OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 09:59:27 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What do we at least agree on ?  (Read 1775 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,553


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #90 on: February 09, 2014, 10:28:38 PM »

Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 10:29:41 PM by Maximum Bob » Logged

Countdown to our Baptisms and Chrismations:


Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,202



« Reply #91 on: February 09, 2014, 10:37:25 PM »

To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.
The addition to the creed makes no such distinction.  Some teachers may make this distinction, others not.  If you want to develop the doctrine along these lines, be careful.  God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So say otherwise is modalism.

But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.
On this point, your crowd have already won.  The Episcopal Church's General convention has already resolved that the next revision of the Prayer Book will use a translation of the original Greek text of the Nicene Creed.  A trial-use translation of the original Greek text is already in use in some parishes.  The Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops has already resolved that the various national churches will not break communion with any national church that uses the original form of the Creed.   But your lot go on and on about it.  Sometimes it gives the impression that your party's hatred of us is your only unvarying principle, and things like the filioque are mere excuses.  

You're reading in motives and intentions that don't exist. The filioque was one of the main factors of schism between the East and West and remains so. To just call the objection to the filioque as simply 'hatred' of Anglicans, is downright disingenuous. It's a historical objection that has been raised plenty of time in the East since it was first added.

Furthermore, Anglicans are not the only group that uses the filioque, so the idea that this is an all-out attack by Orthodox against Anglicans is also a very poor strawman.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 10:39:15 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,128


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #92 on: February 09, 2014, 10:50:27 PM »

Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.

Wait...I thought your preferred Bible translation was The Message.   Huh
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,206


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #93 on: February 09, 2014, 10:55:22 PM »

Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
No, the New KJV is the version used for the Orthodox Study Bible, and that only for the New Testament.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,206


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #94 on: February 09, 2014, 11:01:29 PM »

To the extent that it talks about eternal procession, the filioque is in error.  To the extent that it talks about temporal procession (proceeding "through," if you will), it is not in error.
The addition to the creed makes no such distinction.  Some teachers may make this distinction, others not.  If you want to develop the doctrine along these lines, be careful.  God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  So say otherwise is modalism.

But it doesn't belong in the Creed because no Ecumenical Council put it there.
On this point, your crowd have already won.  The Episcopal Church's General convention has already resolved that the next revision of the Prayer Book will use a translation of the original Greek text of the Nicene Creed.  A trial-use translation of the original Greek text is already in use in some parishes.  The Lambeth conference of Anglican bishops has already resolved that the various national churches will not break communion with any national church that uses the original form of the Creed.   But your lot go on and on about it.  Sometimes it gives the impression that your party's hatred of us is your only unvarying principle, and things like the filioque are mere excuses.  

You're reading in motives and intentions that don't exist. The filioque was one of the main factors of schism between the East and West and remains so. To just call the objection to the filioque as simply 'hatred' of Anglicans, is downright disingenuous. It's a historical objection that has been raised plenty of time in the East since it was first added.

Furthermore, Anglicans are not the only group that uses the filioque, so the idea that this is an all-out attack by Orthodox against Anglicans is also a very poor strawman.
Except I don't think Mockingbird is saying what you think she's saying.
Logged
Jude1:3
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: USA
Posts: 61



« Reply #95 on: February 09, 2014, 11:36:22 PM »

Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
No, the New KJV is the version used for the Orthodox Study Bible, and that only for the New Testament.



   This is interesting, because one of the things that started to draw me into inquiring about Orthodoxy was seeing that the Orthodox Study Bible had the NKJV for the New Testament.  For awhile now I have been trying to study the differences between English Bible Translations. I've noticed that some of the modern English translations are very different from the Older English translations. I trust the Orthodox Way more then I trust modern Liberal Scholars and Harper Collins. Unforunfortunately, Harper Collins owns Thomas Nelson now   Embarrassed
Logged
Cackles
Elder
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (Canada)
Posts: 335



« Reply #96 on: February 11, 2014, 03:52:54 AM »

Unfortunately, what the Orthodox and Protestants have in common is the KJV. Im amazed the Orthodox would have anything to do with that Bible, considering the circumstances amd motives behind it.

Wait...I thought your preferred Bible translation was The Message.   Huh

No way! The Message is good only if you want a 3 in 1 parallel bible. But The Message does have some portions that are more readable, yet acurate than anything else.

I use 'The Voice' which the leatherbound is AMAZINGLY cheap on ebay right now. Amazed for the price. Its the only Bible which is directly injecting phrases to keep things in context. It will also finish sentences. It italisizes all of the additions of text.

What I recommend people do is Either get The Voice, or, a 3 in 1 parallel with easy translations like The Message with NIRV etc. Then read the portions which seem easiest of the three. Youll notice that different chapters are translated better than others. When you reach a phrase that seems suspicious, or, you want to drill down further to see what they really said, then use the gold standard - The Wycliffe Bible. This is tougher English, but the most direct word of God straight from the Vatican.

Of your not a beginner, or dont struggle with comprehention, then the Knox Bible is a masterpiece. Like fine wine. Fine cigars. The Rolls Royce of Bibles.

To see how good a translation is, I use Isaiah 34:14-15. This is a very important verse with some tough henrew thats hard to 'decode' as at this point we're litterally decoding the source text lol. I believe the Wycliffe got this one almost perfect. In this verse you're looking for the orde Lilith or meantion of Lilith.

Who's Lilith? Never mind.. You dont want to go down that road.. But this is what would have been in the source text.
Logged

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.
Cackles
Elder
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (Canada)
Posts: 335



« Reply #97 on: February 11, 2014, 02:54:41 PM »

Isn't the KJV the version that was used for the Orthodox Study Bible?  If so,  I would guess at least some of us would use it.
No, the New KJV is the version used for the Orthodox Study Bible, and that only for the New Testament.



   This is interesting, because one of the things that started to draw me into inquiring about Orthodoxy was seeing that the Orthodox Study Bible had the NKJV for the New Testament.  For awhile now I have been trying to study the differences between English Bible Translations. I've noticed that some of the modern English translations are very different from the Older English translations. I trust the Orthodox Way more then I trust modern Liberal Scholars and Harper Collins. Unforunfortunately, Harper Collins owns Thomas Nelson now   Embarrassed

The King James is the birth of corrupted, liberal translation in my opinion. All the new translations are socially liberal and modified.

The best benchmark is 1 corinthians 11:10. Lets see the blasphemy of the NRSV Catholic Edition:

10 For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of[a] authority on her head, because of the angels.

Footnotes:

a. 1 Corinthians 11:10 Gk lacks a symbol of -- WOW!
b. 1 Corinthians 11:10 Or have freedom of choice regarding her head -- Wow!!

Now lets see the New King James which most translations ate based, which is on already modified, altered, later scriptures:

 "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." - i like how they throw in 'ought to'.

Now lets see the inspired word of God - the 1390 Wycliffe Bible. Furthermore, lets quote the origional middle Enlish version:

"Wycliffe(i) 10 Therfor the womman schal haue an hilyng on hir heed, also for aungelis." - what is 'hilyng'? A covering. Hilyng - a) The action of giving clothing or shelter, the action covering up b) blindfolded; concealment.

What does the midernized Wycliffe Bible say?

"Therefore the woman shall have a covering on her head, also for angels." - WOW! An AUTHENTIC translation. Notice the lack of 'aught to'.

What does the VOICE Bible say??

"10 This means that a wife should wear a veil on her head as a sign she is under authority, especially when gathering in the company of heavenly messengers." - WOW!

Notice the quality of the above translation and the added italics of insertion to complete the thought. The child is not under headship of her father. She belongs to God and ionly goes under headship until she is married. This is why until this day Muslims only start waering a covering when their married. Although most wear it all the time. They shouldnt have put in the 'should' part though is it is 'shall'.

What does the Orthodox Jewish Bible say on this matter?

"10 Because of this, the Isha ought to have a kesut rosh (head covering) of marut (authority, discipline) on her rosh because of the malachim." Not that this is an authority version, but even they concede.

The Knox Bible outright calls it a VIEL as the correct wording.

And of course, everyones old favorite - the amplified Bible which summerizes the though of the verse perfectly:

"10 [a]Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them]."

And there ya have it. So when we talk about liberalism and King James somehow being the Truth... I mean.. That is seriously laughable in my little opinion of course. The ONLY translation that is new, which had the closest meaning and was readable was The Voice. This is why its my current favorite and recommended by myself to anyone. Go to that ebay seller for cheap price. Its full leather, full size quality bound bible. Comes in the retail box too.

The finest English Bibles on earth. Holy. Precious:

The Voice
The Knox Bible
Wycliffe's Bible

The one that good to have and might make reading even shorter and easier in some areas:

3 or 4 in one Parallel bible - KJV (to please everyone else), The Message, NIRV.

For the serious New Testiment disector, although source manuscript is King James, nothing else compares:

John Mitchell New Testement.

Dont believe me? - JMNT(i) 10 Because of this, the woman (or: wife) is continually obligated to be habitually having privilege and right from being (or: permission) upon [her] head – because of the agents (or: normally ought to constantly hold authority from out of being herself, [based] upon the Source, [as shown] through the messengers). [comment: she ought to veil her glory, just as Moses veiled the glory that was on him – 2 Cor. 3:13] -- WOW!!!!!! They give the real reason women are supposed to cover their head. Otice CONTINUALLY OBLIGATED. Not 'ought, should'.
Logged

The above post is intended for discussion purposes and is comprised of my personal opinion.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.066 seconds with 36 queries.