|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eccles: Nicene creed challenge
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BalddudeCrompond:
OK I have one too.. the Amplified Creed. I added items, rather than subtracting them.
We believe in one God—our Father, who made heaven, Earth—everything---everything we can see, and even the things we cannot see…
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s only Son---not born as we were born, and not created , but simply equal in presence and power and eternity with the Father. He also is God; always was, always is, and always will be. Through Jesus everything came into its being. He is the Word, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Whoever believes in Jesus will not die, but will have eternal life.
To demonstrate His great Love for us and to save us from our wicked ways, the Holy Spirit visited a pious virgin-girl, Mary, and using her as an instrument for his Glory, impregnated her and caused her to give birth to GOD-in human form, Jesus.
Jesus proved both his divinity and humanity while on Earth; and as further proof of his great love he gave his life for us, by being nailed to a Cross, and by suffering a brutal death by direction of Pontius Pilate.
As was foretold in the writings of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets , Jesus rose from the dead, freed the captives in Hell who longed for his presence and lived in the love of the Lord, and then walked for forty more days on this Earth until he ascended into heaven, body and soul. He will be returning to judge us—all of us---living and dead, and though this Earth will pass away, God’s Kingdom will go on and on forever.
As Jesus promised, he sent the Holy Spirit, a living remembrance of his presence, no less God than Christ or the Father. He comes from both the Father and the Son and is the third Person of the Trinity, equal to both of them. The Holy Spirit has spoken to us through the Prophets and continues to inspire us to this day.
We believe in one Holy, worldwide Church, which keeps the traditions of the first apostles. We believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We eagerly await the resurrection of the dead and the promised new world to come
That is a cool idea ![[Cool]](cool.gif) of which I contemplated, but I didn't know how to do it. I am considering the Athanasian Creed for my next challenge ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) but we had probably better finalise the Nicene Creed first!
Rob.
[ 20. July 2009, 19:30: Message edited by: booktonmacarthur ]
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
How is the creed not written in modern English? As far as I am aware, modern English is modern English whether in Canada or Britain or the U.S. or anywhere else. The BCP, like the Authorized version of the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, is one of the stellar achievements of the early period of modern English writing.
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:
"very" with the meaning it has in the BCP is certainly not modern
"ghost" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern
"proceed" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern
and any verb form ending in "est" or "eth" is not modern.
I suspect that calling the Holy SPirit the "Lord and giver of life" is open to misunderstanding at the very least, the more appropriate (modern in this case) translation is, I believe: the Holy SPirit the Lord; the giver of life (at least in the Latin, Dominus is a describer of spiritus sanctus tout court, vivificantem is not linked to dominus). CAll it jargon if you want to excuse it.
And, frankly, "Catholick" is the purest jargon, leaving aside that the "k" at the end disappeared from modern english some centuries ago everywhere but the 1662.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:
Modern English began with the great vowel shift, so Chaucer is not modern, but Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Prayer Book all are.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
How is the creed not written in modern English? As far as I am aware, modern English is modern English whether in Canada or Britain or the U.S. or anywhere else. The BCP, like the Authorized version of the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, is one of the stellar achievements of the early period of modern English writing.
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:
"very" with the meaning it has in the BCP is certainly not modern
"ghost" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern
"proceed" with the meaning it has in the BCP is not modern
and any verb form ending in "est" or "eth" is not modern.
I suspect that calling the Holy SPirit the "Lord and giver of life" is open to misunderstanding at the very least, the more appropriate (modern in this case) translation is, I believe: the Holy SPirit the Lord; the giver of life (at least in the Latin, Dominus is a describer of spiritus sanctus tout court, vivificantem is not linked to dominus). CAll it jargon if you want to excuse it.
And, frankly, "Catholick" is the purest jargon, leaving aside that the "k" at the end disappeared from modern english some centuries ago everywhere but the 1662.
John
Patrick's right, John Holding. Modern English is a technical term and the creed of the 1662 BCP is in modern English.
You would be right to say that it is not in contemporary English, (that is, contemporary with our time), but that is not the same thing.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:
Modern English began with the great vowel shift, so Chaucer is not modern, but Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Prayer Book all are.
Which is a wonderful example of you using a jargon term in a way that contradicts with the ordinary meaning that everyone else on the thread was clearly using.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Cyprian said.
Beowulf and the Anglo Saxon Chronicle are Old English. To a modern English reader it is like a foreign language, almost as different from Modern English as Dutch or Danish are.
Gawain and the Green Knight is Middle English. A modern reader who is unfamiliar with Middle English needs notes or guidance to help with both grammar and vocabulary.
Chaucer and Gower and Langland are Late Middle English (even though contemporary with the Gawain poet who was writing in a rather old-fashioned local dialect) Its a little bit easier to read, but you still need help. It is not, quite, our language.
Malory's Morte D'Arthur is transitional from Middle to Modern. If you modernise the spelling you can usually just about get the hang of it.
The BCP, Shakespeare, the AV Bible, Donne, Milton & so on are Early Modern English. They are the same language we speak now, but in effect different dialects of it. You would expect an educated literate reader to be able to read any passage from those works. Of course they won't follow everything, there will probably be some unfamiliar vocabulary and possibly some difficult syntax, but on the whole they'd get the point. (Neither would a literate English speaker from Indiana expect to follow everything in a newspaper from India without some background)
The Wesleys and Wordsworth and Dickens and Robert Heinlein and JR Rowling are Modern English. You would expect a competent reader of English to understand their language without assistance. In fact that sort of is what we mean by a "competent reader of English".
But of those only Rowling is Contemporary English - i.e. the English we speak right now, whenever "now" is. Everyone was contemporary once.
And its unclear whether this thread is looking for a new translation of the Nicene Creed into contemporary English (which is of course a Good Thing); or else a recasting of the ideas in the Creed to fit in with contemporary thought (which would be a Bad Thing)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
quote:
this thread is looking for a new translation of the Nicene Creed into contemporary English (which is of course a Good Thing)
Too clarify!
Rob.
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick the less saintly:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Unless you intend to suggest that everything since Chaucer is "modern", then:
Modern English began with the great vowel shift, so Chaucer is not modern, but Shakespeare, the Authorized Version of the Bible and the 1662 Prayer Book all are.
Indeed.
And when I was at Oxford in the late 1960s, modern history ended in 1945 -- at least in terms of what the university said formally.
In terms of how people actually think and use the language, of course, the university was wrong.
I would suggest that the "correct and academic" definition of "modern english" is about as relevent as Oxford's definition of "modern history" was.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
I actually seldom hear the term 'modern English' used in anything other than the 'correct and academic way'. Of course, I'm perhaps a little unusual as members of my immediate family can actually read Old and Middle English and my first girlfriend was an aspiring scholar of Medieval literature. I also get shocked and annoyed when I find the 'classics' section at Waterstones filled with Jane Austen and Mark Twain instead of Homer and Cicero, so I may not be an authority on English as she is spoke.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by booktonmacarthur:
quote:
this thread is looking for a new translation of the Nicene Creed into contemporary English (which is of course a Good Thing)
Too clarify!
Rob.
The reason some bits are so tricky (the trinitarian bits) is because the thoughts were not formulated in English and the philosophy behind the trinity doesn't make any logical sense in English.
That's why so much of the creed sounds like balderdash to people uneducated in Christian tradition today
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
At Last! Here is the second draft with alterations based on the feedback given. I am told that some things are purely to keep Syntax, whomever he may be, happy. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
We believe in one God,
the Father, who is all-powerful,
and who created heaven and earth,
and all other things, even the things you can't see.
We believe in only one Lord, Jesus Christ,
God's only Son,
who always has been and always will be God's son,
fully God, equal with the Father,
both the Father and Son are truly God and are the same God,
the Father did not make him, but he was born of the Father,
and is of one mind with the Father.
Through the Son all things were made.
He came down from heaven;
For us and to save us,
And through the Holy Spirit's power
he took human form and Mary gave birth to him, even though she was still a virgin
He became a man, fully human, but remained fully God
We believe he died for us, being nailed to a cross at Pontius Pilate's command;
he suffered greatly on the cross, died, and was buried.
As predicted in the Old Testament, he came back to life after three days;
without dying again, he returned to heaven
and now sits in glory, in a place of the highest honour at the side of the Father.
One day he will come again to Earth, as King of all
to judge all humanity including those who have already died,
and his kingdom last for ever, without ending.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, who gives life to God's creation
(who comes from the Father and the Son).
The Holy Spirit is equal with the Father and the Son
and is worshiped and glorified along with them.
And when the prophets spoke, it was the Holy Spirit speaking through them.
We believe in one united Church that dates back to the first followers of Jesus Christ
We believe in one baptism for the cleansing of sins.
We wait for the dead to return to life,
and believe that life on earth will continue until Christ returns.
This is what we believe.
Thanks for all the feedback! Keep up the good work ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[Deleted duplicate post - DT Eccles Host]
[ 26. July 2009, 16:44: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Pontivillian
Shipmate
# 14308
|
Posted
Thanks DT! I didn't realise there had been a duplication, although I know how it happend ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
The Church in Wales is Ancient, Catholic and Deformed - Typo found in old catechism.
Posts: 665 | From: Horsham | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Darllenwr
Shipmate
# 14520
|
Posted
Just a small objection, your honour. Is the word 'cleansing' an entirely appropriate choice these days? Whilst it might be 'modern' English (pace those debating this issue!) I doubt that it is contemporary English. It is difficult to know what to suggest in its place; 'erasing' perhaps?
--------------------
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: I do not exaggerate!
Posts: 1101 | From: The catbox | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patrick the less saintly
Shipmate
# 14355
|
Posted
quote:
Man: You were, I believe, in charge of the contracting out of the council's cleaning department
Mr Wade: Cleansing, we say cleansing not cleaning
Woman: Why?
Mr Wade: Because it annoys people, I suppose
Man: And the company you chose was called Wade Cleaning
Mr Wade: Wade Cleansing. Slogan: 'we know the meansing of cleansing'.
— A bit of Fry and Laurie.
--------------------
'[Your religion consists of] antiquarian culturally refined pseudo-Anglicanism'— Triple Tiara
Posts: 1802 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
