Hey Guys, Look at The HCSB

[TCGreek]

As a footnote, I'm quite disappointed with Dr. Schreiner, for he has erred on this translation issue.

 

[Rippon]

Here's the grind: the same disputed texts in the TNIV are evident in the NRSV (Genesis 1:26-27 | Genesis 5:2 | Psalm 1:1-3 | Psalm 8:3-8 | Psalm 34:20 | Proverbs 5:21 | Matthew 7:3-5 | Luke 17:3 | John 14:23 | Acts 20:28-30 | 1 Corinthians 14:28 | 1 Corinthians 15:21| Hebrews 2:17 | James 1:12 | Revelation 3:20 | Revelation 22:18.

It is inconsistent to continue using the NRSV and at the same time, be anti-TNIV.

It certainly is inconsistent.I can't fathom intelligent,scholarly and godly men thinking in this fashion.There are others that will use the NLTse, (believe it or not) yet rail at TNIV, or ignore it.

Maybe they're embarrassed at this point after busting a gut in defaming TNIV years ago. They can't admit they erred, and right their wrongs.

 

[EdSutton]

Unneeded shot, gb93433. Rippon, your last comment in post #6 is off-base, as well.

Hey, I'm doing okay for a guy with acute bronchitus.I honestly didn't pick up on anything untoward in gb's comments. After a while all those initials start swimming around : sbc, cbs, whatever.

I'm well known on this forum for liking the HCSB. It's in my top 5. I think it's significantly better than the ESV. I think it's under-appreciated.

My remark about being "off base" was speaking entirely of your comment about the title. It has nothing to do with the way any word or phrase was translated. I did not deem your remark a "shot", unlike the one of gb93433. However, to call any translation, merely "New", and then only identify the "publisher" says nothing. That was why I said that. Don't have more time to play, this AM. Gotta' run.

Ed

 

[gb93433]

Unneeded shot, gb93433. Rippon, your last comment in post #6 is off-base, as well.
My remark about being "off base" was speaking entirely of your comment about the title. It has nothing to do with the way a word or phrase was translated. I did not deem your remark a "shot", unlike the one of gb93433. However, to call any translation, merely "New", and then only identify thr "publisher" says nothing. That was why I said that. Don't have more time to play, this AM. Gotta' run.

Ed

I just quoted a few places in the article by Mohler. I found it amusing that Mohler went against what some on the BB would term street language in the HCSB.

 

[EdSutton]

I just quoted a few places in the article by Mohler. I found it amusing that Mohler went against what some on the BB would term street language in the HCSB.

What I termed a "shot" had nothing to do with Dr. Mohler, or his comments or opinions of language, or whatever, since I have not read these in any detail, so cannot comment on them, intelligently. It was your comment about the HCSB and the title of it.

They should have just called it SBCB (The SBC Bible) instead of HCSB.

Is the HSCB "owned" by the SBC? Of course.

So what?

The KJV (and the ERV) is "owned" by the Church of England;

the RSV is "owned" by the National Council of Churches;

the NASB is "owned" by the Lockman Foundation;

and the NKJV is "owned" by Thomas Nelson, the only "for profit" member of this group.

Again, so what, as to who "owns" the translation? I don't hear any suggestion (from anyone whose opinion I respect) that these others should be slyly, disparagingly referred to in this manner, such as the 'ZBX version' should really be the 'Xrqsaj Cult' version. I would usually deem you above this sort of comment, from what I've seen previously, in multiple posts from you. Why is there the 'shot', now??

From my point of view, all versions and/or editions are certainly not equal. But they all still are the written Word of God, and therefore entitled to be worthy of full respect, IMO. Yes, that even extends to such versions I generally do not much care for, such as the GNB, MSG, NWT and CWT.

That respect includes using the name as ascribed to the version by its owner, IMO.

Ed

 

[Rippon]

For EdSutton

I just quoted a few places in the article by Mohler. I found it amusing that Mohler went against what some on the BB would term street language in the HCSB.

You're getting your quotes mixed up.

 

[Rippon]

For EdSutton

They should have just called it SBCB (The SBC Bible) instead of HCSB.

You're getting your quotes mixed up.

 

[Rippon]

What I termed a "shot" had nothing to do with Dr. Mohler, or his comments or opinions of language, or whatever, since I have not read these in any detail, so cannot comment on them, intelligently. It was your comment about the HCSB and the title of it. Is the HSCB "owned" by the SBC? Of course.
I would usually deem you above this sort of comment, from what I've seen previously, in multiple posts from you. Why is there the 'shot', now??
Ed

Just making sure, (after looking at the last two posts)that the above thoughts of yours are not directed toward me.

 

[EdSutton]

What I termed a "shot" had nothing to do with Dr. Mohler, or his comments or opinions of language, or whatever, since I have not read these in any detail, so cannot comment on them, intelligently. It was your comment about the HCSB and the title of it. Is the HSCB "owned" by the SBC? Of course.
I would usually deem you above this sort of comment, from what I've seen previously, in multiple posts from you. Why is there the 'shot', now??
Ed

Just making sure, (after looking at the last two posts)that the above thoughts of yours are not directed toward me.

The quote function that I was trying to 'copy' from the previous posts, I did not get 'fixed'. The "mixup" occured in post #24. Copying the post via the "cut and paste" method caused it to show up wrong. I did not catch that when I posted a few hours ago, sorry.

FTR, I also like the HCSB (easily in my Top 5) from what I've seen, although I do not own one, as I said.
But the "quote" function still seems to be multiplying badly (see the top of this post), so I will not post again to this particular post or variation of it, on the thread.

Ed

 

[David Lamb]

The KJV (and the ERV) is "owned" by the Church of England; Ed

Just for clarification, in what sense are you saying that the Church of England "owns" the KJV? Is it just another way of saying that the translators were all members of the C of E?

 

[EdSutton]

Just for clarification, in what sense are you saying that the Church of England "owns" the KJV? Is it just another way of saying that the translators were all members of the C of E?

They were, but no, that is not what I meant.

The 'authorization' for the 1611 translation was done at the behest, and on behalf of the Church of England, and the titular 'head' of the Church of England, the King of England. The rights were established and protected under a 'Crown Patent', copyright, held by the Crown, and on behalf of the Church of England, which has never been rescinded, at least to my knowledge. The same is also true with the RV, I believe, as well.

The 'fact' that this is of little, if any, consequence, outside the UK (and some associated areas of the Commonwealth of Nations), in no way affects the facts of the matter.

Ed

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Snips follow.

1 Samuel 10:27 : How can this guy save us?

1 Kings 22:27 : Put this guy in prison...

2 Chronicles 18:26 ( a parallel passage ) put this guy in prison...

In older versions they sometimes use the word fellow. It has the same meaning. But somehow the use of the word guy sounds too casual. Even the NLTse doesn't use the word.

So I wuz wonderin' wat youse' guys hav to say boutit ?

What is HCSB?

 

[Mexdeaf]

What is HCSB?

Holman Christian Standard Bible.

hcsb.broadmanholman.com/

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Holman Christian Standard Bible.

hcsb.broadmanholman.com/

Thank you. I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Lifeway, the Publication company that prints SBC = Southern Baptist Convention, materials had a deal with Zondervan to use the NIV = New International Version, in Lifeway material. Both the American KJV Edition and the NIV appeared in most Sunday School material side by size with the NIV. Zondervan decided to make a new Translation replacing the NIV. Zondervan produced the TNIV = Today's New International Version (Zondervan, 2006). Zondervan wanted Lifeway to pay through the nose for the TNIV (basically funding the translation over the life of the Zondervan/Lifeway contract. Lifeway & SBC decided to fund for & make their own translation of the Bible. Lifeway & SBC put up most of the money for usage rights. Holman Publications did the actual translation and owns the copyrights.

The HCSB = (Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ). is the result. Starting in 2001 portions of the HCSB translation began appearing in Lifeway materials. The HCSB translators were first class translators from the SBC, related academically inclined Baptists, and kindred denominations (several Presbyterian denominations, the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, etc.) Though the copyright date is 2003, I actually didn't get a printed copy of the whole Bible until 2004. The HCSB was probably the first (TNIV was second) translation of the Bible to be developed totally on-line.

 

[EdSutton]

Lifeway, the Publication company that prints SBC = Southern Baptist Convention, materials had a deal with Zondervan to use the NIV = New International Version, in Lifeway material. Both the American KJV Edition and the NIV appeared in most Sunday School material side by size with the NIV. Zondervan decided to make a new Translation replacing the NIV. Zondervan produced the TNIV = Today's New International Version (Zondervan, 2006). Zondervan wanted Lifeway to pay through the nose for the TNIV (basically funding the translation over the life of the Zondervan/Lifeway contract. Lifeway & SBC decided to fund for & make their own translation of the Bible. Lifeway & SBC put up most of the money for usage rights. Holman Publications did the actual translation and owns the copyrights.

The HCSB = (Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ). is the result. Starting in 2001 portions of the HCSB translation began appearing in Lifeway materials. The HCSB translators were first class translators from the SBC, related academically inclined Baptists, and kindred denominations (several Presbyterian denominations, the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, etc.) Though the copyright date is 2003, I actually didn't get a printed copy of the whole Bible until 2004. The HCSB was probably the first (TNIV was second) translation of the Bible to be developed totally on-line.

Holman is a totally owned subsidiary (the publishing 'arm') of B&H, an agency of the SBC, and was acquired by the SBC through what was then, I believe, the Sunday School Board, although it could have already been known as 'Lifeway', in the early 90s, I believe. The translation that would eventually become the HCSB was already underway (and had been ongoing for more than a decade), headed by the late Dr. Arthur Farstad, by the time the SBC approached Dr. Farstad to financially fund the work. In essence, the SBC 'bought out' and 'hired' Dr. Farstad, Dr. Edward Blum, et al., to do the translation. After the unexpected death of Dr. Farstad at the age of 62, it continued with Dr. Blum as the editor-in-chief. Both Dr. Farstad and Dr. Blum were on the faculty at Dallas, at the commencement of the project.

Incidentally, Dr. Farstad was also the Chief Editor and 'guiding light' of both the NKJV (1982), and, along with Professor Zane Hodges, the Greek NT (Majority text) which came out in the early 80s, as well. Dr. Kenneth Barker, also then of Dallas, is the Chief Editor of the NIV Study Bible (and is also involved with the TNIV), and the primary Editors of the NET Bible, Drs. W. Hall Harris III, Robert Chisholm (OT) and Daniel Wallace (NT), are also all from Dallas.

What is it with these Dallas "guys" that puts so many of them so far out in the forefront of Bible translations and editions??

Ed

 

[gb93433]

What is it with these Dallas "guys" that puts so many of them so far out in the forefront of Bible translations and editions??

Are you aware that in about 1999 the SBC was making effort to bring dispensationalists onto their boards for "advisement" purposes? Criswell was a dispensationalist and Patterson is as well. The provost of SWBTS is a deispensationalist who has published a number of dispensationalist works.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

What is it with these Dallas "guys" that puts so many of them so far out in the forefront of Bible translations and editions??

Ed

It is just your usual Dallas/Ft. Worth* rivalry

*Note: Ft. Worth is home of the Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Keystone of the Texas Baptist Convention (formerly in the SBC, but today???).

 

[David Lamb]

They were, but no, that is not what I meant.

The 'authorization' for the 1611 translation was done at the behest, and on behalf of the Church of England, and the titular 'head' of the Church of England, the King of England. The rights were established and protected under a 'Crown Patent', copyright, held by the Crown, and on behalf of the Church of England, which has never been rescinded, at least to my knowledge. The same is also true with the RV, I believe, as well.

The 'fact' that this is of little, if any, consequence, outside the UK (and some associated areas of the Commonwealth of Nations), in no way affects the facts of the matter.

Ed

Ed, I am no expert on this, but I know that "Crown Copyright" is a term applied (and applies) to anything published under the authority of the monarch. It is not held on behalf of anyone else.

I have not heard of the RV being Crown Copyright, but you may well be correct. (I don't have a copy to check).

As for consequences, I cannot say that I have ever noticed any as far as the KJV is concerned. The only one I know of is that printers have to have authority from the crown to print the KJV. Other crown copyright publications do indeed have more practical restrictions. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/breach-of-copyright.pdf gives a table of possible action taken in cases of breach of crown copyright. (HMSO on that site stands for "Her Majesty's Stationery Office"). But I have never heard of such action being taken in regard to a bible translation.