In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27)

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear friends,
below is an extract from a posting I placed in the thread about a professor at a Catholic University, sweeming to preach in favour of ‘Gay Marriage’.
There are those on that thread who did not like me posting on that thread, thinking that, since the core of my posting hinged on the nature of homosexuality, then I aught to start a new thread, argueing from this standpoint.

See Cardinal Ratzinger:
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…unions_en.html
The link above is clearly based on the following extract:

In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27).

which is factually incorrect, so cannot have the Kharisma of infallibility.
Man is created male, female, intersex and neuter. For support of this assertion, see:
who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

Now if we read the openning of John’s Gospel, we find:
Jo. 1:3
omnia per ipsum facta sunt
All things were made by him:
** For ‘were’ read ‘are’. See below.**

et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est
and without him was made nothing that was made.
** For ‘was’ read ‘is’. See below.**

Error in Douay-Rheims interpretation of tense.
The Latin is quite clear in using the adjectival passive construct. ‘Facta’ and ‘factum’ are past participles, being used as adjectives. Under these circumstances, the verb can be translated in its original tense, and the participle can also be translated as an adjective.
‘sunt’ equates to ‘(they) are’
‘est’ equates to ‘(it) is’
‘facta’ and ‘factum’, (plural and singular), equate to ‘made’
thus the correct translation from the Latin is:
All things are made by him: and without him is made nothing that is made.
Thus the emphasis is on the fact that the creation is the work of G_D, not that at some time in the past, G_D created the universe.

Concerning Gen 1: 27, the Latin gives:
et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos.

The above Latin emphasizes three times that Man is the creation of G_D, twice that Man is created in the image of G_D, and once that that image is both male and female.

What it does not say, is anything about intersex, and neuter, neither confirming, nor denying.

You are left with the strong implication that whatever gender we are talking about, male, female, intersex, or neuter, Man is created in the image of G_D.

The dispised queer is still the image of G_D.

You asked for an Aunt Sally.
Here is your Aunt Sally.

 

[maryj]

Yes, God does create. He IS the creator of all things, not was. And how is it that God continues to create? through the union of husband and wife. Through the consumation of the Sacrament of Marriage. Consumation, the completion of the Covenant made between the Bridegroom and His Bride, which allows for the seeds of love to be planted and to create new life, CREATION occurs only through God. And when we have creation we have, husband, wife and child. Oh look a trinity. See any parrallels there? Please don’t try to twist, of course all humans are made in the likeness of God." And without Him is made nothing that IS made." Seems we read that differently don’t we?? We create nothing, it is God who does the creating through LIFE.

 

[dylanschrader]

In John 1:3, I would translate

Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.

as

“All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be, which came to be.”

In Greek, you have ‘panta di autou egeneto’

That verb, egeneto functions the same as facta sunt in the Vulgate, that is, it is passive like fieri is in Latin and it can mean “were made” or “became.”

Thus, in John 1:14 there is the famous “et Verbum caro factum est,” that is, “and the Word became (was made) flesh.” The same verb–egeneto–is used in Greek.

It should be translated in the past tense and not in the present tense. Even an attempted present tense translation of sunt in Latin would combine with facta to mean something like “are having been made” which means they were made in the past not that they are being made now. For that, we would see fiunt most likely.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In John 1:3, I would translate

Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est.

as

“All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be, which came to be.”

In Greek, you have ‘panta di autou egeneto’

That verb, egeneto functions the same as facta sunt in the Vulgate, that is, it is passive like fieri is in Latin and it can mean “were made” or “became.”

Thus, in John 1:14 there is the famous “et Verbum caro factum est,” that is, “and the Word became (was made) flesh.” The same verb–egeneto–is used in Greek.

It should be translated in the past tense and not in the present tense. Even an attempted present tense translation of sunt in Latin would combine with facta to mean something like “are having been made” which means they were made in the past not that they are being made now. For that, we would see fiunt most likely.

Hi Dylan,
I have met this considered opinion before, but although it can be supported, context, indeed suggests that interpreting this passive as an adjectival construct, which indeed, most English ‘tenses’ are, is a legal interpretation.
The adjective, is indeed the PPP of the verb ‘facio’, ‘I make’ or ‘I do’, and matches exactly the French and English useage.
If the intent had been to emphasise the action of making, rather the state of having been made, then surely the pluperfect passive would have been used.
Indeed, in English, ‘I am made’, means that the making is in the perfect passive, whereas the state of being, made is in the present, so the English thus exactly matches the Latin.
If you were to say: ‘I am born of my parents’, you are using the adjectival construct, meaning that your parents are your true parents. But is you say: ‘I was not born last year’, you are emphasising the action of being born, or the passive of bearing.

As for the Greek, I understand indeed, that the majority of Gospel texts are believed to have entered Europe in Greek, John in particular is believed to have been composed in Greek, but there are no extant Greek texts which cannot be traced back to a Latin vorlager. You only have to look at the Greek, to see Latin written all over it.
This dates back to the first Latinization which occurred about AD200 following the lead of Victorius Africanus. This resulted in the first canon, from which all subsequent texts, African, Asian, and European are dependant.
Like Tatian’s first edition, the originals were lost as they were superceded by the new Latin canon, which was then translated back into the provincial tongues.
You can even see the Latin vorlager in translations of the Pesheeta!