Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kyriakon

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

  • Kyriakon

    The earliest English translation of the Bible (from the Latin Vulgate) was by John Wycliffe in 1380 (and was handwritten). THIS bible does not contain the word CHURCH. Congregation was used instead.

    In 1517 – Martin Luther nails 95 Thesis to the door of the Cathedral at Guttenberg and the Reformation begins.

    Around 1525-6, Tyndale produced another translation – Again, this translation does not contain the word Church – Congregation was used.

    In 1557, the Geneva bible was produced. Again “Ekklesia” was translated Congregation.

    In 1611, the King James Version of the bible was completed. The translators were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our study of the word “Church” is rule 3 which states:

    “The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.” (refer: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html)

    The word “Church” is derived from the Greek “kyriakon” which is different from the Greek “Ekklesia”. Therefore it should never have been used to render “Ekklesia” as it has a very different meaning. (kyriakon means “House of God”, while ekklesia means “the called out ones” – the people of God).
    sigpicLife! Just Live It!
    http://www.lifeblog.co.nr/

  • #2
    Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
    The word “Church” is derived from the Greek “kyriakon” which is different from the Greek “Ekklesia”. Therefore it should never have been used to render “Ekklesia” as it has a very different meaning. (kyriakon means “House of God”, while ekklesia means “the called out ones” – the people of God).
    This looks like a genetic fallacy.

    Although, historically "church" may derive from "kyriakon", the fact is "church" is now a full-fledged English word with no one even able to tell it has foreign roots.

    If, in modern English, "church" is the best translation of "ekklesia", then it should be translated as such.

    Personally, I don't think it is the best translation, but I think the reasoning given in the OP is flawed.

    Comment


    • #3
      Opinion

      Originally posted by punk View Post
      This looks like a genetic fallacy.

      Although, historically "church" may derive from "kyriakon", the fact is "church" is now a full-fledged English word with no one even able to tell it has foreign roots.

      If, in modern English, "church" is the best translation of "ekklesia", then it should be translated as such.

      Personally, I don't think it is the best translation, but I think the reasoning given in the OP is flawed.
      Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But the language we speak, also shapes our mindset. Hence the importance of knowing and speaking the right words.
      sigpicLife! Just Live It!
      http://www.lifeblog.co.nr/

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
        Everyone is entitled to his opinion. But the language we speak, also shapes our mindset. Hence the importance of knowing and speaking the right words.
        I agree with you as long as we recognize that words do not have a fixed meaning, and that the meaning of words changes in time.

        The correct words at one time may not be the correct words at another (particularly with religious words where institutions tend to take what was a perfectly good word at one time and slowly change its meaning over time).

        This is another argument for producing new translations of the Bible, as institutions have taken what were once correct words and changed their meaning to something a bit more convenient to the institution.

        Comment


        • #5
          A form of the word in question is used only twice in the NT (1 Corinthians 11:20 & Revelation 1:10) and neither time does it refer to a building nor the people of God. It simply means Lord's.

          Since we're talking KJV in the previous posts, I'll post from Scrivener's Textus Receptus:

          1 Corinthians 11:2o . . .
          20 συνερχομενων ουν υμων επι το αυτο ουκ εστιν κυριακον δειπνον φαγειν

          Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) : With morphology. 2002 (1 Co 11:20). Bellingham: Logos Research Systems.
          Revelation 1:10 . . .
          10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος

          Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894) : With morphology. 2002 (Re 1:10). Bellingham: Logos Research Systems.
          In both cases it's translated Lord's. In 1 Corinthians 11 it is speaking of the Lord's supper. In Revelation 1:10 it is speaking of the Lord's day.

          Whether or not church is a good word to use or not for ekklesia depends on the culture the Bible is being translated for. If people think of a building, then it might not be the best word. If people think of the church as people, then it's a fine word. I don't think I own an English Bible that gets away from the word church as its primary word choice for ekklesia.

          Grace & peace,

          Joe

          In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

          Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

          If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

          Comment


          • #6
            Words evolve

            Originally posted by TrustGzus View Post
            A form of the word in question is used only twice in the NT (1 Corinthians 11:20 & Revelation 1:10) and neither time does it refer to a building nor the people of God. It simply means Lord's.

            Since we're talking KJV in the previous posts, I'll post from Scrivener's Textus Receptus:

            1 Corinthians 11:2o . . . Revelation 1:10 . . .In both cases it's translated Lord's. In 1 Corinthians 11 it is speaking of the Lord's supper. In Revelation 1:10 it is speaking of the Lord's day.

            Whether or not church is a good word to use or not for ekklesia depends on the culture the Bible is being translated for. If people think of a building, then it might not be the best word. If people think of the church as people, then it's a fine word. I don't think I own an English Bible that gets away from the word church as its primary word choice for ekklesia.

            Grace & peace,

            Joe
            But as you say, if meanings of words evolve, would not it be better to translate 'church' into a less ambiguous word, to better reflect 'ekklesia', or the 'called out ones'?
            sigpicLife! Just Live It!
            http://www.lifeblog.co.nr/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
              But as you say, if meanings of words evolve, would not it be better to translate 'church' into a less ambiguous word, to better reflect 'ekklesia', or the 'called out ones'?
              If your aim is to wreck the "institutionalized" church then I suppose. But then I see that as just being part of the problem and does nothing to offer a solution. It is often said by many that the church is the people. There are few folks that don't realize that I figure save a few of the older denominations that hang a lot on their actual church (institution).


              Visit our new website
              ! The Blog might interest some.. and Lord help me!!!... for those that twitter... there as well.

              A.W. Tozer said,
              "To escape the error of salvation by works we have fallen into the opposite error of salvation without obedience.”

              GO.... SERVE YOUR KING!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
                The earliest English translation of the Bible (from the Latin Vulgate) was by John Wycliffe in 1380 (and was handwritten). THIS bible does not contain the word CHURCH. Congregation was used instead.

                In 1517 – Martin Luther nails 95 Thesis to the door of the Cathedral at Guttenberg and the Reformation begins.

                Around 1525-6, Tyndale produced another translation – Again, this translation does not contain the word Church – Congregation was used.

                In 1557, the Geneva bible was produced. Again “Ekklesia” was translated Congregation.

                In 1611, the King James Version of the bible was completed. The translators were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our study of the word “Church” is rule 3 which states:

                “The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.” (refer: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html)

                The word “Church” is derived from the Greek “kyriakon” which is different from the Greek “Ekklesia”. Therefore it should never have been used to render “Ekklesia” as it has a very different meaning. (kyriakon means “House of God”, while ekklesia means “the called out ones” – the people of God).
                First of all, there were a lot of things the early Christians were called - most of them negative and derogatory.

                Second, they met when and where they could, for the purpose of worship, edification, fellowship and encouragement. A good deal of what they did was not doctrine-driven, but was done out of necessity. (For instance, meeting quietly, for fear of persecution. They didn't use cymbals, and other instruments, partly because of fear they'd be heard and found. Now some people come along and try to make a doctrine out of that pragmatic practice.)

                Some of the early Christians met in the Temple Courts, but that does not mean we are commanded to meet only in such a place.


                If you feel strongly that you need to be part of a small house church, I'd suggest that's exactly what you do. Worship, fellowship, witness and grow in that context!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
                  The earliest English translation of the Bible (from the Latin Vulgate) was by John Wycliffe in 1380 (and was handwritten). THIS bible does not contain the word CHURCH. Congregation was used instead.

                  In 1517 – Martin Luther nails 95 Thesis to the door of the Cathedral at Guttenberg and the Reformation begins.

                  Around 1525-6, Tyndale produced another translation – Again, this translation does not contain the word Church – Congregation was used.

                  In 1557, the Geneva bible was produced. Again “Ekklesia” was translated Congregation.

                  In 1611, the King James Version of the bible was completed. The translators were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our study of the word “Church” is rule 3 which states:

                  “The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.” (refer: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html)

                  The word “Church” is derived from the Greek “kyriakon” which is different from the Greek “Ekklesia”. Therefore it should never have been used to render “Ekklesia” as it has a very different meaning. (kyriakon means “House of God”, while ekklesia means “the called out ones” – the people of God).
                  Well, a couple things about these notes. First "kyriakon" doesn't mean "house of God", that would be two Greek words, neither of which is "kryiakon".

                  Ekklesia, simply means "gathering" in the LXX. But in the NT it is used in a different sense when relating the "church" which is a "mystery". In proper English the sense Paul is relating would be found more in the words "the mystical Body of Christ".

                  Likely the reason for the note in the KJV is to deter those who would translate the Hebrew word for "congregation" (synagogue) as "church".

                  While the church is a gathering of believers in Christ, the understanding should not be neglected that it is Christ who gathered them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Translations

                    Originally posted by Teke View Post
                    Well, a couple things about these notes. First "kyriakon" doesn't mean "house of God", that would be two Greek words, neither of which is "kryiakon".

                    Ekklesia, simply means "gathering" in the LXX. But in the NT it is used in a different sense when relating the "church" which is a "mystery". In proper English the sense Paul is relating would be found more in the words "the mystical Body of Christ".

                    Likely the reason for the note in the KJV is to deter those who would translate the Hebrew word for "congregation" (synagogue) as "church".

                    While the church is a gathering of believers in Christ, the understanding should not be neglected that it is Christ who gathered them.
                    You are right. The earliest written record of kyriakon was more than two hundred years after Jesus and the twelve (apostles) died. People used it of the building in which Christians met for corporate worship, 'kyriakon doma' or house of the Lord.

                    Greek word kyriakon and the Greek term ekklesia have no etymological connection... they are two entirely different words... words like "church" or "churches" do not convey the meaning of the Greek term ekklesia.

                    I also agree with you that 'gathering' is a closer word to Ekklesia than congregation. But congregation (meaning to congregate or come together) is better than 'church'.

                    While the word 'church' usually gives a mental image of a building, the word 'gathering' (as you suggested), puts the focus on the people who come together.

                    Professor Brent Walters who lectures in San Jose State University and is an expert in early Christlike communities, believes that the translators of KJV were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our post of the word “Church” is rule 3. This shows the bias (it is more important to fit the new translation into church traditions rather than be true to what the bible actually says) of the translation. We also have to remember that King Henry broke with Rome because of Rome’s opposition to his divorce, not because of a theological differences. Hence the 'roman' form which emphasizes the 'institutional' is kept intact.
                    sigpicLife! Just Live It!
                    http://www.lifeblog.co.nr/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      For nor Against

                      Originally posted by jeffreys View Post
                      First of all, there were a lot of things the early Christians were called - most of them negative and derogatory.

                      Second, they met when and where they could, for the purpose of worship, edification, fellowship and encouragement. A good deal of what they did was not doctrine-driven, but was done out of necessity. (For instance, meeting quietly, for fear of persecution. They didn't use cymbals, and other instruments, partly because of fear they'd be heard and found. Now some people come along and try to make a doctrine out of that pragmatic practice.)

                      Some of the early Christians met in the Temple Courts, but that does not mean we are commanded to meet only in such a place.


                      If you feel strongly that you need to be part of a small house church, I'd suggest that's exactly what you do. Worship, fellowship, witness and grow in that context!
                      I am neither for nor against house churches. I am moe concerned about the 'being', than the 'doing' or 'forms'.
                      sigpicLife! Just Live It!
                      http://www.lifeblog.co.nr/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
                        I am neither for nor against house churches. I am moe concerned about the 'being', than the 'doing' or 'forms'.
                        Huhh?

                        Could you explain, please?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
                          But as you say, if meanings of words evolve, would not it be better to translate 'church' into a less ambiguous word, to better reflect 'ekklesia', or the 'called out ones'?
                          I don't have any influence to change the word church into something less ambiguous. Translators have very in-depth conversations when doing translations and I'm sure they've considered what you're saying and have concluded they don't have a better word at this time.

                          I think Project Peter brought up a good point and I'll word it a little differently. Church might be becoming a better word now than say 50 years ago. Churches are meeting in a variety of structures now. They build their own buildings which more often look like warehouses now than old fashioned churches. They rent spaces in shopping strips.

                          The idea of the church as a building appears to be on a decline anyway, at least in the United States. As the word church becomes less tied-up with a building, it should more accurately reflect its biblical usage - people.

                          In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. - Rupertus Meldenius

                          Read your Bible and pray every single day. - Pastor Jon Courson

                          If your grace ain't greasier than a bucket full of chitlin's and gravy, you might be a legalist - an internet friend.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
                            You are right. The earliest written record of kyriakon was more than two hundred years after Jesus and the twelve (apostles) died. People used it of the building in which Christians met for corporate worship, 'kyriakon doma' or house of the Lord.

                            Greek word kyriakon and the Greek term ekklesia have no etymological connection... they are two entirely different words... words like "church" or "churches" do not convey the meaning of the Greek term ekklesia.

                            I also agree with you that 'gathering' is a closer word to Ekklesia than congregation. But congregation (meaning to congregate or come together) is better than 'church'.

                            While the word 'church' usually gives a mental image of a building, the word 'gathering' (as you suggested), puts the focus on the people who come together.

                            Professor Brent Walters who lectures in San Jose State University and is an expert in early Christlike communities, believes that the translators of KJV were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our post of the word “Church” is rule 3. This shows the bias (it is more important to fit the new translation into church traditions rather than be true to what the bible actually says) of the translation. We also have to remember that King Henry broke with Rome because of Rome’s opposition to his divorce, not because of a theological differences. Hence the 'roman' form which emphasizes the 'institutional' is kept intact.
                            Honestly... sounds like gagging at gnats while swallowing camels.


                            Visit our new website
                            ! The Blog might interest some.. and Lord help me!!!... for those that twitter... there as well.

                            A.W. Tozer said,
                            "To escape the error of salvation by works we have fallen into the opposite error of salvation without obedience.”

                            GO.... SERVE YOUR KING!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ravi4u2 View Post
                              You are right. The earliest written record of kyriakon was more than two hundred years after Jesus and the twelve (apostles) died. People used it of the building in which Christians met for corporate worship, 'kyriakon doma' or house of the Lord.

                              Greek word kyriakon and the Greek term ekklesia have no etymological connection... they are two entirely different words... words like "church" or "churches" do not convey the meaning of the Greek term ekklesia.

                              I also agree with you that 'gathering' is a closer word to Ekklesia than congregation. But congregation (meaning to congregate or come together) is better than 'church'.

                              While the word 'church' usually gives a mental image of a building, the word 'gathering' (as you suggested), puts the focus on the people who come together.

                              Professor Brent Walters who lectures in San Jose State University and is an expert in early Christlike communities, believes that the translators of KJV were instructed to ensure that the translation would not contradict what was being done in the Anglican Church (King Henry the 8th had split from the Catholics in 1529). The “brief” to the translators of the KJV had 15 general rules that they were instructed to follow. The most significant with regard to our post of the word “Church” is rule 3. This shows the bias (it is more important to fit the new translation into church traditions rather than be true to what the bible actually says) of the translation. We also have to remember that King Henry broke with Rome because of Rome’s opposition to his divorce, not because of a theological differences. Hence the 'roman' form which emphasizes the 'institutional' is kept intact.
                              I believe you have missed my point. I don't think that congregate would be a better word for "church". A congregation is just a group of people who have congregated together, such as the Jews did in synagogues.

                              The unity (spiritual) of the church isn't conveyed in "congregate", which means, to collect into a group or crowd. This is what people do, not what God does.
                              Ekklesia, is more an existence given by God in Christ (in the NT sense). Which, as I believe someone pointed out, doesn't mean a central gathering in general. Because if it did, then we'd all have to gather in the same place. On a world scale that would be very difficult.

                              In Greek, kyriakon, can mean a number of things, depending on what it's associated with. The root of the word is more in the meaning of great power.

                              I pointed out that ekklesia means gather in a general sense. As that is the way it is used in the LXX OT. But that is not the manner Paul uses it in the NT in relation to Christ. As Christ is the One who does the gathering, not the people themselves. The people can assemble themselves in that gathering, but they are not Who gathered themselves. Jesus Christ said, "I will build My church..." He gathers the "lively stones" to build with, not us.

                              So, no, we don't want to put the focus on us the people, but on Jesus Christ and His mystical Body the Church.

                              Also, I don't see any relation to the notes with disputes between the churches. ie. the king and Rome
                              The KJV uses the Hebrew Massoretic text for the OT and Greek of the NT. In doing so there can be conflict of understanding, or interpretation into English. Which is why I ref. the LXX, to be consistent.

                              The more correct term in the sense the NT relates it, IMO, would be "the mystical Body of Christ". That doesn't associate a building necessarily, but it does relate structure, such as the structure of a body. I believe the large majority of Christians understand "church" in this manner. And if not, then they should.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X