Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 81

Thread: Changing the Lord's Prayer

  1. #71
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    852
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  2. #72
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,728
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    STM mossy is right on this, and that the Pope is missing the point of those words pretty badly :( The change, alters the theology of the LP significantly, and therefore changes the theology of St Matthew significantly. It is a distortion of Scripture, which is absolutely not tolerable - regardless of who in the Church makes the change, or why. There is no adequate reason for this change, end of story.
    It's my understanding that for a long time this has been how it's been rendered in some other languages.

    Even if someone thinks it's an inferior translation, I don't see how it's a "distortion."

    The suggested change to the Italian text of the Gloria, from St Luke 2.14, is no better: https://www.ucatholic.com/news/pope-...talian-missal/
    In what way is it "no better"? The suggested change is how virtually all modern Bible translations render the verse (not necessarily that exact phrasing, but the general meaning). The question of "people beloved by God" vs. "people of good will" is a question of textual variety rather than translation.

  3. #73
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    852
    και μη εισενεγκης ημας εις πειρασμον αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην
    It is interesting:"Do not lead us ... but (αλλα) ... deliver us."

    It may be that the old rendering is deficient, but the new doesn't even try to follow the Koine.
    αλλα is not amenable to a change to "and" - it denotes a contrasting action.
    "Save us ... but deliver us" "Instead of saving us, deliver us." ??
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  4. Amen lee_merrill, Rushing Jaws amen'd this post.
  5. #74
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    641
    Amen (Given)
    1861
    Amen (Received)
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    It's my understanding that for a long time this has been how it's been rendered in some other languages.

    Even if someone thinks it's an inferior translation, I don't see how it's a "distortion."
    The distortion is of the theology of the passage.

    A leading theme of the theology of the NT is, that God is King. So central is this, that the Good News Jesus preached is, the Good News of the Kingdom/Reign/Kingship of God. It is Good News because the fact that God is King, means that the “binding of the strong man”, the devil, by the stronger, Who is Christ, is “at hand/imminent” in Jesus, Who is God’s Chosen/Anointed/Son.

    One of the ways that the Kingship of God is made effective, is by His total control over all events - however untoward they may seem. (A similar point is made in C. S. Lewis’ “The Silver Chair”.) No events, no opposition to the progress of the Good News, not even the most devilish persecution, is outside the total control of God the King. This point is especially prominent in the Book of Revelation - though it also appears in the Gospels; as one might expect it to.

    One of the ways in which this complete Divine Kingship over all events is expressed, is for the NT to speak as though God were the Author of the demonic evils which are subject to His Will and Power. So Our Lord, and St Matthew, speak of God Who controls the tempter and his power to tempt and his temptations, as though God “bring[s] us into temptation” - the choice of language glorifies God’s Royal Power by speaking of His action alone, and by saying nothing of the tempter whose malice he uses for His own Righteous and Kingly purposes. The entire prayer is centred on God’s eschatological Kingship that, in and through Jesus and His Good News, is already in some measure realised “on earth as it is in Heaven”.

    My gripe with the phrasing I criticised is, that it moves the emphasis from God Who controls and thwarts all the malice of the tempter, to us the tempted. And it amputates the very word that reminds the reader that God is in control; replacing it by a word that does not translate the Greek, since there is no word in the Greek meaning “to fall”. The Greek speaks of what God does; the “translation” speaks of what man does.

    If an author writes under the influence of certain ideas, it is the business of the translator to render the text of the author with those ideas. The translator has no right to prettify or dilute or distort his author’s known and ascertained meaning: regardless of how alien that meaning may be to the readers. If the translation has to include ideas that are offensive or perplexing to the readers, then let the passage be explained. But to alter the meaning of the translated author when his
    text gives no warrant for this, is unethical.

    In what way is it "no better"? The suggested change is how virtually all modern Bible translations render the verse (not necessarily that exact phrasing, but the general meaning). The question of "people beloved by God" vs. "people of good will" is a question of textual variety rather than translation.
    That does not mean those translations are correct. How translations render a passage, is not the standard for translation. The standard ought to be a combination of:

    1. The most accurate possible text for translation available.
    2. The most accurate possible exegesis of the text.
    3. The most accurate rendering possible into the receptor language, for the purposes of that particular work of translation.

    Differences of judgement arising from uncertainties in the translated text, or from doubts as to how many strophes of verse a Greek line represents (as in St. Luke 2.14) are often inescapable. Those disagreements are normal, and are not the problem. The problem is with translations that water down the translated text in order to be readily comprehensible to the readership intended.

    This has nothing to do with flat-footed literalism, and everything to do with making the entire meaning of the author in his own language, that of the text, as clear and complete and full in translation as in the author’s own words. If it is a duty to be faithful to the mind and meaning and ideas of an author outside the Bible, surely this duty is far greater when the words translated are God-breathed words, some of them the words of Christ Himself ? If Christ teaches His disciples to pray in a certain way, how can any other man, one whose work is not God-breathed, take it on himself to alter words belonging both to the Bible & to Christ ?

  6. #75
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,125
    Amen (Given)
    344
    Amen (Received)
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    If an author writes under the influence of certain ideas, it is the business of the translator to render the text of the author with those ideas. The translator has no right to prettify or dilute or distort his author’s known and ascertained meaning: regardless of how alien that meaning may be to the readers. If the translation has to include ideas that are offensive or perplexing to the readers, then let the passage be explained. But to alter the meaning of the translated author when his text gives no warrant for this, is unethical.
    Well said!

    Source: C.H. Spurgeon

    My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression.

    Source

    © Copyright Original Source



    If Christ teaches His disciples to pray in a certain way, how can any other man, one whose work is not God-breathed, take it on himself to alter words belonging both to the Bible & to Christ ?
    Yes indeed!
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  7. #76
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,728
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    That does not mean those translations are correct. How translations render a passage, is not the standard for translation. The standard ought to be a combination of:

    1. The most accurate possible text for translation available.
    2. The most accurate possible exegesis of the text.
    3. The most accurate rendering possible into the receptor language, for the purposes of that particular work of translation.

    Differences of judgement arising from uncertainties in the translated text, or from doubts as to how many strophes of verse a Greek line represents (as in St. Luke 2.14) are often inescapable. Those disagreements are normal, and are not the problem. The problem is with translations that water down the translated text in order to be readily comprehensible to the readership intended.

    This has nothing to do with flat-footed literalism, and everything to do with making the entire meaning of the author in his own language, that of the text, as clear and complete and full in translation as in the author’s own words. If it is a duty to be faithful to the mind and meaning and ideas of an author outside the Bible, surely this duty is far greater when the words translated are God-breathed words, some of them the words of Christ Himself ? If Christ teaches His disciples to pray in a certain way, how can any other man, one whose work is not God-breathed, take it on himself to alter words belonging both to the Bible & to Christ ?
    First off, though, an error on my part: I incorrectly ascribed this to a textual variation. There is a textual variation in this passage, but the translation question here occurs within one one of the variations. The variant is "...on Earth peace, good will to men" compared to "...on Earth peace to men of good will." The actual question here is, if we are using the latter textual variant, whether it should be translated as "men (or people) of good will" or as "men (or people) beloved by God".

    However, in your discussion here regarding translations, you don't seem to actually offer an explanation as to why the "new" translation is actually wrong. A bit of research indicates that the literal translation is "men/people of good will", which is what it was translated as for a while. However, it seems that most translations switched to the modern "men/people beloved by God" due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicating that was the more accurate meaning of the phrase.

    I'm far from an expert on Greek/Hebrew but it seems extremely defensible as better expressing the meaning of the original phrase. I read that Benedict XVI actually advocated the new wording in his book on the infancy narratives, but I don't have a copy to verify.

  8. #77
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,125
    Amen (Given)
    344
    Amen (Received)
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    There is a textual variation in this passage, but the translation question here occurs within one one of the variations. The variant is "...on Earth peace, good will to men" compared to "...on Earth peace to men of good will." The actual question here is, if we are using the latter textual variant, whether it should be translated as "men (or people) of good will" or as "men (or people) beloved by God".
    But I'm not sure how this applies to the translation of the Lord's prayer, there is no textual variant in Mt. 6:13.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  9. #78
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,728
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But I'm not sure how this applies to the translation of the Lord's prayer, there is no textual variant in Mt. 6:13.
    We weren't talking about the Lord's Prayer; we were talking about the Gloria (Luke 2:14).

    Also, you're incorrect; there is a textual variant in Matthew 6:13, which is whether "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" occurs at the end of it or not. This variation is noted in the various translations such as the NIV, NASB, and NRSV.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 07-19-2019 at 11:12 PM.

  10. #79
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,125
    Amen (Given)
    344
    Amen (Received)
    183
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Also, you're incorrect; there is a textual variant in Matthew 6:13, which is whether "For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen" occurs at the end of it or not. This variation is noted in the various translations such as the NIV, NASB, and NRSV.
    But that's a different verse, there is no variant in Matthew 6 verse 13...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  11. #80
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,728
    Amen (Given)
    217
    Amen (Received)
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    But that's a different verse, there is no variant in Matthew 6 verse 13...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    No, not a separate verse; it's a variant within Matthew 6:13. Of the Bibles that either include it or mention it in a footnote, it (or its footnote) is placed within Matthew 6:13. Observe:
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...3&version=NASB
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13&version=KJV
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13&version=NIV
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...3&version=NRSV
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13&version=ESV

    I know that the start/end of verses was decided somewhat arbitrarily by those who originally set the numbering centuries ago, but the fact remains that under the standard verse numbering, the variant occurs in Matthew 6:13.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •