thessalonian Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 "You do this over and over, accusing people of being like a Protestant, perhaps since you were once one yourself." No I don't. You have born false witness against me in blatant fashion. Find me five instances in the last year that I have said someone was saying something "like a protestant" or being "like a protestant" or apologize. You emphasize elitism but there is also the spirit of humility in acknowledging those who do know languages better than we and can in fact delve more deaply in to the depths of scripture than those who do not know languages. There is no point in emphasizing one or the other. The scriptures tell us that God will send us shepherds who will give us knowledge and understanding. There is purpose in studying original languages and hearing sermons and commentaries that talk about other languages. Your post CLEARLY dismisses this as unimportant. No reason you had to make a point about elitism. The author of the opening thread was not trying to be elitist. If the Church didn't think it was important to study the original languages it wouldn't have people doing it. Perhaps you should be more careful about how you word things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) "no one language, not even the language the inspired writers used, not even all languages put together, could possibly capture or contain the width and length, and height and depth, subtelty and profundity of the deeds of God and His Word. " I agree with this point. But what is the point. Not even a 1500 page book could capture it and that is why we have a living breathing Church and priests and bishops and popes. "The deeds wrought by God and words written by God assumes all languages. " What the heck does this mean. It sounds all warm fuzzy theological but it is pointless. The scriptures were written in a language that cannot be fully captured in the English language. Statement of fact. There are many words for love in greek and only one in english. Things get lost in the translation. Statement of fact. Doesn't mean the translation is bad or one cannot have a basic understanding of the passage Sorry it makes you feel down the totem pole that you don't know Konine Greek. The opening post is not about having someone write a long explanation about the passage. It is about what more can be gleaned from an understanding of the original languages. There are lots of ways we can grow deeper in our understanding of the scriptures. The original languages can enhance our faith and understanding. Not how can I become more elite by learning the original languages. Doesn't mean the translation is bad or one cannot have a basic understanding of the passage. Your post was an attempt at dispelling or undermining the OP so I stand by my post. "We dont even have the originals of any of the books in Sacred Scripture as far as I know so it seems to me that God wills we not take on this attitude that we need to know these ancient languages and we are more enlightened by way of interpretation in having learned them. This elitist attitude discourages the poor, the simple, the uneducated from reading Sacred Scripture. It is burdensome. Jesus was not a learned scholar. So this is more or less my point. " We have copies of copies of what was likely the originals and it has been proven that the monks who made such copies were very maticulous. I don't think anyone was suggesting we need to know these ancient languages but yes they can be more enlightened having learned them. Sure they can make us more prideful if we do not have a humble spirit but your post sounds almost the opposite, jealous of the scholar. Edited February 5, 2011 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 "And if you read my interpretation it is clear I am not reading it in the spirit of a Protestant. You do this over and over, accusing people of being like a Protestant, perhaps since you were once one yourself." I'll make it easy on you. "Over and over" in addition to the one time that I did say your one statement had the qualities of a protestant view would imply a history. So find two others in the last year which include at least two other people or apologize. And no I was never a protestant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeresaBenedicta Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) Whoa. I agree that one doesn't need to know ancient languages in order to dive into Sacred Scripture... but it is certainly an avenue through which to interpret Sacred Scripture. And on this mark, I think that there is some interesting subtlety that teaches us something. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Like most things Catholics. Oh-- And I was also looking at John 15, and interestingly, the Greek for love in those passages is also "agape". So when Jesus is saying, "As the Father loves me, so I love you, abide in my love" and "No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friends" and "love one another as I have loved you" the Greek is "agape". Edited February 6, 2011 by TeresaBenedicta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 [quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296950191' post='2209134'] Whoa. I agree that one doesn't need to know ancient languages in order to dive into Sacred Scripture... but it is certainly an avenue through which to interpret Sacred Scripture. And on this mark, I think that there is some interesting subtlety that teaches us something. It's not an either/or. It's a both/and. Like most things Catholics. Oh-- And I was also looking at John 15, and interestingly, the Greek for love in those passages is also "agape". So when Jesus is saying, "As the Father loves me, so I love you, abide in my love" and "No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friends" and "love one another as I have loved you" the Greek is "agape". [/quote] Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Oops! See next post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Dangit! Let's try again ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 The authors of the [i]Ignatius Catholic Study Bible[/i] make many of the same conclusions that have been made in this thread: [indent][b]21:15-17[/b] Three times Peter reaffirms his love for Jesus as personal restitution for the three times he denied him (13:38; 18:15-18, 25-27). The dialogue in Greek makes use of several synonyms: two different nouns are used for "sheep", and two different verbs are used for "feed", "know", and "love." Although this may be a stylistic feature to avoid redundancy, others think it more significant, especially with the verb "love." In his first two questions, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him with "willing love" (Gk. [i]agapao[/i]), but in the third question he asks if Peter loves him with merely "friendly affection" (Gk. [i]phileo[/i]), which is the word Peter uses in all three of his responses. An intended distinction between these terms would indicate that Jesus, desirous of a complete and heroic love from Peter, was willing by the end of the conversation to settle for his friendship.[/indent] St. Josemaria Escriva makes an interesting additional observation: he suggests that Peter, after learning his lesson from the shame of his three-fold denial (remember, this is the guy who said, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!" [Mt 26:33]), now refuses to make rash or hyperbolic statements and so chooses the lesser kind of love to express his dedication to Jesus. Pax Christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 no one language, not even the language the inspired writers used, not even all languages put together, could possibly capture or contain the width and length, and height and depth, subtelty and profundity of the deeds of God and His Word. The deeds wrought by God and words written by God assumes all languages. conseqently through all the editions of Sacred Scripture under God's providence from the originals to the present editions in all the traditions to whatever new editions translated into any and all languages to the end nothing is ever lost but only gained by way of subtlety and depth into what God is revealing. An analogy would be the develepment of doctrine, or evolution of species. All the editions put together are unlocking ever more depth and more subtlety simply because the Word of God cannot be contained by anyone language, by the original language the Sacred Authors used or by all languages put together cumulatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Of course no human writing could capture the total word of God. But that is not what this thread is about. We're talking about the languages of bible translations and whether one can gleen more insight studying the original languages. You seem to want to reply to what I am saying by mixing in the oral teachings of the Church. Yes, something is lost in the translation of the scriptures. That is why the Church dragged it's feet fr on the matter and wanted only the best scholars who were orthodox in the faith do it. If you are saying there is not then you simply don't have a clue about translations. If you are implying that I am saying that something in the word of God is lost, i.e. all of the word of God, I have not said that at all. That to me is the beauty of the oral transmission of the word and the work of the spirit in the Church. Development of doctrine is no indication at all of nothing being lost in translations of scripture from one language to another. Development of doctrine encompasses both written and oral traditoin. Are you going to retract your claim that I am accusing people of being like protestants over and over. You bore false witness. Back it up or retract it. Edited February 7, 2011 by thessalonian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1297052938' post='2209574'] Are you going to retract your claim that I am accusing people of being like protestants over and over. You bore false witness. Back it up or retract it. [/quote] I meant only to make general statements. I dont consider this a debate or conversation. In retrospect I should have never responded to you. I repent of my response and in truth I was venting about some other things on my mind not toward you. Though the last part I do apologize for. I think I got you mixed up with someone else who tends to think I'm a Protestant. So yes I am sorry for that. Sorry for my error. Grace and peace to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Therese Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Looks like this has generated a heckuva lot of discussion! I'm hoping to be able to put some time into this tonight. Crazy weekend (but an amesome one - spent Saturday at the convent with my future sisters, spent Sunday at my niece's baptism and subsequent celebration) and work on Monday and today has been only just marginally short of a natural disaster. After work today I'll read through all your responses and then post what I had in mind. God bless all of ya's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kafka Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Catherine Therese' timestamp='1297124992' post='2209886'] God bless all of ya's. [/quote] and same to you. I will stand by my original post, since you asked for particulars views. But my other posts are whatever. They didnt come out well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='kafka' timestamp='1297098987' post='2209684'] I meant only to make general statements. I dont consider this a debate or conversation. In retrospect I should have never responded to you. I repent of my response and in truth I was venting about some other things on my mind not toward you. Though the last part I do apologize for. I think I got you mixed up with someone else who tends to think I'm a Protestant. So yes I am sorry for that. Sorry for my error. Grace and peace to you. [/quote] Appreciated and may I say you just gained much respect. Sorry for any offense. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Hepburn Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Did I mention, Kafka's m' man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now