Back to the original topic of your post, I wonder whether it’s important to have a single translation as the standard. Most Christian groups I encounter are open to multiple translations, even if they have one semi-official translation for their teaching.

That’s not to ignore the fact that some translations are better than others, and that some are better for specific sub-groups of people (such as college professors or new speakers of English) than are others.

I don’t know if it was my own stubbornness, self-centered pride, the work of Satan or the restraining hand of the Spirit, but I wanted the expression of my faith to be personal and meaningful, not to meet the requirements of a church. Still, not having that box checked off actually created a lot of internal guilt over whether I belonged as part of the larger church community. I’m still not sure my motives were entirely pure when I was baptized (privately, with close friends as witnesses), but I’ve come to understand that the way I “work out” my acceptance of God’s awesome gift of saving grace is the gift that I can give back to God. Not that I checked off a theological box by having water sprinkled on my head.

Again, I’m not trying to side-track the discussion. I just didn’t want to leave the impression that I see water baptism as a work which we add to the work of Jesus.

As for the translation of Acts 22:16, the literal Greek does not include “by.” However, we can make the English much smoother if we add “by” or “while.” The problem is which of the two words to add. If sincere Christians have traditionally disagreed on the meaning (not the grammar, not the literal translation, but the interpretation) of a verse, I’m a big fan of leaving the ambiguity in the translation. Incidentally, the only other translations I know of that follow the same line as the HCSB on that verse are the Good News Bible (if I remember right) and the CEV.

Certainly. Although a lifelong nominal Anglican, I would consider myself a post-denominational Christian.

I had to look up Acts 22:16, but I see your point. I can’t say if this is one of the places where the HCSB has done a fresh translation of the original and might actually be more accurate than the traditional rendering (as with John 3:16), or they’ve chosen a different path, introducing the word “by”, based on other criteria.

It’s an interesting theological discussion, are our sins washed clean by the act of baptism or by consciously calling on our Lord and acknowledging our dependence on Him. The latter would avoid any hint of “salvation by works”, that is if the formal act of baptism can be considered a “work”. I always viewed baptism as an outward symbol to the Christian community that we’d accepted Christ and the salvation that He promises, but that the act of cleansing salvation (from God’s perspective) was in our confession and acknowledgment of dependence on Him. My kids were baptized as infants as a symbol of our intent to raise them in Christ, but their baptism was not salvation in and of itself. That will come when they’re old enough to consciously choose Christ (I believe that children too young to make that choice are “saved” automatically if they were to die).

Incidentally, I like the HCSB and the ESV; have not tried the NRSV, but should probably do so. The HCSB’s translation of Acts 22:16 bothers me, because it decides that we wash away our sins BY calling on the name of the Lord. I think it’s much more likely that the verse means we wash away our sins WHILE calling on the name of the Lord, or else that we call on the name of the Lord while we wash away our sins (via water baptism). The HCSB’s interpretation of that verse seems forced to me. Yet on the whole, it’s as good a translation as I have found. Still, I don’t expect it to be widely used among people who are not Baptists.

The core text is not modified in Hebrew, but if you read translations, they often differ markedly. For example, translations of text sometimes interpreted allegorically (e.g., Song of Songs) or of texts that are particularly hard to unders (e.g., Job) have markedly different translations. This is also true of Christian translations.

The question of denominational differences is an interesting one. I believe the paragraph you quote can be safely said to be a personal opinion and not representative of general opinion. Nonetheless, there is a point to the author’s comments — in Israel, for example, people do not usually identify denominationally (in the US, there is much more identification.) Because of the downplaying of theological beliefs (in the sense of Christianity) in Judaism — the primary difference is the degree of observance of Jewish law. For example, some Jews believe in reincarnation, some do not; some believe in physical resurrection, some in spiritual — these differences do not put one in apostasy Still, I think the community differences are substantial — especially in the US — with the most insular groups being the “ultra-orthodox.”

Also, I was reading the (disputed) Wikipedia article on Jewish denominations and came across this note on post-denominational Judaism:

They believe that the formal divisions that have arisen among the “denominations” in contemporary Jewish history are unnecessarily divisive, as well as religiously and intellectually simplistic. According to Rachel Rosenthal, “The post-denominational Jew refuses to be labeled or categorized in a religion that thrives on stereotypes. He has seen what the institutional branches of Judaism have to offer and believes that a better Judaism can be created.” Such Jews might, out of necessity, affiliate with a synagogue associated with a particular movement, but their own personal Jewish ideology is often shaped by a variety of influences from more than one denomination.

I wonder, sometimes, if a post-denominational Christianity is possible. Though Peter rightly pointed out in another discussion that God’s Kingdom has room for difference as long as we’re united at the core.