The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-12-2010, 07:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:56 PM)Stubborn Wrote: lol - yes, I saw where the Bishops voted to make it say "for many" again.

How the heck can they vote on the words of Our Lord I wonder?

Well, the words of Our Lord were probably uttered in Aramaic, written down years later in Greek (or possibly, in the case of Matthew, Hebrew later translated into Greek), then translated into Latin, and finally into English. So what they're really voting on is a multi-level translation. I'd be interested to know what the most accurate translation is of the original Hebrew/Greek. Having said that, though, I just looked at 8 different English translations of the NT (including the "modernist" New American Bible), and they all translate it as "for many" (Matthew and Mark) or "for you" (Luke). "For all" is not to be found. So there does seem to be a consensus on that.      :)     So I'm willing to accept that putting "for all" in the NO constitutes evidence of an agenda.

If my memory serves, there is only one translation of the Holy Bible that has been proclaimed by the Church to be free of error, and that is the Latin Vulgate--and in the Vulgate, there are no Latin words that can be reasonably construed in another language to mean "for all."

And of  course the use of "for all" constitutes evidence of an agenda:  For all = Universal Salvation (read: Protestantism)

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-17-2010, 06:46 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)