I also like the present perfect "is coming again" as opposed to the future tense "shall come again," as it's more theologically correct.

Sophia Wannabe:
"it leaves the Symbol of Faith open to interpretation rather than making it perfectly clear."

And that is exactly why this revision of the Creed is a betrayal of tradition. The Symbol of Faith was formulated precisely for the purpose to clarify and proclaim the orthodox faith of the whole catholic Church.

The Latins once unilaterally added a word to the creed (Filioque - and the Son) to which the Eastern Churches objected. Now we have unilaterally dropped a word from the creed (anthropoi - men).

Christ is in our midst!

I have read and continue to read with interest the comments about the new translation. As a recent "addition" to the Byzantine Catholic Church, I have mostly been reading to "learn" and come to understand more.

But I do think I can add something interesting and perhaps informative. When I was living my eastern/orthodox life outside of communion with Rome, I had the opportunity to worship in several different Orthodox jurisdictions. Each one of these jurisdictions has a different translation of the Creed. (The new SCOBA/Greek translation parallels that of our new Revised liturgy for it says: "for us and for our salvation ...") There is NO SUCH thing as an accepted English translation of any part of the Eastern services (not even the Trisagion is said the same anywhere). This is probably because the earliest translations were not made by scholars of the English language (see Hopgood for a good example of a translation made by someone for whom English was a third or fourth language). Most of the "revisions" to this point have been attempts to take these original poor translations and make them better.

Another note that maybe can help our thinking. As heirs of the Eastern spiritual tradition, we should always remember that words are not sacred (Remember, early debates over whether the word 'Trinity' could be used since it did not appear in the Bible). Unlike Protestant fundamentalists and Muslim believers, we do not honor any collection of human words as the infallible or inerrant "Word of God". (Only Christ, the person, is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.) Words always approximate the reality to which they point -- they help to re-present the language of the heavenly kingdom (remember, St Isaac said, 'Silence is the language of the kingdom to come.'). Since, as Fr Taft has insisted, the words of the liturgy are for us (God, Taft reminds us, already knows the reality about which they speak.), then the key point is whether the words help the congregation understand the gospel better. Anything that stands in the way of that understanding, however cherished or tradition, should be abandoned.

Thus, for me as I have examined the new translation (I am not talking here about the ordo -- I think there are two different discussions -- the one is about the ordo and the other about the translation), I like it. I like it first of all because it is based on good scholarship. I like it secondly because it is understandable to the people of today. It communicates the Gospel message in words that people today can understand.

Most importantly, I respect immensely the scholars who were involved and, as one trained in the scholarship of translation, appreciate their attempt to produce a modern English translation that is faithful to the meaning of the original texts. (Anyone who has been involved in translation knows how difficult it is to translate from Greek or Slavonic into good English. As already evident in this string of posts, how do you translate a Greek present participle into English??) In my opinion, over-all this is the best translation available in modern English today.