Katie, keep up your kind and rational thinking. Although I'm not a teen, I stop by to read what the youth are thinking and find your posts to be commendable. Nathan will never know the depth of your Love for your church as he has no roots to speak of. As a newcomer, he is much to quick to point his finger in a tactless and insensitive manner. This can be attributable to a maturity he does not yet know. We have to learn to become tolerant of those who pack up their religious beliefs and move them from church to church. Time will tell all. God is with us!!!

Welcome to the Byzantine Forum Larry!

Thank you Pani Rose.

Greetings to all! I wonder if this thread might benefit from someone who can give us a deep perspective on how and why translations change in the history of the Church. There is a long tradition for the development of translations of the Liturgy in the Church. I would recommend Mr. Mike Oravecz, it he is interested.

Peace to all

Tim Woods

Archbishop Raya of +memory...

Archbishop Joseph Raya recognized and responded to the problem of language. The Byzantine Church in America had always use the language of the nation it came from. He realized they were loosing the young people because they could barely understand the language. And he could not speak English. So he actually went to elementry school for two years to learn it. Then in 1958, he published what we call 'The Raya.' It is actually the Byzantine Daily Worship, which has been used throughout the Churches until now. I am not the least bit involved in this new translation but the sence I get is that they feel there were changes that were needed to allow it to be a more accurate translation - because of better understanding of word translation.

Restoration

Dear Pani Rose,
Thanks for the insight about the translation and the change of music! And welcome to the forum Larry!

-Katie g

Katie,

I understand your loyalty to your anscestors. It's a beautiful thing. How do you see a new translation as a threat to that loyalty? It is my understanding that the new translation is an attempt to capture what you anscestors knew a bit better than our present translation. Don't you think the big problem is that we haven't seen or used the translation yet? I don't think Nathan meant that your anscestors did anything intentionally wrong no more than you or are intend to do wrong, at least most of the time. It's just that translating anything from one language to another is very difficult and in time a word or phrase that meant one thing at one time means something else at another time. This necessitates new translations every so often.

E.g., cool used to mean "somewhat less than warm". Then it came to mean "hip". But then hip used to mean "that part of the anatomy that connects our thigh to our back" then it came to mean, well, I'm not sure since I've never been very "hip". And that's just an example of changes in one language. The translators at any given time whether it was Sts. Cyril and Methodius or any group of translators before or since have the problem of putting idioms into a different language. Our modern group had to work with not only upgrading the English but also in carefully translating from the Slovanic to English and the underlying Greek to English. I'm thankful for their efforts. I'm thankful for your anscestors' efforts when they made translations.

As you know, I've argued that it would be better if we got a chance to actually see the new translation before it is promulgated. It's just a wise thing to do. But I don't attribute any evil intent to the commission and our bishops for not doing so, even though I wish they had.

In any event, let us not have a translation be a point of division.

Dan Lauffer

The restoration of various authentic Eastern practices, such as the rite of pouring hot water into the chalice before Communion, and others are welcome.

But the new translation is another matter. I have seen the text and see that in some parts attempts are made at accurate translation, but at other times accuracy is not foremost (as in the case of "politically correct" renditions).

Philanthropos, lover of man(kind), becomes "loves us all" We still have "ever and forever" instead of "to the ages of ages", "for us men [i.e., humans] becomes "for us" -- us who? Etc.

Then complain to the bishops, and ask to have it changed. I'm sure that if enough of a ruckus is made about such things, they will respond.