A Vent about Words that should be translated but aren't or aren't tranlated correctly.

[JRKH]

OK Here is what bugs me.

We Struggle mightily here sometimes because of tranlations - or the lack of translation - of certain words. Not many perhaps but enough to really bolix things up. I’ll give you a couple of examples and see if you agree with me that we sould be much better if these things were properly translated. Note that I am not refering just to Biblical tranlations.

Mt 16
“You are Peter and upon this Rock…”

What kind of sense does that amke on the surface of it?? None what-so-ever.

So then we look into it and fine the Petra/Petros Greek. This tells us where “Peter” comes from but then has led some to the mistake of “Rock/Stone”.
Scholars have long known that Jesus Spoke Aramaic and the term He would have used is Kepha. - Rock. Knowing that, why do our english Bible not tranlate it properly. “you are Rock and upon this Rock…” Clarify the "Peter/Petros connection in the footnotes.

The term Catholic is another. It does not define some “denomination” but rather is a simple word from the Greek meaning universal. Thus it is that I belong to the “Universal Church”, or the Roman Universal Church if one prefers. The meaning of the term Catholic is not known to most people driving down the street past a given church.
This problem is particularly frustrating here at the boards because some people have been taught the error that the “Catholic” Church is not Christian and was “Founded” by Constantine" or some other such silly thing and it is so hard to get past this because the name is used intead of the translation.

Another term is Gospel. I have less of a problem with this, but nowhere in the Original NT writings is the word Gospel used. The proper term is “Good news” yet some tranlations use the term Gospel even though this is an Old English Word.

I don’t know if this frustrates anyone else and I know there really isn’t anything I can do about it except keep explaining but I just felt the need to vent because, once again, on another thread, someone has tried to tell me that the “Catholic” Church “wasn’t formed yet” when we were talking about the Bible canon.:banghead:

Not trying to start a debate or anything. I guess I am just curious if anyone else feels like this and if there are other terms that were not tranlated that should have been.

Peace
James

 

[fermat]

I generally share your frustration. I have had many a conversation with a protestant rabbit holed because of translations. Once I reach the point where the conversation is just not going to go anywhere else, I start talking about the teaching authority of the church. Really, that is what all the talk comes down to anyway. If you accept the teaching authority, you are going accept it’s translation of Scripture.

Failing that, I move to the ‘Where did the Bible come from, any way’ question. I have found that there is so much to talk about, I can usually steer the conversation away from the road blocks to the speed bumps.

Peace
Fermat

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;5365276]OK Here is what bugs me.
We Struggle mightily here sometimes because of tranlations - or the lack of translation - of certain words. Not many perhaps but enough to really bolix things up. I’ll give you a couple of examples and see if you agree with me that we sould be much better if these things were properly translated. Note that I am not refering just to Biblical tranlations.

Hi James,
I kind of agree. In many ways, we are divided by a common language, to steal a phrase.

The term Catholic is another. It does not define some “denomination” but rather is a simple word from the Greek meaning universal. Thus it is that I belong to the “Universal Church”, or the Roman Universal Church if one prefers. The meaning of the term Catholic is not known to most people driving down the street past a given church.
This problem is particularly frustrating here at the boards because some people have been taught the error that the “Catholic” Church is not Christian and was “Founded” by Constantine" or some other such silly thing and it is so hard to get past this because the name is used intead of the translation.

So, let me ask you these;

1. When n-CC’s say the creeds - “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”- do you mean something different than we do? Without getting into the visable/invisable church thing, my belief is that there is one, holy, catholic (universal) church, which sinful men have allowed to become and remain divided. We are supposed to be one.
2. When I say I am an evangelical Catholic, or a Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, do you see that as identifying me as part of the desired universal church, or are Lutherans misusing the term catholic in these self-identifiers?

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
I kind of agree. In many ways, we are divided by a common language, to steal a phrase.

So, let me ask you these;

1. When n-CC’s say the creeds - “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”- do you mean something different than we do? Without getting into the visable/invisable church thing, my belief is that there is one, holy, catholic (universal) church, which sinful men have allowed to become and remain divided. We are supposed to be one.

IN answer to your first question, I don’t know. I do know that the second part here is absolutely correct. It is due to sin that the Body of Christ is Fractured.

1. When I say I am an evangelical Catholic, or a Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, do you see that as identifying me as part of the desired universal church, or are Lutherans misusing the term catholic in these self-identifiers?

Jon

In the actual meaning of the term Catholic I would say you are correct in the usage but still in error.
In the sense that the term is understood by most (Catholic = Rome) I think it helps the confusion.

These are just my opinions of course.

Peace
James

 

[NDfan]

OK Here is what bugs me.

We Struggle mightily here sometimes because of tranlations - or the lack of translation - of certain words. Not many perhaps but enough to really bolix things up. I’ll give you a couple of examples and see if you agree with me that we sould be much better if these things were properly translated. Note that I am not refering just to Biblical tranlations.

Mt 16
“You are Peter and upon this Rock…”

What kind of sense does that amke on the surface of it?? None what-so-ever.

So then we look into it and fine the Petra/Petros Greek. This tells us where “Peter” comes from but then has led some to the mistake of “Rock/Stone”.
Scholars have long known that Jesus Spoke Aramaic and the term He would have used is Kepha. - Rock. Knowing that, why do our english Bible not tranlate it properly. “you are Rock and upon this Rock…” Clarify the "Peter/Petros connection in the footnotes.

The term Catholic is another. It does not define some “denomination” but rather is a simple word from the Greek meaning universal. Thus it is that I belong to the “Universal Church”, or the Roman Universal Church if one prefers. The meaning of the term Catholic is not known to most people driving down the street past a given church.
This problem is particularly frustrating here at the boards because some people have been taught the error that the “Catholic” Church is not Christian and was “Founded” by Constantine" or some other such silly thing and it is so hard to get past this because the name is used intead of the translation.

Another term is Gospel. I have less of a problem with this, but nowhere in the Original NT writings is the word Gospel used. The proper term is “Good news” yet some tranlations use the term Gospel even though this is an Old English Word.

I don’t know if this frustrates anyone else and I know there really isn’t anything I can do about it except keep explaining but I just felt the need to vent because, once again, on another thread, someone has tried to tell me that the “Catholic” Church “wasn’t formed yet” when we were talking about the Bible canon.:banghead:

Not trying to start a debate or anything. I guess I am just curious if anyone else feels like this and if there are other terms that were not tranlated that should have been.

Peace
James

James interesting post and I tend to agree with you. With regard to Matthew 16 this is a tough one and we probably won’t agree. We’re not sure Christ spoke Aramaic as the Greek language was in widespread use even in the areas where Christ preached. If HE did speak Armaic the Gospel is written in Greek and it is the Greek that we must translate. Matthew does not structure chapter 16 as a reveal of Peter being “thee” rock upon which the church is built. It’s strictly written as a contrast to Christ being the rock upon which the church will be built. Remember the statement takes place after Jesus asks whom do you say that I am. Peter says you are the Christ the son of the living GOD. To which Christ responds upon this rock I will build my church. Christ is highlighting Peter’s response not Peter the person.

There’s no doubt Peter took on a leadership role as we see he is the one to deliver the initial sermon at Pentecost. But all Apostles and all church leaders today including you and I had and have the same responsibility of furthering the Gospel.

I’ll give you another translation that makes no sense. How about Matthew 1:25. The translation is always knew her not UNTIL she gave birth. Clearly if one translates the entire story as Matthew wrote in the Greek language and has a complete understanding of Jewish culture it’s easy to see there’s no way this verse means they never had sex. How about the interpretation of Luke 1:28 and the word kecharitomene? This has been used to defend the notion mary was sinless when in fact the same root Greek word for grace or being favored is used to describe the Ephesians.

With regard to the Catholic church not being formed yet I would say the universal church was formed the day Christ pronounced he was going to build a church. The Roman Universal or Catholic church wasn’t formed for quite some time afterward. Christ never stated he was forming a Roman church and in fact the initial church was formed in Jerusalem. Why wasn’t it called the Jerusalem Church or the Jerusalem Universal Church? Scripture only tells us the members of Christ’s church were called Christians and in fact throughout the early part of church history Christ followers were not called Catholic. They were always referred to as Christians. Ignatius was the first to use the term Katholicos to describe the nature of Jesus’ church, not as a title for the members.

As you stated I’m not trying to start a debate back with you but just as you have frustrations with Non-Roman CCs, Non-Roman CCs have the same frustrations with Roman CCs. How do you propose to overcome this?

PEACE

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=NDfan;5366190]James interesting post and I tend to agree with you. With regard to Matthew 16 this is a tough one and we probably won’t agree. We’re not sure Christ spoke Aramaic as the Greek language was in widespread use even in the areas where Christ preached. If HE did speak Armaic the Gospel is written in Greek and it is the Greek that we must translate. Matthew does not structure chapter 16 as a reveal of Peter being “thee” rock upon which the church is built. It’s strictly written as a contrast to Christ being the rock upon which the church will be built. Remember the statement takes place after Jesus asks whom do you say that I am. Peter says you are the Christ the son of the living GOD. To which Christ responds upon this rock I will build my church. Christ is highlighting Peter’s response not Peter the person.

Actually he say you are Peter( rock) and upon this rock I shall build my church. For what other reason would Jesus have changed Simons name to Peter?

There’s no doubt Peter took on a leadership role as we see he is the one to deliver the initial sermon at Pentecost. But all Apostles and all church leaders today including you and I had and have the same responsibility of furthering the Gospel.

I agree that we are all called to Speard the Good News of Chirst, But we are not all given the Same Authority or rolls to play.

With regard to the Catholic church not being formed yet I would say the universal church was formed the day Christ pronounced he was going to build a church. The Roman Universal or Catholic church wasn’t formed for quite some time afterward. Christ never stated he was forming a Roman church and in fact the initial church was formed in Jerusalem. Why wasn’t it called the Jerusalem Church or the Jerusalem Universal Church? Scripture only tells us the members of Christ’s church were called Christians and in fact throughout the early part of church history Christ followers were not called Catholic. They were always referred to as Christians. Ignatius was the first to use the term Katholicos to describe the nature of Jesus’ church, not as a title for the members.

To clarify Roman or more properly stated Latin only referres to the western branch of the Catholic/Universal Church. Not all Catholics are Roman/Latin cathlics. There are many Catholics in full union with the Pope that Are not Roman Catholic and thier style of worship is though still liturgical is quite different from that of the Latin Rite. Also I believe for many years It was refered to as the Church ( incert name of closest large city) the Church at Corinth, the Curch in Jeruselum ETC… the word Catholic began to be use to describe the Church as a whole, Ignatiu I beleive is were we have the frist written record of that use.

As you stated I’m not trying to start a debate back with you but just as you have frustrations with Non-Roman CCs, Non-Roman CCs have the same frustrations with Roman CCs. How do you propose to overcome this?

PEACE

I don’t have the asnwer to that as I can not even settle it with in my own family.