Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Origins of the rule on celibacy?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Aron Narrow Viewer
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Aron Narrow Viewer


    robindch wrote:
    > The most famous mistranslation being "Thou shalt not suffer a witch
    > to live" which was a deliberate mistranslation of "poisoner" [...]

    Haven't come across that one before -- but a quick google shows that there's enough semantic meat in that one sentence for a summerful of demonic barbecues (here for example) -- "poisoner" is just one of the alternate translations of the Hebrew word.

    > [...] to the political end of persecution of pagan religions.

    In reading the following two sentences following the "thou shalt not...", the "political end" of that bit of Exodus becomes more obvious:...which seems a pretty clear religious justification of religious violence.

    > I think almost any translated prose looses something in the translation.

    In the case of the NT, I would say that the KJV manages the opposite, by taking a very mundane, very pedestrian greek text and translating it way above its station. Perhaps political considerations might apply in this direction too? :)


    Odd, I kept hearing that the original was "poisoner", not witch or sorceress...

    wonder if that has any basis


  • #33
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > Odd, I kept hearing that the original was "poisoner", not witch or sorceress...

    Hmm... perhaps somebody was trying to sell *you* a line? :)


  • #34
    larryone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭larryone


    Excelsior wrote:
    I've just checked my TNIV (closest to hand as I'm off to church) and it has sorceress. While I acknowledge that the KJV was a shambolic bit of work, the modern translations make no reference to it in their work, which is across denominational and ideological lines.

    Citing the KJV as an example is a little bit anachronistic. Besides Paisley's bunch of loonies, I couldn't imagine it serving as a base for Christian life. My church definitely won't be getting rid of our gender neutral NIVs in favour of KJV lest Robin converts and starts coming to homegroup. ;)

    "sorceress", where it should have been poisoner. Same in my Jerusalem Bible too.


  • #35
    thetourist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭thetourist


    larryone wrote:
    Yes, but as robindch said above it is official doctrine of the catholic church that you need a priest to interpret the church's doctrine for you...
    In Islam you dont.


    except that ....

    * not everyone believes that the catholic church hierarchy speak for "christians"
    * not even all catholics believe or accept the church's official line on this

    what i'm saying it that just because a bunch of people (reguardless of who they are ) claim to have a monopoly on interpretation is no reason to tar the entire religion with the same brush - if you do that you might as well say the muslim faith is fundamentaly associated with terrorism ... of course that would not be the truth. What's important is what is MEANT to be; not what IS because certain people (of any religion) will always put their own spin on the truth and the vatican is and has been no exception to that fact.


  • #36
    larryone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭larryone


    My intention was not to tar all of christianity with the same brush, sorry if it seemed like that.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    thetourist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 469 ✭✭thetourist


    no worries - i'll check with my elders to interpret if i should forgive you or not :D


  • #38
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    so if celibacy was brought in to deal with inheritance of church property if it was abolished today as some are calling for would the same problems re-occur?


  • #39
    larryone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,105 ✭✭✭larryone


    Not if a condition was put in place to the effect that church property remains church property, and cannot be inherited.
    But then you would have to get past the incredible stubbornness of the Catholic hierarchy.
    When the number of priests drops to an absolutely rediculous level, then they might be forced into a decision on this.


    Also - another really big translation mistake, which seems to be in most versions of the bible I've checked out. Leviticus 11:6 states that hares (or rabbits, depending on the version) are ruminant. Hares are not ruminant, they do not chew the cud.


  • #40
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    so why do is it never talked of in that way if thats the main problem? I saw Martin on the politics show a couple of weeks back and yerone treated him with kid gloves.


Advertisement