Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why are the scriptures not considered more important in our church services?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Robrecht probably has his own reasons, but here are mine: firstly, there are people who know the original languages who will be edified by such a reading. Secondly, it challenges and motivates the congregation to learn the original languages.
    Maybe 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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
      Why? 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.
      Being 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.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
        Maybe 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.
        See 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.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Being 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.
          Well, as I mentioned earlier, there are Protestant churches that will take time to break down a word or verse in Greek/Hebrew. I've been to services where a pastor will read the same passage in 3 or 4 different translations, go into the Greek or Hebrew roots, quote from some concordance, and so on. They don't bust all that out for every passage read for every sermon, but its not particularly uncommon. 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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
            Why? 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.
            Care to recommend any specific churches/congreations? I would be interested in attending as well.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              See 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.
              I'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?

              Comment


              • #22
                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.
                I agree. I'm speaking of dynamic equivalence translation, not preaching.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                  I'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?
                  Because 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.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Care to recommend any specific churches/congreations? I would be interested in attending as well.
                    I've seen the type of preaching I mentioned at Church of the Nazarene, Calvary Chapel, Southern Baptist, and Non-Denominationals. The location of these churches were in Corpus Christi Texas, Great Falls Montana, Marietta, Georgia, and a number of places in Ohio. I can't recommend any particular denomination since individual churches tend to differ in teaching style, and its been years since I've attended some of these churches and don't know if leadership has changed hands over the years. I can say that my current church in the small town in the Midwest I live in does go into the Greek and Hebrew.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Because 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.
                      What 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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                        What 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.
                        I 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.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          I 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.
                          I'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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                            I'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.
                            I agree. But the individual translator is reading to an entire congregation, among whom should be pastors, other lectors, and congregants that should also value the original texts. We break bread together and should break open the meaning of scripture together also, in my opinion.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Why should we value our scriptures any less?
                              This is not a matter of value, but of ritual. And it opens the way for translation error.
                              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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                                This is not a matter of value, but of ritual. And it opens the way for translation error.
                                I hope I am as opposed to translation error as you, but greater knowledge of the original texts should safeguard us even more against translation error. Reliance only upon English translations, even published ones, has not eliminated the problem of translation error and even greater misunderstanding as translations become entrenched. But I agree, this proposal is also open to translation error, even more so, especially when more members of the congregation do not also value the original texts. In my opinion, lectors should be trained in the original languages, and they should also consult published translations.

                                I'm curious about your distinction between value and ritual. Can you elaborate a little?
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X