Posted on 09/22/2016 7:57:02 PM PDT by marshmallow
GERMANY, September 21, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The German Bishops have presented a new “Unified Translation” of the Bible that follows a significant modernization of the language and will be binding for all German-speaking areas starting in 2017.
On Tuesday, the German Bishops Conference (DBK) presented in Fulda the fruit of many years of scientific work: a new edition of the so-called “Unified Translation" (Einheitsübersetzung) of the Bible into German. It’s called “unified” because, from the original published from 1962 onward, these editions are supposed to be used ecumenically, unifying Catholics and Protestants in Germany. The original aim, however, was thwarted in 2005 when Protestants reverted to the Luther translation.
The leader of the research project was the bishop (now emeritus) of Erfurt, Joachim Wanke, who explained that the new edition is a “moderate revision” of the older text. Wanke added that a translation is always also an interpretation. The new edition shows more “braveness” to present “biblical jargon,” he said, reported by kath.net.
According to Jewish tradition, the personal names of God cannot be pronounced, so “Yahweh” is substituted by “Lord” in the new edition. In fact, every paragraph has a change, explained Michael Theobald, president of the German Bible Association.
When the apostle Paul calls two new followers, they are not two men anymore, Andronicus and Junias; rather, a new discovery showed that apparently it was one man and one woman, hence Andronicus and Junia. This led to the discussion that the word “apostle” must be applied to women as well as men (Author’s note: In German, different genders of the word exist and usually gender-ideologists insist on using male and female forms).
Other changes are more ideological.
Most frightening is the change to the iconic Isaiah passage (7:14): “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son”.....
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
But there’s the rub. There was not unanimous consent on this issue.
If we accept your position the the Greek church, and not Rome, should be the final authority on issues. You willing to concede that?
It refutes nothing of the sort. Joseph having children from a previous marriage is completely consistent with the doctrine of perpetual virginity, and as I understand, it is the common belief among the Orthodox. I think it helps explain a lot myself.
If Tertullian is your only witness against the doctrine, and I’d have to check what he said, but whoopdeedoo. That’s ONE Church Father against all the rest. And remember, though he wrote works in Greek, he likely learned it as a second language through his education. He was a Latin from Africa—not an area of the Empire known for Greek speakers.
So are you willing to concede authority to the Greek church and take it away from Rome??
The Catholic disdain for the ability to learn and use the NT Greek is amazing.
The Christian knows Him personally.
So I don't know if they have any "new evidence" to favor Iounias over Iounia.
Similarly in Romans 16.15 there is a name which may be Ioulia (Julia), as most manuscripts have it, but there is an alternative reading which could be either Iounias or Iounia (again, in the accusative case so spelled the same way).
No I am not willing to concede it.
The Churches at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were all originally ethnically and linguistically Greek as far as I am aware. They just eventually shifted over to their native tongues, so they do not have as clearly unified a 2000-year linguistic tradition. That’s why I concentrated on the Greeks.
All the ancient Churches agree on the ever-virginity of Mary, and it was held by a number of Reformers as well, as others have shown here. Fr. Hunwicke just made the case that there is no ground for opposing it in the Church of England either:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-tome-of-s-leo.html
Internet and websites; very few of them speak Hebrew or Greek; what's the security term for novices with hacking tools ? Script kiddies, and they do a lot of damage to unprotected computers.
If the characterization of Tertullian is found to be correct then yes, I will admit that it is not true to say that "everyone" believed it. So we're down to "almost everyone".
I'm just not sure how we get from "almost everyone accepted it" to how it's being treated here--like it's an abominable heresy.
Will you concede, at least, the ever-virginity of Mary is a theological proposition that may be held by a Christian? That it is not heretical?
I guess they haven’t read the Bible. Both the Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament account of the Nativity of Jesus.
Paul predates your traditions. HE spoke of the brother of Jesus. That is sufficient for me. Your mileage will be gauged by the religious institution and its man-made traditions which you favor over The Word of God.
Non sequitur at its most egregious ... I don’t see anyone of note disputing that Jesus was born of a virgin. THAT is the nativity of Jesus. Want to try again, with words you understand better?
No they don’t all agree on this. Perhaps beginning in the 4th century but not always prior to this. What this illustrates is how false beliefs can encroach in the church. Paul and John had to deal with false teaching as we have to contend with now over this issue.
I’m not saying don’t learn Greek. I’m saying learn Greek but just know your place, and learn from the people that spoke it natively. Don’t tell them what their language means because it suits your theology.
Humility. That’s all.
By the way, the Greeks do it to us too. Some Orthodox tell us we are heretical because we hold the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. To make a long story short, our “procedere” doesn’t mean exactly the same as their corresponding word, so we do not actually hold the heresy that they think we hold. To them I say the same. Don’t tell us what the Latin verb means. :)
I didn’t comment on the Pope, yea or nay. I’m a Protestant myself.
IIRC there are existing manuscripts which predate the Septuagint for Isaiah.
There is a good bit more than that — starting with the fact that the Bible was written in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic, meaning that his words were already translated when transcribed, and many words in Aramaic have multiple meanings. How are the original scribes (and/or those who were telling the stories orally before they were transcribed) sure they got the right one?
But that’s just the first problem. There are whole sections added and deleted from the early versions that we hve, as well as what appear to be transcription errors that potentially could change the meaning of a passage.
(What if I hand-wrote “change” but you transcribed it as “charge”? A whole different meaning.)
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.