Two men are reading the same bible...

[Emmy]

Dear Orthodoxy USA. Two men are treading the same Bible, two men are reading God`s Word to us. It does not matter where they read it, but the writing inside matters greatly. In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy hearts, with all thy souls, and with all thy minds. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40 we are told: On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. God is LOVE, and God wants loving sons and daughters. That is straightforward and easy to understand.
The Bible tells us: Give up all selfish thoughts and wishes, start loving all you know and all you meet. God is Love, and God wants loving men and women to live with Him for eternity. In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: Ask and you shall receive. We ask God for Love and Compassion, then we thank God and share all love and compassion with all around us. God is Love and love will overcome all wrongs. Let us give up our selfish wishes and wants, and let us start loving and caring, Love is very catching, and we just have to ask and then thank and be the children which God wants. Why not try it Orthodoxy, God will see our wishes to love and care and always to follow. I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Athanasius377]

Excuse me, but Gutenburg's first Printing of the Bible WAS that Vulgate!

In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome explained the problem and proposed a solution: “If we are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?”

Jerome began translating in 382. He also preached strict asceticism and won many women to his way of life. Soon, however, accusations about his relationship to them and the charge that ascetic rigors led to one woman’s death caused Jerome to move from Rome to the Holy Land, shortly after Pope Damasus’s death in 384. He settled in Bethlehem, writing and studying, overseeing a monastery, and advising some of the women who had followed him from Rome.

After twenty-three years of labor, Jerome finished his translation in late 404 or 405. If twenty-three years seems like a long time for a translation, consider that Jerome was working alone. Also, he was churning out volumes of commentaries and other writings, and he involved himself in every theological battle of the day, contributing some eloquent, often caustic, letters.

In other words, Jerome made quite a few mistakes in his translation? No! He was a good and faithful man, a monk, like myself (although a lot more holy than I), and one of the best scholars of the age.

Yes, I am aware of the history of Jerome's translation. Yes, Jerome was a great scholar and among the most educated of the Western Church Fathers. The point wasn't that Jerome was necessarily incorrect in his translation rather it was that Rome was insisting that it was THE text by which it was basing its theology on which by the sixteenth century was painfully obvious that a revision was needed. Words that may have meant one thing at its writing had a completely different meaning a thousand years later.

Erasmus of Rotterdam and Cardinal Jeminez both compiled a critical Greek New Testament in the 16th century that showed that several areas of Roman theology were based on Jerome's translation that were absent in the original Greek. An example of this is Matthew 3:2. Where the word μετανοειτε, or metanoeó (repent) which in english means a change of one's mind as opposed to the latin poenitentiam agite meaning "Do Penance". If repent was meant by Jerome's translation it had certainly lost its meaning by the time the Greek text was published by Erasmus over 1000 years later.

It was this translation of Matthew gave rise to the penitential system that the reformers rightly pointed out was not in the original text.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Dear Orthodoxy USA. Two men are treading the same Bible, two men are reading God`s Word to us. It does not matter where they read it, but the writing inside matters greatly. In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us: The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy hearts, with all thy souls, and with all thy minds. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." In verse 40 we are told: On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. God is LOVE, and God wants loving sons and daughters. That is straightforward and easy to understand.
The Bible tells us: Give up all selfish thoughts and wishes, start loving all you know and all you meet. God is Love, and God wants loving men and women to live with Him for eternity. In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: Ask and you shall receive. We ask God for Love and Compassion, then we thank God and share all love and compassion with all around us. God is Love and love will overcome all wrongs. Let us give up our selfish wishes and wants, and let us start loving and caring, Love is very catching, and we just have to ask and then thank and be the children which God wants. Why not try it Orthodoxy, God will see our wishes to love and care and always to follow. I say this with love. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

I take this to mean that you disapprove going to services?

I am also confused as to why you presuppose that I am not giving up selfish wishes and wants. You seem to presuppose that I get less from scripture than you. I find that strange. And disingenuous.

It has been my pleasure to read the scriptures for services for 13 years. I am really not sure how many times I have read the entire text, but it is more than I can keep up with.

Is it your thought that we have thown out the bible in a preference for services? I assure you that is not the case. The source of the text of our bible comes from the services. They are one and the same. You are holding The Church's service book.

Forgive me...

 

[Barelohim]

Since the Lord divorced Israel, and the Jews that Jesus spoke with denied Him, so the Good News was ministered to the Gentile, who do not have the Law, or the other tools given to the Jews, why then is remembering all the chants, candles, and oils, psalms, and Old Testament of value in Knowing Christ, other than learning from Israels, mistakes, the new covenant declares..

 

[Barelohim]

Since the Lord divorced Israel, and the Jews that Jesus spoke with denied Him, so the Good News was ministered to the Gentile, who do not have the Law, or the other tools given to the Jews, why then is remembering all the chants, candles, and oils, psalms, and Old Testament of value in Knowing Christ, other than learning from Israels, mistakes, the new covenant declares..

Galatians 3: 28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

 

[Athanasius377]

Which has been revised more than once, and not just to modernize the language. There were the 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1662 revisions, in England. Then in America, the 1928, which has been suppressed, by the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer. Why are YOU using an outdated edition?

I am not sure how this or the last comment have any bearing on the original question but I will do my best to answer. You are correct, though you left out a few revisions, so let us focus on the substantive changes just two made. First, the 1549 was a combination of the older Sarum rite and other rites to create a hybrid Divine Service. Let me be clear, I am not saying it is the Sarum rite in English, that is not the case. Rather it relied on elements of the Sarum, Mozarabic and others. (I am no liturgical scholar so if anyone has better insight please chime in). The revision of 1552 was in a pointedly Reformed (think Geneva influenced) that changed order and truncated the canon in the communion portion of service and placed it at the end. Others are generally changes in rubrics until 1662 where the Authorized version (KJV) of the bible replaced the original Great bible renderings and included the Coverdale Psalms. The Scottish and American prayer book retained the 1549 orderings of the communion service over against the 1662 version. The words in the service are for the most part identical (except the addition of the Epiclesis in the 1928 version) from 1549 to 1928. The order may be different, rubrics added or removed but no substantial change.

Which brings me to the 1979 prayerbook. This was a whole sale gutting of the prayer book from 1549 and replacing it with multiplicity of services that are, in my opinion and others to be of the most vain type. Poorly written, vapid, insubstantial and conforming to the spirit of the age. I do not mean to make offense but imagine if the Divine Liturgy of St Chrysostom were replaced with the 1979 prayer book. A theology that is so alien as to be unrecognizable to generations of worshiping christians in your tradition (and mine). Would you walk? Would you attempt to preserve and defend that Faith which was for a season was out of touch with the culture? We did, and the unfortunate fact of history we were forced to leave the Episcopal Church in the later 1970's. My father in the faith correctly saw the course the Episcopal Church even then and he passed from this world in the mid 1980's. He never saw the outright apostasy the TEC has embraced though it would not have surprised him. So, to answer your question, our church body does not suppress the 1928 prayer book but the Episcopal church for the most part does.

There are dioceses in the TEC that allow its use though this is an exception not the rule.

Let me state for the record I relate to Scripture both in liturgy and privately. I reject the notion that a man (or woman) with his bible a church he doth make. Rather, it is my dear wish to read the scriptures with the mind of the historic, catholic church both in liturgy and without. Also, I do not mean to come off as bashing the Church of Rome. There are many things she gets right and we should rightly be thankful. That does not take away from the fact that she errors in several areas that cannot be overlooked.

 

[redleghunter]

Have you ever been to services in an Orthodox Church?

Yes. Two thirds of my family growing up was Roman Catholic. One third Eastern Orthodox. It was not until I was an Evangelical and read Revelation did I realize a lot of an Eastern Orthodox service is right out of the St John's scene in Heaven.

And I remember standing a lot...a lot. At least Roman Catholics kneel during mass. Y'all sure do stand a lot.

 

[prodromos]

Yes. Two thirds of my family growing up was Roman Catholic. One third Eastern Orthodox. It was not until I was an Evangelical and read Revelation did I realize a lot of an Eastern Orthodox service is right out of the St John's scene in Heaven.

And I remember standing a lot...a lot. At least Roman Catholics kneel during mass. Y'all sure do stand a lot.

There are Church Canons which forbid kneeling on Sunday because it is the day of Resurrection, any other day of the week is fine.

 

[redleghunter]

There are Church Canons which forbid kneeling on Sunday because it is the day of Resurrection, any other day of the week is fine.

Obviously not observed by the Roman Catholics.

 

[prodromos]

Obviously not observed by the Roman Catholics.

Unfortunately there are more than a few Orthodox who are ignorant of this too.

 

[Barelohim]

There are Church Canons which forbid kneeling on Sunday because it is the day of Resurrection, any other day of the week is fine.

Do you think God cares if you stand or kneel? It is the condition, position of the heart He looks for//

 

[Barelohim]

I am not sure how this or the last comment have any bearing on the original question but I will do my best to answer. You are correct, though you left out a few revisions, so let us focus on the substantive changes just two made. First, the 1549 was a combination of the older Sarum rite and other rites to create a hybrid Divine Service. Let me be clear, I am not saying it is the Sarum rite in English, that is not the case. Rather it relied on elements of the Sarum, Mozarabic and others. (I am no liturgical scholar so if anyone has better insight please chime in). The revision of 1552 was in a pointedly Reformed (think Geneva influenced) that changed order and truncated the canon in the communion portion of service and placed it at the end. Others are generally changes in rubrics until 1662 where the Authorized version (KJV) of the bible replaced the original Great bible renderings and included the Coverdale Psalms. The Scottish and American prayer book retained the 1549 orderings of the communion service over against the 1662 version. The words in the service are for the most part identical (except the addition of the Epiclesis in the 1928 version) from 1549 to 1928. The order may be different, rubrics added or removed but no substantial change.

Which brings me to the 1979 prayerbook. This was a whole sale gutting of the prayer book from 1549 and replacing it with multiplicity of services that are, in my opinion and others to be of the most vain type. Poorly written, vapid, insubstantial and conforming to the spirit of the age. I do not mean to make offense but imagine if the Divine Liturgy of St Chrysostom were replaced with the 1979 prayer book. A theology that is so alien as to be unrecognizable to generations of worshiping christians in your tradition (and mine). Would you walk? Would you attempt to preserve and defend that Faith which was for a season was out of touch with the culture? We did, and the unfortunate fact of history we were forced to leave the Episcopal Church in the later 1970's. My father in the faith correctly saw the course the Episcopal Church even then and he passed from this world in the mid 1980's. He never saw the outright apostasy the TEC has embraced though it would not have surprised him. So, to answer your question, our church body does not suppress the 1928 prayer book but the Episcopal church for the most part does.

There are dioceses in the TEC that allow its use though this is an exception not the rule.

Let me state for the record I relate to Scripture both in liturgy and privately. I reject the notion that a man (or woman) with his bible a church he doth make. Rather, it is my dear wish to read the scriptures with the mind of the historic, catholic church both in liturgy and without. Also, I do not mean to come off as bashing the Church of Rome. There are many things she gets right and we should rightly be thankful. That does not take away from the fact that she errors in several areas that cannot be overlooked.

Sir, the bible isn't without a witness to its validity, and authenticity. And that would be the witness of the Holy Spirit.... He validates, its authenticity, and gibes the Understanding, and the revealing of the Truth, and the revealing of Christ Jesus.

 

[prodromos]

Do you think God cares if you stand or kneel? It is the condition, position of the heart He looks for//

The position of the body reflects on the condition of the heart.

 

[Barelohim]

Not necessarily so. Many kneel without a conviction in the heart.

 

[prodromos]

Not necessarily so. Many kneel without a conviction in the heart.

True, but bodily postures can help teach the heart.

 

[Anguspure]

Every biblical example of a non-believer coming into the faith is always by being taught by another person. I don’t know of one biblical example of a non-believer coming into the faith strictly by reading scripture. Christianity is, was and shall always be communal.

While I agree with your sentiment, there are cases where people have accepted Christ without communal input: Visions of Jesus Stir Muslim Hearts

 

[Basil the Great]

I was also raised baptist. It was a fine beginning!

Forgive me...

Wow.... That is quite a move from Baptist to Orthodox. May I asked what is the reason for your search and why you chose the Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[Mountainmike]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is always alone, the other is always in [high] Church services.

Which one is apt to see the services in the written scripture when any portion of one is mentioned?

Forgive me...

Perhaps a rather more detailed explanation would help?
I re read the question, particularly second sentence and am still none the wiser and scratching my head about what is intended!

Perhaps it illustrates a problem also in scripture.
Some here have clearly found a meaning sufficient to answer with certainty, so answered your question.

And that is the problem with scripture....in places it can be interpreted in several ways and only one is compatible with truth, even if several interpretations are compatible with the words as written, so by that definition scripture is not God's word unless the meaning is carried with it! In that case as we Catholics and you orthodox agree: tradition , the truth handed down, and authority resolve the conflicts in multiple interpretation.

.. but as for your question, explanation please?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Wow.... That is quite a move from Baptist to Orthodox. May I asked what is the reason for your search and why you chose the Eastern Orthodox Church?

The journey into The Church begins from where we are. If you look at The Baptist church to be a kind of Sunday school it is easy to see where the Protestant teachings, in their basic level, fit into to the overall picture. The Baptist churches focus on children.

One of my favorite bible characters is Zacchaeus.

Zacchaeus was a wee little man and a wee little man was he,
he climbed up in a sycamore tree, for the Lord there he could see...

Was it wrong to learn about the first bishop of Caesarea this way?
Oh wait, a Protestant wouldn't know that part yet...

It's pretty much all good. Yes, there are some theological problems, but they are not insurmountable with the correct information.

In brief, nobody doubts my grandfathers good intentions nor his salvation before the Lord. It's not the Orthodox thought process. So, there is no conflict. I am just further into the nave.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Perhaps a rather more detailed explanation would help?
I re read the question, particularly second sentence and am still none the wiser and scratching my head about what is intended!

Perhaps it illustrates a problem also in scripture.
Some here have clearly found a meaning sufficient to answer with certainty, so answered your question.

And that is the problem with scripture....in places it can be interpreted in several ways and only one is compatible with truth, even if several interpretations are compatible with the words as written, so by that definition scripture is not God's word unless the meaning is carried with it! In that case as we Catholics and you orthodox agree: tradition , the truth handed down, and authority resolve the conflicts in multiple interpretation.

.. but as for your question, explanation please?

I think you are hitting the nail on the head actually. Are you cradle Catholic? I have a feeling you have never sat on the other side of this equation.

Forgive me...