Accommodate for spelling, case, number and gender variations there are very few differences.
Joke
HankD
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What about the HCSB
- Thread starter BroRick
- Start date
Joke
HankD
What are the differences in them?
The main Baptist thing about the HCSB is that it's in Lifeway literature. I honestly don't know that any significant use occurs within the SBC, and I'd be shocked to hear of much outside.
At my church, the Sunday school material uses the HCSB, but the pastor uses the KJV, and NKJVs are in the pews. I stopped going to the class that used SBC material. I can't reconcile a Christian using such a lousy and corrupt translation.
HCSB to be phased out by 2017 with the release of the Christian Standard Bible, a 'new translation' to be offered to non-SBC publishers:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...lishers-partner-on-new-bible-translation.html
Southern Baptist bureaucrat Jeremy Howard explained:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...lishers-partner-on-new-bible-translation.html
Southern Baptist bureaucrat Jeremy Howard explained:
Now the title of that translation is offensive.
You are the one stating "Any new Baptist version should use the Textus Receptus" so you must be familiar with the variants between the 30+ editions, aren't you? You wouldn't offer opinions on something you know nothing about, would you?
The HCSB met a dead end, like many 20th century English translations (200+ of them).
I am engaged in a very nice chat with Dr. Maurice Robinson, SEBTS (Former Senior Professor of New Testament Greek, New Testament and Textual Criticism and now Research Professor of New Testament Greek), Co-editor of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005), wherein he stated that, in his opinion, a better recourse for a new SBC published bible would be the ESV "adjusted" using the Byzantine Textform. But that is unlikely in view of who owns the copyright. But if that could happen it would give us the best of both worlds.
I am engaged in a very nice chat with Dr. Maurice Robinson, SEBTS (Former Senior Professor of New Testament Greek, New Testament and Textual Criticism and now Research Professor of New Testament Greek), Co-editor of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005), wherein he stated that, in his opinion, a better recourse for a new SBC published bible would be the ESV "adjusted" using the Byzantine Textform. But that is unlikely in view of who owns the copyright. But if that could happen it would give us the best of both worlds.
The Gideons distribute a corrected ESV. From The Gideon magazine:
"The ESV that will be distributed by The Gideons International will be a unique edition produced with permission of Crossway Publishing, copyright owner of the ESV. The copyright page of the Gideons edition will state, in part, "At the request of The Gideons―and in appreciation for their worldwide, century-plus distribution of more than 1.7 billion Bibles―Crossway is pleased to license the ESV Bible text to the Gideons and to grant permission to The Gideons to include certain alternative readings based on the Textus Receptus, for exclusive free distribution of a Gideons edition."
"The ESV that will be distributed by The Gideons International will be a unique edition produced with permission of Crossway Publishing, copyright owner of the ESV. The copyright page of the Gideons edition will state, in part, "At the request of The Gideons―and in appreciation for their worldwide, century-plus distribution of more than 1.7 billion Bibles―Crossway is pleased to license the ESV Bible text to the Gideons and to grant permission to The Gideons to include certain alternative readings based on the Textus Receptus, for exclusive free distribution of a Gideons edition."
Having looked at a compilation of the differences, it appears it might be more accurate to say that the Gideons' version includes some readings from the Majority Text. For example, the Gideons' version contains the Pericope Adulterae but excludes the Comma Johanneum. It retains tree of life in Rev. 22:19; it rejects do his commandments in Rev. 22:14.
Last edited:
The article says a new translation, but it looks like the revision of the same lousy HCSB, except they're going to try to broaden its appeal by dropping H from the name and emphasize the theological diversity of translators. Maybe they'll put a picture of Sammy Davis Jr. in it and pass it off as an image of Jesus.
It would be more than I'd dare hope for them to dump the HCSB in favor of a new translation.
Yes, I am adequately familiar the manuscript variation of the TR family, and I don't see your concern.
I tend to think the extra words of the TR come from commentary being added to the text. But, I don't know. The presence or absence of 1 John 5:7 has no doctrinal impact, although a non-trinitarian would prefer the verse to not exist.
I think a real new Baptist version should come from the TR. But, really anything but the Critical Text. It's kind of self-defeating to produce a conservative Bible version based on a liberal text. In the Critical Text, they usually go with the Politically Correct variation under the assumption that anything different from the Politically Correct version exists because everyone who passed down Bible translations were white male Christian bigots who would have change the bible to better fit their bigotry.
This is not an issue of one body of manuscript vs. another. It's an issue of the manuscripts vs. the synthetic Critical Text (really, any modern Greek text produced by liberal academicians picking and choosing from pieces from all the manuscripts).
I'd predict 1 John 5:7 would be left out of the Critical Text, almost regardless of the manuscript evidence as long as any old manuscript didn't have it. The liberals would say "Ha! Some bigot added it to support the Trinity." They might be right in this case, but right for the wrong reason.
But, still a new Baptist version should be based on the TR. First, for the sake of Protestant/KJV tradition and because there is gap in the sea of Bible translations, a first-class modern translation based on the TR.
So, should Revelation 22:21 read η χαρις του κυριου ιησου χριστου μετα των αγιων αμην or η χαρις του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου μετα παντων υμων αμην?
And same chapter verse 19. και εαν τις αφελη απο των λογων του βιβλιου της προφητειας ταυτης αφελοι θεος το μερος αυτου απο του ξυλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας των γεγραμμενων εν τω βιβλιω τουτω.
or
απο των λογων του βιβλιου της προφητειας ταυτης αφελει θεος το μερος αυτου απο του ξυλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας των γεγραμμενων εν τω βιβλιω τουτω.
or
και εαν τις αφαιρη απο των λογων βιβλου της προφητειας ταυτης αφαιρησει ο θεος το μερος αυτου απο βιβλου της ζωης και εκ της πολεως της αγιας και των γεγραμμενων εν βιβλιω τουτω.
And why would you select that reading?
I select:
22:19 and if any one take away from the words of the book of this prophecy. God will take away his part from the tree of life, and from the holy city; which things are written in this book.
20 He that testifies these things says: Surely, I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all the saints.
Yes, I'm going with the tree of life.