Featured The Holman Christian Standard Version

Think that it is pretty well known that many had valid issues with 2011 revision!

 

Those were probably not not even in the originals !

 

That's hardly an explanation in that Erasmus had it in his compilation from the 1st century manuscripts. But I'll back off, although that's just one of many examples where the key verses have been cut just in the Holman...

 

Are you saying that Erasmus had a 1st Century manuscript containing the Comma? If so, I'd like a citation on that.

 

Due to them not really being part of the originals!

 

I'm excited to hear about both revisions (to the HCSB/CSB and the NASB). It seems like the goals of these updates are to address standing issues many have had with the texts. The NASB I felt read quite smoothly in the NT but still a little awkward in the OT. The HCSB had some weird places. However, I found that most of my issues with the HCSB was that it deviated from traditional readings....it did the translation character though. I've always used the NASB as my study translation and the HCSB as my reading Bible. Due to the fact that the 2017 update to the ESV was so poor, the CSB may be the ESV (and maybe NIV) everyone was looking forward to.

 

Of course not the original script. My friends, if it hadn't been a compete copy and verifiable , Erasmus wouldn't have compiled it. Go back to the OP though. I didn't mean to derail.

 

Or just a single TR received as THE authoratitive one!

The Nasb update is targeted for just the OT to be smoothed over, and should make the best version for serious studying even better!

 

Think that h eused 5 different TR alone....

 

In the final edition of the Novum Instrumentum Omne, his compared and compiled manuscripts, one even dating I think from the third century he borrowed from another scholar would have been seven or eight sources.

 

Ok, but which 3rd century manuscript are you saying contained the Comma Johanneum? Give us its name/number. I'm no scholar, but a quick look at his sources shows the Comma coming in Erasmus' 3rd edition, from codex 61, which is dated to the 1500s.

 

Not sure, but I don't think the Comma Johanneum was a Latin corruption, if that's what you're getting at.

 

I would never claim to know your beliefs better than you, or purposefully misrepresent you.

But your posts seemed to me to insinuate a much earlier existence of the Comma in extant Greek manuscripts than has been presently recorded.

It is a HCSB thread, though, and you pointed to the lack of the Comma as a fault, so I reckoned it was a fair time to be argumentative.

 

No, that wasn't what I was insinuating but it was a fair time. Thanks...

 

That part in 1 John was a later scribal addition, correct?
Just interesting how someone can call a translation bad by not having that included in it, but probably was not even in the original to start!

 

Don;t it showed up until later times though!

 

Invalid and hypocritical reasons.

 

Well, the ones concerning going overboard with the inclusive language was valid!

 

The whole point of the controversy regarding the TNIV concerned its use of inclusive language. But, as I said, the reasoning was invalid and hypocritical.

The increased inclusive language of the CSB will not be an topic of controversy. The NLT, which uses more inclusive language than the TNIV did never received a backlash. Even GWT, which has a good deal of inclusive language, was featured in ads in World Magazine --after tabloid, smutty journalism tarred and feathered the TNIV. All of which is stupidity and hypocrisy on display.