You are like a cornucopia of surprises, FK! :) We know that the Church interprets the scripture as we do today because of what the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers wrote about it at the end of the first, and through the second centuries, all the way through the 8th (end of patristic period). So, it is not just a 'claim' or 'belief,' but something a little more concrete.
The divine liturgy underwent some non-essential cosmetic changes, but the liturgy is essentially the same as it was used 1,700 years ago.
The languages of the divine liturgy are liturgical languages based on Greek, specifically developed for the liturgical service. As far as I know, they are all capable of expresisng the same concepts, word by word, as the Greek original. The problems with translations started when Luther decided to go "native" and invent literary German on the fly.
Why is it that the words of the Bible mean the opposite of (or something completely different from) what they say in many cases, but the early Fathers can be read straight out?
The biblical period predates Christianity as a religion. Consequently it words reflect their usage and consciousness of a specific period of time.
Christianity retained Judaic words but assumed different meanings, in line with the new belief. Thus the words such as "the Spirit of God," the "Son of God," "Messiah," the "World to Come," the "End Times," the Satan, etc. attained different, even radically unrelated meanings in Christianity from what they used to, and still mean in Judaism.
“The languages of the divine liturgy are liturgical languages based on Greek, specifically developed for the liturgical service. As far as I know, they are all capable of expresisng the same concepts, word by word, as the Greek original. The problems with translations started when Luther decided to go “native” and invent literary German on the fly.”
I don’t know Church Arabic or Church Slavonic but I have observed that the Faith people learn at liturgies and devotions conducted in those languages is identical to that I have learned in Greek.
But you are telling me, I think, that one reason we cannot trust the Bible is that so many words have changed in their common usage over 2,000 years (you noted that in general English "gay" doesn't mean "gay" anymore, etc.). YET, you tell me that the liturgy has remained virtually the same over the last 1,700 years. IOW, you are saying that the words of the liturgy survive the test of time, but the words of scripture do not. Isn't that correct?
The problems with translations started when Luther decided to go "native" and invent literary German on the fly.
No doubt Luther's perverted wish for his own people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language was a grievous error. Do you have related views of the printing press? :) It's interesting though, that you do not seem to have a problem with translating Hebrew into Greek. In fact, you prefer it. :)
Christianity retained Judaic words but assumed different meanings, in line with the new belief. Thus the words such as "the Spirit of God," the "Son of God," "Messiah," the "World to Come," the "End Times," the Satan, etc. attained different, even radically unrelated meanings in Christianity from what they used to, and still mean in Judaism.
If that's the case, then why do you have Jesus affirming the errant Judaic meanings to His own disciples? That makes no sense to me. He was here in part to teach, right? If so, then it looks like you have Him doing a pretty poor job. :)