Trying Out the Holman Christian Standard Bible

When I first began reading the Bible in earnest, I used the NIV (New International Version).  The NIV is a very good translation.  It took a lot of criticism in the beginning, largely I believe, because it was such a break from the then tradition of biblical translation.  However, it’s been a number of decades and a lot of the KJV (King James Version) Only crowd have died off.  Many many more translations have been produced and the NIV has more or less fallen out of the popular spotlight though it is still quite popular.  Anyway, that’s the one I read at the time.  Using that Bible, I read through the New Testament a handful of times and the minor prophets and a few other Old Testament books here and there.

Then I heard about the ESV (English Standard Version).  It gained some sexiness in the mid 20-oughts.  Add to that, the Crossway covers (very sexy) and that was the first Bible I bought.  They had a free Kindle version too, which was nice.  Mark Driscoll also endorsed it along with a number of the Calvinist crowd.  But reading through the Bible, I started noticing some liberties being taken, especially in numerology.  People do complain about versions and the conversion of the word “man” to “people” but that’s not really what I’m after.  What I started noticing was that certain phrases or words were translated in ways other than the original text warranted.  It was things like in Exodus 20:6 where it says “showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me.”  In the foot notes it says “or to the thousandth generation.”  A simple interpretation of a thought, yes, but when you mess with numbers in the Bible, you are missing with contextual meanings.  Can’t do that.  “Thousand” is used a number of times in the

Bible and specific meaning can be drawn from its usage. 

Compare the NIV:  “but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me.”

Compare the HCSB:  “but showing faithful love to a thousand [generations] of those who love Me.”

These make interpretations too, but they keep the terminology and they demonstrate what they’re doing while they’re doing it.  No footnotes.  Well, the NIV left out steadfast/faithful.

Another problem I have with many modern translations of the Bible is the traditional lack of translation of God’s personal name in the text.  Of course anybody reading the text knows that LORD means YHVH, the Hebrew transliteration of God’s name, so God’s name has not been “left out,” just left untranslated for tradition sake.  Virtually all scholars agree that the correct pronunciation of the tetragrammaton (four letter name) of God is Yahweh or Yah’weh.  But few translations of the Bible do.

So I started reading LORD as Yahweh in my own personal reading.  The thing is, the name is used A LOT, over 6000 times in the Old Testament.  But I was still reading the ESV, a version I knew had problems I didn’t like.

I had been told about the Holman Christian Standard Bible a while back by a Jehovah’s Witness or two.  They use the name Jehovah (a bastardized and Anglicized version of God’s name) profusely and stick it in everywhere in the OT and everywhere they feel it necessary to excise Jesus’ divinity in the New Testament.  Naturally, I distrusted anything coming from a JW.  They are after all perhaps the most well-known dangerous mind control cult.  But I came upon the HCSB on my own one day when researching the name Yahweh. 

The HCSB uses Yahweh when the name of God is stated in the Hebrew.  For instance, if the author says something like “our God, whose name is the LORD” it doesn’t really make much sense in English.  It’s like “they call me the Doctor!”  “Doctor who?”  “Exactly.”  Well, fun, but not useful.  It would seem to me a better translation would be “our God, whose name is Yahweh.”  Now you know what we’re talking about.

The HCSB still uses LORD pretty regularly.  They only use Yahweh a few more than one in ten times.  But remember, the name is in there over 6000 times.  That’s like eight times per page.

So after reading virtually all the Bible in NIV, and again in ESV, now I’m reading the HCSB.  Of course I still have access to every version available on various Bible apps, and my personal copies of the ESB, NIV, NASB, and even the Greek NT.  I can’t wait to get back to the New Testament to see how the HCSB translates those.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Poor

If you have ever read any literature published by Jehovah’s Witnesses, you pick up real quick that they love themselves. You know what I mean. They spend endless amounts of time in their writings expounding the virtues and accomplishments of the organization. Never will you find a critical thought or question in the write-in sections. It is all praise and wonder for Jehovah’s visible organization.

Interestingly enough, they also expounded their generosity to the poor in last years May 1, 2006 Watchtower article entitled “Who Will Help the Poor.” It really is a wonderful article that talks about how Jehovah’s Witnesses have helped the poor around the world, unless you know the truth, or are discerning enough to read through the flowery B. S. in the text. If you pay close attention, you’ll notice that none of the poor helped are non-witnesses. What? Surely not you say.

It’s true, and it is borne out on the back cover of the September 1, 2003 edition of the Watchtower in a short called “Real Help for the Poor.” Conspicuously absent is any “real help” at all. The only “help” is a Jehovah’s Witness on your doorstep telling you how it will be in the recreated earth. That’s right, no food, no financial assistance, only worthless words about a future paradise. Now I certainly do believe in future paradise, but we are called to care for the poor and weak here and now.

The New World Translation translates Psalm 72:13 to say that God “feels sorry” for the weak and needy whereas the ESV says, “He has pity.” See the difference? Having pity leads to action, whereas feeling sorry leads to nothing. What good is someone who just feels sorry and yet does nothing? True Jesus Freaks actually do stuff, not just to proselytize people to try to get them to join their religion, but we help people regardless of their religious background because Christ fed thousands, many of whom were not believers at all, and some likely were only there to criticize him.

Nowhere in the Bible that I know of does God say that only the needy or poor believers should be cared for, but all people. Jehovah’s Witnesses love to talk about all the homes they rebuilt after hurricane Katrina, but they neglect to tell you that they didn’t rebuild anybody’s house that was not a “brother.”

A recent study found that Jehovah's Witnesses were the poorest of major religious groups. Their never ending disdain toward education is a primary cause of this. Secondary education is even lower on their list. They discourage education in favor of pioneering, leading to lives unfulfilled, performing menial labor and endless door to door evangelism. They want to tell us they help the poor when they are the poor.

Jehovah’s Witnesses love to tell you about how true religion shows true love. But, are they the only religious organization with love? They seem to think so. The problem that I have with this is the following. What love do they show any one who is not one of them? Showing up at your door to tell you their “good news” doesn’t count because unless you become one of them, they really don’t care. Jesus told us to love our enemy, how much more should we love the harmless and unfortunate?

Poverty is not a family value.
WiredForStereo