HCSB Right or Wrong here?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

posted February 11, 2005 07:42 PM
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.

Oh, and the rest of us aren't. Craig, you sneaky person you.

I honestly asked you the same questions, at least you will answer them for someone, if not me. Ah well, I'll always take the position of "chopped liver".

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
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.
===============================================
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.

Would it be best to use "non-Christians" to translate the Bible so there is absolutely NO bias?

I disagree. Translation has to do with how well a translator can translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English language. How accurate they are. And, how well they can use modern English to express the original meaning of the words and phrases. Bias should never enter into the picture.

Your other example of "bond-servant" and "slave" does not indicate what you are saying about the Greek and the discussions about it. To a person reading English today, "bond-servant" would mean the same as "slave".

You yourself are saying that the translators need to be biased towards historical discussions of what Paul meant. I would rather the translator just translate the words.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Would it be best to use "non-Christians" to translate the Bible so there is absolutely NO bias?

I disagree. Translation has to do with how well a translator can translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English language. How accurate they are. And, how well they can use modern English to express the original meaning of the words and phrases. Bias should never enter into the picture.

Your other example of "bond-servant" and "slave" does not indicate what you are saying about the Greek and the discussions about it. To a person reading English today, "bond-servant" would mean the same as "slave".

You yourself are saying that the translators need to be biased towards historical discussions of what Paul meant. I would rather the translator just translate the words.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Now here is a real baffler which is related :

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Would it be best to use "non-Christians" to translate the Bible so there is absolutely NO bias?

I disagree. Translation has to do with how well a translator can translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English language. How accurate they are. And, how well they can use modern English to express the original meaning of the words and phrases. Bias should never enter into the picture.

Your other example of "bond-servant" and "slave" does not indicate what you are saying about the Greek and the discussions about it. To a person reading English today, "bond-servant" would mean the same as "slave".

You yourself are saying that the translators need to be biased towards historical discussions of what Paul meant. I would rather the translator just translate the words.

</font>[/QUOTE]Okay, okay, so I didn't make myself clear.

First paragraph stands alone.

Second paragraph (I disagree....) is in reference to you saying the HCSB is biased due to Christian translators who are biased in one denomination.

Third paragraph and fourth paragraphs are related and should be self-obvious.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by HankD:
It's six in one translation and a half-dozen in the other.

HankD

Compare the following:

Mr. Brown singled out the student that was the trouble causer.

Mr. Brown sent the trouble causer to the principle’s office, having separated him from the rest of the class.

The HCSB misses much of the meaning and emphasis that is in the Greek text. Paul was NOT just “singled out for God's good news;” he was set apart for the gospel of God. And notice that Paul did not write that Paul was separated “from” something, but separated “for” the gospel of God—an unusual concept for English readers that deserves much thought and contemplation.

The words “singled out” do not express the concept of complete and total separation that is expressed in both the Greek text and the correct English translation of “set apart.” Furthermore, many scholars of the Epistle to the Romans believe that Paul is using a play on words here. In his former life as Saul, he was a Pharisee, a word commonly believed to be derived from the word paras meaning “separated one.” Therefore, according to this view, Paul is writing that he is now a true Pharisee—a man of God who is not merely separated from ceremonial uncleanness, but consecrated unto the gospel of God.

And although the word “gospel” comes down to us from the words “good spell,” the word “gospel” is not synonymous with the words “good news.”

For a better understanding of synonyms in the English language, see the discussion on synonymy on pp. 5a - 25a in Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms, G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1973.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Your other example of "bond-servant" and "slave" does not indicate what you are saying about the Greek and the discussions about it. To a person reading English today, "bond-servant" would mean the same as "slave".

Perhaps Phillip is having hallucinations—I didn’t use this example or say anything at all about these words!

 

[Phillip]

Got me again Craig, yes, you were speaking of the rest of the sentence. I'm trying to watch too many threads at once and I appologize for misquoting you.

You could answer my first question. Do you think non-Christians should translate the Bible because they would not be biased at all?

If your theory of bias in translation holds, then that sounds like a much better method than using people with diverse biases.

 

[HankD]

RE:which is related

Craigbythesea

Hey someone reads my posts

HankD

 

[Phillip]

Rom 1:1

(ALT) Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated [or, appointed] to the Gospel of God,

(ASV) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

(CEV) From Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus. God chose me to be an apostle, and he appointed me to preach the good news

(Darby) Paul, bondman of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to God's glad tidings,

(DRB) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.

(EMTV) Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, having been separated to the gospel of God

(ESV) Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,

(GB) Paul a seruant of Iesus Christ called to be an Apostle, put apart to preache the Gospel of God,

(GNT) Παῦλος, δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ

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

(KJV+) Paul,3972 a servant1401 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 called2822 to be an apostle,652 separated873 unto1519 the gospel2098 of God,2316

(KJV-1611) Paul a seruant of Iesus Christ, called to bee an Apostle, separated vnto the Gospel of God,

(KJVA) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

(LITV) Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God,

(MKJV) Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God

(UPDV) Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God,

Johnny was "set apart" as being a bad boy.

Johnny was "singled out" as being a bad boy.

I think my comparison is more realistic based on what the Bible is obviously trying to say.

The question is: is "seperated" the BEST English translation.

Just like "tongue", is it really better than "language" since we hardly use the word "tongue" to mean "language" in modern English?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Perhaps Phillip failed to notice that NONE of the translations he has quoted agree with the very poor translation found in the HCSB. Indeed, they ALL agree that that the concept in the Greek language is that of separation, that is, except for the CEV, a paraphrastic version originally intended for children (it was translated at a fourth grade reading level). And this translation for elementary school children, although it deletes the concept of being “separated unto” (a concept that is foreign to young children), it substitutes a concept very different from the HCSB concept of “singled out.” In other words, Phillip has not found a single translation that agrees with the HCSB, but has shown us absolute proof that Bible translators agree that the concept expressed in the Greek New Testament is best expressed in English using the words “set apart” or “separated” rather than “singled out” which does not necessary connote separation but conveys instead very much the same thought as “point out.” The HCSB may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for me and my family.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Johnny was "set apart" as being a bad boy.

Johnny was "singled out" as being a bad boy.

I think my comparison is more realistic based on what the Bible is obviously trying to say.

Obviously you do not understand Paul and you have missed his point of being separated unto the gospel.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The question is: is "seperated" the BEST English translation.

It is expressly clear from the data that you yourself posted that just about everyone but you thinks so.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Johnny was "set apart" as being a bad boy.

Johnny was "singled out" as being a bad boy.

I think my comparison is more realistic based on what the Bible is obviously trying to say.

Obviously you do not understand Paul and you have missed his point of being separated unto the gospel.

</font>[/QUOTE]Of course, this makes you assume that you understand Paul better than I.

As far as the comparison I used. The ONLY two modern versions in today's English are really the ESV and the HCSB. My point was that maybe "set aside" means the same thing as "seperated" when you look at today's English.

It is your right and perogative not to use the HCSB, but I honestly think it may have more to do with the publisher than the translation. Would you agree with that?

By the way, you won't insult me by speaking to me instead of to the audience as if I'm not listening.

Lighten up a little Craig. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to clash heads. Agreed?

 

[Craigbythesea]

Phillip wrote,

Of course, this makes you assume that you understand Paul better than I.

Phillip wrote in another thread,

Okay, I have spent most of my time in the gospels or Old Testament.

Phillip, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in NOT one of the four gospels nor is it one of the books in the Old Testament. It is found in the New Testament between Acts and 1 Corinthians, even in the HCSB.

The Epistle to the Romans has been my primary field of study for more than 25 years.

As far as the comparison I used. The ONLY two modern versions in today's English are really the ESV and the HCSB.

Upon what do you base this ridiculously inaccurate statement?

My point was that maybe "set aside" means the same thing as "seperated" when you look at today's English.

Phillip, had you actually read my posts you would know that is EXACTLY what I have been asserting. And if you will read your posts, you will see that you have been defending the translation in the HCSB which uses instead the words “singled out.” (Phillip, let me know when you are feeling better ).

It is your right and perogative not to use the HCSB, but I honestly think it may have more to do with the publisher than the translation. Would you agree with that?

Actually, I have a great deal of respect for the SBC, their theology, their politics, their seminary professors, and MANY of their publications. It just so happens that the HCSB is a most unfortunate mistake on their part.

By the way, you won't insult me by speaking to me instead of to the audience as if I'm not listening.

My dear brother Phillip, this post is addressed specifically you—you other guys out there, don’t you dare peek!

Lighten up a little Craig. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to clash heads. Agreed?

My dear brother Phillip, I am not the one who is challenging the judgment of virtually every Bible translator in the Milky Way galaxy. If you would simply accept the fact that I am right and learn from me instead of butting heads with me as though you were my two-year-old grandson, we wouldn’t have these clashes and you could get a free education.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

My Dear Bro CBTS,
I am still keeping you in my prayers. Have you given any thought to church planting in the inner city.
thought for the day: A string will stay straight if you pull it instead of push it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Originally posted by Plain Old Bill:
My Dear Bro CBTS,
I am still keeping you in my prayers. Have you given any thought to church planting in the inner city.
thought for the day: A string will stay straight if you pull it instead of push it.

Thank you for keeping me in your prayers. Yes, I have given much thought (and prayer) to church planting in the inner city or a beach community where there are many homeless people, drug addicts, alcoholics, college students, servicemen, and others in perilous need. That is my heart’s desire, but I have as yet not received a clear indication from God that He wants me to do that at this point in my life. When I did that in the past, the call of God was expressly clear and God put everything together while I watched in amazement.

How about you, Bill? Would you care to join me in planting such a church? Is there any chance that God would have you to do so?

How about the rest of you out there? I have the money (a very large equity in my home); all I need is the clear call of God, prayer support, some strong arms and backs, and a few fellow preachers and teachers of the word of God.

 

[Phillip]

Amen, Craig. If this is God's will it will be GREAT!

I really respect the fact that you are wanting a clear calling from God. All too often people think what they want is what God wants. You answer shows that you are being very careful to do God's will. Good for you!

Have a good day and may God bless if this is your chosen direction (or not).

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
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.

Please do not bear false witness.

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
[QB]

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.

Not true in the slightest. Regardless, 2 applies because "tongues" does not mean languages any longer, and the use of a word that people do not understand allows cults to fill the word with false doctrine: "Languages means languages. Tongues means babbling non-language that comes from the flesh."

Using "tongues" for language might not have been dishonest and damnable hundreds of years ago, but using it in a modern translation is very serious.