OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 09:38:15 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Not Douay English Speaking Orthodox?  (Read 3097 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #135 on: December 25, 2013, 08:12:46 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris
« Last Edit: December 25, 2013, 08:30:18 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,388


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #136 on: December 25, 2013, 09:11:05 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father

IS there a list of Bibles that are, like the NRSV, forbidden for use by various jurisdictions?
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,743



« Reply #137 on: December 25, 2013, 09:22:54 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father

IS there a list of Bibles that are, like the NRSV, forbidden for use by various jurisdictions?

The NRSV was specifically condemned by an Orthodox Synod.
Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #138 on: December 25, 2013, 09:38:31 PM »

I cannot see why the Douay is a good choice for any Orthodox use, or for that matter, anyone who doesn't specifically need an Official Catholic Translation, and even then, in my opinion there are better choices. As Ialmisry has said, and as I have pointed out a number of times, the RSV Common Bible enjoys some degree of official Orthodox approval, and moreover it and the NRSV equivalent are the only translations which include all the Orthodox OT texts.

I also have to say that it seems to me that notion that there is one special source text which can be read in one special translation is a low Protestant idea foreign to the episcopally-organized churches.


The New Revised Standard is not an approved version for use in the Eastern Orthodox Church because it changes the text to use so called inclusive language. I believe that the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America actually issued a decree forbidding the use of the New Revised Version in Bible studies and liturgically.
All English translations are only translations. Therefore, whenever studying the Bible one must the original Greek text which is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Holy Scriptures.
The English version used for the English language Gospel books published by the Greek and Antiochian Archdioceses is from the Revised Standard Version. When I was in seminary, we were told that it is the most accurate English translation of the Bible. Of course, the Orthodox Study Bible had not yet been published.
The Orthodox Study Bible has all of the Old Testament books used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
There is a very simple version why the Eastern Orthodox do not use the Douay version. It is a translation from the Latin Vulgate. Why would we use a translation of a translation when we can use a translation from the original Greek text? Remember we have Greeks in our Church who can understand the original text of the Bible. Besides the Douay version has notes that would confuse the Faithful because they reflect Roman Catholic doctrine. The Vulgate also contains several important mistranslations from the original Greek text. These mistakes are the origins of many of the doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as the errors in the teachings of Augustine.

Fr. John W. Morris


Father

IS there a list of Bibles that are, like the NRSV, forbidden for use by various jurisdictions?

Not to my knowledge. What is important to remember when reading any English translation of the Bible is that it is a translation. To get to the real meaning, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the original Greek text as interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Tradition of the Church. Any version that is not a direct translation, a paraphrase, or translation done to further an agenda such as political correctness like the New Revised Standard Version is to be avoided for what should be obvious reasons. I have read that the New International Version should also be read with caution because it reflects a Calvinist bias, as does the Geneva Bible which has suddenly become popular among American Protestants, who are falling more and more under the influence of Calvinism.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #139 on: December 25, 2013, 09:53:11 PM »

Not to my knowledge. What is important to remember when reading any English translation of the Bible is that it is a translation. To get to the real meaning, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the original Greek text as interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Tradition of the Church. Any version that is not a direct translation, a paraphrase, or translation done to further an agenda such as political correctness like the New Revised Standard Version is to be avoided for what should be obvious reasons. I have read that the New International Version should also be read with caution because it reflects a Calvinist bias, as does the Geneva Bible which has suddenly become popular among American Protestants, who are falling more and more under the influence of Calvinism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes the Geneva Bible is very problematic. It was translated and annotated by Calvinists during the Reformation, and its annotations (such as in a modern "study Bible") are purely Calvinist in nature. Calvin himself was involved in the production of it.
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #140 on: December 25, 2013, 10:33:58 PM »

Not to my knowledge. What is important to remember when reading any English translation of the Bible is that it is a translation. To get to the real meaning, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the original Greek text as interpreted by the Holy Fathers and Tradition of the Church. Any version that is not a direct translation, a paraphrase, or translation done to further an agenda such as political correctness like the New Revised Standard Version is to be avoided for what should be obvious reasons. I have read that the New International Version should also be read with caution because it reflects a Calvinist bias, as does the Geneva Bible which has suddenly become popular among American Protestants, who are falling more and more under the influence of Calvinism.

Fr. John W. Morris

Yes the Geneva Bible is very problematic. It was translated and annotated by Calvinists during the Reformation, and its annotations (such as in a modern "study Bible") are purely Calvinist in nature. Calvin himself was involved in the production of it.

It seems rather hypocritical for someone like Calvin who taught the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura which rejects the authority of Holy Tradition as the guide for the proper understanding of the Bible and argues that each individual Christian can interpret the Bible for themselves because the Bible is self interpreting felt the need to provide extensive "study notes" to tell people how to correctly interpret the Bible.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #141 on: December 25, 2013, 11:50:25 PM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek

The version accepted by the Church is the one with authority because the book of the Bible derive their authority from their recognition by the Church. The recognized version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Greek version. Besides there is no evidence whatsoever that the Epistle of Romans was originally written in  Latin or any respectable Biblical Scholar who believes that it was. Why do you believe that St. Paul's Epistle to Romans was originally written in Latin when no respectable scholar makes this argument?

Fr. John W. Morris

umm did you miss the part where I said :

"I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here."

I don't believe that anymore. All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #142 on: December 26, 2013, 12:33:40 AM »

I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here.

With regards to the letter to the Hebrews Eusabius accounts :

He[Clement] says that the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of Paul, and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the Acts.

. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the very beginning by giving his name."

Well I like Latin as much as anyone. In fact I was glad to sing Adeste Fideles at midnight mass last night and likely be one of the few people there other than the choir who got the pronunciation right. I am also glad they did the Kyrie in Greek instead of English. But some people, not you, but whoever you read that said it was originally written in Latin may have meant well or thought they were right, but I think some Latins want everything to be in Latin, even the original New Testament. Like that Latin is the language of Paradise. Personally I think they speak Elvish in Paradise. This would all work better if I could figure out how to post videos directly on here. It's Liv Tyler speaking Elvish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa1HZKhjpIs

Even if Romans was originally written in Latin, a theory that seems rather far fetched, the text accepted by the Church is the Greek text of Romans.

Fr. John W. Morris

until a Latin original can be found or some sort of proof of it being written in Latin first. The original language should always be most important. Fir now its accepted that it was written in greek

The version accepted by the Church is the one with authority because the book of the Bible derive their authority from their recognition by the Church. The recognized version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is the Greek version. Besides there is no evidence whatsoever that the Epistle of Romans was originally written in  Latin or any respectable Biblical Scholar who believes that it was. Why do you believe that St. Paul's Epistle to Romans was originally written in Latin when no respectable scholar makes this argument?

Fr. John W. Morris

umm did you miss the part where I said :

"I must admit that upon further research and studying, i concede that until evidence can be provided, Greek was the original language of the letter to the Romans. Thanks for all the Reponses here."

I don't believe that anymore. All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

There is no way that a Latin original of the Epistle to the Romans could be found and authenticated. The only thing that finding an ancient Latin text of Romans would prove is that an ancient Latin text of Romans exists. There is no way to scientifically prove that it is the original text composed or approved by St. Paul. Since we know historically that the ancient Roman Church worshiped in Greek rather than Latin, and there is no ancient account that the original language of Romans was Latin, it is obvious that St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #143 on: December 26, 2013, 05:39:42 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #144 on: December 26, 2013, 08:01:21 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence if found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like is the Hebrew version were to be found from the first century of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority.

Just like the church changing its opinion on those called Monophysites and Nestorians who turned out to be just the opposite in that they were orthodox all along. Things can change if enough evidence is given. Do not hold onto the past simply because its from the past. Hold on to the past because it is true
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 08:07:13 AM by Wandile » Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #145 on: December 26, 2013, 08:02:55 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence is found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like id the Hebrew version were to be found from the first millenium of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority

Yeah. Vatican changes faith constantly. We know that.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,020


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #146 on: December 26, 2013, 08:07:41 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence is found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like id the Hebrew version were to be found from the first millenium of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority

Yeah. Vatican changes faith constantly. We know that.

In your imagination..sure
Logged

"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament." - Padre Pio

"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" -St. Ambrose
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #147 on: December 26, 2013, 11:31:11 AM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found

Even if it would have existed it won't be found. It's impossible that a Latin manuscript from the 1st century AD would have made it to the present day.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 11:32:15 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #148 on: December 26, 2013, 12:33:37 PM »

All I was saying that in the event that a Latin original might be found, it takes authority as its closer to the original then than what would then be considered a Greek translation.

Then you said wrong either. The Church decides what takes authority. And the Church decided Greek version of that Epistle does.

And the Catholic church can change its decision on what takes authority if new evidence is found and it decides to. Its not set in stone. Just like id the Hebrew version were to be found from the first millenium of the gospel of Matthew. The church can easily change what is the basis of authority

Yeah. Vatican changes faith constantly. We know that.

The Church cannot quite easily change what is the basis for its authority without producing spiritual anarchy.
The Vatican has been quite consistent for centuries. It is true that certain tendencies have developed and grown into doctrines that were not held by the ancient Catholic Church, such as the papacy as defined by the 1st Vatican Council, but once Rome declares something doctrine, it does not change its doctrinal teachings.

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #149 on: December 26, 2013, 12:36:21 PM »

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?

You do not read my posts carefully or mistake me with another one user.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #150 on: December 26, 2013, 01:20:08 PM »

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?

You do not read my posts carefully or mistake me with another one user.

That is not impossible because in a discussion like this it is frequently to tell who is writing what.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 439



« Reply #151 on: December 26, 2013, 04:50:08 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born! 

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one. 

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics. 

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new. 

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.



Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #152 on: December 26, 2013, 05:09:56 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born! 

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one. 

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics. 

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new. 

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.


I am not familiar with the EOB. Who publishes it. I usually use the Orthodox Study Bible because the notes were prepared by Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Old Testament corrected to correspond with the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of course there is no substitute for the Fathers. You can download the homilies of St. John Chrysostom which covers almost the entire New Testament at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. You can download the writings of most of the Fathers at the same site and use the Scriptural index at the end of each vol. to see how the Fathers interpreted a particular passage.
For the Psalms, I prefer the edition published by Jordanville. It has the correct Orthodox numbering of the Psalms and includes the traditional prayers said after reading each Kathisma.
Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #153 on: December 26, 2013, 06:24:40 PM »

Why are you so obsessed with this issue? I have read no scholarly source that argues that Romans was originally written in Latin. Why are you so persistent about something that every church historian and Biblical scholar is wrong about the origins of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans? Is there some sort of hidden agenda here, such as the fact that most of the teachings of Calvinism depend on the mistakes that were made when the Greek text of Romans was translated into Greek? Is that what is behind your stubborn persistence on this. issue. Is the argument that the Latin version of Romans is the authentic version of the Epistle instead of the Greek text, because the Latin translation contains differences from the original Greek  text of Romans that produced the writings  of Augustine that laid the foundation for the teachings of Calvin some new Calvinist fad to support Reformed theology about which I have not yet heard?


Good heavens, Wandile's a Roman Catholic. If there's a kind of people who wouldn't be looking to support Calvinism it's them.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 06:26:23 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,261


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #154 on: December 26, 2013, 07:31:49 PM »

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.

Smiley

I used this every day for a couple of years and eventually had the Psalter more or less committed to memory.  Then I stopped praying the Psalter regularly and I forgot them.  I need to start again.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 439



« Reply #155 on: December 26, 2013, 07:40:13 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born! 

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one. 

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation. 

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics. 

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new. 

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.


I am not familiar with the EOB. Who publishes it. I usually use the Orthodox Study Bible because the notes were prepared by Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Old Testament corrected to correspond with the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of course there is no substitute for the Fathers. You can download the homilies of St. John Chrysostom which covers almost the entire New Testament at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. You can download the writings of most of the Fathers at the same site and use the Scriptural index at the end of each vol. to see how the Fathers interpreted a particular passage.
For the Psalms, I prefer the edition published by Jordanville. It has the correct Orthodox numbering of the Psalms and includes the traditional prayers said after reading each Kathisma.
Fr. John W. Morris

Just noticed a few weeks ago that NewRome publishers have it out in two paperbacks.  

Here is a link to the website where I initially purchased my copy:  http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/index.asp

There are links to the left for various information.

Yes, I think I had a large version of the Jordanville and it found it's way home to an aspiring Church reader.  It was a beautiful book.  

Edit: Nope.  I just looked it up: A Psalter for Prayer

Not sure about all the other editions of Bibles out there, I just used to get theologically stuck every time I read Psalm 50 in the English version commonly read in church: "...that you might be justified in your sentence and prevail when you are judged...."  Every time I wondered, "Who can judge God?" 2x a day every day of the year and wonder once a day why it is bad to say "Well done, well done" to someone (Psalm 69 during Compline).  Finally I just learned a version for private prayer, though I can still pretty much recite the church version if we are called to pray it together during Orthros or something.  

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.  By the time I get to St. Symeon's prayer in the Preparation, I can't even pronounce anything anymore, and I fight being tongue tied, "...all mine evil deeds Thou knowest, and my wounds Thou knowest also, and my bruises Thou beholdest, but my faith Thou knowest likewise and mine eagerness Thou seest and my groan Thou hearest also...."  Cry and by then I want to cry just because this is nearly impossible to pronounce at that point and there is no prayer.  So now I'm using a prayer book just published by NewRome in modern English.  It has the six Psalms for morning prayers, which I will do as time allows.  I wanted to look at the Ukrainian one, but don't know where to find it.  Don't know about the Antiochian daily prayers

Is the Jordanville in modern English?  I see one on Amazon in Slavonic, but I'm probably not going to be learning Church Slavonic beyond the common hymns, the Oce Nas, and some Gospode pomiluys.  Where do you find the Jordanville Psalter in English for online purchase?  

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #156 on: December 26, 2013, 08:24:12 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 439



« Reply #157 on: December 26, 2013, 08:33:24 PM »

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.

Smiley

I used this every day for a couple of years and eventually had the Psalter more or less committed to memory.  Then I stopped praying the Psalter regularly and I forgot them.  I need to start again.

You had the entire Psalter by memory???  That's great!  I bet it will still be there once you pick it up again. 
Logged
Velsigne
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 439



« Reply #158 on: December 26, 2013, 08:41:00 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,173


« Reply #159 on: December 26, 2013, 09:51:04 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin

New Skete published a modern English version of the Psalter translated from the LXX and numbered according to Eastern Orthodox practice.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,743



« Reply #160 on: December 26, 2013, 10:23:54 PM »

The KJV/NKJV translation is a very good Anglican translation, a time when the Church of England was very much Catholic, so there is not as much a concern for Protestant bias such as in the NIV or some other modern Protestant/Evangelical translation.

I've also always liked the ESV. A literal translation that is in modern, readable English. Have any of you guys seen the EOB? It looks like a pretty good Orthodox translation.



Christ is born!  

Forgive me if your question was addressed, but I didn't find one.  

I have used the EOB and like it, but as far as I know, there is only the New Testament available.  I also use the Orthodox New Testaments in two volumes by the Holy Apostles Convent and Dormition Skete: The Holy Gospels and Acts, Epistles, and Revelation.  

I've heard one priest say he has reservations about the EOB, but I don't know the specifics.  

I also use the Orthodox Study Bible for the Old Testament and sometimes the new.  

For the Psalter in private prayer, I use a mixture, but for Psalm 50 (since we are supposed to be praying it at least twice a day) I have memorized it as translated by a team of scholars in cooperation with The Grail, and is translated for singing:  The Psalms, A New Translation, Singing Version that was gifted to me by a priest at an OCA parish.


I am not familiar with the EOB. Who publishes it. I usually use the Orthodox Study Bible because the notes were prepared by Eastern Orthodox scholars and the Old Testament corrected to correspond with the Septuagint, the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Of course there is no substitute for the Fathers. You can download the homilies of St. John Chrysostom which covers almost the entire New Testament at http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html. You can download the writings of most of the Fathers at the same site and use the Scriptural index at the end of each vol. to see how the Fathers interpreted a particular passage.
For the Psalms, I prefer the edition published by Jordanville. It has the correct Orthodox numbering of the Psalms and includes the traditional prayers said after reading each Kathisma.
Fr. John W. Morris

The EOB is an independent translation translated from the 'official' Orthodox New Testament, the Patriarchal text. There was supposed to be a Old Testament Septuagint translation forthcoming, but it seems to have been cancelled or delayed.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2013, 10:24:42 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15,261


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #161 on: December 26, 2013, 10:38:58 PM »

You had the entire Psalter by memory???  That's great!  I bet it will still be there once you pick it up again. 

Yeah, I didn't really know them in terms of their number.  If you asked me to recite Psalm 114, I wouldn't be able to do it.  But if you gave me the first few words, I could recite the whole thing.  If you started somewhere in the middle as opposed to the beginning, I could pick it up from there, but not the whole thing.  So it wasn't perfect, but it was good.  That's why I like the Grail translation: there are better translations if you want a thoroughly accurate version of the Psalms, but because the Grail translation was designed for singing/chanting, its rhythms help you internalise the words faster. 
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #162 on: December 26, 2013, 10:49:30 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin

New Skete published a modern English version of the Psalter translated from the LXX and numbered according to Eastern Orthodox practice.

Fr. John W. Morris

The Dormition Monastery psalter is numbered according to the LXX, and also includes the kathisma prayers which the Jordanville psalter has. It is basically the NKJV psalms revised to conform more to the LXX. There are however a few parts where for some reason they stuck with the NKJV- so, for instance, psalm 50 says "when You judge" instead of "when You are judged."  Undecided IMO it's not perfect but it's the best contemporary English psalter available. It also helps that it's a nicely bound hardcover.

From what I've seen of it, the New Skete psalter makes no attempt to conform to the LXX at all. LXX numberings are given in parentheses and that's it.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #163 on: December 26, 2013, 10:55:02 PM »

Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX? 

I don't know what you mean by "singing Psalms version." The Dormition Monastery psalter does say "When you judge" which I found odd. I intend submitting them a list of typos I've found- hopefully there will be another edition where they clear those up and also make it closer to the LXX.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #164 on: December 26, 2013, 11:56:19 PM »

You had the entire Psalter by memory???  That's great!  I bet it will still be there once you pick it up again. 

Yeah, I didn't really know them in terms of their number.  If you asked me to recite Psalm 114, I wouldn't be able to do it.  But if you gave me the first few words, I could recite the whole thing.  If you started somewhere in the middle as opposed to the beginning, I could pick it up from there, but not the whole thing.  So it wasn't perfect, but it was good.  That's why I like the Grail translation: there are better translations if you want a thoroughly accurate version of the Psalms, but because the Grail translation was designed for singing/chanting, its rhythms help you internalise the words faster. 

There were ancient canons requiring prospective candidates for ordination to the priesthood to have memorized the Psalter. We need to get Mor a bishop... and maybe a wife... or a monastic tonsure. angel
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #165 on: December 26, 2013, 11:57:47 PM »

I've tired of trying to pronounce every prayer in fakey Old English.

That's not Old English. It is an archaic form of modern English.  

Yes, I know better.  Sorry for my inaccuracy. I read Beowulf through Chaucer through two years of college level Shakespeare study.  To me it just seems like fakey English.


Quote
Is the Jordanville in modern English?

Yes, but not in contemporary English.

A contemporary English psalter is available from Dormition Monastery. For some reason they don't mention it on their website. Email them for details

http://www.dormitionmonastery.org/



Why is that better than praying the singing Psalms version that are already numbered like the LXX?  Does it still have the 'when You are judged' and 'well done well done' bit? 

I must be at the rebellion stage of my prayer rule life  Grin

New Skete published a modern English version of the Psalter translated from the LXX and numbered according to Eastern Orthodox practice.

Fr. John W. Morris

The Dormition Monastery psalter is numbered according to the LXX, and also includes the kathisma prayers which the Jordanville psalter has. It is basically the NKJV psalms revised to conform more to the LXX. There are however a few parts where for some reason they stuck with the NKJV- so, for instance, psalm 50 says "when You judge" instead of "when You are judged."  Undecided IMO it's not perfect but it's the best contemporary English psalter available. It also helps that it's a nicely bound hardcover.

From what I've seen of it, the New Skete psalter makes no attempt to conform to the LXX at all. LXX numberings are given in parentheses and that's it.

About 12 years ago, they had a translation of Psalm 104 which read "and Leviathan whom you made to amuse yourself." That's since been changed, but I liked it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.169 seconds with 57 queries.