How is the HCSB translation of the Bible?

[samfaps]

I wanted to know if the hcsb version of the bible is accurate

 

[Hammer]

There are some good translations, such as the NASB. There are some bad translations, such as the HCSB.

No, the HCSB is not accurate. Its translators were too interested in pushing their own theology to stay accurate.

 

[Free]

It's a good translation.

 

[Hammer]

It's a good translation.

In your judgement, is it good for a translation to ignore the translation decisions of the ancient Jews who produced from the Hebrew scriptures the Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus and the Apostles used? Is it good for a translation to ignore the vocabulary chosen by the writers of the New testament? Is it good for translators to add words, forcing their understanding onto scripture, without any in-text indication of doing so?

Let's try one example. I'm choosing an example that is relatively minor, only in hopes of avoiding this thread being derailed by doctrinal issues (that's where someone ignores the point that the translation isn't accurate, and instead insists on irrelevant arguments in favor of the [usually bad] doctrine that the HCSB promotes).

Matthew 16:18
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. (HCSB)

Can you defend the use of the word "forces" here? I'm not aware of any Greek dictionary or any other English translation that agrees with the use of the word "forces". Not only is the word simply wrong, it seems chosen to evoke an image of an army of demons. The correct text suggests something to do with death, not demons.

 

[Knotical]

In your judgement, is it good for a translation to ignore the translation decisions of the ancient Jews who produced from the Hebrew scriptures the Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus and the Apostles used? Is it good for a translation to ignore the vocabulary chosen by the writers of the New testament? Is it good for translators to add words, forcing their understanding onto scripture, without any in-text indication of doing so?

Let's try one example. I'm choosing an example that is relatively minor, only in hopes of avoiding this thread being derailed by doctrinal issues (that's where someone ignores the point that the translation isn't accurate, and instead insists on irrelevant arguments in favor of the [usually bad] doctrine that the HCSB promotes).

Matthew 16:18
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. (HCSB)

Can you defend the use of the word "forces" here? I'm not aware of any Greek dictionary or any other English translation that agrees with the use of the word "forces". Not only is the word simply wrong, it seems chosen to evoke an image of an army of demons. The correct text suggests something to do with death, not demons.

Even the popup translation is remarkably different than this translation. It uses "gates" instead of "forces." Quite a bit different.

 

[Free]

In your judgement, is it good for a translation to ignore the translation decisions of the ancient Jews who produced from the Hebrew scriptures the Septuagint, the Bible that Jesus and the Apostles used? Is it good for a translation to ignore the vocabulary chosen by the writers of the New testament? Is it good for translators to add words, forcing their understanding onto scripture, without any in-text indication of doing so?

Any and every translation will be guilty of this at some point and some more than others. Not to mention that whether a translation is a formal equivalence or a dynamic equivalence translation must be taken into account.

Let's try one example. I'm choosing an example that is relatively minor, only in hopes of avoiding this thread being derailed by doctrinal issues (that's where someone ignores the point that the translation isn't accurate, and instead insists on irrelevant arguments in favor of the [usually bad] doctrine that the HCSB promotes).

Matthew 16:18
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. (HCSB)

Can you defend the use of the word "forces" here? I'm not aware of any Greek dictionary or any other English translation that agrees with the use of the word "forces". Not only is the word simply wrong, it seems chosen to evoke an image of an army of demons. The correct text suggests something to do with death, not demons.

The HCSB tries to be both a formal and dynamic equivalence translation. Here the use of "forces" would belong to dynamic equivalence. As such, it is conveying the idea of "forces of Hades" as being essentially no different than "gates of Hades." So, unless you really think that there are literally a set of gates that are trying to prevail against the church, the phrase "gates of Hades" is referring to something other than actual gates and "forces" works just fine. That it may be the only translation to use "forces" does not mean that it is any less correct than all the others in the idea being conveyed.

 

[westtexas]

The HCSB tries to be both a formal and dynamic equivalence translation. Here the use of "forces" would belong to dynamic equivalence. As such, it is conveying the idea of "forces of Hades" as being essentially no different than "gates of Hades."

from W.E.Vine -- "pule #4439........of the "gates" of hades, Matt. 16:18, than which nothing was regarded as stronger. The importance of and strength of "gates" made them viewed as synonymous with power." Vines Complete Expository Dictionary pg. 261

 

[Hammer]

from W.E.Vine -- "pule #4439........of the "gates" of hades, Matt. 16:18, than which nothing was regarded as stronger. The importance of and strength of "gates" made them viewed as synonymous with power." Vines Complete Expository Dictionary pg. 261

Vines:

<1,,4439,pule>
is used (a) literally, for a larger sort of "gate," in the wall either of a city or palace or temple, Luke 7:12, of Nain (burying places were outside the "gates" of cities); Acts 3:10; 9:24; 12:10; Heb. 13:12; (b) metaphorically, of the "gates" at the entrances of the ways leading to life and to destruction, Matt. 7:13,14; some mss. have pule, for thura, "a door," in Luke 13:24 (see the RV); of the "gates" of Hades, Matt. 16:18, than which nothing was regarded as stronger. The importance and strength of "gates" made them viewed as synonymous with power. By metonymy, the "gates" stood for those who held government and administered justice there.

This is why I chose a minor example of HSCB corruption. If "force" is defended, there would be a riot in defense of other HSCB corruption that actually aligned with strongly held doctrine.

You don't understand the Vine's entry. Vines says "gates" is sometimes used for other words, not that other words are used for "gates". Even if there were a precedent for using "forces" for the word "gates" -- and there's not -- that wouldn't mean it's appropriate here -- and it's not. No one reading the HCSB will see "forces" as a metonymy because the context doesn't support that. And, even if the context supported it, a Bible translation is not the place to insert metonymies or other figures of speech.

Also, I highly doubt the HSCB translators were chasing the metonymy straw you're chasing. See my previous post.

The HSCB should be avoided, not for a few questionable translation choices. But, for corrupt translation themes.

 

[Free]

This is why I chose a minor example of HSCB corruption. If "force" is defended, there would be a riot in defense of other HSCB corruption that actually aligned with strongly held doctrine.

Again, this is not corruption which is why it needs to be defended.

You don't understand the Vine's entry. Vines says "gates" is sometimes used for other words, not that other words are used for "gates". Even if there were a precedent for using "forces" for the word "gates" -- and there's not -- that wouldn't mean it's appropriate here -- and it's not. No one reading the HCSB will see "forces" as a metonymy because the context doesn't support that.

The context does indeed support it. If you want to continue to argue the point, then please, tell us what is meant by "gates of Hades."

And, even if the context supported it, a Bible translation is not the place to insert metonymies or other figures of speech.

Why not?

Also, I highly doubt the HSCB translators were chasing the metonymy straw you're chasing.

And yet you have given no reason to believe it is a straw or that the HCSB translators were thinking the same.

The HSCB should be avoided, not for a few questionable translation choices. But, for corrupt translation themes.

And yet you have not provided a sufficient reason for avoiding the HCSB.

 

[Speculative]

I have one and I think it's pretty good. It was highly recommended to me by a pastor who is a rock-solid Bible preacher so I'm suspecting any inaccuracies in it are minor at best.

 

[farouk]

I have one and I think it's pretty good. It was highly recommended to me by a pastor who is a rock-solid Bible preacher so I'm suspecting any inaccuracies in it are minor at best.

S: There are lots of English Bible translations out there, some of them better than others. I kind of tend to stick to the King James, not because I'm King James only. I guess it would be hard to become completely familiar with all the existing English Bible translations.

 

[Hammer]

Even the popup translation is remarkably different than this translation. It uses "gates" instead of "forces." Quite a bit different.

Exactly. The HCSB freely sacrifices accuracy to promote Evangelical theology. That is the definition of corruption.

Jesus said "the gates of the grave [GR hades]" will not prevail against the church. A companion verse from Paul is 1 Corinthians 15:55 "O death, where is your victory? O death [hades/grave], where is your sting?†Jesus is making a statement about everlasting life.

But, the HCSB says "forces of hades." Evangelicals like the idea of a Hell teaming with armies of demons. The HCSB uses "forces" to evoke the image of military forces made up of demons. The HCSB leaves untranslated "hades" to promote the image of a mythological version of hades that is seen on TV and the movies, were evil people and demons are running around.

The HSBC exchanges the message of eternal life for a message of demonic warfare. The HSBC exchanges the truth of God for a sectarian agenda, all throughout the translation. No doubt, the people who call it a good translation still insist Bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There are some good translations, such as the NASB. There are some bad translations, such as the HCSB.

No, the HCSB is not accurate. Its translators were too interested in pushing their own theology to stay accurate.

It is the work of Greek and Hebrew scholars at the six Southern Baptist seminaries. It is as accurate as the NASB, only in more comfortable language. In fact, many of those working on the HCSB also worked with the Lockman Foundation on the NASB, so I think you might want to rethink your response.

Let's try one example. I'm choosing an example that is relatively minor, only in hopes of avoiding this thread being derailed by doctrinal issues (that's where someone ignores the point that the translation isn't accurate, and instead insists on irrelevant arguments in favor of the [usually bad] doctrine that the HCSB promotes).

Matthew 16:18
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. (HCSB)

Can you defend the use of the word "forces" here? I'm not aware of any Greek dictionary or any other English translation that agrees with the use of the word "forces". Not only is the word simply wrong, it seems chosen to evoke an image of an army of demons. The correct text suggests something to do with death, not demons.

Do you know where the event this passage details physically took place? It was at Caesarea Philippi, 30 miles from Galilee, in first century terms, half a world away from the Jewish comfort zone. At Caesarea Philippi, the Greeks believed the seemingly bottomless pit to the underworld filled with water -- and where, in actuality a powerful stream of water flowed to feed the Sea of Galilee and ultimately the Jordan River and the Dead Sea -- was literally the gates of hell. The pagan Greeks held ceremonies there, having alcohol-fueled rituals, symbolic dancing and probably used mild-altering drugs at this cave site to be able to personally envision the underworld beyond. It was here that Jesus made His most famously misunderstood and misapplied statement in Matthew 16:18.

When Jesus tells Peter that it is “upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not withstand it,” He and the disciples are literally standing at the place known in ancient times as the gates of Hades/the Underworld. Jesus is saying, in other words, that He will conquer the forces of darkness associated with the Underworld -- and that the power of the Church will overcome them. In Paul’s words, Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them” (Col 2:15) and “ascended on high, leading a host of captives, and gave gifts to men” (Eph 4:8). In that latter passage, Paul quotes Ps. 68:18, which makes it especially powerful because the mountain God ascends and conquers is none other than Mount Bashan (Psa 68:15).

In other words, there is nothing wrong with using the word "forces" here, even if it doesn't precisely match the meaning of the Greek pule. It is the imagery of the powers and forces of darkness that, in reality, the other translations miss, including my beloved NASB, in trying to capture what Jesus said. The rock isn't Him, and it certainly isn't Peter. It is the rock that represents the underworld that will be defeated so the church can stand on its rotting carcass and be a light to the world.

 

[Hammer]

It is the work of Greek and Hebrew scholars at the six Southern Baptist seminaries.

Having translators so heavily from one tradition is the formula for bias. And, Southern "Jesus didn't touch a drop of wine" Baptists aren't known for their rigorous objectivity.

He and the disciples are literally standing at the place known in ancient times as the gates of Hades/the Underworld. Jesus is saying, in other words, that He will conquer the forces of darkness associated with the Underworld -- and that the power of the Church will overcome them.

Westtexas and Free ludicrously argued that "force" is a figure of speech for "gates". Now, you ludicrously argue that "gates" is a figure of speech for "force". Maybe you guys should meet in a boxing ring and pound out a consensus?

As I pointed out earlier, every Greek dictionary and every English translation, even paraphrases, disagree with you and the HCSB. Even if you're right, save it for the commentary, don't change the words of the Bible.

It is the imagery of the powers and forces of darkness that, in reality, the other translations miss, including my beloved NASB, in trying to capture what Jesus said.

I have no doubt this is the intent of the HCSB. I'm sure the translators of the HCSB had good intentions behind every lie they inserted into the HCSB.

 

[westtexas]

Westtexas and Free ludicrously argued that "force" is a figure of speech for "gates". Now, you ludicrously argue that "gates" is a figure of speech for "force". Maybe you guys should meet in a boxing ring and pound out a consensus?

As I pointed out earlier, every Greek dictionary and every English translation, even paraphrases, disagree with you and the HCSB. Even if you're right, save it for the commentary, don't change the words of the Bible.

I appreciate being put on the same level as W.E.Vine but all the words were his and not mine. Wish I could take credit for 'em though. I've never read the HCSB but so far you haven't showed any reason for anyone not to purchase one. Maybe you've got something else. Your post #4 says gates is a "relatively minor" error. What do you consider a "major" error?

 

[Free]

But, the HCSB says "forces of hades." Evangelicals like the idea of a Hell teaming with armies of demons. The HCSB uses "forces" to evoke the image of military forces made up of demons.

I can't help but notice that it is your preconceived notion of what "forces" means that is determining the meaning for you and hence your unfounded argument against it's use. For me, "forces" does not change the image of what "gates" gives me.

The HCSB leaves untranslated "hades" to promote the image of a mythological version of hades that is seen on TV and the movies, were evil people and demons are running around.

Please make up your mind. On the one hand you say the HCSB is in error for changing the word "gates" and then on the other you slam it for keeping the actual Greek word hades. Again, your preconceived notions are doing the translating. For the Jews, for whom this was written, hades was the same as sheol, the grave, the place of the dead.

Mat 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (NASB)

Mat 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (NIV)

Mat 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (NKJV)

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. (NRSV)

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the infernal region) shall not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it]. (AMP)

Mat 16:18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. (ASV)

Are all these other versions wrong as well for keeping hades as Hades? Do they all have some hidden agenda?

Westtexas and Free ludicrously argued that "force" is a figure of speech for "gates". Now, you ludicrously argue that "gates" is a figure of speech for "force". Maybe you guys should meet in a boxing ring and pound out a consensus?

Then you haven't understood what I've said. Both "gates" and "force" are figures of speech for the same thing, that same thing that you have yet to provide understanding for.

As I pointed out earlier, every Greek dictionary and every English translation, even paraphrases, disagree with you and the HCSB.

Yes but that is irrelevant. "Gates of Hades" is a metaphor for something that, despite having asked already, you have not given the meaning for.

Even if you're right, save it for the commentary, don't change the words of the Bible.

What do you mean by this? Don't change the words of the manuscripts? Don't change the words of what Bible? Such a statement doesn't make any actual sense. It is made all the more ambiguous considering you like the NIV, a dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translation:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44087&p=686470&viewfull=1#post686470

This in itself shows that your entire argument thus far is completely unfounded.

I have no doubt this is the intent of the HCSB. I'm sure the translators of the HCSB had good intentions behind every lie they inserted into the HCSB.

And yet you have provided no evidence of anything.

 

[Hammer]

I appreciate being put on the same level as W.E.Vine but all the words were his and not mine. Wish I could take credit for 'em though. I've never read the HCSB but so far you haven't showed any reason for anyone not to purchase one. Maybe you've got something else. Your post #4 says gates is a "relatively minor" error. What do you consider a "major" error?

I didn't put you on the same level as Vine. In fact, I don't think you have any understanding of what Vine said. He was making a point about how STRONG the GATES of Hades are considered. He wasn't, in the least, suggesting another word could replace "gates". Even more so, replacing a passive word like "gates" with an active word like "forces".

 

[Speculative]

S: There are lots of English Bible translations out there, some of them better than others. I kind of tend to stick to the King James, not because I'm King James only. I guess it would be hard to become completely familiar with all the existing English Bible translations.

I stick with the KJV for my primary as well, but I do check out some of the others sometimes.:yes

 

[westtexas]

The context does indeed support it. If you want to continue to argue the point, then please, tell us what is meant by "gates of Hades."

Bumping for you Hammer.

You have been courteous enough to repeatedly tell us what is not meant by "the gates of Hades". Free has asked twice now for an answer as to what is actually meant. Do we get an answer?

 

[Hammer]

Bumping for you Hammer.

You have been courteous enough to repeatedly tell us what is not meant by "the gates of Hades". Free has asked twice now for an answer as to what is actually meant. Do we get an answer?

I have already given an answer to the meaning of the gates of hell will not prevail. The grave can't hold Christians. But, even if I didn't have an interpretation, the choice of "forces" is ludicrous. And, the defense of that choice has likewise been ludicrous.

I had earlier started an aborted reply to Free, taking him to task for the hypocrisy of defending the HCSB by quoting several Bible versions that use the word "Hades", while at the same time totally disregarding that EVERY known Greek dictionary and all other translations do not support the word "forces" for gates. The very influential KJV set a bad precedent that some translations have followed, in not translating the word. But, the HCSB prides itself in being a fresh translation free from such things, and so doesn't have the excuse some other translations have for the use of the word "Hades" (which would be part of their defense of using "forces" instead of "gates"). (The KJV uses the pagan word "Hell" which is equivalent to the pagan concept of Hades, rather than translating the word to "grave" or "death.")

I'm okay with some words not being translated, aside from the practice sometimes misleading people. But, if the whole Bible version was like that, it woudn't be a translation. And, not translating a word is far better than mistranslating a word (let alone inserting systemic bias).

And, you, you ludicrously point to Vines pointing to an obscure figure of speech of using "gates" as a synonym for "power" to defend using "forces" as a synonym for "gates". It's all the worse that no such figure of speech is implied. E.g. if I said "the gates of Congress" you could easily suspect I didn't really mean a gate. But, if the Bible really said "forces of Hades/Hell", you'd probably be thinking of armies of demons, and you'd drop your pretense that "forces" is a figure of speech.