Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Not to "prove" that the Septuagint did not exist.
It's been around and in use since the 9th century AD (1,147 years ago to be more precise): the Slavonic Bible. If you need any help with reading it please let me know. I am fluent in Church Slavonic.
You know, and I mean this kindly, but if there are people like you who are scholars in critiquing different versions of scriptures, surely it wouldn't be hard to write a corrected version now would it?
Which makes we wonder why are Protestants coming out with different versions of the Bible almost every year?
Wait a minute Kosta. That is the typical, tired argument we get from the Catholics. If they were "duped" into endorsing this bible, then what other doctrine were the "duped" into?
Bible is not a "doctrine." The Orthodox Church teaches the same thing it taught back at the first Nicene Council. It worships the same way it is in the same century, to this day.
The Study Bible issue has to do with American Orthodoxy which is poisoned with Protestant converts who put on Orthodox vestments but kept their Protestant mindset.
And among the Greek-American hierarchy, it has something to do with what Kolo calls trying to be "white." (something the Greeks have been doing since the late 19th century and its's actually quote sad). It's politics, not doctrine.
You could take just about everything single document in the Orthodox church and start picking it apart
Really, such as? Let's see if you really know what you are talking about.
And if the Slavonic church doesn't agree with the Greek Orthodox in America, then who is right?
The issue is whether the KJV corresponds to the official Greek Orthodox Bible (in Greek) and the answer is no. It is not about Slavonic vs Greek Churches. KJV is simply not a true translation of the Greek Bible, as the example of Isaiah 9:5/6 illustrates clearly.
Orthodoxy sounds like a rudderless ship, each group left to do what they think is best.
The "rudderless" ship has been sailing just fine for a millennium; must be the Holy Spirit steering it. :) All orthodox believe the same thing. Some don;t believe, and for a good reason, that KJV is a true rendition of the Greek scriptures.
But such a comment coming form a Protestant community, which is about as rudderless as it gets, and where every Joe can and does start his own "church" if he doesn't like the pastor is a little over the top.
My mistake. Thanks for the correction.
An innocent man killed for the sins of others is a victim, HD. Saint Luke certainly thought so. There is nothing just about his suffering and dying for sinners. Nor is mercy a form of justice.
While you might think that Greek is such a pure language, when translating into English there are nuances to terms.
Greek has more nuances than English can translate. But it's not about the "purity." It's what words in it mean. Greek is not at fault. Translations are.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7068
Here are a couple of snips:
"Unique characteristics such as idioms and colloquialisms make it impossible for an accurate translation of the meaning of the original language. Therefore, the translations should be used for the spiritual guidance of the believers, but not for the formulation of dogmatic teaching of the Church. This is why it cannot be said that the translations are "the inspired word of God."
and
"The many translations are necessary for spreading the word of God without any obstacles in communication. However, this should not diminish the significance of the original languages of the Bible, the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, and the language of the era when the books of the Scriptures were written. The study of the original languages is imperative for the correct understanding of the meaning of the Bible. The knowledge of the original languages is also imperative in order to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular. The knowledge of the original language is especially necessary for the doctrinal teaching of the Bible."
and finally,
"The Eastern Orthodox Church officially uses the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament which was translated from the original Hebrew language into Greek in the third century B.C. The Septuagint of the Orthodox Church contains all the Canonical Books and the Anaginoskoinena Books "worthy to be read" (called Apocrypha in the English Versions). For the New Testament, the original Greek text is used by the Greek Church, while the other Orthodox Churches have translated the Bible into their own native languages from the original Greek, with the Slavonic translation the oldest. The Orthodox Church has not, as yet, translated the Bible into English and so has no official English translation. In the meantime, the Orthodox are temporarily using both the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version." "
The link you provided says it's temporarily unavailable. I find most websites update their sites early on Sunday morning. But I have found a downloadable version. Unfortunately I'm on another computer at the moment and will have to wait until later to download.
Which makes we wonder why are Protestants coming out with different versions of the Bible almost every year?
It's interesting that you are comparing the Orthodox to Protestants. The Orthodox seem to have demoninational differences right down to which Bible they want to use.
Bible is not a "doctrine."
The Bible is not a "doctrine" but doctrine has been formed around which bible people use.
The Orthodox Church teaches the same thing it taught back at the first Nicene Council. It worships the same way it is in the same century, to this day.
I believe somewhere I stated that the Orthodox are consistent in their views.
HD-You could take just about everything single document in the Orthodox church and start picking it apart.
Kosta-Really, such as? Let's see if you really know what you are talking about.
Which is the correct version; the Slavonic Bible or the American Greek Orthodox Bible?
All orthodox believe the same thing. Some don;t believe,... that KJV is a true rendition of the Greek scriptures
I see a contradiction.
Our Lord Jesus specificaly told us:
In what part of this scripture is Christ a victim? I would say that He certainly sacrificed but I see nothing that would show that he was "killed" for our sins. He gave Himself up for our sins. A big difference.
“Which is the correct version; the Slavonic Bible or the American Greek Orthodox Bible?”
That’s easy, HD, the Slavonic bible. It is as accurate a translation of the Greek NT and the Septuagint as there is because Church Slavonic was intentionally designed to be an accurate translation of Greek. By the “American Greek Orthodox Bible”, I assume you mean the Study Bible. That is NOT a translation of the official Greek Bible of the Church of Constantinople which is the “official” Orthodox bible. The Study Bible is in no way official. There is no official translation of the bible into English for the Orthodox.
OK I give up. Let's just forget the whole thing.
We are on common ground here. I believe the Scripture we have is not 100% pure and accurate but is sufficiently accurate to serve it's purpose. Does that make sense?
For the same reason I will take issue when you, or others, speak of the Septuagint as if there is such a thing as one pure unadulterated thing.
I suppose you could say that Christians wrote the Septuagint in order to make it "fit" the references made by New Testament writers, but that still doens't explain where did the same writers quote from; certainly not from the Hebrew Bible. So, clearly another set of scriptures existed, which Josephus and Philo refer to as the Septuagint.
All of them are 1st century sources. Ergo, there was such a thing as the Septuagint in the 1st century AD, despite the groundless claims of some to the contrary.
And there was no Hebrew Scripture? What makes the Septuagint your superior, or only, source?
To be fair, there are also several "new-approved" Catholic Bibles too.
You are right. I am sorry. Here is an alternative link.
It's interesting that you are comparing the Orthodox to Protestants. The Orthodox seem to have demoninational differences right down to which Bible they want to use
I am not comparing them—I am equating some American Orthodox communities with Orthodox-in-name-only Protestants. You don't become Orthodox by putting on Orthodox Church vestments any more than you become a doctor by putting on a white coat and a stethoscope around your neck!
Many an American "Orthodox" thinks and still believes Protestant. In fact, as far as I am concerned, they are. Protestants masquerading as "Orthodox" the way so-called "Messianic Jews" masquerade being "Jewish." It's a charade.
For example, the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) is recognized only by its former Mother Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, which couldn't wait to rid itself off of it, like a apparent who sends his child out into the world the moment he turns 18! No other Orthodox Church in the world recognizes OCA as a stand-alone (autocephalous) Church.
The OCA is presently headed by a Metropolitan Johan (Paffhausen) who was baptized Episcopalian and did not convert to Orthodoxy until his college years. In other words, they don't even have cradle Orthodox hierarchy but rather Protestant converts.
The Orthodox don't have "denominations." All Orthodox officially proclaim and practice the same doctrine and divine liturgy. The Orthodox Church does not vary its doctrine according to translations of scriptural books, or conciliar record, in other words on the dogmatic tradition, not biblical editions.
The Bible is not a "doctrine" but doctrine has been formed around which bible people use.
Yes, ion the original language, Greek. The Orthodox Church follows the Septuagint and the New testament, both of which are written originally in Greek.
Which is the correct version; the Slavonic Bible or the American Greek Orthodox Bible?
The Greek version! The Slavonic version was translated and compiled by the Greeks, along with the Church Slavonic language, to meet word-for-word, and conCept-for-concept standard, which no other native language can meet. Church Slavonic was tailor-made for that purpose, and the Slavonic Bible was approved by the Church in Constantinople more than 1,100 years ago.
I see a contradiction
There is no contradiction. All Orthodox believe the same doctrine, not the same translation of the Bible.
Yes and no. It makes sense that there is no 100% pure scripture, because physical evidence shows that to be so. It makes no sense to assume that it is "suffciently accurate to serve its' purpose" because there is no objective evidence to come to that conclusion except by blind faith (in which case you can't appeal to reason).
The other reason why it makes no sense is what exactly constitutes "sufficient" and how does one measure it in this case?
And there was no Hebrew Scripture? What makes the Septuagint your superior, or only, source?
Alexandrian and other (Greek-speaking) Jews were also "real" Hebrews. What makes Palestinian (Armenian-speaking) Jews "more" Jewish? Why does one Jewish sect (i.e. the Pharisaical Palestinian Jews) have the monopoly on what is "authentic Jewish" scripture?
Even in Israel today the state recognizes two equal but different rabbinates, one Ashkenazi and the other one Sephardic. They even recognize the few hundred Samaritans as "real Jews" as well.
Are we to say the Greek-speaking Jews or the Essenes or the Sadducees were not "real" Jews and their scriptures, which differed from what the Pharisaical version and what the West arrogantly calls "Hebrew" scripture, were not equally Jewish?
What makes the Septuagint more important (not necessarily superior on an absolute scale) for Christians is that the Septuagint is the Jewish Bible quoted in Christian scriptures. Clearly, Christian dogma can only be derived form that version or else there is no consistency.
Well, change is not exactly foreign to Roman Catholics.
Being approved doesn't mean it's official (go figure). In other words, a translation can be approved for reading but not for doctrinal development, just as in the Orthodox Church. The "doctrinal" scripture must be understood in the original language, namely Greek and Hebrew; for the OT, it is Greek when there is a conflict between the Greek and the Hebrew versions (i.e. Isa 7:14)
I believe that the verses were read in Hebrew first and then may have been paraphrased in Aramaic. According to the Bible-researcher.com:
The Targums are interpretive renderings of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures (with the exception of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel) into Aramaic. Such versions were needed when Hebrew ceased to be the normal medium of communication among the Jews. In synagogue services the reading of the Scriptures was followed by a translation into the Aramaic vernacular of the populace. For a reading from the Pentateuch the Aramaic translation followed each verse of the Hebrew; for a reading from the Prophets three verses were followed by the Aramaic translation.
At first the oral Targum was a simple paraphrase in Aramaic, but eventually it became more elaborate and incorporated explanatory details inserted here and there into the translation of the Hebrew text. To make the rendering more authoritative as an interpretation, it was finally reduced to writing. Two officially sanctioned Targums, produced first in Palestine and later revised in Babylonia, are the Targum of Onkelos (1) on the Pentateuch and the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets, both of which were in use in the third century of the Christian era.
LOL!!! I should have saw that coming!!! :O)
“I should have saw that coming!!! :O)”
Yes, you should have. When we were younger, you would have! :)
I have been busy and traveling and will get back to you on this sometime during the week.
I wish you a Blessed day!
I am not sure what exactly is the point you are trying to make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.