To think the baby Jesus wasn't laid in a chuffing 'feeding trough'?

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Ok, am atheist and perhaps not entitled to comment. But I support, like and attend my dds' carol service every year, and every year I wonder why in the blazes the church has changed the words to stuff.
Can't people understand 'thine is the kingdom', and 'trespasses' any more?
Why must Mary be 'pregnant' not 'with child'?
Aren't all those Christmas verses and readings and carols sort of losing something through accessible bland language?

This isn't the school: it's the bloody minster! Why have they done this? Why??

Maybe euphony was not as highly prized in Aramaic as it is in middle and modern English.

What translation of the Bible were the readings from? There are some which have updated the text to be as modern as possible.

Caitlin I know! I know! sorry, we all got a mixed up over that one.

Then it's good the aramaic was translated with some feeling for language and poetry!

Actually ,to be fair, reading back, you did not say you knew that without meant outside.

Just saying. I assumed you knew it. But it wasn't explicit.

What a lovely word "euphony" is. I have just googled what it actually means, and will be sprinkling it generously into my conversation tomorrow.

Yes, so we have got Aramaic, into Greek ( dump a few annoying gospels) into Latin, then into a variety of mediaeval european languages including English and then through a few versions of that, according to the politics/religious persuasion of those in power.

I love the fact the bible is a kind of witness to our history. And witness to the unreliability of translation. And its dependence on its own era.

Nothing is fixed. We change, and change again.

Just personally, I like the euphonic, 19th century tradition of melody and harmony, with maybe a soupcon of counter point if we are going to get fancy about it.

'Didn't they try and modernise the Nicene Creed at one point or did I imagine that?'

Something, the RC church has made changes to the Nicene Creed and a few other parts of mass - some of which is wordier and harder to understand than the original (consubstantial anyone?).

Older version

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten , not made, one in Being
with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic
and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

2012 version

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
with the Father;
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified
  under Pontius Pilate,
    he suffered death and was buried,
    and rose again on the third day
    in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
    to judge the living and the dead
    and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection
of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

Does the 2012 version really say "For us men.... He came down from heaven"? That is really a bloody disgrace.

In the Church of England it's "For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven".

www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/newpatterns/contents/sectione.aspx

I don't like the new wording. It's not about it being 'relatable' - surely if people could come up with nice language that flowed properly back in the day, they could do it again? I don't see why modernized language should have to be ugly, but it is.

Something that drives me mad is the way some of it is actually written by idiots who didn't understand the original, too - there's a translation (forget which version) of the passage you hear at the Christmas service, about the light that shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. The modern version is 'the darkness did not understand it'. Which is not what it bloody means!

wilson - John Wycliffe is turning in his grave. I think the KJB is amazing, but there are still about 250 manuscripts of the English Bible made at the end of the fourteenth century kicking around - that's a shitload for a culture where lots of people couldn't read and you had to copy everything by hand.

Given there are loads of translations of the Bible into whatever language ordinary people spoke before and after the KJB, I don't see why we couldn't get someone to do a really nice one. I think we get a bit awed by the KJB because it's so familiar and people end up almost deliberately avoiding its cadences.

Well, we can't have our children learning complicated versions of prayers. If they have to have old words explained for them that's wasting time getting high grades so the schools can get better league table places... (cynic, moi?)

As an ex catholic, does the church need to "modernise" itself to appeal to a new generation of worshippers?

Also, there's talk of the "traditional" lord's prayer, where did this version come from? Is it a translation of a translation, like much of the bible? In which case the traditional version could be as wrong as the new one!

At the first carol service at our DS's school with a new Head said that'Jesus was wrapped in strips of cloth and laid in a feeding box for animals'
I nearly spat out my mulled wine. What is wrong with 'wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger'? Or did they think our children were too thick to understand?
It still riles me 10 years later.

I am catholic and "thine is the kingdom" has never been used in the Lords prayer in a catholic mass that I can remember. Im 43. That whole final section is just not said and I've no idea why.

I've just come across this page which explains why Catholics don't say 'for thine...' and how the 'traditional' Lord's Prayer came about in 1545.

I use the king James version, I studied biblical Greek and it's translation is most accurate IMO
I don't have a problem with modern translation but I think the traditional one is much more poetic, however I was brought up using it so I can see how perhaps new Christians need something a bit more straightforward.

Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger? This part of the story is important because despite being the son of God he was born into extreme poverty and rejected from birth.

The version of the Nicene Creed I learned is different from, maybe older than, the first one above. I no longer know iit by heart but we said 'Very God of Very God begotten not made.' And,"He rose again according to the Scriptures". There were other differences too most notably "I believe" not "We believe" ie Credo in Latin.
The language of worship is constantly evolving and this evolution is constantly resisted.
Dh just sang the Creed to me in the Latin of his 40's childhood in an RC primary school.

Agree absolutely with LRD.

Thing is, new for the sake of new isn't any better than old for the sake of old. New is fine - but it should be done with some bloody thought. On Grand Designs (and indeed real life!) if you're coupling some ancient building with a new extension, you use the very best of contemporary architecture and materials - you don't just slap a static caravan on the side because it will do the job and if people can sleep in it then why complain.

I think part of it is what you are used to.

I grew up with modernised, less traditional wording. Now it has been changed to be closer to an earlier translation, a more direct translation from the latin.

I wasn't keen at first (because I kept saying the wrong thing), now I am more used to it and like it.

But I like the Latin best, I like how you are standing in the same place, saying the same words that generations have said before you. It gives me a feeling of connection, of something continuing.

Oh, c'mon .... my biblical Greek is practically non-existant but surely the KJB can't be the most accurate, can it? My boring 'trying to be very accurate' bible has loads of notes about precise meanings of words and they're different from the KJB (and usually less poetic, but ...).

(Don't get me wrong, I would totally love it if it were, I'm just finding it hard to believe.)

Funnily enough I was at DD's school's carol service last night and while I was waiting for it to start, I read the Bible, starting with the introduction and moving on to Genesis. I was on chapter 3 by the time the service started.

It was a modern translation (I think the new revised standard version), and in the intro, it explained why it was necessary, ie that modern theological research had uncovered a lot of inaccuracies in the King James, marvellous though it is, and the new translations was more true to the original Hebrew and Greek.

While I'm here, can I just point out that the Adam and Eve story makes no sense, either literally or metaphorically?

I read a text version of the Lord's Prayer once (Ok so we weren't expected to use it)

It began "Dad @ Heaven"

I think if Mary was alive today Joseph will be damanding a DNA test.

Waiting for a Jeremy Vile version of a school nativity.