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.

What's the most accurate bible translation, who is Dr. Jason BeDuhn, and why Alex Trebek?

Good day,

Well, the old blog gets more hits than this one still, and it is simply because of Alex Trebek and Jason BeDuhn.

Let me explain.

A half of a year back I had posted on the Jeopardy question involving which bible translation was the best, why the supposed best translation is not the best, and what Jason BeDuhn said in his book "Truth in Translation." So, I've decided to rehash this subject for those of you out there still trying to find answers to these questions. The reason being is this, I believe that if the truth is found in more places, more people will find it.

Did Alex Trebek really ask “What is the most accurate bible translation?” on Jeopardy?

No, he did not. I can find no evidence anywhere that this ever happened, and anyone who stops to think about it for a few minutes would conclude that long before seeking any evidence. There is no YouTube evidence, there is little anecdotal aside from Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I cannot be sure about this, but I have found hints of some sort of message from the people at Jeopardy that this question never was asked. The assertion is simply ridiculous. Why would a secular game show tackle such a hotly debated religious issue? Simply mind boggling how anyone could come up with such a ludicrous idea.

Did Dr. Jason BeDuhn really write that the New World Translation was the best translation?

There is some truth to this one. However, as is usual in Jehovah’s Witnesses publications, selective quoting and misquoting are employed here (I have read the magazine this was published in) to make the NWT receive a more glowing review than it actually received. You see, it turns out that BeDuhn actually liked two versions of the Bible, one being the Jehovah’s Witness version, much debated, and the other being a Catholic version, which is also somewhat debated. So did he do this to sell books? Perhaps, but I will not make that accusation at this time. If you know Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t like Catholics a lot, so they conveniently leave that detail out of the magazine. What they also leave out is that BeDuhn has some pretty harsh criticism toward their use of the name “Jehovah” in the New Testament, something they are particularly proud of.

This is from Wikipedia:

“Dr. BeDuhn (Truth in Translation pg. 170) wrote of the mainstream practice of making the Old Testament conform to the New in its use of "Lord" and of the NWT practice of making the New Testament conform to the Old in it use of "Jehovah": "Both practices violate accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God."”

The big question to me is why anyone would listen to Jason BeDuhn anyway. His Masters degree requires only an intermediate level of competence in Greek. His PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in any Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek. His other book is an analysis of religions as goal-oriented systems of practice rationalized within particular models of reality. I stress here GOAL ORIENTATED systems. Is your faith a “goal orientated system”? This guy has no business commenting on religious issues whatsoever, much less bible translations.

Finally, is the New World Translation the best translation? Or, for those search engines out there: What is the best bible translation?

Absofreakinglutely not. The guys who wrote the book are the following: Frederick William Franz, George Gangas, Karl Klein, Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, and Milton Henschel. Each and every one of these guys was a Jehovah’s Witness, and all high up Witnesses as well. How is it possible that a group of human beings, who all substantially agree on a particular position not publish a book agreeing with that position and not be biased as the Witnesses claim they were not. I would expect a group of hippies to be in favor of legalizing marijuana and a group of oil tycoons to be in favor of refinery subsidies, wouldn’t you? Therefore, I expect a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be for their own translation no matter what kind of bias there was or wasn’t, because they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

From Wikipedia.

“It has been argued that the NWT translators were insufficiently qualified to translate the Bible, with only Franz having formal education in Biblical languages. It has also been argued that the size of the translation committee was very small compared to the number of translators involved in producing most other English translations. These criticisms are disputed by Witnesses, who state that the translation should be examined on its own merits, not on the speculated credentials of its translators.”

Let me ask you this. If I hired Ed and his buddies, all teenage McDonalds employees to build me a house, should I be happy with the end result because it is the right color, or should I take a closer look to make sure they actually did all the framing, electrical, and plumbing to code? Chances are, people who have little experience or education in what they are doing will do a poor job, regardless of what the end result *looks like*. So it is no surprise that when one examines the NWT on its own merits, we find that the hot water valve is on the right side of the sink and when you flip the light switch in the living room, the dish washer comes on.

The NIV I hear, was written by a group of several dozens of people, all whose credentials we know. It contained men and women, from a variety of backgrounds, and I’ve even heard there were one or two atheists and homosexuals among them. It was revised over a period of years by many people of similarly varying backgrounds. It would seem to me that people who disagree would, in the end, come to a more unbiased conclusion than people who agree. Don’t you agree?

Thinking people would agree ;-)

WiredForStereo

The KJV vs. the NIV - What Was Left Out?

I recently found some questions regarding the NIV, the challenge was to answer the following questions with the NIV, none of which you actually can because in the NIV, these are all correctly recognized as being of dubious origin or as scribal insertions. The idea here was that the KJV is more "accurate" than the NIV, but in fact, whoever wrote this just proves the shaky ground the KJV stands on. You see, you can't prove something with evidence that doesn't hold up in court, just like you cant expect a sweater vest to stop bullets like Kevlar can. So, here's a few little sarcastic answers to these questions.

Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies,__________ them that curse you, ______________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you." Does anyone know what "Some late manuscripts" means?

According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of demon?
Burgers and Fries. Only some manuscripts have this verse.

According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?
We know why from other places, again only some manuscripts.

According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?
Pontius is a title, not a name people, besides, would it matter if his name were Bob? Yep, there's ol' Bob Pilate, he can grill up some goooood steak, uh huh.

In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet.
Sure were, I wonder which one. See the Book of David. Right after Second Bill.

Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.
You'd have to check with the prophet himself, Matt here didn't see fit to include it.

In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out demons and to: ____________ Bust a move. We know they can heal from other places.

According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?
Uh, feet? Seriously, does Mark really need to tell me what appendages I need to be able to hear?

According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?
Does it matter, or should we name him after what he did? Then would it matter?

In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?
Know? Know what? Jesus rebuked them, they obviously didn't know something.

In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?
Is he supposed to save? That's what it says elsewhere.

In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?
Does it matter? How many are often included in "The Apostles."

According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?
I guess three languages would make it a pretty big sign, it wouldn't leave any room for Jesus' head.

In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?
Fish.

John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?
If it don't belong there, it don't prove nothin'.

What happened each year as told in John 5:4?
Hanukkah. I'd have said Christmas, but this fits so much better.

In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?
Earlier, like the text says.

In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?
Water, I guess.

What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?
He didn't have to ask, Jesus told him.

Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.
Either "they" or "the brothers" take your pick.

Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul?
Would 'a' could 'a' should 'a'.

What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?
Who really knows seeing as how it wasn't recorded?

Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.
It’s not there, know why?Because only SOME manuscripts contain it.Additionally, it is not doctrinally significant in any way anyway.

First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?
He. Who do you think?

In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?
Oh, the usual.

Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?
Not sure, that verse was added well over a thousand years after the time of Christ.

Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A______________ and O___________, the _________ and the _______:"
Again, if it don't belong there, it don't prove a thing.

That's the whole flaw in the King James Only argument. You can use whatever verse you want to prove whatever you want, but at the end of the day, if those verses were not in the original manuscripts, and don't belong there, then all you have proven is how foolish you look using a Bible written in a language you don't speak. The only King James Bible I have is a Spanish version, and I looked up these verses in that. The thing is, I know about as much Spanish as King James Only people know 1611 English. You see, language evolves over time, and even the King James we have today is not the same one they had. For instance, the original KJV had no letter J, and included the Apocrypha, and you don't see anyone trying to roll back to those do you.

Love the one you're with, Sword that is,
WiredForStereo.