Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Why are the scriptures not considered more important in our church services?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostWhy? Seems redundant, maybe even a little show-offy. How is it going to edify anyone to read the scriptures in a language they don't know if all you're going to do is reread them in a language they do know. If you're going to expand on the translation, break down the Greek or Hebrew into its roots for some of the words, that's one thing, but you can't do that for long passages across an entire sermon for every sermon. That'd bore the bejeezus out of people, and it wouldn't serve any more purpose than just explaining what the passage means without reading Greek/Hebrew.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostMaybe I'm coming at this from a different perspective. I've been to many urban centered churches where the congregations have a hard enough time understanding the Bible in English. Reading long passages in the original language at these types of churches would likely have the effect of driving people out of the church rather than into them. For many churches, its more important to be relevant/relatable than it is to be academic. The Gospel is a living and vibrant message for the common people of today as much as it was a living message for the common people 2,000 years ago. Personally, I'd absolutely consider attending a service that taught in both Greek/Hebrew and English, but I realize that that's not for everyone, and maybe shouldn't be.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostBeing a 'show-off' is not good, of course, but false humility is also false. Part of this idea is to recognize the value of dynamic equivalence translations, which are very transitory in nature. To always rely on one (or even several) standard translation depletes the scriptures from the richer meaning contained in the original languages. It is at times appropriate, I think, to highlight one particular aspect of the original in speaking to a congregation, eg, maybe some in the congregation might need to be reminded of the 'advocate' character of the Paraclete at times, rather than being 'comforted'. This can be done by intense linguistic, grammatical or lexicographic analysis, but that to can be very off-putting, boring, and also 'show-offy', whereas the prophetic authority of the scriptures and the work of the Spirit can sometimes be more effectively communicated as the word of God rather than one grammatical opinion among many others. I also agree with the reasons advanced by Paprika.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostWhy? Seems redundant, maybe even a little show-offy. How is it going to edify anyone to read the scriptures in a language they don't know if all you're going to do is reread them in a language they do know. If you're going to expand on the translation, break down the Greek or Hebrew into its roots for some of the words, that's one thing, but you can't do that for long passages across an entire sermon for every sermon. That'd bore the bejeezus out of people, and it wouldn't serve any more purpose than just explaining what the passage means without reading Greek/Hebrew.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostSee also my response directly above. The idea of a dynamic equivalence translation is precisely meant to avoid an overly academic approach and to provided the opportunity for the living and vibrant message for all the people of today. The reading in the original language is not strictly necessary to this, but it does help us all to be aware of the limitations of translations, dynamic or otherwise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post... Again, most good preachers (at least the ones I've seen) have a certain flow in their delivery, and they're not going to constantly interrupt that flow to break out the Greek and Hebrew, and neither, in my opinion, should they.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostI'm not sure I understand why you keep bringing up dynamic equivalence translations. Many churches read from a dynamic equivalence translation. What's the point of a pastor/preacher/priest offering a dynamic equivalence translation if they can read one right out of a translation that has the benefit of a scholarly committee doing the translation?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostCare to recommend any specific churches/congreations? I would be interested in attending as well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostBecause I'm trying not to stifle the activity of the Spirit and the spontaneity and power of God's word in every time and place, for each and every community. I like published dynamic equivalence translations as well, but the principle of dynamic equivalence is much greater than what can be embodied in a published text. And the weaknesses of dynamic equivalence translations need to be limited by a greater awareness of the original texts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostWhat makes you think reading out of a translation would stifle the activity of the Spirit? You don't think the Spirit can flow from the preaching of a print translation? I mean, I could see your point of the preacher was reciting his whole sermon right from a page, but that's not usually how its done in Protestant circles.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI don't think it necessarily does, and I do not say that the Spirit cannot flow from preaching from a print translation. Please do not put words in my mouth. As I said, I also like published dynamic equivalence translations, but they also have their weaknesses, which are best limited by greater awareness of the original texts.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OingoBoingo View PostI'm sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was just following your post to a logical conclusion. I too recognize the weaknesses and limitations of a published dynamic equivalence translation. I guess I'm just not as confident that an individual dynamic translator is going to do a better job.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostWhy should we value our scriptures any less?Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThis is not a matter of value, but of ritual. And it opens the way for translation error.
I'm curious about your distinction between value and ritual. Can you elaborate a little?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment