to hear the blazing buildings roar?
Anytime the house is burning, and the flames leap all about,
Say, tell me do, who goes, "kerchoo!" and puts the fire out?
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.
Barney Google, thought his horse could win the prize.
He got odds of ten to eight; Spark Plug came in three days late.
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.

Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.
Barney Google tried to enter paradise.
When Saint Peter saw his face, he said, "Go to the other place".
Barney Google, with the goo-goo-goo-ga-ly eyes.

BARNEY GOOGLE
by Rose, De Beck, & Con Conrad.
as sung by Billy Jones & Ernest Hare, Thomas & West.

 

Yeah, that's mature.

You still have not proven that the HCSB is substandard. Your opinion does not mean a whole lot. How about some facts?