Is the HCSB a Satanic Bible Translation?
PART 1.
The other day, someone sent me a link to an article written in 2012 titled: "The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed." I use and prefer the HCSB in my bible reading and study, so this title was very interesting to say the least.
The first sentence in this article says: "Satan is up to his evil works again, coming up with yet another version for the apostate Bible-of-the-month-club!" The article is full of exclamation points, often ending sentences with 3 exclamation points, so I felt like I was being shouted at while reading. Plus, the words satanic and apostate are very strong words. The author believes that the Bible I am reading on a regular basis is backed by Satan. If that is true, then I am in trouble.
Let me tell you that I was saddened by this article. As I combed through it I saw so many errors, false claims, and misunderstandings. The saddest part about it is that the author is imputing diabolical motives to the translators of the HCSB. I believe he is violating the 9th commandment in doing so: "Do not give false testimony against your neighbor."
Now, please understand that I am not against the KJV. I believe it is a beautiful, 17th century English translation of the Bible. If you use and prefer the KJV, that is fine with me. I believe the message of both law and gospel shines forth in the KJV. Read Psalm 119 in the KJV. It's absolute gold. Read Romans 3 and John 3. They are superb.
But, I believe the same holds true for the HCSB. It is a beautiful, 21st century English translation of the Bible, and I believe it is one of the most balanced translations. It excels in both word-for-word and meaning-for-meaning translations, thus containing great readability for the modern reader.
So yes, I get a bit upset when someone says the HCSB is Satanic. But I would get equally upset if someone claimed that the KJV was Satanic. Either claim is ridiculous IMO, but since the article sent to me was about the HCSB, I would like to examine its claims.
I will focus mainly on the Bible verse differences between the KJV and the HCSB, that the author of the article highlights.
Let's look at his first claim.
The King James Bible uplifts the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and says that men, women and children WORSHIPPED Him. Jesus accepted worship as only God is entitled to (Isaiah 42:8). In the perverted NIV and the so-called new and more reliable version of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the wicked translators change worshipped to knelt. You can kneel before a king without worshipping him. Jesus is to be worshipped and only the faithful King James Bible teaches that.
Here is Matthew 8:2 from the perverted HCSB, and then the accurate King James Bible below it...
HCSB - Right away a man with a serious skin disease came up and knelt before Him, saying, 'Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.'
KJB - And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
First let me mention that the HCSB is a translation begun, backed, and promoted by the Southern Baptist denomination, and Southern Baptists absolutely believe in what is known doctrinally as the "deity of Christ." They are Trinitarians in their belief, believing in one being of God that exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons.
This is why the HCSB frequently uses the word worshipped as an action towards the Messiah. For example (all from the HCSB):
If there was a Satanic agenda on the part of the HCSB translators to deny the doctrine of the deity of Christ, why did they not "change" ALL the references to the worship of Yeshua to say something different?
Secondarily, there is a reason why the HCSB sometimes reads knelt (down) instead of worshiped. This is not a difference in the manuscripts used by the KJV and HCSB, but rather a decision on how best to render the underlying Greek word into the English language.
The word here in question is proskuneo. Here's the definition of this word from Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the NT.
G4352
προσκυνέω
proskuneō
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
3a1) to the Jewish high priests
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons
Part of Speech: verb
As the definition given shows, the word has a wide range of meaning, depending on how it is used in particular contexts. This is usually the case with any word. Words are often fluid, carrying with them more than one meaning.
In regards to proskuneo, here's an example of worship given to a man:
This is the parable of the unforgiving servant; the servant who owed his master a large sum of money, but couldn't pay, and was forgiven of the debt, but then went and dunned someone else who owed him a small sum of money, and would not forgive him of the debt.
When this servant begged for forgiveness (for his large debt) he approached his Lord (Master), and "proskuneo'd." What's the best way to translate this word here? Should we see the servant as giving his Master worship, in the sense that one would worship Yahweh, or should we see the servant as giving his Master honor and respect, falling to his knees (or facedown), in hopes that his humility would grant him forgiveness for the debt?
I think it's obvious that the HCSB is better here by saying "fell facedown before him." Most newer translations say something like "fell to his knees" or "fell facedown," because they realize that the servant is not "worshiping" his Master in the same sense that a man would worship Yahweh. He's humbling himself before his Master, in honor of his lordship position over him.
Let's look at another use (of similar meaning) of proskuneo in Revelation 3:9:
This verse concerns a letter to the church of Philadelphia. They were one of the few churches (of the 7 mentioned in Revelation) that received praise. They kept the Messiah's Word, did not deny His name, and they were praised for it.
Yeshua says here that he would make those who belonged to the synagogue of Satan, those claiming to be Jews but were not, to come and worship before their feet.
Proskuneo. Does that mean the church of Philadelphia would be worshiped as Yahweh? Not at all. The understanding is that they would be honored or revered. This is why the HCSB at Revelation 3:9 says: "I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and they will know that I have loved you."
Most modern translations use "bow down" or "kneel down" here, because the translators realize the church of Philadelphia isn't being worshiped as Yahweh. They realize the word proskuneo has a usage outside of the worship that exclusively Yahweh's.
Now, check out this use of proskuneo in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. I will quote in from the KJV, but talk about how the Septuagint uses the word proskuneo in its translation.
The context here is a ceremony of giving to the Temple of Yahweh in ancient Israel. King David has just finished giving the highest praise to Yahweh, and praying for his Son Solomon who was about to take over the throne. The congregation blesses Yahweh, bows their heads, and worships Yahweh, and the king (either David or Solomon).
What's interesting here is that the one word "proskuneo" (worshipped) is used in reference to the people's action not just towards Yahweh, but also towards the King of Israel. They worshipped both Yahweh and the king, but hopefully we know that the worship they gave to the King wasn't the same worship they gave to Yahweh.
They were worshiping Yahweh as the Elohim of all the earth, the Creator. They were worshiping (bowing down to, kneeling down to) the King as their ruler that Yahweh appointed to sit on the throne over the nation.
The point is that translators of Scripture know these things, because they study these matters out way more than you average lay person in the pew. Over 100 top, conservative scholars were behind the HCSB, and that number includes about 17 different denominations. They were doing their best to get a multitude of council, and different perspectives in the Bible translation. That is a noble effort.
So we come back to Matthew 8:2, the text that the man who wrote this article I'm critiquing called a perversion in the HCSB.
When it says, "Right away a man with a serious skin disease came up and knelt before Him saying, 'Lord if You are willing, You can make me clean," do you think that this leper was "worshiping" Yeshua in the sense of "worship towards Yahweh," or was he kneeling down before him in honor of him being a man of high authority?
The HCSB translators decided on the second option. Knowing the wider range of proskuneo, they felt that this leper was seeking a holy man to heal him, so he knelt down in humility before such a man, calling him lord, master, or sir.
This does not mean the HSCB translators deny the deity of Christ. They're Trinitarians for crying out loud. It just means they recognize that proskuneo doesn't always refer to the ultimate, highest worship possible.
It helps when you do a little bit of digging doesn't it? But I've found that so many people fall for quick clips like the ones given in this article, and they walk away thinking that the Bible they use is inadequate at least or diabolical at worst.
Next week I'll continue to look at this article, and answer its claims, and I hope to give you greater assurance that there is more than just one, English Bible translation you can read, study, and rely on.
----------
PART 2.
In the last section, we began to examine an article that believes the Holman Christian Standard Bible is Satanic. I know that sounds so strange to most Christians, but this is a real article, written by a real person, who claims to be defending the Word of the Lord.
The problem is that King James Onlyists equate the Lord's Word with an English translation of the Bible. That's a huge error to start with.
King James Onlyism always begins with the presupposition that the KJV is the ultimate standard. If you begin with that, and then examine the HCSB (or NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) you will find that these modern translations often differ in the way they read from the KJV. So the next step is to claim perversion in the modern translation.
The problem is: you've started with the wrong standard. The KJV didn't just float out of heaven on a "Holy Spirit Cloud." It is a translation from the available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts at the time of its inception. Once you grasp that; once you realize that it is not the original Word of Yahweh given through the ancient prophets and apostles, you then recognize that it must be examined in light of the manuscript evidence that we have up to our current date.
When a text in the HCSB disagrees in reading with the KJV, the learned student of Scripture doesn't just throw out the HCSB: they decide which reading is better by looking at the manuscript evidence, context, and background of that text. Let's do this by looking at the second claim in the article in view:
Just like the Satanic NIV, the new HCSB removes the critically important word "BEGOTTEN," turning the Scripture into a lie.
John 3:16
HCSB - "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
KJB - John 3:16, "For God so loved the word, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Notice below that the King James Bible in John 1:12 says that God clearly has MANY sons, but only one BEGOTTEN Son (Jesus). Again, the NIV, HCSB, and all modern versions attack and diminish the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (the truth that He is almighty God Who came in the flesh)...
KJB - John 1:12, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
If you are a born-again Christian, then you are an adopted son of God (Romans 8:15). So Jesus is not God's ONLY Son. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. The translators of the King James Bible had the wisdom to know this and distinguished between God's adopted sons verses God's only begotten Son. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN son of God.
Okay, right here at the beginning of this claim, we see my initial point in this sermon. The author of the article says that the NIV and HCSB remove the word begotten, "turning Scripture into a lie."
Notice the standard of the author. He starts by thinking the KJV is the standard. Thus when the HCSB doesn't read "begotten" in John 3:16, he asserts a removal and distortion of Scripture.
But what is the standard? The standard is first the available Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John, and this again (much like the first argument the author gives from Matthew 8:2) is not a textual dispute but a translation dispute. In other words, the Greek text that the KJV and HCSB use read the same, but the translation committees chose to render the Greek into different English equivalents.
What is the word under consideration? It is the Greek word monogenes. Here is the definition of monogenes from Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the NT.
G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Part of Speech: adjective
So Thayer's gives as a basic definition: "single of its kind, only," and then tells us that the word is used in the Greek NT to speak of a son or daughter of parents that is an only child.
Look at this definition of the word from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT:
A. The Usage outside the NT. In compounds with genes, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation. Hence monogenes is used for the only child. More generally it means "unique" or "incomparable." The LXX has the first sense in Judg. 11:34 and the second in Ps. 22:20. agapetos occurs in Gen. 22:2, 12 where monogenes might have been used (cf. Mk. 1:11), but while the only child may be "beloved," the terms are not synonymous. Philo refers to the logos and protogonos rather than monogenes. Ps. Sol. 18:4 refers to God's chastisement coming on Israel as his firstborn and only begotten son.
Now, that's a lot to take in all at once, and this dictionary goes on to give a presentation on the use of monogenes in the NT, but let's stop here and look at these uses of the word in the Septuagint (the Greek OT).
First off, Kittels defines monogenes as "only child," but more generally as "unique" or incomparable." I think of "one of a kind" or "special" when I read these definitions.
We have a use of monogenes as "only child" in Judges 11:34 LXX:
Words are best defined by examining them in the context of their surrounding words. In this case, monogenes refers to exactly what we read in Brenton's English translation of the LXX here: only child. We know this because the verse goes on to say, "he had not another son or daughter."
But consider Kittels next example of monogenes in Psalm 22:19-20 LXX.
The Psalmist here does not necessarily speak of himself as an only child, but as a special or unique child of the Lord. The point is that sometimes the word is used in the context of a single child of a parent (or parents), while at other times it may be used of a special or unique child; a one-of-a-kind child.
Kittels goes on to list NT uses of monogenes, listing Luke 7:12, 8:42, and Hebrews 11:17. Both Luke texts use monogenes in the sense of "only child," but the text in Hebrews speaks of Isaac as the monogenes of Abraham. Was Isaac Abraham's only child? One might say yes, if he is speaking of the only child through Sarah (the promised, blessed wife of Abraham), but it is certainly not true that Isaac was Abraham's only child. Abraham bore Ishmael through Hagar (Genesis 16), and he had other children as well later on (Genesis 25:1-6).
This means that the use of monogenes in Hebrews 11:17 probably carries with it the idea of "special, unique, one-of-a-kind," much like Psalm 22:20.
In light of all of this, were the HCSB translators wrong in saying that God gave His One and Only Son? There is a bullet note before "One and Only" in the HCSB of John 3:16, and it reads as follows: "Or one of a kind, or incomparable, or only begotten; the Greek word can refer to someone's only child such as in Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. It can also refer to someone's special child as in Heb 11:17."
This bullet note shows that the HCSB translators recognize "only begotten" as a legitimate English translation of monogenes, but they chose to go with "One and Only." Why?
It goes back to which use of monogenes one believes John 3:16 is speaking of. Is John 3:16 saying that Yeshua is the offspring of Yahweh? Or is John 3:16 highlighting the fact that Yeshua us unique or one-of-a-kind?
I think it is both.
I don't have a problem with either understanding, although my Christology would differ with the translators of the HCSB, seeing I do not believe the Son to be an eternal person (eternally generated by the Father). Regardless, the HCSB translators are not attempting to take away from the Messiah's divinity, nor are they trying to contradict other Bible verses which show God as having a plurality of sons. Adam is called the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Believers are called the sons of God (John 1:12). The HCSB translators aren't denying this, they are highlighting Yeshua as one-of-a-kind. He is the unique Son of Almighty Yahweh. He is special. That's the point of John 3:16.
Is Yeshua Yahweh's One and Only Son? Yes, in the sense of him being a special and unique offspring of Yahweh. If Yeshua Yahweh's Only Begotten Son? Sure. That really highlights the same thing if you ask me.
Neither the phrase "one and only" or "only begotten" takes away from Yeshua. He is the Son of Yahweh in a different way than you or I. He was produced by Yahweh through the womb of a virgin woman, and was endowed with the fullness of the Spirit of Yahweh. No man can call Yahweh his father in the same way Yeshua can. He is unique. He is special. He really is Yahweh's One and Only Son.
It is a shame that the author of this article we are looking at accuses the HCSB of being Satanic, and attacking Yeshua in John 3:16.
----------
PART 3.
At this point in the article, the author exclaims:
Are you getting angry and sick yet over the HCSB perversion of the Bible? I'm just getting started exposing the HCSB trash version. Again, perhaps “HCSB” should be an acronym which stands for “Heresy Can't Substitute Bible!!!” Holman's new translation is cut from the same cloth as all other modern Bibles. All of Satan's apples have worms. You can freely search and compare different Bible versions at Bible Gateway. Perhaps the Lord is speaking to your heart to join me in exposing the modern corrupt Bible versions. If you see wrong interpretations or corruption, warn others as I am in Jesus' name.
Jesus said that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Westcott and Hort Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was born at Birmingham and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) at Dublin. These two evil men REVISED (butchered) the Greek and are the forefathers of the modern-day apostate Bible-changing movement. If you consider that neither of these men were true Christians, and that they both denied a literal Hell, denied a literal Heaven, denied the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and didn't believe a bunch of other fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith... then it becomes clear that they were servants of Satan.
Perversion, trash, heresy, Satan, corrupt, etc. These are all words this author chooses to use in talking about the HCSB. It is amazing to me how this can be said by someone who has diligently researched the translation differences between the HCSB and KJV. I have to believe that the author hasn't researched anything out. He has just blindly accepted the KJV at face value.
What's even more amazing is that the author goes on to talk about Westcott and Hort as being the spearhead behind the "perversions" in the HCSB. The problem here is that thus far, the two examples given for "perversions" had nothing to do with the Greek text from which the HCSB was translated! Matthew 8:2 and John 3:16 are differences in the English translations of the HCSB and KJV. They read identical in the Greek, with proskuneo and monogenes there in the Greek text from which the KJV and HCSB translators pulled. The differences stem from the translators disagreeing on what the meaning of these Greek words convey in each context.
So... what about Westcott and Hort? What did they believe doctrinally, and does that have any effect on modern Bible translations today, like the HCSB?
From what I have researched and read, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th century Anglican theologians. They certainly weren't modern day fundamentalist Baptists (like most KJ only advocates today), so yes, they had doctrinal differences when compared to Baptists today. They veered away from using the Greek texts that were used at the time the KJB was translated, and focused on older Greek texts of the New Testament, known as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
I don't think their theological position has any bearing on their work in the field of textual criticism, no more than Erasmus' work on textual criticism that eventually became the KJV. Desiderius Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest, and is responsible for the underlying Greek text of the NT that was eventually used by the translators of the KJV. I could holler fraud, and point out what I feel to be doctrinal shortcomings in Erasmus' belief, saying that the KJV was influenced by Roman Catholicism, but that would be ridiculous. An Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or Baptist can perform textual work and criticism, without doing damage to the underlying message of the New Testament.
The funny thing about this is: today, the modern, popular Bible translations are not based on Westcott and Hort's Greek NT of 1881. Modern translations take all textual evidence into account. Every, single known manuscript of the Greek NT, along with versions of the NT in other languages, are considered when the translators of modern Bibles do textual work. Teams of scholars are not looking at Westcott and Hort's work by itself, as though it should be revered and nothing else matters. We've come a very long way since the 17th through 19th centuries.
Of course, KJ only advocates try to take up for Erasmus, which is so weird, because they would never do this if he had no connection to the KJV. My point in all of this is that it doesn't matter what Erasmus, Westcott, or Hort believed doctrinally. We have scholars today (from various denominational backgrounds) who look at all of the available manuscript evidence, and base their English renditions upon their textual, critical work as a team of scholars. When we focus on the actual translations themselves (like comparing the HCSB with the KJV), we begin to see the reasons in the variant readings. These variants have nothing to do with perverting the Lord's Word (or with Satan), but with the intense research that goes into examining what words and phrases mean in their particular context and culture.
I would recommend that everyone read How We Got the Bible, by Dr. Neil R. Lightfoot, and The King James Only Controversy, by Dr. James R. White. If you are serious about understanding the origin of the Bible and the textual differences in manuscripts, you should use your money and time to invest in excellent, scholarly resources as these.
----------
PART 4.
Next, we have a defense of the word "Godhead" from the author of the article:
The critically important word “GODHEAD” has been completely removed from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Since the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, the word “Godhead” becomes very important in teaching the three-fold nature of God, Who is yet one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). Instead of Godhead, the corrupt NIV and HCSB change the word to divine nature.
Colossians 2:9...
HCSB - 9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
KJB - Colossians 2:9, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
God's nature could mean anything, but Godhead implies more than one member of the Godhead. And we clearly learn from Genesis that God is plural by nature. We read in Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is ONE God; but we learn from Colossians 2:2 about “the MYSTERY of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.” The Bible calls the Godhead a “mystery” as you just read in Colossians 2:2. Thankfully, God doesn't command us to understand Him; but rather, simply to trust Him.
The first thing to notice - yet again - is the insistence on making the KJV the standard. The assertion is that a word has been removed from the Bible, but this is only if one begins with the presupposition that the KJV is the absolute standard. Such makes no sense at all, because without a Greek text of Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9, the KJV of these verses would not exist. The KJV was first published in 1611 A.D. It did not exist in the 1500's. We must take a step back and ask ourselves, "What is the best way to translate the Greek text of these verses into English?"
The HCSB reads "divine nature" in Acts 17:29 and Romans 1:20, and "God's nature" in Colossians 2:9. The underlying Greek term in Acts 17:29 is "theios," in Romans 1:20 "theiotes," and in Colossians 2:9 "theotes." It's obvious that these words are related in the Greek language, and they are all defined by various Greek lexicons as meaning "divinity, divine, deity."
The author states that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (which is correct), but he goes on to write that the word Godhead is important to preserve, because it teaches the three-fold nature of God.
To my knowledge, all of the translators that worked on the HCSB were Trinitarians, so I do not believe that they were trying to deny the Trinity by writing "divine nature" instead of "Godhead." That being said, how does the word Godhead teach a three-fold nature of God? Where in that word do we see anything about a three-fold nature? Even the old 1828 Dictionary by Noah Webster defines the English word "Godhead" as follows:
Godhead
GOD'HEAD, noun god'hed.
1. Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God, and to heathen deities.
2. A deity in person; a god or goddess.
According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ancient use of the word "Godhead" in the 13th century A.D. carried the idea of "God-hood," in the sense of how we use the word "man-hood." Godhead would then carry the meaning of that which makes someone a god, or that which makes someone God. A portion of their definitions reads:
The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God.
So the word doesn't have anything to do with a three-fold nature or even a two-fold nature. The English word was a translation of Greek words which carried with them the idea of what makes one a god, or God. I've heard the word Godhead used in Christian settings where discussions about how many persons make up God are had, but this is a later usage and development of the word. Godhead does not equal Trinity, it is simply a word that denotes the state of being god or God.
In Acts 17, Paul is in a place of idolatry (17:16), and begins talking with a group of heathens who had an idol for every god/deity they served; going so far to include an idol with an inscription: "To an Unknown God," in order to make sure they covered all the bases. Paul goes on to make a play on this idol of theirs, and proclaim Almighty Yahweh to them. Paul says that this is the "god" who made the world and everything in it, including mankind. We humans live, and move, and exist because of him. We are his offspring. With this in mind, we shouldn't think that the "Godhead" - or that God himself - is like a gold, silver, or stone carving. He isn't something fashioned by the imagination of the human mind. He is the Almighty creator, and we are made in His image. The Greek word "theios" is used here to speak of the Almighty; His nature, or His make-up. "Divine nature" is then a good translation into English. Other translations read "divine being," "deity," or simply "God."
In Romans 1, Paul is teaching that God has shown everyone that He exists through His creation. My mind immediately goes to Psalm 19 where we read: "The heavens declare the glory of the Almighty, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day unto day utters speech. Night unto night shows forth knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." I've often looked into the night sky at the stars and stood in amazement. I've even looked at the intricacies of a leaf from a tree and thought, "How could anyone not believe in a Creator?" When Paul uses the Greek word "theiotes" in Romans 1:20, he is saying that Yahweh's eternal power and "godhood" are clearly seen through what He has made. Again, divine nature is a good translation here. Paul point is speaking of God's nature; His make-up. A person is without excuse of knowing God exists by simply walking outside and looking at all of His creation.
The third use of "Godhead" in the KJV is Colossians 2:9, and is a reference to that which dwells inside of Yeshua. Paul writes (HCSB) that "the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily" in Christ. The Greek term here is "theotes," used only once in the Greek NT, but I would say very much akin to the Greek words used in Acts 17:29 and Romans 1:20. Paul's point is that God dwells in Christ, in His fullness. That nature of God. That which makes up "godhood" dwells inside of Yeshua. Paul is combating those in Colossae who would teach people to find their completion or fullness by other means (2:4, 8). He was concerned that people would be taken captive by philosophy or human tradition, and not by Christ. In Christ, you find everything you need, because God's nature fully resides inside of him, and you have been filled by Him (2:10), or as the NLT puts it: "And you are complete through your union with Christ."
The author of the article I've been responding to claims that "God's nature could mean anything, but Godhead implies more than one member of the Godhead."
The Greek words used in these passages are not teaching anything about the later developed doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity. They are simply referring to the deity status or divine nature of the Almighty. Furthermore, the HCSB translators are Trinitarian, so their use of "divine nature" and "God's nature" are not denials of what they believe, but instead honest, serious, and scholarly attempts to convey particular Greek words and concepts over into the English language.
The word Godhead was never originally used to teach people how many "persons of God" exist. Later Trinitarians or Oneness believers may have used the word to imply what they taught doctrinally, but the word does not teach it, in and of itself.
I want to add here that Genesis 1:26 does not imply a plurality of persons in God. I understand that later Binitarians and Trinitarians have read their belief back into this text, but it should be discussed in its ancient context. That is not the purpose of this writing, but I have done such in this article.
Before I move on to the next verse under consideration, I want to highlight something I've mentioned before. What we are dealing with here (with Godhead) is not a textual difference between the KJV and the HCSB. The author of the article tried to make a big deal about the text (manuscripts) used by Westcott and Hort being corrupt, yet each of his arguments from certain verse differences between the KJV and HCSB have nothing to do with textual differences. They have all thus far been translation differences, but still based upon the same Greek words. This should shed light on the issue for us: the author hasn't spent a considerable amount of time digging into this subject. He is just repeating something that he has been told, taught, or wants to believe.
----------
PART 5. Stay tuned...
The other day, someone sent me a link to an article written in 2012 titled: "The Holman Christian Standard Bible Exposed." I use and prefer the HCSB in my bible reading and study, so this title was very interesting to say the least.
The first sentence in this article says: "Satan is up to his evil works again, coming up with yet another version for the apostate Bible-of-the-month-club!" The article is full of exclamation points, often ending sentences with 3 exclamation points, so I felt like I was being shouted at while reading. Plus, the words satanic and apostate are very strong words. The author believes that the Bible I am reading on a regular basis is backed by Satan. If that is true, then I am in trouble.
Let me tell you that I was saddened by this article. As I combed through it I saw so many errors, false claims, and misunderstandings. The saddest part about it is that the author is imputing diabolical motives to the translators of the HCSB. I believe he is violating the 9th commandment in doing so: "Do not give false testimony against your neighbor."
Now, please understand that I am not against the KJV. I believe it is a beautiful, 17th century English translation of the Bible. If you use and prefer the KJV, that is fine with me. I believe the message of both law and gospel shines forth in the KJV. Read Psalm 119 in the KJV. It's absolute gold. Read Romans 3 and John 3. They are superb.
But, I believe the same holds true for the HCSB. It is a beautiful, 21st century English translation of the Bible, and I believe it is one of the most balanced translations. It excels in both word-for-word and meaning-for-meaning translations, thus containing great readability for the modern reader.
So yes, I get a bit upset when someone says the HCSB is Satanic. But I would get equally upset if someone claimed that the KJV was Satanic. Either claim is ridiculous IMO, but since the article sent to me was about the HCSB, I would like to examine its claims.
I will focus mainly on the Bible verse differences between the KJV and the HCSB, that the author of the article highlights.
Let's look at his first claim.
The King James Bible uplifts the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and says that men, women and children WORSHIPPED Him. Jesus accepted worship as only God is entitled to (Isaiah 42:8). In the perverted NIV and the so-called new and more reliable version of the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the wicked translators change worshipped to knelt. You can kneel before a king without worshipping him. Jesus is to be worshipped and only the faithful King James Bible teaches that.
Here is Matthew 8:2 from the perverted HCSB, and then the accurate King James Bible below it...
HCSB - Right away a man with a serious skin disease came up and knelt before Him, saying, 'Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.'
KJB - And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
First let me mention that the HCSB is a translation begun, backed, and promoted by the Southern Baptist denomination, and Southern Baptists absolutely believe in what is known doctrinally as the "deity of Christ." They are Trinitarians in their belief, believing in one being of God that exists in three co-equal and co-eternal persons.
This is why the HCSB frequently uses the word worshipped as an action towards the Messiah. For example (all from the HCSB):
- Matthew 2:11a "Entering the house, they saw the child with Mary His mother, and falling to their knees, they worshiped Him."
- Matthew 14:33 "Then those in the boat worshiped Him and said, "Truly You are the Son of God!"
If there was a Satanic agenda on the part of the HCSB translators to deny the doctrine of the deity of Christ, why did they not "change" ALL the references to the worship of Yeshua to say something different?
Secondarily, there is a reason why the HCSB sometimes reads knelt (down) instead of worshiped. This is not a difference in the manuscripts used by the KJV and HCSB, but rather a decision on how best to render the underlying Greek word into the English language.
The word here in question is proskuneo. Here's the definition of this word from Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the NT.
G4352
προσκυνέω
proskuneō
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
3a1) to the Jewish high priests
3a2) to God
3a3) to Christ
3a4) to heavenly beings
3a5) to demons
Part of Speech: verb
As the definition given shows, the word has a wide range of meaning, depending on how it is used in particular contexts. This is usually the case with any word. Words are often fluid, carrying with them more than one meaning.
In regards to proskuneo, here's an example of worship given to a man:
- Matthew 18:26 KJV "The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all."
- Matthew 18:26 HCSB "At this, the slave fell facedown before him and said, "Be patient with me, and I will pay you everything!"
This is the parable of the unforgiving servant; the servant who owed his master a large sum of money, but couldn't pay, and was forgiven of the debt, but then went and dunned someone else who owed him a small sum of money, and would not forgive him of the debt.
When this servant begged for forgiveness (for his large debt) he approached his Lord (Master), and "proskuneo'd." What's the best way to translate this word here? Should we see the servant as giving his Master worship, in the sense that one would worship Yahweh, or should we see the servant as giving his Master honor and respect, falling to his knees (or facedown), in hopes that his humility would grant him forgiveness for the debt?
I think it's obvious that the HCSB is better here by saying "fell facedown before him." Most newer translations say something like "fell to his knees" or "fell facedown," because they realize that the servant is not "worshiping" his Master in the same sense that a man would worship Yahweh. He's humbling himself before his Master, in honor of his lordship position over him.
Let's look at another use (of similar meaning) of proskuneo in Revelation 3:9:
- (KJV) Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
This verse concerns a letter to the church of Philadelphia. They were one of the few churches (of the 7 mentioned in Revelation) that received praise. They kept the Messiah's Word, did not deny His name, and they were praised for it.
Yeshua says here that he would make those who belonged to the synagogue of Satan, those claiming to be Jews but were not, to come and worship before their feet.
Proskuneo. Does that mean the church of Philadelphia would be worshiped as Yahweh? Not at all. The understanding is that they would be honored or revered. This is why the HCSB at Revelation 3:9 says: "I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and they will know that I have loved you."
Most modern translations use "bow down" or "kneel down" here, because the translators realize the church of Philadelphia isn't being worshiped as Yahweh. They realize the word proskuneo has a usage outside of the worship that exclusively Yahweh's.
Now, check out this use of proskuneo in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. I will quote in from the KJV, but talk about how the Septuagint uses the word proskuneo in its translation.
- 1 Chronicles 29:20 KJV "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped (proskuneo) the LORD, and the king."
The context here is a ceremony of giving to the Temple of Yahweh in ancient Israel. King David has just finished giving the highest praise to Yahweh, and praying for his Son Solomon who was about to take over the throne. The congregation blesses Yahweh, bows their heads, and worships Yahweh, and the king (either David or Solomon).
What's interesting here is that the one word "proskuneo" (worshipped) is used in reference to the people's action not just towards Yahweh, but also towards the King of Israel. They worshipped both Yahweh and the king, but hopefully we know that the worship they gave to the King wasn't the same worship they gave to Yahweh.
They were worshiping Yahweh as the Elohim of all the earth, the Creator. They were worshiping (bowing down to, kneeling down to) the King as their ruler that Yahweh appointed to sit on the throne over the nation.
The point is that translators of Scripture know these things, because they study these matters out way more than you average lay person in the pew. Over 100 top, conservative scholars were behind the HCSB, and that number includes about 17 different denominations. They were doing their best to get a multitude of council, and different perspectives in the Bible translation. That is a noble effort.
So we come back to Matthew 8:2, the text that the man who wrote this article I'm critiquing called a perversion in the HCSB.
When it says, "Right away a man with a serious skin disease came up and knelt before Him saying, 'Lord if You are willing, You can make me clean," do you think that this leper was "worshiping" Yeshua in the sense of "worship towards Yahweh," or was he kneeling down before him in honor of him being a man of high authority?
The HCSB translators decided on the second option. Knowing the wider range of proskuneo, they felt that this leper was seeking a holy man to heal him, so he knelt down in humility before such a man, calling him lord, master, or sir.
This does not mean the HSCB translators deny the deity of Christ. They're Trinitarians for crying out loud. It just means they recognize that proskuneo doesn't always refer to the ultimate, highest worship possible.
It helps when you do a little bit of digging doesn't it? But I've found that so many people fall for quick clips like the ones given in this article, and they walk away thinking that the Bible they use is inadequate at least or diabolical at worst.
Next week I'll continue to look at this article, and answer its claims, and I hope to give you greater assurance that there is more than just one, English Bible translation you can read, study, and rely on.
----------
PART 2.
In the last section, we began to examine an article that believes the Holman Christian Standard Bible is Satanic. I know that sounds so strange to most Christians, but this is a real article, written by a real person, who claims to be defending the Word of the Lord.
The problem is that King James Onlyists equate the Lord's Word with an English translation of the Bible. That's a huge error to start with.
King James Onlyism always begins with the presupposition that the KJV is the ultimate standard. If you begin with that, and then examine the HCSB (or NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) you will find that these modern translations often differ in the way they read from the KJV. So the next step is to claim perversion in the modern translation.
The problem is: you've started with the wrong standard. The KJV didn't just float out of heaven on a "Holy Spirit Cloud." It is a translation from the available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts at the time of its inception. Once you grasp that; once you realize that it is not the original Word of Yahweh given through the ancient prophets and apostles, you then recognize that it must be examined in light of the manuscript evidence that we have up to our current date.
When a text in the HCSB disagrees in reading with the KJV, the learned student of Scripture doesn't just throw out the HCSB: they decide which reading is better by looking at the manuscript evidence, context, and background of that text. Let's do this by looking at the second claim in the article in view:
Just like the Satanic NIV, the new HCSB removes the critically important word "BEGOTTEN," turning the Scripture into a lie.
John 3:16
HCSB - "For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.
KJB - John 3:16, "For God so loved the word, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Notice below that the King James Bible in John 1:12 says that God clearly has MANY sons, but only one BEGOTTEN Son (Jesus). Again, the NIV, HCSB, and all modern versions attack and diminish the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (the truth that He is almighty God Who came in the flesh)...
KJB - John 1:12, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name."
If you are a born-again Christian, then you are an adopted son of God (Romans 8:15). So Jesus is not God's ONLY Son. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. The translators of the King James Bible had the wisdom to know this and distinguished between God's adopted sons verses God's only begotten Son. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN son of God.
Okay, right here at the beginning of this claim, we see my initial point in this sermon. The author of the article says that the NIV and HCSB remove the word begotten, "turning Scripture into a lie."
Notice the standard of the author. He starts by thinking the KJV is the standard. Thus when the HCSB doesn't read "begotten" in John 3:16, he asserts a removal and distortion of Scripture.
But what is the standard? The standard is first the available Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John, and this again (much like the first argument the author gives from Matthew 8:2) is not a textual dispute but a translation dispute. In other words, the Greek text that the KJV and HCSB use read the same, but the translation committees chose to render the Greek into different English equivalents.
What is the word under consideration? It is the Greek word monogenes. Here is the definition of monogenes from Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the NT.
G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Part of Speech: adjective
So Thayer's gives as a basic definition: "single of its kind, only," and then tells us that the word is used in the Greek NT to speak of a son or daughter of parents that is an only child.
Look at this definition of the word from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the NT:
A. The Usage outside the NT. In compounds with genes, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation. Hence monogenes is used for the only child. More generally it means "unique" or "incomparable." The LXX has the first sense in Judg. 11:34 and the second in Ps. 22:20. agapetos occurs in Gen. 22:2, 12 where monogenes might have been used (cf. Mk. 1:11), but while the only child may be "beloved," the terms are not synonymous. Philo refers to the logos and protogonos rather than monogenes. Ps. Sol. 18:4 refers to God's chastisement coming on Israel as his firstborn and only begotten son.
Now, that's a lot to take in all at once, and this dictionary goes on to give a presentation on the use of monogenes in the NT, but let's stop here and look at these uses of the word in the Septuagint (the Greek OT).
First off, Kittels defines monogenes as "only child," but more generally as "unique" or incomparable." I think of "one of a kind" or "special" when I read these definitions.
We have a use of monogenes as "only child" in Judges 11:34 LXX:
- And Jephthae came to Massepha to his house; and behold, his daughter came forth the meet him with timbrels and dances; and she was his only child (monogenes), he had not another son or daughter.
Words are best defined by examining them in the context of their surrounding words. In this case, monogenes refers to exactly what we read in Brenton's English translation of the LXX here: only child. We know this because the verse goes on to say, "he had not another son or daughter."
But consider Kittels next example of monogenes in Psalm 22:19-20 LXX.
- But thou, O Lord, remove not my help afar off: be ready for mine aid. Deliver my soul from the sword; my only begotten one (monogenes) from the power of the dog.
The Psalmist here does not necessarily speak of himself as an only child, but as a special or unique child of the Lord. The point is that sometimes the word is used in the context of a single child of a parent (or parents), while at other times it may be used of a special or unique child; a one-of-a-kind child.
Kittels goes on to list NT uses of monogenes, listing Luke 7:12, 8:42, and Hebrews 11:17. Both Luke texts use monogenes in the sense of "only child," but the text in Hebrews speaks of Isaac as the monogenes of Abraham. Was Isaac Abraham's only child? One might say yes, if he is speaking of the only child through Sarah (the promised, blessed wife of Abraham), but it is certainly not true that Isaac was Abraham's only child. Abraham bore Ishmael through Hagar (Genesis 16), and he had other children as well later on (Genesis 25:1-6).
This means that the use of monogenes in Hebrews 11:17 probably carries with it the idea of "special, unique, one-of-a-kind," much like Psalm 22:20.
In light of all of this, were the HCSB translators wrong in saying that God gave His One and Only Son? There is a bullet note before "One and Only" in the HCSB of John 3:16, and it reads as follows: "Or one of a kind, or incomparable, or only begotten; the Greek word can refer to someone's only child such as in Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38. It can also refer to someone's special child as in Heb 11:17."
This bullet note shows that the HCSB translators recognize "only begotten" as a legitimate English translation of monogenes, but they chose to go with "One and Only." Why?
It goes back to which use of monogenes one believes John 3:16 is speaking of. Is John 3:16 saying that Yeshua is the offspring of Yahweh? Or is John 3:16 highlighting the fact that Yeshua us unique or one-of-a-kind?
I think it is both.
I don't have a problem with either understanding, although my Christology would differ with the translators of the HCSB, seeing I do not believe the Son to be an eternal person (eternally generated by the Father). Regardless, the HCSB translators are not attempting to take away from the Messiah's divinity, nor are they trying to contradict other Bible verses which show God as having a plurality of sons. Adam is called the Son of God (Luke 3:38). Believers are called the sons of God (John 1:12). The HCSB translators aren't denying this, they are highlighting Yeshua as one-of-a-kind. He is the unique Son of Almighty Yahweh. He is special. That's the point of John 3:16.
Is Yeshua Yahweh's One and Only Son? Yes, in the sense of him being a special and unique offspring of Yahweh. If Yeshua Yahweh's Only Begotten Son? Sure. That really highlights the same thing if you ask me.
Neither the phrase "one and only" or "only begotten" takes away from Yeshua. He is the Son of Yahweh in a different way than you or I. He was produced by Yahweh through the womb of a virgin woman, and was endowed with the fullness of the Spirit of Yahweh. No man can call Yahweh his father in the same way Yeshua can. He is unique. He is special. He really is Yahweh's One and Only Son.
It is a shame that the author of this article we are looking at accuses the HCSB of being Satanic, and attacking Yeshua in John 3:16.
----------
PART 3.
At this point in the article, the author exclaims:
Are you getting angry and sick yet over the HCSB perversion of the Bible? I'm just getting started exposing the HCSB trash version. Again, perhaps “HCSB” should be an acronym which stands for “Heresy Can't Substitute Bible!!!” Holman's new translation is cut from the same cloth as all other modern Bibles. All of Satan's apples have worms. You can freely search and compare different Bible versions at Bible Gateway. Perhaps the Lord is speaking to your heart to join me in exposing the modern corrupt Bible versions. If you see wrong interpretations or corruption, warn others as I am in Jesus' name.
Jesus said that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Westcott and Hort Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) was born at Birmingham and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) at Dublin. These two evil men REVISED (butchered) the Greek and are the forefathers of the modern-day apostate Bible-changing movement. If you consider that neither of these men were true Christians, and that they both denied a literal Hell, denied a literal Heaven, denied the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and didn't believe a bunch of other fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith... then it becomes clear that they were servants of Satan.
Perversion, trash, heresy, Satan, corrupt, etc. These are all words this author chooses to use in talking about the HCSB. It is amazing to me how this can be said by someone who has diligently researched the translation differences between the HCSB and KJV. I have to believe that the author hasn't researched anything out. He has just blindly accepted the KJV at face value.
What's even more amazing is that the author goes on to talk about Westcott and Hort as being the spearhead behind the "perversions" in the HCSB. The problem here is that thus far, the two examples given for "perversions" had nothing to do with the Greek text from which the HCSB was translated! Matthew 8:2 and John 3:16 are differences in the English translations of the HCSB and KJV. They read identical in the Greek, with proskuneo and monogenes there in the Greek text from which the KJV and HCSB translators pulled. The differences stem from the translators disagreeing on what the meaning of these Greek words convey in each context.
So... what about Westcott and Hort? What did they believe doctrinally, and does that have any effect on modern Bible translations today, like the HCSB?
From what I have researched and read, Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th century Anglican theologians. They certainly weren't modern day fundamentalist Baptists (like most KJ only advocates today), so yes, they had doctrinal differences when compared to Baptists today. They veered away from using the Greek texts that were used at the time the KJB was translated, and focused on older Greek texts of the New Testament, known as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
I don't think their theological position has any bearing on their work in the field of textual criticism, no more than Erasmus' work on textual criticism that eventually became the KJV. Desiderius Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest, and is responsible for the underlying Greek text of the NT that was eventually used by the translators of the KJV. I could holler fraud, and point out what I feel to be doctrinal shortcomings in Erasmus' belief, saying that the KJV was influenced by Roman Catholicism, but that would be ridiculous. An Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or Baptist can perform textual work and criticism, without doing damage to the underlying message of the New Testament.
The funny thing about this is: today, the modern, popular Bible translations are not based on Westcott and Hort's Greek NT of 1881. Modern translations take all textual evidence into account. Every, single known manuscript of the Greek NT, along with versions of the NT in other languages, are considered when the translators of modern Bibles do textual work. Teams of scholars are not looking at Westcott and Hort's work by itself, as though it should be revered and nothing else matters. We've come a very long way since the 17th through 19th centuries.
Of course, KJ only advocates try to take up for Erasmus, which is so weird, because they would never do this if he had no connection to the KJV. My point in all of this is that it doesn't matter what Erasmus, Westcott, or Hort believed doctrinally. We have scholars today (from various denominational backgrounds) who look at all of the available manuscript evidence, and base their English renditions upon their textual, critical work as a team of scholars. When we focus on the actual translations themselves (like comparing the HCSB with the KJV), we begin to see the reasons in the variant readings. These variants have nothing to do with perverting the Lord's Word (or with Satan), but with the intense research that goes into examining what words and phrases mean in their particular context and culture.
I would recommend that everyone read How We Got the Bible, by Dr. Neil R. Lightfoot, and The King James Only Controversy, by Dr. James R. White. If you are serious about understanding the origin of the Bible and the textual differences in manuscripts, you should use your money and time to invest in excellent, scholarly resources as these.
----------
PART 4.
Next, we have a defense of the word "Godhead" from the author of the article:
The critically important word “GODHEAD” has been completely removed from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Since the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, the word “Godhead” becomes very important in teaching the three-fold nature of God, Who is yet one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). Instead of Godhead, the corrupt NIV and HCSB change the word to divine nature.
Colossians 2:9...
HCSB - 9 For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
KJB - Colossians 2:9, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
God's nature could mean anything, but Godhead implies more than one member of the Godhead. And we clearly learn from Genesis that God is plural by nature. We read in Genesis 1:26, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is ONE God; but we learn from Colossians 2:2 about “the MYSTERY of God, and of the Father, and of Christ.” The Bible calls the Godhead a “mystery” as you just read in Colossians 2:2. Thankfully, God doesn't command us to understand Him; but rather, simply to trust Him.
The first thing to notice - yet again - is the insistence on making the KJV the standard. The assertion is that a word has been removed from the Bible, but this is only if one begins with the presupposition that the KJV is the absolute standard. Such makes no sense at all, because without a Greek text of Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9, the KJV of these verses would not exist. The KJV was first published in 1611 A.D. It did not exist in the 1500's. We must take a step back and ask ourselves, "What is the best way to translate the Greek text of these verses into English?"
The HCSB reads "divine nature" in Acts 17:29 and Romans 1:20, and "God's nature" in Colossians 2:9. The underlying Greek term in Acts 17:29 is "theios," in Romans 1:20 "theiotes," and in Colossians 2:9 "theotes." It's obvious that these words are related in the Greek language, and they are all defined by various Greek lexicons as meaning "divinity, divine, deity."
The author states that the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (which is correct), but he goes on to write that the word Godhead is important to preserve, because it teaches the three-fold nature of God.
To my knowledge, all of the translators that worked on the HCSB were Trinitarians, so I do not believe that they were trying to deny the Trinity by writing "divine nature" instead of "Godhead." That being said, how does the word Godhead teach a three-fold nature of God? Where in that word do we see anything about a three-fold nature? Even the old 1828 Dictionary by Noah Webster defines the English word "Godhead" as follows:
Godhead
GOD'HEAD, noun god'hed.
1. Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God, and to heathen deities.
2. A deity in person; a god or goddess.
According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ancient use of the word "Godhead" in the 13th century A.D. carried the idea of "God-hood," in the sense of how we use the word "man-hood." Godhead would then carry the meaning of that which makes someone a god, or that which makes someone God. A portion of their definitions reads:
The fundamental meaning of "Godhead" is, nevertheless, no less than that of "Godhood," the state, dignity, condition, quality, of a god, or, as monotheists would say, of God. As manhood is that which makes a man a man, and childhood that which makes a child a child, so Godhead is that which makes God, God.
So the word doesn't have anything to do with a three-fold nature or even a two-fold nature. The English word was a translation of Greek words which carried with them the idea of what makes one a god, or God. I've heard the word Godhead used in Christian settings where discussions about how many persons make up God are had, but this is a later usage and development of the word. Godhead does not equal Trinity, it is simply a word that denotes the state of being god or God.
In Acts 17, Paul is in a place of idolatry (17:16), and begins talking with a group of heathens who had an idol for every god/deity they served; going so far to include an idol with an inscription: "To an Unknown God," in order to make sure they covered all the bases. Paul goes on to make a play on this idol of theirs, and proclaim Almighty Yahweh to them. Paul says that this is the "god" who made the world and everything in it, including mankind. We humans live, and move, and exist because of him. We are his offspring. With this in mind, we shouldn't think that the "Godhead" - or that God himself - is like a gold, silver, or stone carving. He isn't something fashioned by the imagination of the human mind. He is the Almighty creator, and we are made in His image. The Greek word "theios" is used here to speak of the Almighty; His nature, or His make-up. "Divine nature" is then a good translation into English. Other translations read "divine being," "deity," or simply "God."
In Romans 1, Paul is teaching that God has shown everyone that He exists through His creation. My mind immediately goes to Psalm 19 where we read: "The heavens declare the glory of the Almighty, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. Day unto day utters speech. Night unto night shows forth knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." I've often looked into the night sky at the stars and stood in amazement. I've even looked at the intricacies of a leaf from a tree and thought, "How could anyone not believe in a Creator?" When Paul uses the Greek word "theiotes" in Romans 1:20, he is saying that Yahweh's eternal power and "godhood" are clearly seen through what He has made. Again, divine nature is a good translation here. Paul point is speaking of God's nature; His make-up. A person is without excuse of knowing God exists by simply walking outside and looking at all of His creation.
The third use of "Godhead" in the KJV is Colossians 2:9, and is a reference to that which dwells inside of Yeshua. Paul writes (HCSB) that "the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily" in Christ. The Greek term here is "theotes," used only once in the Greek NT, but I would say very much akin to the Greek words used in Acts 17:29 and Romans 1:20. Paul's point is that God dwells in Christ, in His fullness. That nature of God. That which makes up "godhood" dwells inside of Yeshua. Paul is combating those in Colossae who would teach people to find their completion or fullness by other means (2:4, 8). He was concerned that people would be taken captive by philosophy or human tradition, and not by Christ. In Christ, you find everything you need, because God's nature fully resides inside of him, and you have been filled by Him (2:10), or as the NLT puts it: "And you are complete through your union with Christ."
The author of the article I've been responding to claims that "God's nature could mean anything, but Godhead implies more than one member of the Godhead."
The Greek words used in these passages are not teaching anything about the later developed doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity. They are simply referring to the deity status or divine nature of the Almighty. Furthermore, the HCSB translators are Trinitarian, so their use of "divine nature" and "God's nature" are not denials of what they believe, but instead honest, serious, and scholarly attempts to convey particular Greek words and concepts over into the English language.
The word Godhead was never originally used to teach people how many "persons of God" exist. Later Trinitarians or Oneness believers may have used the word to imply what they taught doctrinally, but the word does not teach it, in and of itself.
I want to add here that Genesis 1:26 does not imply a plurality of persons in God. I understand that later Binitarians and Trinitarians have read their belief back into this text, but it should be discussed in its ancient context. That is not the purpose of this writing, but I have done such in this article.
Before I move on to the next verse under consideration, I want to highlight something I've mentioned before. What we are dealing with here (with Godhead) is not a textual difference between the KJV and the HCSB. The author of the article tried to make a big deal about the text (manuscripts) used by Westcott and Hort being corrupt, yet each of his arguments from certain verse differences between the KJV and HCSB have nothing to do with textual differences. They have all thus far been translation differences, but still based upon the same Greek words. This should shed light on the issue for us: the author hasn't spent a considerable amount of time digging into this subject. He is just repeating something that he has been told, taught, or wants to believe.
----------
PART 5. Stay tuned...