03-30-2021, 06:56 PM
“And the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It.”
Most people are familiar with Matthew 16:18-19 where Our Lord says, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (DRB). Whereas the four new Catholic versions say,
“ . . . and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.” (NAB, ’70).
“ . . . and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (NAB, ’86).
“ . . . and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (CRSV, ’66).
“ . . . And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (JB, ’66).
The five Protestant versions say,
“ . . . and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (NKJV, ’85).
“ . . . and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (NIV, ’78).
“. . . and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” (NRSV, ’89).
“ . . . and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” (NASV, ’77).
“ . . . and the powers of death shall never conquer it.” (NEB, ’76).
Not one of these eight versions uses the word “Hell,” substituting instead, “death,” “netherworld,” “underworld,” or “Hades”; whereas, the Douay-Rheims Bible uses “Hell” without shame or apology. If a translation does not call Hell “Hell,” how are people supposed to know the Bible is saying “Hell”?
The Latin Vulgate reads as follows: “ . . . ét (and) portae (gates) inferi (of the lower world, or Hell) non (not) praevalebunt (shall prevail) adversus (against) eam (it).” In Greek it reads: “ . . . kaì (and) púlai (the gates) hádou (of Hell, Hades) où (not) katischúsousin (shall prevail against) a ’ utes (it).” The question in this passage comes down to how to translate correctly the Greek word hádou (which means, “Hell” or Hades) and the Latin inferi (“of the lower world,” or “Hell”). Obviously, it is wrong to translate these two words as “death,” for in Greek the word for death is thánatos, and in Latin mors, mortis (“death”). It is also incorrect to use the word “Hades,” which depicts the state to which the souls of the dead go in the conception of the Greeks and Romans of the pre-Christian era; and “Hades” is definitely not an equivalent to the Christian concept of Hell, which entails a state of everlasting damnation, separation from God forever, an unquenchable fire, and unimaginable torment at the hands of the devils.
Hades, the underworld, the netherworld, on the other hand, represent a state of general sorrow and sadness at not being alive and at being separated from one’s loved ones in the world. The idea of Hades was indistinct in the minds of the pre-Christian (non-Israelite) ancients, who had not yet received the revelation of Christ.
The Christian concept of Hell and the pre-Christian concept of Hades are vastly different indeed, and whereas the Greek and Latin words for our Christian notion of Hell are the same as those which represent the pre-Christian conception of the afterlife in the lower world, their translation has to be taken in the Christian conception of Hell, because they appear in the Christian, divinely inspired Scripture. “Hádes (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testa- “And the Gates of Hell . . .” 45 ment always designates the Hell of the damned.” (“Hell,” Cath. Encyclopedia, 1910, Vol. VII, p. 207). Therefore, the only way to translate these words from the Greek original and from the Latin is by the English word “Hell.” It is Hell they refer to and it is “Hell” they should be called!
It is a dreadful mistake and a terrible disservice for modern translators to use “underworld,” “netherworld,” or “Hades” to represent the Christian concept of Hell because Hades (etc.) is the meaning of the word for the pre-Christian ancient peoples. And it is a travesty to call it “death.” “Netherworld” indeed! The Catholic notion of Hell reflected on even momentarily is sufficient to put the fear of God into just about anyone! “Netherworld” leaves one unmoved. And “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is an open prophecy that the devils will try their utmost to destroy Christ’s Church, the vehicle of salvation for all mankind, but that they will fail. Yet all this understanding is gone from the modern translations of this passage. Any priest or bishop who can recommend these new “bibles,” knowing this type of glaring error exists in them, will have to answer to Our Lord for the souls he has thereby allowed to be deceived!
“How Shall This Be Done . . .?”
In Luke 1:34 we read, “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (DRB).
“Shall be done” in Greek is estai, a simple future tense—the sentence reads: “Põs (How) ’éstai (shall be done) touto (this), ’ epeì (because) ’ándra (man) ’oú (not) ginósko (I know)? St. Jerome in the Latin Vulgate translates it, “Quomodo (in what manner, how) fiet (shall be done) istud (this), quoniam (because) virum (man) non (not) cognosco (I know).” (In Biblical terminology, the verb “to know” can refer to the intimate relations between a man and a woman.)
Now watch what the modern linguistic magicians do:
“How can this be since I do not know man?” (NAB, ’70).
“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (NAB, ’86).
“But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?” (JB, ’66).
“How Shall This Be Done . . .?” 47 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (CRSV, ’66). (Consider the absolute silliness of this version—especially today, when the illegitimacy rate in the U.S. is over fifty percent.)
Now let us consider the five Protestant renderings:
“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (NASV, ’77).
“ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the Angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ ” (NIV, ’78).
“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (NRSV, ’89).
“How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (NKJV, ’85).
“ ‘How can this be?’ said Mary; ‘I am still a virgin.’ ” (NEB, ’76, emphasis added).
Notice that changing “How shall this be done” to “How can this be” makes Mary appear to doubt the Angel’s words as did Zachary when told that his wife would bear a son in her old age. (Luke 1:5-20). In fact, Scripture later records that St. Elizabeth praised Our Lady precisely because she did believe the Angel: “And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.” (Luke 1:45, DRB). Also note that in the “original” Greek no mention is made about Mary’s being a virgin, let alone, “still a virgin.” The “original” Greek simply says, “I know not man,” which means that she is a virgin and can imply that she plans to remain such.
This verse is another example of pure invention on the part of the translators; introducing “can” for “shall” alters the entire tone of the verse. But the most amazing aspect is that these new translations all ape one another in their error of introducing the word “can” with nothing in the original Greek to warrant their deviation from what Scripture actually says here (not to mention their adding the words “virgin,” “still a virgin,” etc.). Their contrivances are an insult to a person’s intelligence and a blasphemy against Almighty God in His Revealed Word. (After all, it is His Word, not theirs!) The New English Bible would go so far as to imply that Mary planned some day to marry and have children; whereas, our Catholic Traditions say that she had already made a vow of virginity, and official Catholic Tradition teaches that she did in fact remain a virgin all her life. What will become of our Catholic traditions if they are implicitly contradicted by the very Bible translations authorized by our bishops, for who would know that these new renderings are often only approximate “translations,” save one familiar with the original language?
Most people are familiar with Matthew 16:18-19 where Our Lord says, “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (DRB). Whereas the four new Catholic versions say,
“ . . . and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it.” (NAB, ’70).
“ . . . and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” (NAB, ’86).
“ . . . and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (CRSV, ’66).
“ . . . And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.” (JB, ’66).
The five Protestant versions say,
“ . . . and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (NKJV, ’85).
“ . . . and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (NIV, ’78).
“. . . and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” (NRSV, ’89).
“ . . . and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” (NASV, ’77).
“ . . . and the powers of death shall never conquer it.” (NEB, ’76).
Not one of these eight versions uses the word “Hell,” substituting instead, “death,” “netherworld,” “underworld,” or “Hades”; whereas, the Douay-Rheims Bible uses “Hell” without shame or apology. If a translation does not call Hell “Hell,” how are people supposed to know the Bible is saying “Hell”?
The Latin Vulgate reads as follows: “ . . . ét (and) portae (gates) inferi (of the lower world, or Hell) non (not) praevalebunt (shall prevail) adversus (against) eam (it).” In Greek it reads: “ . . . kaì (and) púlai (the gates) hádou (of Hell, Hades) où (not) katischúsousin (shall prevail against) a ’ utes (it).” The question in this passage comes down to how to translate correctly the Greek word hádou (which means, “Hell” or Hades) and the Latin inferi (“of the lower world,” or “Hell”). Obviously, it is wrong to translate these two words as “death,” for in Greek the word for death is thánatos, and in Latin mors, mortis (“death”). It is also incorrect to use the word “Hades,” which depicts the state to which the souls of the dead go in the conception of the Greeks and Romans of the pre-Christian era; and “Hades” is definitely not an equivalent to the Christian concept of Hell, which entails a state of everlasting damnation, separation from God forever, an unquenchable fire, and unimaginable torment at the hands of the devils.
Hades, the underworld, the netherworld, on the other hand, represent a state of general sorrow and sadness at not being alive and at being separated from one’s loved ones in the world. The idea of Hades was indistinct in the minds of the pre-Christian (non-Israelite) ancients, who had not yet received the revelation of Christ.
The Christian concept of Hell and the pre-Christian concept of Hades are vastly different indeed, and whereas the Greek and Latin words for our Christian notion of Hell are the same as those which represent the pre-Christian conception of the afterlife in the lower world, their translation has to be taken in the Christian conception of Hell, because they appear in the Christian, divinely inspired Scripture. “Hádes (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testa- “And the Gates of Hell . . .” 45 ment always designates the Hell of the damned.” (“Hell,” Cath. Encyclopedia, 1910, Vol. VII, p. 207). Therefore, the only way to translate these words from the Greek original and from the Latin is by the English word “Hell.” It is Hell they refer to and it is “Hell” they should be called!
It is a dreadful mistake and a terrible disservice for modern translators to use “underworld,” “netherworld,” or “Hades” to represent the Christian concept of Hell because Hades (etc.) is the meaning of the word for the pre-Christian ancient peoples. And it is a travesty to call it “death.” “Netherworld” indeed! The Catholic notion of Hell reflected on even momentarily is sufficient to put the fear of God into just about anyone! “Netherworld” leaves one unmoved. And “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” is an open prophecy that the devils will try their utmost to destroy Christ’s Church, the vehicle of salvation for all mankind, but that they will fail. Yet all this understanding is gone from the modern translations of this passage. Any priest or bishop who can recommend these new “bibles,” knowing this type of glaring error exists in them, will have to answer to Our Lord for the souls he has thereby allowed to be deceived!
“How Shall This Be Done . . .?”
In Luke 1:34 we read, “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” (DRB).
“Shall be done” in Greek is estai, a simple future tense—the sentence reads: “Põs (How) ’éstai (shall be done) touto (this), ’ epeì (because) ’ándra (man) ’oú (not) ginósko (I know)? St. Jerome in the Latin Vulgate translates it, “Quomodo (in what manner, how) fiet (shall be done) istud (this), quoniam (because) virum (man) non (not) cognosco (I know).” (In Biblical terminology, the verb “to know” can refer to the intimate relations between a man and a woman.)
Now watch what the modern linguistic magicians do:
“How can this be since I do not know man?” (NAB, ’70).
“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (NAB, ’86).
“But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?” (JB, ’66).
“How Shall This Be Done . . .?” 47 “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (CRSV, ’66). (Consider the absolute silliness of this version—especially today, when the illegitimacy rate in the U.S. is over fifty percent.)
Now let us consider the five Protestant renderings:
“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (NASV, ’77).
“ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the Angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ ” (NIV, ’78).
“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (NRSV, ’89).
“How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (NKJV, ’85).
“ ‘How can this be?’ said Mary; ‘I am still a virgin.’ ” (NEB, ’76, emphasis added).
Notice that changing “How shall this be done” to “How can this be” makes Mary appear to doubt the Angel’s words as did Zachary when told that his wife would bear a son in her old age. (Luke 1:5-20). In fact, Scripture later records that St. Elizabeth praised Our Lady precisely because she did believe the Angel: “And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.” (Luke 1:45, DRB). Also note that in the “original” Greek no mention is made about Mary’s being a virgin, let alone, “still a virgin.” The “original” Greek simply says, “I know not man,” which means that she is a virgin and can imply that she plans to remain such.
This verse is another example of pure invention on the part of the translators; introducing “can” for “shall” alters the entire tone of the verse. But the most amazing aspect is that these new translations all ape one another in their error of introducing the word “can” with nothing in the original Greek to warrant their deviation from what Scripture actually says here (not to mention their adding the words “virgin,” “still a virgin,” etc.). Their contrivances are an insult to a person’s intelligence and a blasphemy against Almighty God in His Revealed Word. (After all, it is His Word, not theirs!) The New English Bible would go so far as to imply that Mary planned some day to marry and have children; whereas, our Catholic Traditions say that she had already made a vow of virginity, and official Catholic Tradition teaches that she did in fact remain a virgin all her life. What will become of our Catholic traditions if they are implicitly contradicted by the very Bible translations authorized by our bishops, for who would know that these new renderings are often only approximate “translations,” save one familiar with the original language?