Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 74 of 74

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)
    851
    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
    1,697
    Amen (Given)
    213
    Amen (Received)
    636
    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)
    851
    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
    609
    Amen (Given)
    1804
    Amen (Received)
    115
    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 ?

Posting Permissions

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