Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Feel free to read Scripture in Latin: but don’t try to tell people it isn’t real scripture if it’s in English.
Do not forget that original Scripture was written in Hebrew, then later in Greek as well as Latin.
- Status
Do not forget that original Scripture was written in Hebrew, then later in Greek as well as Latin.
C
cecilia2019
Guest
God is still living,
But the books are dead !
Pray to the Holy Spirit, ask the Holy Spirit to teach you , this is the real teacher
And be aware of what you experienced in your life, before and after prayer, with and without prayer…
Your life is a living book…
But the books are dead !
Pray to the Holy Spirit, ask the Holy Spirit to teach you , this is the real teacher
And be aware of what you experienced in your life, before and after prayer, with and without prayer…
Your life is a living book…
G
goout
Guest
Scripture is not “dead”. Scripture breathes (“inspiration”) the living Christ.God is still living,
But the books are dead !
Pray to the Holy Spirit, ask the Holy Spirit to teach you , this is the real teacher
And be aware of what you experienced in your life, before and after prayer, with and without prayer…
Your life is a living book…
Scripture is the living word of God. It comes from Christ, points to Christ, and cuts us to the heart.
Our hearts are living, and so is Christ.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Exactly. Every council that addressed the question of the canon, at least from Pope Damasus’ Council of Rome up to Trent and beyond, simply published a list of the approved canonical books. None of them asked any questions about the contents of each book, or which of two variant readings in the manuscripts was to be preferred, or why there are discrepancies between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, or anything of that kind at all. Just the list.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
No one is being negative about it or saying it’s wrong to read the Bible in Latin. If your Latin is that good, awesome. The issues are 1) the apparent misunderstanding that Latin is the original language 2) the idea that reading in Latin will somehow prevent misunderstanding, as though Latin has some magical power and 3) most troubling, the idea that a Bible is only a legitimate Bible if it’s in Latin.
L
LeonardoArruda
Guest
As long as it is a catholic bible is ok, somethings are hard to translate to other languages, Portuguese has the word “carinho”, wich means to do something with love and care in order to make someone happy, its unique to the language and translators have a hard time with it, the “perfect” bible to read" would be the one written in the original language so you can get the concepts better, you can read it in Latin if you want just make sure its from the Church, i recommend the Greek translation becuse the way things are written is awesome.
My Latin isn’t that good. I didn’t take it in high school or college, as I should have. (Actually, one semester I tried to sign up for it, but something happened, I don’t know what, that’s been 40 years ago.)HomeschoolDad:
No one is being negative about it or saying it’s wrong to read the Bible in Latin. If your Latin is that good, awesome. The issues are 1) the apparent misunderstanding that Latin is the original language 2) the idea that reading in Latin will somehow prevent misunderstanding, as though Latin has some magical power and 3) most troubling, the idea that a Bible is only a legitimate Bible if it’s in Latin.
Huh?
What in the world does the fact that the lector uses the vernacular have to do with anything? And the Golden Rule? Sorry, I’m just not seeing it.
For what it’s worth, at the Traditional Latin Mass, sometimes the priest (who is the “lector” at the TLM) re-reads the epistle and Gospel in the vernacular, sometimes he doesn’t, depends on the priest. Most often he does, but it’s not unheard of, for him to skip the vernacular. It’s just assumed that most people have some sort of Latin-vernacular missal with them. I have also seen (online) another priest, or possibly deacon, read the vernacular aloud to the congregation while the priest reads the Latin.
When I assist at the Ordinary Form, I normally do not use a hand missal. My preference is to listen to what is being read, not to read along as the lector or cleric reads aloud. (In Spanish, though, a language I read far better than I speak or understand it spoken, I do use the missal to read along with the Spanish — Spanish, not English, I am always seeking to improve my Spanish proficiency, and using English as a “crutch” isn’t the way to do that.)
Last edited:
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
Oh, I meant the OP. If his Latin is good enough that he can read the Bible in it, awesome. Nothing wrong with that at all. Probably a good way to keep up your language skills.
The problem comes in thinking “I’m reading a real Bible because it’s in Latin, and all those plebs reading it in English or Spanish or Urdu are reading something inferior or fake.”
T
TK421
Guest
The Mass usually uses the vernacular language, so if only a Latin text is perceived as a real Bible, then they aren’t celebrating the Liturgy of the Word using the real scriptures, which isn’t true. That also wouldn’t be following the Golden Rule because it would be creating a division where no division is necessary, and we should always be at peace and in harmony with each other in so far as it is possible.
The Golden Rule applies to both deeds and thoughts, and thoughts have a way of eventually manifesting themselves into deeds.
Peace.
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad:
T
TK421
Guest
@HomeschoolDad
The original post to which I was replying was asking if it was okay to view the Latin text as the only real Bible:
The original post to which I was replying was asking if it was okay to view the Latin text as the only real Bible:
OK, I see, I was going by the title of the thread, and failed to read closely enough that the OP was holding forth the Vulgate as the “real Bible”. As I said, not even traditionalists maintain that. That would be an error similar to what “King James Only” Protestants say — many of them hold forth that God had a special plan for the English-speaking people, and once mass printing became possible, He dispensed an inerrant English translation of the Bible, viz. the King James. That still doesn’t address the predicament of those “Bible Christians” who don’t read English.
R
rosejmj
Guest
Well the original Bible wasn’t even written in Latin so I wouldn’t attach much significance to it other than that is language the Bible was in the Middle Ages. You’d have to learn Greek and Hebrew to read the original non translated Bible
J
Jovian90
Guest
I know some Latin, but memorizing all of the declinations and conjugations of verbs can be quit difficult, but not impossible.
G
Genesis315
Guest
It’s ok to only want to read it in Latin (if you’re proficient enough to get the correct meaning), but it would be wrong to consider the Vulgate the only real Bible. The Church has never held that (especially since the Latin is itself a translation, even if the the Vulgate is the normative Latin translation for the Roman Church).
R
ReaderT
Guest
Non credo hoc rationabile esse. Biblia enim linguā Graeca scripta est. Vulgata Latina modo translatio est (sicut Anglice), non “legitima Biblia.”
Optimum est primum Bibliam legere quācumque linguā maxime intellegis, tunc Latinā
Last edited:
B
Bithynian
Guest
Si Vulgata satis Deo erat, ita meo est.
(A tongue-in-cheek joke based on the common stereotype of KJV-Onlyism as ‘if it was good enough for God, then it’s good enough for me’.)
But @ReaderT makes the salient point that one really needs to have an intermediate degree of fluency (enough to read what we wrote) in order to adequately (both in sense and in pace) to read the Vulgate.
J
Jovian90
Guest
I will just have to try harder to learn Latin.
No, it is not okay because it is not the truth. It is not okay to hold on to a belief when that belief is shown to be false. Latin Bibles are translations, and therefore do not legitimately claim to be the only real Bibles. We all have an obligation to be at the service of truth, and not falsehoods.
All Bibles translated in good faith according to a legitimate translation philosophy can be considered “real” Bibles because they convey God’s Word, which transcends paper and ink. But if one is to be strict about it like the Muslims are with their Quran, then the only “real” Bibles are those written in the original languages, and we no longer have those. So your next closest things are the critical editions. And those are in Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament Protocanonicals, and Greek for the Deuterocanonicals and New Testament. Not even the venerable Vulgate holds the same level of authority as the original-language writings, and Pope Pius XII says as much.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
The Latin Vulgate is a great Bible. But the idea that it’s only a real Bible if it’s in Latin is wrong. Let’s remember, the Bible was TRANSLATED into Latin. It was not written in Latin. So to assume the Latin translation is better than the original texts is wrong.
- Status