How is the HCSB translation of the Bible?

[Free]

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.

You have not shown how "forces" is even incorrect never mind 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.

First, I have stated that the HCSB is both a formal and a dynamic equivalence translation (I'm assuming you know the difference), so there is absolutely no hypocrisy on my part nor problem on the part of the HCSB for using "forces" and "Hades."

Second, you have not addressed the problem of your arguments where I pointed out that "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."

It is not my position that has the problem.

The very influential KJV set a bad precedent that some translations have followed, in not translating the word.

What 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 don't understand what your point is here.

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).

If not translating a word is better, then why do you slam the HCSB for not translating hades?

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.

Again, it is your problem of forcing your image of "armies of demons" onto the meaning of "forces". Just because you see this as referring to "armies of demons" in no way whatsoever means that this is the idea the translators of the HCSB are trying to convey.

But this leads to another inconsistency in your position. Since the HCSB correctly states "Hades," and hades means "grave" and "death," as you have correctly stated, then pray tell, how does that become "armies of demons" simply because of the word "forces"? Would it not be speaking of the "forces of death" or "forces of the grave" which, as you stated regarding "gates of Hades," is essentially saying that "The grave can't hold Christians"? Isn't holding using force?

There is no difference between "forces" and "gates" in the idea that is being conveyed. Your disagreement with the HCSB is entirely without merit.

 

[Hammer]

You have not shown how "forces" is even incorrect never mind ludicrous.

You might as well be stomping your feet and telling me that I haven't shown that 2+2=4, when I say gates should be translated gates. Your statement is on that level of absurdity. There's nothing more to say to you on this subject.

 

[westtexas]

You might as well be stomping your feet and telling me that I haven't shown that 2+2=4, when I say gates should be translated gates. Your statement is on that level of absurdity.

While 2+2 does equal 4 you still haven't shown anything except for personal bias. You seem to be equating "hades" as always meaning death or the grave. If this is your assertion it would still be contextual to say "the powers or forces of the grave" or "the powers or forces of death". Unless you are attempting to convince us that you believe that there is a literal gate to the grave. Maybe wrought iron?

 

[Hammer]

While 2+2 does equal 4 you still haven't shown anything except for personal bias. You seem to be equating "hades" as always meaning death or the grave. If this is your assertion it would still be contextual to say "the powers or forces of the grave" or "the powers or forces of death". Unless you are attempting to convince us that you believe that there is a literal gate to the grave. Maybe wrought iron?

You and Free continually contradict your own reasoning, such as it is. You object to translating "hades" to "grave" because it locks out other meanings to the word. Yet, you're defending the absurd translation of "pule" (literally "gates") to "forces" (an alleged figure of speech no one ever heard of outside the HCSB) without any concern of locking out other meanings.

You accuse me of personal bias. Your argument would have to improve to rise to the level of being a product of personal bias.

 

[westtexas]

Yet, you're defending the absurd translation of "pule" (literally "gates") to "forces" (an alleged figure of speech no one ever heard of outside the HCSB) without any concern of locking out other meanings.

Even the casual reader to this thread will see this as a totally inaccurate and biased statement. There are MANY outside the HCSB who support the view that the "gates of hell" are a figure of speech for "the powers or forces of hell". The only objections I have found are "KJV onlyists" and, of course, Hammer.

W.E.Vine says the gates of hell are "synonymous with power". You have said this is ludicrous. John Calvin equates the gates of hell with "the powers of hell". Adam Clarke says "The gates of hell, the machinations and powers of the invisible underworld". Matthew Henry says "The gates of hell are the powers and policies of the devil's kingdom, the dragon's head and horns, by which he makes war with the Lamb". Ludicrous? I fully anticipate for you to tell me that I can't read English and that these men actually support your view that the "gates of hell" is actually a gate. After all, pule means pule-right??

I'd still love to hear what you consider a "major" flaw with this Bible.

 

[Deborah13]

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.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.

I never did quite understand that scripture. I knew He didn't mean Peter but I did think that He meant Peter confession of who Jesus was.

Where did you get this understanding from? I'd like to read it. Is it online anywhere that you know of? thanks

 

[Free]

You might as well be stomping your feet and telling me that I haven't shown that 2+2=4, when I say gates should be translated gates. Your statement is on that level of absurdity. There's nothing more to say to you on this subject.

But why should "gates" be translated as "gates"? What does "gates" actually mean? To what is that referring? Are there literally gates to the entrance to Hades to hold people in, gates which will not prevail over the Christian?

As my previous post reiterated, you stated that "gates of hell" means that "the grave can't hold Christians." So here you have changed "gates" to "can't hold," yet you say the HCSB is in error for saying that "gates," or "can't hold," is the same as "forces." Why can you change what "gates" is referring to and the HCSB cannot? And as I asked in my previous post, isn't "holding" the use of force?

If I say that the "gates of hades shall not prevail against it" is the same as saying "death has no power over Christians," would I be wrong?

Everything I have presented has been reasonable. You accuse me of contradicting my position yet you have provided no evidence of this. You say my statements are absurd yet don't show how. You don't address the stronger arguments I present, while I have provided a rebuttal for everything you have presented. With so much left unaddressed, I can't help but wonder why you think there is nothing more to say on this subject.

 

[Hammer]

I never did quite understand that scripture. I knew He didn't mean Peter but I did think that He meant Peter confession of who Jesus was.

Where did you get this understanding from? I'd like to read it. Is it online anywhere that you know of? thanks

Luke 20:17 But Jesus looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone’?

Jesus is referred to as the chief corner stone that the church is built on. So, when Jesus said upon this rock He will build His church, he meant Himself.

Jesus is the cornerstone of the church. But, He actually uses a stronger word when He's talking to Peter, one that suggests a bedrock foundation, not merely a corner stone. Jesus could hardly mean Peter is the foundation for Peter isn't greater than than Christ, the corner stone.

If you look at the context of Matthew 16:18, Jesus is the subject. And, He has just confirmed to Peter than He is Christ. Then Jesus goes on to say that He's giving the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. Peter isn't the foundation of the church, but Peter has access to the church.

Jesus also tells Peter that He, Jesus, has power over death and that he is the source of eternal life. He says this by saying the gates of Hell will not overcome the church. The proverbial gates of Hell is what keeps dead people from coming back, like the stone in front of Jesus' tomb.

The inexcusable idiocy of replacing "gates" with "forces" changes the scenario. The gates of Hell keep the dead in their graves. The forces of Hell suggests something else, and robs Christ's message of eternal life when He is first introducing the concept of the church and its function.

 

[westtexas]

Jesus also tells Peter that He, Jesus, has power over death and that he is the source of eternal life. He says this by saying the gates of Hell will not overcome the church. The proverbial gates of Hell is what keeps dead people from coming back, like the stone in front of Jesus' tomb.

The inexcusable idiocy of replacing "gates" with "forces" changes the scenario. The gates of Hell keep the dead in their graves. The forces of Hell suggests something else, and robs Christ's message of eternal life when He is first introducing the concept of the church and its function.

HaHa. You are extremely adept at giving your point of view without saying anything. You state above "The gates of hell keep the dead in their graves." You have called our points of view ludicrous and now "inexcusable idiocy". I don't believe you have that right without having your definition on the table.

How about a straight forward answer. Got one?
What are these "GATES" that KEEP the dead in their grave???????? Maybe a force??