Why? And what about the variant in verse 21?
-
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
I agree. The NKJV is an excellent translation of a text manufactured in the late 19th century and never existing prior to that time. The KJV/TRO crowd condemns the Westcott and Hort text types as being eclectic yet there is no text more eclectic than Scrivener's Textus Receptus!
True.
However, one can look throughout my posts and not find a condemning post against W&H.
Critical maybe but never condemning.
Yes, I know you didn't address me - but just in case
HankD
Not eclectic, Politically Correct or Liberal. Being eclectic is just a means to the end.
Yes, eclectic. Scrivener's text is eclectic. That was his whole point in compiling it. To show the origin of the various readings as found in the KJV. That is the very definition of "eclectic." "Derived from a broad and diverse range of sources."
Yes, but why prefer that reading?
I agree. The text conforms with 95% of the extant manuscript evidence. If I were to condemn it I would be condemning 95% of the word of God!
Last edited:
Would say that regardless if one uses the TR/MT/CT, one can make either good/bad translations, as all of those sources are indeed the word of God to us in the original languages, and translations made right off any of them can and should be seen as the English word of God unto us...
If you feel that the TR is the best one, fine with me, just allow for me to see it as the CT also!
As one can in a legit sense be text/translation perferred, but not ONLY!
Oh boy. Just announced: Trevin Wax, blogger for Calvinist fraternity 'The Gospel Coalition', will oversee the launch of this 'Christian Standard Bible' next year:
http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/press-release/trevin-wax-named-bh-bible-reference-publisher
http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/press-release/trevin-wax-named-bh-bible-reference-publisher
And that's a problem because? The revision is already done; his job is to sell it.
For the record: I do not think the Holman is a bad translation; it has some quirks that are distracting, but not disqualifying. Perhaps the new revision will be a big improvement. (I note that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, in response to a request from B&H Publishing Group, has submitted more than 1,000 suggestions for changes.)
For the record: I do not think the Holman is a bad translation; it has some quirks that are distracting, but not disqualifying. Perhaps the new revision will be a big improvement. (I note that the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, in response to a request from B&H Publishing Group, has submitted more than 1,000 suggestions for changes.)
I think it is a very careless translation. A friend of mine (who will remain nameless) has written to me and pointed out the following:
(a) non-formal equivalence translation . . . “Listen!” as a rendering for IDOU, which verb only relates to seeing, thus “Behold”; and (b) their inclusion of numerous variant reading notes – more than any other English translation, even – but with not a clue in those notes as to whether the variant was found in the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, or some other text, thus making the final state of those reading such notes more confused than would have been the case with no notes at all.
I knew I didn't like it. Now I know way.
(a) non-formal equivalence translation . . . “Listen!” as a rendering for IDOU, which verb only relates to seeing, thus “Behold”; and (b) their inclusion of numerous variant reading notes – more than any other English translation, even – but with not a clue in those notes as to whether the variant was found in the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, or some other text, thus making the final state of those reading such notes more confused than would have been the case with no notes at all.
I knew I didn't like it. Now I know way.
I'll expand on a previous comment. This has nothing to do with the text of the translation, so it's not an attack on Scripture. It's on the man-made title for this translation.
I thought the Holman Christian Standard Bible was awkwardly named, but you could say that it was the "Christian Standard Bible" for Holman (Broadman and Holman).
Dropping "Holman" makes the title less awkward but much more offensive.
The language of "Christian Standard Bible" implies that the Bible is the standard for Christians. I know that's not the intent, but words have meaning, and it's important to get them right.
I thought the Holman Christian Standard Bible was awkwardly named, but you could say that it was the "Christian Standard Bible" for Holman (Broadman and Holman).
Dropping "Holman" makes the title less awkward but much more offensive.
The language of "Christian Standard Bible" implies that the Bible is the standard for Christians. I know that's not the intent, but words have meaning, and it's important to get them right.
I think you are reading too much into the title. Is the NASB the standard for Americans? Is the ESV the standard for all who speak English? Just a title.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Perhaps I am, but even if it isn't as offensive, it's still a poor title, IMO.
I just object to including the term "Christian." If a Bible is 66 books, it's a Christian Bible, and there's no need for the term.
They should just call it something like it's intended to be--"The Lifeway Standard Version." It's clunky, but it's basically accurate.
Of course, this is largely a moot point. The CSB will be a publication failure like the HCSB. Some minor tweaks and a minor name change won't bring mainstream acceptance.
.
There's no will in the SBC to create a good translation. The last revision of the HCSB continued to take the HCSB in the wrong direction. The name change of the HCSB to CSB, and accompanying advertising, is just an attempt to broaden its appeal and increase sales.
Maybe they should call it Lifeway Standard Version. But, that doesn't serve to broaden its appeal.
There's no will in the SBC to create a good translation. The last revision of the HCSB continued to take the HCSB in the wrong direction. The name change of the HCSB to CSB, and accompanying advertising, is just an attempt to broaden its appeal and increase sales.
Maybe they should call it Lifeway Standard Version. But, that doesn't serve to broaden its appeal.
Please do not attribute to me things which I did not say.
Is there really a comparison in the differences between the different editions of the TR and all the changes in the Wescott and Hort text types?
I don't think I made that claim, but to quote a rather famous KJVOer, "Things that are different are not the same."