HCSB Right or Wrong here?

Phillip wrote in the OP,

I agree here with Phillip that if you translate these passages using the word "languages," the theological interpretations of the SBC translators in is much more clear . But of course that is the precise opposite of good translation ethics and practices.

 

Phillip wrote,

I do not know when Pentecostal “babbling” started, but as I have posted in detail elsewhere on this message board, we find mention of people speaking in “tongues” throughout the history of the church. The phenomenon is not new, but the reaction against it is. Perhaps our SBC brethren are envious of what God is doing in other churches; perhaps it is not God doing it at all. The issue here is that the phenomenon is known as “speaking in tongues,” and NOT “speaking in languages.”

SBC, Get a grip on reality!

 

Tongues means Languages. I don't understand what the fuss is all about. As for you calling the HCSB a sub-standard translation because of this is sheer LUNACY.

 

Phillip,

I do not have the time to research this for you right now, nor do I want to derail this thread, but here is a tad bit of documentation of speaking in tongues (where speaking in tongues is specifically mentioned):

Irenaeus wrote,

"In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the Church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of language and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostles term spiritual "

Tertullian wrote,

"Let him exhibit prophets such as have spoken, not by human sense but with the Spirit of God, such as have predicted things to come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart; let him produce a psalm, a vision a prayer, only let it be by the Spirit in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him "

Saint Augustine wrote:

"We still do what the apostles did when they laid hands on the Samaritans and called down the Holy Spirit on them by the laying on of hands. It is expected that converts should speak with new tongues.”

Later in church history we find this phenomenon reported among the following:

Saint Hildengard in the twelfth century

The mendicant friars of the thirteenth century, the most notable of which was Saint Vincent Ferrer

In the first half of the sixteenth century we find it reported about the two Catholic saints, Saint Francis Xavier and Saint Louis Bertrand. In the bull by which Bertrand was canonized for his success in missionary work we read, "to facilitate the work of converting the natives, the apostle was miraculously endowed with the gift of tongues."

In Sourer’s History of the Christian Church we read, “It is stated that, Dr. Martin Luther was a prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues, and interpreter, in one person, endowed with all the gifts of the Holy Spirit."

The Jansenists in the early 1700’s

The Cevennes of the same period

In the Encyclopedia Britannica we read of tongues "among the converts of Wesley and Whitefield," and that John Wesley wrote a protest against a Dr. Middleton who wrote "after the Apostolic time, there is not, in all history, one instance...of any person who had even exercised that gift (tongues)." Wesley replied, "Sir, your memory fails you again, it has been heard more than once no further off than the valleys of Dauphiny."(14)

The Society of Friends or Quakers in the seventeenth century,

"While waiting upon the Lord in silence, as often we did for many hours together, we received often the pouring down of the Spirit upon us, and our hearts were glad and our tongues loosed and our mouth opened, and we spake with new tongues as the Lord gave us utterance, and as His Spirit led us, which was poured down upon us, on sons and daughters, and the glory of the Father was revealed. And then began we to sing praise to the Lord God Almighty and to the Lamb forever "(16)

The Shakers in the eighteenth century,

“Some who attended confessed their sins aloud, crying for mercy; some went into a trance-like state in which they saw visions and received prophecies of Christ's imminent second coming. Others shouted and danced for joy because they believed that the day was at hand for wars to cease and God's kingdom on earth to begin."

The Irvingites in the early nineteenth century among whom speaking in tongues during church services was the norm.

In 1830 Mary Campbell was reported to have spoken in tongues and prophesized.

Among those to whom Dwight L. Moody ministered,

Dr. R. Boyd wrote in 1873:

“When I got to the rooms of the Young Men's Christian Association in Victoria Hall, London, I found the meeting on fire: The young men were speaking in tongues, prophesying. What on earth did it mean? Only that Moody had been addressing them that afternoon”

In 1875 R.B. Swan wrote that he and others spoke in tongues.

In 1879 we read of W.J. Walthall receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.

In 1880 in Kara Kara, Armenia a Pentecostal movement broke out with speaking in tongues.

Also in 1880 speaking in tongues was reported in Switzerland.

 

Phillip,

Apparently you have not studied the discipline of translation theory. I have highlighted for you some of the most basic problems with the transition used in the HCSB, but I am apparently posting way over your head. In recent years many books have been written on translation theory, and I suggest that you read a few of them if you really want to understand this matter.

 

None of this has anything at all to do with my objection to the use of “languages” rather than “tongues” in the HCSB. The translators of all of the best translations of the Bible agree that "tongues" more accurately expresses in English the concept originally expressed in Greek. The issue is complex. This thread is not the place to dig into it.

No, I am NOT Pentecostal and I do NOT speak in tongues or advocate doing so. Is the gift still in operation today? I don't know.

 

Craig,

Which in your opinion are the best translations out there?

And what makes them the best?

You have come out and said that the HCSB is a poor translation and the writers have made errors... please show what the errors are and why it in error.

God Bless and Thank you in advance for your response with the errors and the documentation to show why the Holman folks made the error.

 

Craig another question, what is your view of tongues?

Is tongues an unlearned human language or is it ecstatic utterances?

God Bless

 

Rookiepastor,

I am not yet acquainted with you, so I took a look at your recent posting history and it appears to me that you are a very sincere and committed Christian, so even though I do not want to derail this thread, and I have answered some of your questions in detail in other threads, I shall take some time to answer them here.

It is difficult to say that one translation is necessarily better than another because a translation that is suitable for one group of individuals may not be suitable for another. However, putting aside for the moment the consideration of the reader of the translation, most conservative, evangelical Christians agree that the NASB, in one edition or another, is the most “accurate” translation of the Bible into English that is widely used today. The ESV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NJB, NEB and the REB are all excellent translations, but they are all much more valuable to the reader who understands the translation philosophy behind each of these translations and the goals of the translators, editors, and publishers.
(continued)

 

(continued)

The two most important qualities for a translation of the Bible are accuracy and readability. Another important quality is aesthetic beauty, including a pleasing sound when it is read allowed by a congregation. This is especially true, but not exclusively true, in the poetic parts of the Bible. But if the translation is not accurate, the other qualities become insignificant.

Since most Bible translators have been Christians for many years and have strong theological opinions about the meaning of various passages in the Bible, it is essential that the translation and editorial committees include scholars from many different denominations, backgrounds, and theological points of view in order to prevent the translation from reflecting the theology of the translators rather than the word of God.

I have not said that the HCSB is a “poor” translation and I do not believe that it is. I wrote that it is a “sub-standard” translation, that is, it is inferior to the best translations available. It’s use of the word “languages” rather than “tongues” show is a significant problem, as already discussed. It demonstrates that the translators probably allowed themselves to be unduly influenced by their theological perspective, or that they used poor judgment in their choice of words or that they are not sufficiently familiar with religious literature to know that the word “tongues” is more appropriate than “languages” in the texts being discussed in this thread.

Another notable and serious flaw is found in Rom. 1:1,

1. Paulos doulos Christou Iesou, kletos apostolos aforismenos eis euangelion Theou,

1. Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, (NASB)

1. Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and singled out for God's good news-- (HCSB)

Paul’s use of the Greek word aforismenos has been the subject of very much discussion in commentaries and articles on the Epistle to the Romans. It literally means “set apart” and is made up of the Greek word from which we get our English word “horizon” preceded by the negating Greek a. Paul is writing that he was wholly and completely set apart unto the Gospel with no link to the past or anything other than the Gospel. The concept here of being “set apart” unto the Gospel is introduced in the very first verse and is one of the cornerstones upon which the entire epistle is built. Had the HCSB translators been familiar with the literature on this epistle, they would have known the importance of Paul’s concept of being “set apart” unto the Gospel and they would not have deleted it from the New Testament and introduced the HCSB concept of “singled out” which is foreign to both Paul and the New Testament.

Donald Grey Barnhouse, in his commentary on Romans, gives us three excellent illustrations of the concept of being “set apart” and I have used an adaptation of one of these illustrations very successfully in teaching both children and adults. This commentary is very wide available and I encourage you to read Barnhouse on Rom. 1:1 and learn how Paul was off-horizoned and how that is the purpose of Christ for each one of us today.

Very many other inadequacies could be cited, but perhaps the biggest problem with the HCSB is that the translators lacked the necessary diversity in backgrounds, education, and theology that is necessary to produce a first-class translation of the Bible.

 

Craig


Thank you for your views.

God Bless

 

It's six in one translation and a half-dozen in the other.

HankD

 

Now here is a real baffler which is related :

Why and for what Scriptural reason did the KJV translators translate "Holy Spirit" as "Holy Ghost" in most places (but not all)?

I don't think any of the MVs use "Holy Ghost", I know the NKJV does not (no occurences showed up in an electronic scan).

KJVO: Don't you think "Holy Spirit" is better?

The word "ghost" in 21st century English seems not seem appropriate to me when speaking of the 3rd person of the Trinity.

What other possible reason could there be to use "ghost" other than an affection for the 17th century English of King James, and is that an appropriate reason to retain the word in consideration of the 21st century English speaker?

HankD