Different bible interpretations

I was reading the Jerusalem bible awhile ago and when I read Matthew 16:18 I realised that they replaced the word church with community.
I think myself that even replacing one word for another can damage somebody's quest in finding Christ. I know it might be a small change but to be honest it kind of upset me. I won't be reading this bible again. The second picture is from my second bible both are catholic bibles. View attachment 2257 View attachment 2258

 

That is interesting and kind of strange. I know I read that Jesus was the first to use the word Church and used the "new" word many times. I would think if he simply meant "community" it would not have been a new word and meant something a little more common than His Church, which He says is "His Bride." I won't be reading that one either! Does it say when edition was published? I would bet after 1960.

 

View attachment 2259

 

I think it was 1985 I just don't know why the word church was replaced.
That's why the times today are so dark people trying to replace the church !

 

Rev John Crowley is a retired catholic bishop
View attachment 2260

 

Guys if you really want to understand what the Evangelists really meant when they wrote their Gospels I recommend using what is known as an "Interlinear" Bible.

This puts our English translation next to the best known copies of the original Greek that the Evangelists wrote in.
here's an online example http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/16-18.htm

Then it might be helpful to study a little bit about the principles of Bible translation ("hermeneutics") which may help explain why different translations of some words can seem so strange and foreign.

Anyone who knows more than one modern language knows that there are lots of times when a single word in the 2nd language cannot perfectly communicate everything implied by the original word translated.

When we are dealing with times and places very far away (like Palestine 2000 years ago) we run into even more difficulties.
Sometimes things, ideas or concepts we take for granted today did not exist back then. Or if they did they were not well thought-out or had a much broader (or even different) meaning then we give them to day.

For example, there was a conversation here recently that showed that both Jesus (and Mary) in ancient times had the title "Lucifer" (it originally meant "Morning Star" before the meaning changed).
Indeed, Lucifer was a not unpopular Christian name for a few 100 years after Christ.

Now the same sort of thing in a milder form has happened with the word that Matthew used in Greek for what we usually call "the Church".
He wrote the Greek word ἐκκλησίαν (prounced like "ecclesian").
At that time the idea/concept we today have when we hear the word "Church" did not exist.
What we now call "Church" was only in the throws of being formed...Christians were still breaking away from the Synagogue.
(Actually, the Greek word for "Synagogue" is much closer to the concept we have today behind "Church" than is the word Matthew used.
Of course Matthew could not call the new Christian Community "Synagogue" because they had broken away from it.)

Now Greek "ecclesian" (an old word used before Christ), as used elsewhere in Matthew's time, really does mean "community" or "a gathering" of people for a particular purpose. Nothing to do with Christians in particular.
It certainly did not mean a religious building. (Modern "Church" includes the building in its meaning doesn't it") So in some ways "Church" is not the best translation of what Matthew meant.
On the other hand, "community" sounds a bit wishy washy to us today.
Neither translation is perfect.
That is why Biblical Scholars use a Greek Interlinear.

The New Jerusalem Bible was the official Catholic translation for use at Masses in most English speaking Countries since the 1970s. I think that has changed recently.
When I did my Catholic theology degree in the 1980s, when Greek was not used at level1 due to the presence of the laity at seminaries, the RSV was the scholarly English version of Choice by our professors.

Hope this helps.

 

Stick with the Douay-Rheims.

 

The Greek word for Church (Ekklesia) means community or congregation. I don't see what the issue is. Our Churches are communities. The Catholic Church is a world-wide community. We are the People of God, a community. Am I missing something important ?

 

That makes a lot of sense didn't think of it like that at all!
The word community that was used in the Jerusalem bible sounds like at that time jesus meant community ! Belle I didn't post what a posted because of an issue I posted because i was curious and didn't understand.

 

Bella,

Community might appear to be more precise relative to the Greek, but I would agree with BH that to modern ears it sounds wishy-washy and vague. I'm also reminded of Pope Benedict making a clear distinction between the Church and the Christian communities (ex. Protestant denominations). When I read the New Jerusalem Bible's translation, his 21st century contrast keeps coming to mind.

Safe in the Barque of Peter.

 

Well maybe Obama would like that version since he too was a "community" organizer.

 

Says it all. A really interesting thread.

 

Was thinking more about this last night In my opinion changing the word church with community was wrong ! I think Matthew 18:16 and the love of jesus and his church is too strong . Jesus also said a man should love his wife like I love my church. Not like I love my community !

 

Its not really wrong Oakline - just imperfect.
This is just one of those more obvious cases where no single English word by itself is able to fully translate the Greek "ecclesian".

That is why anyone who is serious about truly understanding the Bible needs to get real and go to the source...
Of course that takes constant hard work and perseverance and motive...which is prob why most people are sheep rather than shepherds in all things human.

 

LM I believe the reason that serious Catholic scholars of the Bible now use The JB (or NJB) or the RSV (or NRSV) instead of the Douay-Rheims (DR) is prob because of the DR's weaker Old Testament translation.

The OT was of course originally written in Hebrew (I believe there is no surviving "original" of any of its 47 books).
The DR was finished around 1610AD but its OT was not translated from Hebrew.
It was translated from a 400AD Latin translation of the Hebrew (St Jerome's Vulgate).
In turn the Vulgate was mostly translated not from Hebrew originals but from an old Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint, finished in 150BC).

So immediately we see we are not drinking as close to the source as we could be resulting in more mistakes and confused texts than is normally the case.

Further,
since 1610AD, ancient Greek NT source documents have been discovered that were not available when the DR was written.
Codex Siniaticus was a stupendous find in 1860. Dated at around 450AD it was 100 years older than the oldest Greek NT Codices used to translate the DR.

Its good to keep in mind we have no original of either the New or Old Testaments we only have 100s of copies of copies in many different languages.
There are a few major differences between them and thousands of minor discrepancies, mistakes and typographical errors even in copies in the same language let alone the translations.
So its very important to compare them all to determine as best we can what the original authors actually wrote and intended for their readers.

 

I love the New Jerusalem Bible, if only for one reason: J.R.R. Tolkien translated the song of songs. I do love a man of God in love with words!

 

Yes, the main thing I see missing that is important is that Jesus built His Church with a teachings authority, Peter. A community is a gathering of people, a Church is a gathering of faithful people under One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic faith. There is not more than one Church, but their are many communities/denominations since Luther's reformation.

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J
CHURCH. The faithful of the whole world. This broad definition can be understood in various senses all derived from the Scriptures, notably as the community of believers, the kingdom of God, and the Mystical Body of Christ.
As the community of believers, the Church is the assembly (ekklesia) of all who believe in Jesus Christ; or the fellowship (koinonia) of all who are bound together by their common love for the Savior. As the kingdom (basileia), it is the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies about the reign of the Messiah. And as the Mystical Body it is the communion of all those made holy by the grace of Christ. He is their invisible head and they are his visible members. These include the faithful on earth, those in purgatory who are not yet fully purified, and the saints in heaven.
Since the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church has been defined as a union of human beings who are united by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by participation of and in the same sacraments under the direction of their lawful pastors, especially of the one representative of Christ on earth, the Bishop of Rome. Each element in this definition is meant to exclude all others from actual and vital membership in the Catholic Church, namely apostates and heretics who do not profess the same Christian faith, non-Christians who do not receive the same sacraments, and schismatics who are not submissive to the Church's lawful pastors under the Bishop of Rome.
At the Second Vatican Council this concept of the Church was recognized as the objective reality that identifies the fullness of the Roman Catholic Church. But it was qualified subjectively so as to somehow include all who are baptized and profess their faith in Jesus Christ. They are the People of God, whom he has chosen to be his own and on whom he bestows the special graces of his providence. (Etym. Greek kyriakon, church; from kyriakos, belonging to the Lord.)

 

I also notice that people who read scripture in Church (including priests) are inclined to change the wording of the readings from time to time, if there's something there they don't approve of. For instance if scripture says, 'Brothers' they change it to, 'Sisters and brothers'.

This annoys me because who has the right to alter Scripture like this?

 

That's my point padraig my friend !

 

I am not a great fan of inclusive language either Padraig.
My objection is really aesthetic, English just sounds wishy washy with some of the attempts as English itself is part of the prob in this regard.

Unfortunately the Church itself has already done this - the NRSV (inclusive language) has been approved by the Vatican for Lectionary use in Canada and some other countries I believe.

Whether its actually altering God's Word (which isn't quite the same as our received texts) is prob a moot point.

They would say such inclusive language better communicates what the original author's actually intended (which is the fundamental basis for inspiration and inerrancy in the Bible). Well, even so, I don't think they have got it right in all cases.