"Church" is not in the Bible!

[Sons to Glory!]

Why do translations use the word "church"!?!? It is a really bad substitution for the Greek word "ekklesia," which means "assembly" or "called-out gathering." Translator William Tyndale was adamant not to follow the King James translators in substituting the word church, and used the much more accurate "congregation."

King James wanted it in there, evidently, because calling Christian gatherings "congregations" might infer something of an independent body and he wanted to have better control of these. The original Old English/German word came from "kirche," meaning The Lord's House, or building. James could also much better control physical property, which "church" implied.

From there it was a slippery slope and many today therefore equate the physical building with church, which is just sad. So why do current translators - and the rest of us - continue this highly egregious error today?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Why do translations use the word "church"!?!? It is a really bad substitution for the Greek word "ekklesia," which means "assembly" or "called-out gathering." Translator William Tyndale was adamant not to follow the King James translators in substituting the word church, and used the much more accurate "congregation."

King James wanted it in there, evidently, because calling Christian gatherings "congregations" might infer something of an independent body and he wanted to have better control of these. The original Old English/German word came from "kirche," meaning The Lord's House, or building. James could also much better control physical property, which "church" implied.

From there it was a slippery slope and many today therefore equate the physical building with church, which is just sad. So why do current translators - and the rest of us - continue this highly egregious error today?

Partly superstition, partly tradition! It's not really an "error," just a little "misleading," depending on your point of view.

King James was shrewd. He called his own translation the "authorized" version of the Bible. For hundreds of years the "Church" of England (with all her colonies) mandated the exclusive use of the KJV. This stranglehold was not broken until the late 19th century. Numerous scholars like Westcott and Hort, and Nestle, published new Greek Texts. Brethren scholars like Tregelles, Kelly, and Darby also worked to provide much needed improvements to the English translation.

By then much better Greek manuscripts were available. Textual Criticism was improving with many excellent scholars. Christian Bible scholarship had made numerous advances. And the English language itself had changed from that of the early 17th century. Koine (commoner) Greek and Shakespearean (formal) English often did not match.

Today many Christians think that God Himself actually authorized this version. I like to ask them, "but what if I only can read Spanish, which version did God "authorize" for me?"

Unfortunately far too many KJVisms remain with us today. W. Lee in his RecVer (under Ingalls, Knoch, and Duane) initially used "church." When Lee sought to publish the revised RecVer using minor changes (under Robichaux), he initially used "assembly" instead. Then he finally reverted back to "church" hoping for wider acceptance among the Christian public.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Partly superstition, partly tradition! It's not really an "error," just a little "misleading," depending on your point of view.

W. Lee in his RecVer (under Ingalls, Knoch, and Duane) initially used "church." When Lee sought to publish the revised RecVer using minor changes (under Robichaux), he initially used "assembly" instead. Then he finally reverted back to "church" hoping for wider acceptance among the Christian public.

I think it's an error. Why substitute one word for another, when the word's meaning can easily be translated? "Church" is sometimes associated with the medieval Greek word "kurikon" meaning Lord's house. While there seems to be some quasi-connection here, ekklesia certainly doesn't mean Lord's house, and should never have been translated as church. (FYI: ekklesia is used 114 in the NT according to Strong's Concordance)

In looking at Biblehub.com, out of the 29 versions listed, I do see five translations (International Standard Version; Jubilee Bible 2000; Darby Bible; Word English Bible; Young's Literal) that properly translate ekklesia as assembly or congregation (as Tyndale also did). This shows how much sway the "Authorized" KJV has had over the last 500 years!

And I didn't know that about the Recovery Version - too bad Lee caved.

[awareness]

The word ekklesia is nothing special. The Romans used it for their assemblies long before Jesus, Paul, or the gospels were written. So the Hellenized Christians used it in the NT.

Church means the building. When I go to church, I go to a building.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

The word ekklesia is nothing special. The Romans used it for their assemblies long before Jesus, Paul, or the gospels were written. So the Hellenized Christians used it in the NT.

Church means the building. When I go to church, I go to a building.

Yup, that's right! And Jesus said He would built His ekklesia, not His church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Yup, that's right! And Jesus said He would built His ekklesia, not His church.

Right. Jesus wasn't into building buildings. Two or three is his ekklesia/assembly.

[Nell]

Benson Phillips said in Houston, early on:

If you are centered on Christ, the church will come out.
If you are centered on the church, nothing will come out.

I think he was right.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Benson Phillips said in Houston, early on:

If you are centered on Christ, the church will come out.
If you are centered on the church, nothing will come out.

I think he was right.

Nell

What did Benson say happens when you are centered on a man and his ministry?

[UntoHim]

Fact #1 Every translation of the original NT manuscripts (mostly Koine Greek, some Aramaic) is AN INTERPRETATION of the original manuscripts. There are a myriad of Greek words which have multiple meanings but can only be practically translated to one English word. The best example that comes to mind would be the Greek words Philia, Agape and Eros - All of which are translated by most English versions as "Love". This is one of the main reasons why any trustworthy Christian theologian, teacher, minister or apologist should be at least mildly competent in Koine Greek. If you can't read and comprehend the original language, you have absolutely no business teaching people about what the original writers of the NT meant, and what it might mean for us today. (My Personal Opinion!)

Fact #2 God has only had the human language(s) to work with. If he wanted to get his Word to us mortal humans, the most effective and expedient way was to communicate in our spoken and written languages. So of course that is just what he did. Over the ages God has seen fit to use all sorts of people who speak and write in all sorts of languages to communicate to us humans. The two main languages God has used to communicate his Word to us happen to be Hebrew and Koine Greek. (It is likely that the Lord Jesus and the original apostles spoke Aramaic, but for practical reasons God saw fit to see that the Gospels and Epistles where written in Koine Greek)

Fact #3 The Greek work "ekklesia" is properly translated into English as "Assembly", "Congregation", "Assembly of called out ones", and yes, even "Church". To say that "Church is not in the Bible" is the same as saying that "Love is not in the Bible" or that "Grace is not in the Bible". To put a finer point on this - Ultimately, the word "Church" has it roots in Greek and traces its origin to a Greek term kūrikón, which was related to kurios, “Lord.” The phrase kūrikón oikía meant “the Lord’s house.” At some point, the Greek term for “house of worship” was shortened to kūrkón. And that’s the word that was transliterated from the old German to kirika, and eventually to Old English as cirice (which eventually got transliterated into "church") Many English words, especially those related to Christianity, came from Greek and passed through some of the earliest German dialects. The word "church" is one of those words. Other English words that share a Greek origin include Christ, angel, evangelism and baptize. I doubt that many of those who have a problem with "Church" have a problem with these other words.
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What did Benson say happens when you are centered on a man and his ministry?

Uhhh....you become God?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Benson Phillips said in Houston, early on:

If you are centered on Christ, the church will come out.
If you are centered on the church, nothing will come out.

Just like with Nee and then Lee, there was an "early" and a "later" version of Benson Phillips. The ministry of expediency allows itself to change over time, to meet perceived needs on the ground. The only constant is its liberty to change.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Fact #3 The Greek work "ekklesia" is properly translated into English as "Assembly", "Congregation", "Assembly of called out ones", and yes, even "Church". To say that "Church is not in the Bible" is the same as saying that "Love is not in the Bible" or that "Grace is not in the Bible". To put a finer point on this - Ultimately, the word "Church" has it roots in Greek and traces its origin to a Greek term kūrikón, which was related to kurios, “Lord.” The phrase kūrikón oikía meant “the Lord’s house.” At some point, the Greek term for “house of worship” was shortened to kūrkón. And that’s the word that was transliterated from the old German to kirika, and eventually to Old English as cirice (which eventually got transliterated into "church") Many English words, especially those related to Christianity, came from Greek and passed through some of the earliest German dialects. The word "church" is one of those words. Other English words that share a Greek origin include Christ, angel, evangelism and baptize. I doubt that many of those who have a problem with "Church" have a problem with these other words.

Yup, I get all that. But don't you agree the simplest, most straightforward thing to do would NOT be to bring in a different word, and rather just translate ekklesia into a directly corresponding word, which would be "assembly" or "congregation"?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

... just translate ekklesia into a directly corresponding word, which would be "assembly" or "congregation"?

Not sure you can do that. The word may have been "morphing" even as it was being used. Like the early meaning was "a meeting" or "any group or collection of people". But by the end of the NT, it had a new meaning. Like, you know, The Church... a standing body with some emerging organizational structures, which transcended actual gatherings.

Think of a word like, "the way", meaning a path or route. But in the NT, the Way meant being a disciple of Jesus and following all his commands or something like that. It took on new meaning to a certain in-group.

Or White House.... if someone in 1244 France said, "I'm going to the white house" that meant nearby there was a house painted white. But in 1944 Iowa, if someone said, "I'm going to the White House" it meant they were going to Washington DC to meet with the President of the USA.

So we shouldn't transpose our meanings, or what we (naively, and hopefully) think were their meanings, upon others' words. The truth is, we simply don't know. So "church" shouldn't be waved away like it is some make-believe word. It has a history. It may have actual connection with initial usage. Maybe not what some think it did, but still, connection nonetheless. The problem with Church History as we practice it, is we always want to go back to the Year One, where everything was so clear and pure. But maybe it wasn't. Maybe there were multiple ideas floating around, even then. Or, things we think should be fixed by convention, were morphing due to new conventions coming on board.

Look at the loaded words "normal" and "proper" and "genuine" as used by Nee and Lee. They railroaded us with their concepts that matched those words in their heads. But there's no guarantee that what was normal to Nee in 1932 China was normal to John in 62 AD Judea. And, history occurred for a reason. We shouldn't just blithely wave it away and pretend we can go back to the Early Church days. We are here, now, for a reason.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Not sure you can do that. The word may have been "morphing" even as it was being used. Like the early meaning was "a meeting" or "any group or collection of people". But by the end of the NT, it had a new meaning. Like, you know, The Church... a standing body with some emerging organizational structures, which transcended actual gatherings.

Good points. The "church" is not just an assembly of two or three, or more. The church has a time-less and space-less sense. Paul's circular letter, later assigned to Ephesus, delineates this. The church is the house, the army, the bride, the warrior, etc. of God. This "corporate" side of the church is what keeps this translation so relevant.

We don't know what word the Lord Jesus actually used in Matthew 16.18 and 18.17 since He usually spoke in Aramaic, but Matthew used "ekklesia." None of the other Evangelists mention the ekklesia. Then in Acts 5.11 it is picked up again by Luke, when he referred to "all the ekklesia." This verse must also be considered when understanding the ekklesia. It was no longer just a gathering, a meeting, but "the ekklesia" defined the collection of all those who named Jesus as their Savior Messiah.

Contrary to Lee's one city, one church model, the Bible shows us the ekklesia growing in size as the gospel was spread. Initially it was the church in Jerusalem, then the church throughout all Judea, then Asia and Europe. It is context which defines what "size" the word ekklesia is referring to, anywhere between two/three and every believer in this age of grace.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

Not sure you can do that. The word may have been "morphing" even as it was being used. Like the early meaning was "a meeting" or "any group or collection of people". But by the end of the NT, it had a new meaning. Like, you know, The Church... a standing body with some emerging organizational structures, which transcended actual gatherings.

Well maybe we should start with William Tyndale, which translated ekklesia as congregation (circa 1525).

This is from Wikipedia

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek ekklesia (Greek: εκκλησία), (literally "called out ones"[54][55]) as "congregation" rather than "church".[56] It has been asserted (by Rome) this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient — but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural — claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honor to individual worshippers who made up each congregation."

So I still fail to see how we could say "church" is an okay substitution!

[Cal]

I’d rather have no church in the Bible than no Bible in the church.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Cal

I’d rather have no church in the Bible than no Bible in the church.

For some reason that reminds me of, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

For some reason that reminds me of, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!"

Good one!

[Sons to Glory!]

BTW - for anyone interested, here is a wonderful timeline summary of the English Bible, English Bible History

Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 250 years, all "King James Version" Bibles published anywhere by any publisher are actually Blaney’s 1769 Revised Oxford Edition of the 1611 King James Bible.

The original “1611” preface is almost always deceivingly included by modern Bible publishing companies, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales among those imagining that they are reading the original 1611 version.

Heady times, to say the least, to live during the times of Wycliffe, Hus, Luther & Tyndale! We take so much for granted concerning the scriptures now, because these brothers gave so much for what we now have!!!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Cal

I’d rather have no church in the Bible than no Bible in the church.

Cute bro Cal. Good one. But rather than a Bible in the church, wouldn't we rather want Jesus building it, like he promised?

[UntoHim]

Brothers and sisters, I'm afraid our problem is not with the word "church" per se, but rather with the way it has been employed by us ignorant people of poor, poor Christianity. Just look what we've done to other anglicized words...pastor, bishop, minister, etc. To get hung up on "church" is really much ado about nothing. Heck...neither Nee nor Lee got hung up on the word "church"...so I'm a little puzzled why some would raise such a strong objection. But be that as it may, I think many might be happy to know that there is a recent trend among start up churches to not use the name "church" at all. Many are using "fellowship" - "Fellowship Anytown", "Grace Fellowship", etc.

Maybe one day it will actually become fashionable to use the anglicized version of ἐκκλησία - Transliterated to Ekklesia. And if that never happens, maybe those who really care can move to Mexico, Spain or France where they are much closer to the original Koine Greek, using Iglesia and église.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Well, of course this probably is a minor in the big scheme of things! I know a brother (once ordained Baptist minister BTW) who is much more adamant about the word "church" than I am, and he originally got me looking into it. But I do find it most curious that the extra step of substituting another word was made back in 1611 (which waters down the meaning), and then most everyone since then has just accepted it without question.

And now, the meaning to many is so watered down by the common use of the word "church" that it is fairly typical for many (at least unbelievers) to think of it as the brick & motor building! How poor is that in light of God shedding His own blood for the ekklesia!? This would not have occurred if the simple meaning of assembly or congregation had been used of this immensely inferior substitution.

(of course as Awareness pointed out, since "church" is more about the physical building, then saying "I'm going to church" is ironically somewhat accurate!)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Cute bro Cal. Good one. But rather than a Bible in the church, wouldn't we rather want Jesus building it, like he promised?

Exactly!!! Too many times when I listen to radio ministers, it sounds to me like they are extolling the book rather than the Author. That is, they talk about how important following the word is, but say little to nothing of making sure the Anointing Author/Living Word is the One doing the work in the person.

The Bible is awesome, but without it's Wonderful Person, it's just dead letter and results in a fleshly form thereof.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

How poor is that in light of God shedding His own blood for the ekklesia!?

Not just for the ekklesia but the whole world :

1Jn 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.*

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well, of course this probably is a minor in the big scheme of things! I know a brother (once ordained Baptist minister BTW) who is much more adamant about the word "church" than I am, and he originally got me looking into it. But I do find it most curious that the extra step of substituting another word was made back in 1611 (which waters down the meaning), and then most everyone since then has just accepted it without question.

And now, the meaning to many is so watered down by the common use of the word "church" that it is fairly typical for many (at least unbelievers) to think of it as the brick & motor building! How poor is that in light of God shedding His own blood for the ekklesia!? This would not have occurred if the simple meaning of assembly or congregation had been used of this immensely inferior substitution.

Bro, the world will always eviscerate the meanings of spiritual words.

Think about what they have done to the Holy Ghost?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I still fail to see how we could say "church" is an okay substitution!

Again, it's context-dependent. I've never seen 'ekklesia' in Acts 17:41 translated as 'church' in English. It just doesn't work. Conversely, the 'ekklesia of the gentiles' in Romans 16:4 doesn't do well as 'meetings' or 'gatherings'. The phrase infers standing bodies that do more that meet. Ergo, churches. To force a one-size-fits-all meaning doesn't do justice.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not just for the ekklesia but the whole world :

1Jn 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.*

Amen. I was thinking specifically of Acts 20:28, "the [ekklesia] of God, which he bought with his own blood."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Bro, the world will always eviscerate the meanings of spiritual words.

Think about what they have done to the Holy Ghost?

Sure. But what about us? Don't we owe it to unbelievers to share with them the unadulterated word of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Again, it's context-dependent. I've never seen 'ekklesia' in Acts 17:41 translated as 'church' in English. It just doesn't work. Conversely, the 'ekklesia of the gentiles' in Romans 16:4 doesn't do well as 'meetings' or 'gatherings'. The phrase infers standing bodies that do more that meet. Ergo, churches. To force a one-size-fits-all meaning doesn't do justice.

I have found that, concerning these issues of translations, the source of difficulty for most is a basic shortage in the field of linguistics.

As you said, semantics is context dependent, and word etymology fails us at times. Using "ekklesia" or even "economy," appealing to some as transliterations, also create new problems for the reader.

Try reading the Concordant Literal New Testament. Sure you will get "ecclesia," instead of church or assembly, but like I said, definitely not an enjoyable read.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Sure. But what about us? Don't we owe it to unbelievers to share with them the unadulterated word of God?

One man's "unadulteration" is another man's confusion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not just for the ekklesia but the whole world :

1Jn 2:2* And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.*

So ... no more faith?

Perhaps context and the rest of scriptures would help here.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

One man's "unadulteration" is another man's confusion.

So what word should be used? For instance, if we asked 100 people what the "church of Christ" meant, we'd get several different answers - from the brick & mortar to the people to who knows what!?

If we asked the same 100 what the "congregation of Christ" meant, the answers would be much more defined and accurate (i.e., the people).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So what word should be used? For instance, if we asked 100 people what the "church of Christ" meant, we'd get several different answers - from the brick & mortar to the people to who knows what!?

If we asked the same 100 what the "congregation of Christ" meant, the answers would be much more defined and accurate (i.e., the people).

Like Apostle Paul told the Corinthians . . .

Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the teachings of the Spirit, communicating spiritual things with spiritual words. But the natural man cannot receive these things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually examined. (2.13-14)

Paul spoke Greek words to native Greek speakers, and most of them still did not understand what he was saying.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Like Apostle Paul told the Corinthians . . .

Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the teachings of the Spirit, communicating spiritual things with spiritual words. But the natural man cannot receive these things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually examined. (2.13-14)

Paul spoke Greek words to native Greek speakers, and most of them still did not understand what he was saying.

Well of course! So to take this to the extreme, why not speak to them in a completely different language?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well of course! So to take this to the extreme, why not speak to them in a completely different language?

You are missing the point.

Language is crucial, but it is not the end all to understanding the word of God. The Corinthians proved this. They were highly educated Greeks, reading their own native language, yet not understanding what Paul ministered and wrote to them.

Anyways, you seem stuck on bricks and stones. Jesus told us clearly that one day they will all be torn down. If someone can't get that, changing up the words of scripture probably will not help.

There's sufficient evidence on this forum to prove that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well of course! So to take this to the extreme, why not speak to them in a completely different language?

So that's why I don't understand God : He's speaking in a different language.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are missing the point.

Language is crucial, but it is not the end all to understanding the word of God. The Corinthians proved this. They were highly educated Greeks, reading their own native language, yet not understanding what Paul ministered and wrote to them.

Anyways, you seem stuck on bricks and stones. Jesus told us clearly that one day they will all be torn down. If someone can't get that, changing up the words of scripture probably will not help.

There's sufficient evidence on this forum to prove that.

No . . . understand perfectly. As RL might say, "Demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." The point is, why not be clear in our language in the first place, and let the HS do His job through that - rather than using unclear language to start off.

And what we are talking about is not as you said, "changing up the words of scripture," it is about translating them accurately by not substituting another word, which is actually foreign to the meaning. What is difficult about that? (the difficulty seems to be changing a 400 year old KJV tradition of men)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And what we are talking about is not as you said, "changing up the words of scripture," it is about translating them accurately by not substituting another word, which is actually foreign to the meaning. What is difficult about that? (the difficulty seems to be changing a 400 year old KJV tradition of men)

The word 'ecclesia' probably entered the biblical lexicon a couple centuries before Christ with the LXX ("in the midst of the 'ecclesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You", per Psa 22 [cf. Heb 2]), and continued through Revelation, 50-odd years after Christ. Do you really think "the meaning" is so simply cut-and-dried across centuries, and authors? If so, then you fall into the same error Lee did: This means that. And that is that.

I forgive Tyndale, and the KJV. They were centuries ago. I have less forgiveness today. There is simply no excuse to take such a sylopsistic position.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

The word 'ecclesia' probably entered the biblical lexicon a couple centuries before Christ with the LXX ("in the midst of the 'ecclesia' I will sing hymns of praise to You", per Psa 22 [cf. Heb 2]), and continued through Revelation, 50-odd years after Christ. Do you really think "the meaning" is so simply cut-and-dried across centuries, and authors? If so, then you fall into the same error Lee did: This means that. And that is that.

I forgive Tyndale, and the KJV. They were centuries ago. I have less forgiveness today. There is simply no excuse to take such a sylopsistic position.

Well don't words mean things when they were used? Ekklesia sure didn't mean church back in the first century!

And interesting word "sylopsistic." I couldn't find it's meaning . . . maybe it means accepting the obvious errors of the past.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Well don't words mean things when they were used? Ekklesia sure didn't mean church back in the first century!

And interesting word "sylopsistic." I couldn't find it's meaning . . . maybe it means accepting the obvious errors of the past.

Sorry - "solipsism". I hadn't used that word in a week or two and tried to dust it off.

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing
also : extreme egocentrism

A word may mean one same exact thing in every instance. But it may not. You and Tyndale may agree on one position. I don't. Doesn't mean either is right or wrong. I just think that context clearly drives meaning. Context is not always identical, nor is meaning. Words can't capture meaning, but they can approximate. We should at least try.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ekklesia sure didn't mean church back in the first century!

This is akin to saying "Presbyteros sure didn't mean elder back in the first century!" Well, it most certainly did, just as church is the English equivalent to the Greek Ekklesia. The fact that this word "church" has been misused, misapplied and generally misunderstood by the vast majority of secular people, and even a fairly large lot of Christian people, doesn't change the fact that it is an anglicized (with Germanic roots) equivalent.

Look, I can surely understand why some people have a negative view of the word "church", if nothing else than for the reasons I stated above. But we cannot just throw away centuries upon centuries of linguistic tradition because we don't like how ignorant man has misused, misapplied and misunderstood a word or term that has been in common use for almost a thousand years.

Let me try this. How would it sound if I insisted that Matthew 16:18 be translated as "I will build my gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place". Would that work for ya?...no?...I didn't think so. Let's get out of our mind and get our common sense in gear!
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Sorry - "solipsism". I hadn't used that word in a week or two and tried to dust it off.

Now that was truly funny.

But on a serious note, I keep thinking about all those times SonsToGlory would bust into a conversation he was bored with and post this gif:

Imagine three hundred years from now a world where rodents have been extinct for at least 200 years and your great great grandchildren pick up some ancient 21st century text giving a detailed account of 'mice' and how they had fur, four legs, a tail, and how they had the tendency to quickly multiply and become pests.

Imagine their consternation and complete confusion as they try to reconcile this authoritative information with the so-called "hundreds of years of linguistic tradition" they have received which tells them that a mouse is an item of technological hardware used to move a cursor around on a computer screen in order to navigate information. AND it is not furry; doesn't have even one leg; it's tail is solidly attached to the CPU and so the mouse is going nowhere let alone anywhere where it can safely multiply!

Eventually, if they do not do their homework and take into account that the meaning of the word has changed, but instead continue with their confusion and convey the "error", teaching even their own grandchildren that computer mouses once had fur, four legs and an independent tail, those same grandchildren may eve reach a point where they believed that they could breed these 'plastic mice' just like in the 'good old days' , instead of hopping down to the store to buy a new one.

And so the error would continue down the centuries removing further and further from the truth or any notion of common sense, becoming what we call in the discipline of Applied Linguistics an 'embedded error' (this type of linguistic phenomenon occurs more commonly with regard to pronunciation and morphology, rather than to semantics).

And so it is with the word 'church'; which by the way is strictly grammatically speaking an ADJECTIVE from the borrowed Greek, better transliterated as 'Lord's' (and not 'Lord') and which modifies the noun 'house'. This fact alone makes it a nonsense to use it itself as a noun i.e. Lord's (or 'Kyrios') as Church. Had the right conventions been observed the noun 'Oikia' (meaning 'house') should have made the jump to the anglicized form.

Now, one may argue that this is all much ado about mere words. But words are not mere. Words are the building blocks of language, and language conveys culture, and culture, by its very nature, lends itself easily to political manipulation. It had already been pointed out that the choice of the word 'church' was deliberate and purposely intended to give King James a political advantage over adherents to the faith. This, I believe, worked marvelously.

In our own time we have seen the same political shenanigans and maneuverings with regard to this word in the shape of the "one church, one city" dogma; a dogma intended only to secure the levers of political and economic (read as LSM publishing) control over believers.

I don't think it would have worked out so well had the mantra been "one city, one called-out ones". This would have introduced all sorts of complications as to who could be defined as "called out" and who couldn't. Whereas it is easy to define your little select group as "the Church" and the rest of the believers in that same locality as "poor, poor Christianity", it is not such a straightforward matter when you are forced to acknowledge, even nominally, that they, too, are "Called Out". How then do you justify your division?

Be blessed...

[Ohio]

Thanks Gospel Geek. Please consider registering in the forum. And let me recommend a wireless mouse. So convenient.

And to think that some Christians are actually convinced that we should go back and change the Greek manuscripts to match the "Authorized" version.

Pretty outrageous for these liberty loving Americans to be so beholden to a pre-revolution British monarch.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Gospel Geek

Imagine three hundred years from now a world where rodents have been extinct for at least 200 years and your great great grandchildren pick up some ancient 21st century text giving a detailed account of 'mice' and how they had fur, four legs, a tail, and how they had the tendency to quickly multiply and become pests.

Imagine their consternation and complete confusion as they try to reconcile this authoritative information with the so-called "hundreds of years of linguistic tradition" they have received which tells them that a mouse is an item of technological hardware used to move a cursor around on a computer screen in order to navigate information. AND it is not furry; doesn't have even one leg; it's tail is solidly attached to the CPU and so the mouse is going nowhere let alone anywhere where it can safely multiply!

Eventually, if they do not do their homework and take into account that the meaning of the word has changed, but instead continue with their confusion and convey the "error", teaching even their own grandchildren that computer mouses once had fur, four legs and an independent tail, those same grandchildren may eve reach a point where they believed that they could breed these 'plastic mice' just like in the 'good old days' , instead of hopping down to the store to buy a new one.

And so the error would continue down the centuries removing further and further from the truth or any notion of common sense, becoming what we call in the discipline of Applied Linguistics an 'embedded error' (this type of linguistic phenomenon occurs more commonly with regard to pronunciation and morphology, rather than to semantics).

And so it is with the word 'church'; which by the way is strictly grammatically speaking an ADJECTIVE from the borrowed Greek, better transliterated as 'Lord's' (and not 'Lord') and which modifies the noun 'house'. This fact alone makes it a nonsense to use it itself as a noun i.e. Lord's (or 'Kyrios') as Church. Had the right conventions been observed the noun 'Oikia' (meaning 'house') should have made the jump to the anglicized form.

Now, one may argue that this is all much ado about mere words. But words are not mere. Words are the building blocks of language, and language conveys culture, and culture, by its very nature, lends itself easily to political manipulation. It had already been pointed out that the choice of the word 'church' was deliberate and purposely intended to give King James a political advantage over adherents to the faith. This, I believe, worked marvelously.

In our own time we have seen the same political shenanigans and maneuverings with regard to this word in the shape of the "one church, one city" dogma; a dogma intended only to secure the levers of political and economic (read as LSM publishing) control over believers.

I don't think it would have worked out so well had the mantra been "one city, one called-out ones". This would have introduced all sorts of complications as to who could be defined as "called out" and who couldn't. Whereas it is easy to define your little select group as "the Church" and the rest of the believers in that same locality as "poor, poor Christianity", it is not such a straightforward matter when you are forced to acknowledge, even nominally, that they, too, are "Called Out". How then do you justify your division?

Be blessed...

Thank you Gospel Geek! Yes, words do mean things. And to your point, if it had been rendered more effectively according to it's meaning, then people wouldn't be thinking of the physical building as where the Lord dwells! (and we therefore wouldn't have to have this conversation) This, according to many things I've read, was why King James wanted them to keep the Romish term "church" - so as to better control the property and by extension, the people.

And just so y-all know, I don't insist that anyone one not use "church" and I'm not going to start a denomination whereby we don't use it, or anything silly like that . . . I use the word all the time, because yes, it has become the common thing (just like King James wanted). It's kind of like how the USA tried to go to the metric system back in the early 70s. It was a simpler, integrated system that made sense to have, over the old "English Units" convoluted system. But after a couple years the country threw in the towel, because it was just different and everyone was used to the old system.

And Ohio - you were just waiting to use that dead horse thingie on me, weren't you!?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And Ohio - you were just waiting to use that dead horse thingie on me, weren't you!?

Did you really want me to drag that horse to "church" one last time?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And just so y-all know, I don't insist that anyone one not use "church" and I'm not going to start a denomination whereby we don't use it, or anything silly like that . .

Kinda like the Jehovah's witnesses go to their "kingdom halls". And don't the LCr's go to their 'meeting halls'???

And the Mormons to their 'wards' and 'temples'??

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Kinda like the Jehovah's witnesses go to their "kingdom halls". And don't the LCr's go to their 'meeting halls'???

And the Mormons to their 'wards' and 'temples'??

How about "The First and Only Called-Out Gathering in [your city]"?

[awareness]

A Geek speaks (left below). Telling us of the world 300 years up the road, and about unimaginable great-great's grandchildren reading about the word mice, and how they were 4 legged furry critters with tails, that could out produce humans by 6 to 8 fold (litters) and have been extinct for 200 years.

And then, this imagined generation, reading the second definition of mice/mouse, as a hardware interface device used to control computers, that's also been extinct for so long the those great-great's couldn't even imagine one. -- Prolly 300 years up the road even voice control of computers will be extinct -- direct mind control will be the interface. Who knows?

But point taken about the changing meanings of words.

This brings me to : One the called out ones, One City, i.e. One Church, One City.

First of all, the traditional definition of ekklesia of "the called out ones" is divisive from the get-go, and wrong (reflecting the tribal instinct of Christians considering themselves as more special than everyone else).

As I pointed out in my response to Untohim on Alternative Views :

... the word [ekklesia] is a compound of two segments: "ek", a preposition meaning "out of", and a verb, "kaleo", signifying "to call" - together, literally, "to call out" ; [no 'ones.']

My dislike of the traditional definition of ekklesia aside (it's divisive), it is handy at debunking Nee's and Lee's One-Church-One-City as divisive from the get-go.

I guess they were carrying on the divisiveness of the traditional definition of ekklesia.

Nee and Lee wouldn't ever allow the idea of 'the called out ones' in their Church/City dogma. Cuz that turns over the selection of the called out ones to the Lord, who they pretend to exalt in their meetings, that are clearly, still, actually exalting Lee. And they dislike, and put down, all the called out ones (not to their movement) that aren't good material. The Lord is after all the material -- good, bad, and in between -- but not them. Their "church" is not following Jesus, and his acceptance of the 'bad' undesirable material.

This to me is a tempest in a teapot, compared to the divisiveness pervasive in Christendom on the whole.

Blessings ....

And Welcome !!! Gospel Geek. Sign up. I'd like to hear more from you ... and great name, btw.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Gospel Geek

Imagine three hundred years from now a world where rodents have been extinct for at least 200 years and your great great grandchildren pick up some ancient 21st century text giving a detailed account of 'mice' and how they had fur, four legs, a tail, and how they had the tendency to quickly multiply and become pests.

Imagine their consternation and complete confusion as they try to reconcile this authoritative information with the so-called "hundreds of years of linguistic tradition" they have received which tells them that a mouse is an item of technological hardware used to move a cursor around on a computer screen in order to navigate information. AND it is not furry; doesn't have even one leg; it's tail is solidly attached to the CPU and so the mouse is going nowhere let alone anywhere where it can safely multiply!

Eventually, if they do not do their homework and take into account that the meaning of the word has changed, but instead continue with their confusion and convey the "error", teaching even their own grandchildren that computer mouses once had fur, four legs and an independent tail, those same grandchildren may eve reach a point where they believed that they could breed these 'plastic mice' just like in the 'good old days' , instead of hopping down to the store to buy a new one.

And so the error would continue down the centuries removing further and further from the truth or any notion of common sense, becoming what we call in the discipline of Applied Linguistics an 'embedded error' (this type of linguistic phenomenon occurs more commonly with regard to pronunciation and morphology, rather than to semantics).

And so it is with the word 'church'; which by the way is strictly grammatically speaking an ADJECTIVE from the borrowed Greek, better transliterated as 'Lord's' (and not 'Lord') and which modifies the noun 'house'. This fact alone makes it a nonsense to use it itself as a noun i.e. Lord's (or 'Kyrios') as Church. Had the right conventions been observed the noun 'Oikia' (meaning 'house') should have made the jump to the anglicized form.

Now, one may argue that this is all much ado about mere words. But words are not mere. Words are the building blocks of language, and language conveys culture, and culture, by its very nature, lends itself easily to political manipulation. It had already been pointed out that the choice of the word 'church' was deliberate and purposely intended to give King James a political advantage over adherents to the faith. This, I believe, worked marvelously.

In our own time we have seen the same political shenanigans and maneuverings with regard to this word in the shape of the "one church, one city" dogma; a dogma intended only to secure the levers of political and economic (read as LSM publishing) control over believers.

I don't think it would have worked out so well had the mantra been "one city, one called-out ones". This would have introduced all sorts of complications as to who could be defined as "called out" and who couldn't. Whereas it is easy to define your little select group as "the Church" and the rest of the believers in that same locality as "poor, poor Christianity", it is not such a straightforward matter when you are forced to acknowledge, even nominally, that they, too, are "Called Out". How then do you justify your division?

Be blessed...

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks Gospel Geek.. And let me recommend a wireless mouse. So convenient..

I will seriously give serious thought to registering, Ohio, thanks.

...a wireless what now??...a mouse without a tail?
... Really!?...I mean what next?...we gonna have mice with wings flying around all over the place?...

... and wait..lemme guess..they'll prolly have sonar too to locate their prey..haha..

....haha....Sooo outrageous!...

(..but... wait a minute...*scratchinghead*...)

[Sons to Glory!]

So to continue this discussion, let me just say that nothing that's been posted here so far - thanks for your partaking in this discussion - convinces me of the validity of substituting a different word (kirche - church) for the one that was written (ekklesia).

Seems pretty doggone simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something . . .

[UntoHim]

My dear brother Sons to Glory! It will be rather difficult to continue the discussion if you are going to continue to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the contentions and arguments of others. Of course by "of others" I am mainly referring to moi

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Ekklesia sure didn't mean church back in the first century!

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is akin to saying "Presbyteros sure didn't mean elder back in the first century!" Well, it most certainly did, just as church is the English equivalent to the Greek Ekklesia. The fact that this word "church" has been misused, misapplied and generally misunderstood by the vast majority of secular people, and even a fairly large lot of Christian people, doesn't change the fact that it is an anglicized (with Germanic roots) equivalent.

Let me try this. How would it sound if I insisted that Matthew 16:18 be translated as "I will build my gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place".

Sons to Glory! I can fully understand and appreciate your desire to see us all get back as close to the original vocabulary, teachings and understandings of the believers in the first century. I have the exact same desire and hope - in fact this is one of the things that attracted me to the Local Church of Witness Lee. Of course eventually we all found out that Witness Lee's version of going back to first century Christianity was pretty much replacing the apostle Paul with himself - and it has not been a pretty ending to that one.

But why are you stopping at the Koine Greek? It is very likely - actually almost certain - that the word that the Lord Jesus spoke to Peter there in Matthew 16:18 was NOT "ekklessia", but rather the Aramaic word "lodoth". The Aramaic word used for church, lodoth, is an old Semitic legal term from the root ‘od which means to assemble or gather together for the purpose of testifying, instructing in a matter of law or to call a witness to testify. When we think of the reason for the existence of a church, this seems to fit quite well.

And to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, our Jewish brothers and sisters might insist that we go back even further, and instead of church, we use the Hebrew word -קהל - which is translated into English as "congregation".

I understand that you are not necessarily insisting (or even suggesting?) that we all drop the word "church" and use ekklessia, but to say that "Church is not in the Bible" is simply a non sequiter in my view. But hey, your view is as good as mine.... so sequiter away my friend!
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So to continue this discussion, let me just say that nothing that's been posted here so far - thanks for your partaking in this discussion - convinces me of the validity of substituting a different word (kirche - church) for the one that was written (ekklesia).

Seems pretty doggone simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something . . .

How about Paul's fellowship to Timothy, "that you may know how to conduct yourself in the house of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and base of the truth." (3.15)

And the writer of Hebrews, "But Christ, as a Son over His house, whose house we are."

I'd like to have a dollar for every time I have seen word etymologies get used to provide distorted exposition.

This discussion has gone on far too long, but it's still been a good thing. Bible says to "test all things," (I Ths 5.21) and we have proven that "church" is not such a bad translation.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This discussion has gone on far too long, but it's still been a good thing. Bible says to "test all things," (I Ths 5.21) and we have proven that "church" is not such a bad translation.

Really? Just answer why it's a sensible thing to do, to go through the extra step of substituting another word, even if it seem like a "good translation?"

And why didn't non-Romish translators before the KJV substitute the word "kirche" for ekklesia?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

But why are you stopping at the Koine Greek? It is very likely - actually almost certain - that the word that the Lord Jesus spoke to Peter there in Matthew 16:18 was NOT "ekklessia", but rather the Aramaic word "lodoth".

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And why didn't non-Romish translators before the KJV substitute the word "kirche" for ekklesia?

Sons to Glory! Why are you substituting the word "lodoth" for your preferred word of "ekklesia"? Are you denying that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic? Why are you skipping ahead and going with the Koine Greek? The sensible thing to do would be go back to the original? No?.......Just sayin....

-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory! Why are you substituting the word "lodoth" for your preferred word of "ekklesia"? Are you denying that Jesus spoke these words in Aramaic? Why are you skipping ahead and going with the Koine Greek? The sensible thing to do would be go back to the original? No?.......Just sayin....

-

Okay, I get your point. Where can I read the original Aramaic?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, I get your point. Where can I read the original Aramaic?

You need to find the original videos from Jesus' life on earth.

Perhaps a search on YouTube can uncover these. Did Jesus have a twitter feed?

[A2Z]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You need to find the original videos from Jesus' life on earth.

Perhaps a search on YouTube can uncover these. Did Jesus have a twitter feed?

Good one. Can I borrow your lines?
Don't DCP me afterwards ok?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Okay, I get your point. Where can I read the original Aramaic?

Maybe you can find the original Aramaic in the same place where the original papyrus manuscripts containing the Greek word ekklesia? Good luck.

My point, once again, is that the English word "church" is simply, when all the dust settles, a transliteration of the Koine Greek word ekklesia, which is simply a transliteration of the Aramic word that Jesus probably used in Matthew 16:18 - "ladoth". We can go round and round the mulberry bush here until the moo cows come home. My main point, as it relates to your proposition that "Church is not in the Bible!", is that it is a non-sequitur. It is circular reasoning.

I think that this word "ekklesia" can, and probably is, misused and misunderstood just as much as it's English counterpart "church". To say that "Church is not in the Bible" is barking up the wrong tree. It is not a hill that anyone should choose to march up, much, much less die on.
-

[Cal]

We are just talking about English here. Are we going to fix every other language in the world, too?

Seems to me that teaching what the word should mean makes more sense than trying to get people to use another word, which would be impossible anyway.

And don't forget, that's "eliza" with at 'Z' !

Language---------Way to say "church"
Albanian---------kishë
Basque-----------eliza
Belarusian-------царква
Bosnian----------crkva
Bulgarian--------църква
Catalan----------Església
Croatian---------crkva
Czech------------kostel
Danish-----------kirke
Dutch------------kerk
Estonian---------kirik
Finnish----------kirkko
French-----------église
Galician---------Igrexa
German-----------Kirche
Greek------------Εκκλησία(Ekklisía)
Hungarian--------templom
Icelandic--------Kirkja
Irish------------séipéal
Italian----------Chiesa
Latvian----------baznīca
Lithuanian-------bažnyčia
Macedonian-------црквата
Maltese----------knisja
Norwegian--------kirke
Polish-----------kościół
Portuguese-------Igreja
Romanian---------biserică
Russian----------церковь(tserkov')
Serbian----------црква(crkva)
Slovak-----------cirkevné
Slovenian--------cerkev
Spanish----------glesia
Swedish----------kyrka
Ukrainian--------церква(tserkva)
Welsh------------eglwys
Yiddish----------קירך
Armenian---------եկեղեցի
Azerbaijani------kilsə
Bengali----------গির্জা
Chinese----------教会(jiàohuì)
Georgian---------ეკლესია
Gujarati---------ચર્ચ
Hindi------------चर्च
Hmong------------lub tsev teev ntuj
Japanese---------教会
Kannada----------ಚರ್ಚ್
Kazakh-----------шіркеу
Khmer------------ព្រះវិហារ
Korean-----------교회에
Lao--------------ສາດສະຫນາຈັກ
Malayalam--------പള്ളി
Marathi----------चर्च
Mongolian--------сүм
Myanmar----------ဘုရားရှိခိုးကြောငျး
Nepali-----------चर्च
Sinhala----------සභාව
Tajik------------калисо
Tamil------------தேவாலயத்தில்
Telug------------చర్చి
Thai-------------โบสถ์
Urdu-------------چرچ
Uzbek------------cherkov
Vietnamese-------nhà thờ
Arabic-----------كنيسة(kanisa)
Hebrew-----------כְּנֵסִיָה
Persian----------کلیسا
Turkish----------kilise
Afrikaans--------kerk
Chichewa---------mpingo
Hausa------------coci
Igbo-------------ụka
Sesotho----------kereke
Somali-----------kaniisadda
Swahili----------kanisa
Yoruba-----------ijo
Zulu-------------isonto
Cebuano----------simbahan
Filipino---------simbahan
Indonesian-------gereja
Javanese---------pasamuwan
Malagasy---------fiangonana
Malay------------gereja
Maori------------hahi
Esperanto--------preĝejo
Haitian----------legliz
Latin------------ecclesia

[Cal]

My favorite is Hmong. "lub tsev teev ntuj."

I wonder if that captures the original meaning of the Greek in the minds of the Hmong speakers.

[UntoHim]

Malagasy husband to his wife:
"Honey, get the kids ready, we're going to be late for fiangonana!"
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Malagasy husband to his wife:
"Honey, get the kids ready, we're going to be late for fiangonana!"
-

Malagasy counterpart of StG: "'Fiangonana' is not in the Bible!"

[UntoHim]

Then that nitpicking, party-pooper UntoHim will chime in:
"fiangonana" is a perfectly acceptable translation of "lub tsev teev ntuj"!

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Maybe you can find the original Aramaic in the same place where the original papyrus manuscripts containing the Greek word ekklesia? Good luck.

My point, once again, is that the English word "church" is simply, when all the dust settles, a transliteration of the Koine Greek word ekklesia, which is simply a transliteration of the Aramic word that Jesus probably used in Matthew 16:18 - "ladoth". We can go round and round the mulberry bush here until the moo cows come home. My main point, as it relates to your proposition that "Church is not in the Bible!", is that it is a non-sequitur. It is circular reasoning.

I think that this word "ekklesia" can, and probably is, misused and misunderstood just as much as it's English counterpart "church". To say that "Church is not in the Bible" is barking up the wrong tree. It is not a hill that anyone should choose to march up, much, much less die on.
-

Otay. "Let every man be convinced in his own mind." Those of us on here know what the word means, and that it's not referring to the physical building. However, in my humble opinion, the word "church" has lent itself to much more misunderstanding and twisting than if the simpler "gathering" "assembly" or "congregation" would have been used.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Otay. "Let every man be convinced in his own mind." Those of us on here know what the word means, and that it's not referring to the physical building. However, in my humble opinion, the word "church" has lent itself to much more misunderstanding and twisting than if the simpler "gathering" "assembly" or "congregation" would have been used.

Humor aside, why then does the "house of the living God" have to refer to a physical building?

The Bible also says that "our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?" Think about the problems that verse could cause. Should not every autopsy demand to find the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps it's best just to step back and consider how God's enemy has worked to destroy the meaning of every spiritual word in the scripture. Otherwise we may all go nuts.

[UntoHim]

Sons to Glory!, let me assure you, that if we could wave a magic wand and "poof!"...and every Christian church would change "church" to "gathering", "assembly" or "congregation", these words will inevitably lend themselves to the very same misunderstanding and twisting. I'm afraid the same goes for "ekklesia".

As a matter of fact, there was a aberrational group that sprung up in Southern California the 1970s, lead by a man by the name of George Geftakys, that used the term "Assembly in Fullerton" or "Fullerton Assembly". Geftakys was influenced by the Brethren, Watchman Nee and T. Austin Sparks. They called the men who lead each local assembly "leading brothers". Geftakys was known simply as "Brother George" or "Brother Geftakys". (sound familiar?) All the younger/single members were directed to live in a "brothers house" or "sisters house", usually lead by a married couple.

To make a long story short, "The Assembly" turned into a personality cult of sorts, and George and his sons turned out to be power-tripping sexual abusers and predators. Many of the "sisters" who volunteered in "the work" were taken advantage of and sexually abused. Thankfully, some of the "co-workers" in the Assembly movement finally excommunicated George Geftakys and the whole thing blew up and disbanded.

There is a website run by some former Assembly members:
geftakysassembly.com

If we fast forward to the end of Revelation we don't see the word church or assembly. There is no temple. There will be no need for a church or an assembly, or even a temple. These are all temporal things that God instituted for his temporary time of dwelling on the earth. "And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb". (Rev 21:22)

Maybe we all would do well to try our best to look past the temporal names and conventions of men, and turn our eyes to the real prize - "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God". (Rev 21:4)
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Humor aside, why then does the "house of the living God" have to refer to a physical building?

Oh good - yer still with us! So why did the Romish Church so much prefer "church" as opposed to the early English translators going with "assembly" or "congregation"? From what I've read it's because the word church was already carrying the connotation of a physical structure. Visible, physical structures can be more easily controlled by those in authority.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sons to Glory!, let me assure you, that if we could wave a magic wand and "poof!"...and every Christian church would change "church" to "gathering", "assembly" or "congregation", these words will inevitably lend themselves to the very same misunderstanding and twisting. I'm afraid the same goes for "ekklesia".

Yes, you are most likely right about that! Man gets a hold of anything and warps it some.

So y-all have convinced me - I'm goin' to church! Seriously, it is not a main article of the faith or anything, and now I'm done (I think).

[Cal]

A church by any other name would smell as sweet. Or, in the case of some, not so sweet.

- Will Shakespeare (paraphrased)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Oh good - yer still with us! So why did the Romish Church so much prefer "church" as opposed to the early English translators going with "assembly" or "congregation"? From what I've read it's because the word church was already carrying the connotation of a physical structure. Visible, physical structures can be more easily controlled by those in authority.

Huh? Rome used "church?" They certainly did not!

Firstly, they used Latin. Ever hear of the Vulgate translation?

Here is Matthew 16.18 in Latinese taken from their Vulgate. And I should point out that this verse is the Most Well Known Verse among all Catholics.

et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus
and I say to you that you are Peter

et super hanc petram
and upon this rock

aedificabo ecclesiam meam
I will build my church

et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

Aren't you impressed that I still got my Latin skills after 50 years?

And please note that them Romans used "ecclesiam" for ekklesia. They did NOT use church, but transliterated ekklesia into Latin.

Kinda blasts a hole in your theory. No?

[Sons to Glory!]

Oh . . . staggering backwards . . . you got me!

And yes, I am duly impressed by your Latin! Now yer gonna make me go back and find and cite all the various references I read that said the Catholics were strongly against Tyndale and Wycliffe for using assembly/congregation in their translations, and how King James was influenced by the Catholics in this regard.

And I was all ready to move on too . . . .. . .. ... . . .. ...

But as dey say in dis neck-o-de woods - it'll hafta wait 'till mañana!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But as dey say in dis neck-o-de woods - it'll hafta wait 'till mañana!

And while you are waiting . . . Have a great mañana!

[Sons to Glory!]

Just a little time to post this, as a response to bro Ohio. Found Here

In his article entitled “‘Dones” or “Beyonds?'” – Steve Simms references a book by Don Finto called Prepare! wherein Finto reflects on Tyndale’s resistance to using the word church as a translation of the word ekklesia. Quoting Finto, he writes:"Church’ is an unfortunate mistranslation of the Greek word ekklesia — literally meaning called out. The Greek word carries no connotation of a building, but of people. William Tyndale understood this. In his 1525 completed text of the New Testament, there is no church. There is only community. Even under great pressure to translate ekklesia as church, Tyndale resisted."

I was pretty excited when I read this insight into Tyndale’s translation of the word ekklesia, and I spent a bit of time looking over some of the more familiar “church” texts to see what he did with them. The bottom line is that Tyndale kept it simple and consistent. He chose the word congregation as the best way of understanding what is meant by ekklesia.

[Ohio]

"Church’ is an unfortunate mistranslation of the Greek word ekklesia — literally meaning called out. The Greek word carries no connotation of a building, but of people.

Help me out here.

When Christ the Son, prophesied by Moses in Deuteronomy, built God's house (Hebrews 3.1-6), did the Greek word for "house" connote a building, people, or something else?

But putting all seriousness aside, you would make a great Darby Exclusive! They loved these types of arguments. They majored in minors! They would excommunicate one another over stuff like this. They were "assembly" addicts. They would condemn all others for using the word "church."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But putting all seriousness aside, you would make a great Darby Exclusive! They loved these types of arguments. They majored in minors!

Good for them! Those people needed to be ousted - close to being heretics or worse! In fact - off with their heads!

Okay, now I think I'm done with that bit of absurdity. The point is not to force anyone to use any word . . . just making the case (as Tyndale did) that it was clearer and simpler to translate as gathering or congregation. Now it's just sort of a curiosity as to why we still . . .

Sorry the point didn't seem to resonate and if it was felt to be a waste of anybody's time.

(and BTW - I do use the word "church" all the time)

[OBW]

Too much concern over words. This is a little like discussions of the Trinity. Each mention has a statement to make. If we take the time to explore the meaning of each word in each place, we probably find that each is looking at one or more specific things but seldom the sum total of them all. There is a litany of items that can be associated with the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic word(s) that have been. In some places, they are spelled-out, like "pillar and base of the truth." In others, they are less definitively stated, such as when Jesus declared he would build it. But all relate to something of the collective of people who are Christ's followers. In a single assembly or universally. At a point in time, or for all time.

The word we use — church — is not really used for anything else and has no reason to be rejected as the word to use. It may be found to have originated in a way or place that is not seen are having the "correct' meaning, but whatever that meaning was, it is not what is intended when it is used today. And despite the attempts of some (like the RCC) to control the meaning and scope of the word, they cannot do so except in their own mind.

To coin another word, or to use an alternative word, is to simply change from one imperfect word to another. One that has other baggage to consider and argue about. Seems that we have enough disagreement just dealing with the plethora of doctrinal variations without arguing about which words to use. Should it be church, assembly, or ekklesia? It is Trinity or Triune? Should it be Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus (and is there any real difference, or did we just make one up because there had to be an explanation beyond "that is just the way it was said here")?

The more we try to make out of each separate word, the more we miss the meaning of the sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc. that make up the narrative in which they are used. When Jesus said he would build it, he was not defining what it was, but rather defining how it would come to be.

ANd he wasn't making a statement about what was the right word to use in English.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

To coin another word, or to use an alternative word, is to simply change from one imperfect word to another. One that has other baggage to consider and argue about.

Words, or human language itself, will always be imperfect and inadequate to explain spiritual things. I now find far less ambiguity with words like "church" than I do with say "only begotten Son." How can I ever really understand that?

At least church has a relatable etymology, numerous descriptors in books like Ephesians, and synonyms -- all which informs the child of God that His church is not a gothic cathedral, which was the battle Tyndale was up against we he pushed for an alternate translation.

And yes, it was "too much concern over words," but it's always good to dig, explore, fellowship, and test all things.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

At least church has a relatable etymology, numerous descriptors in books like Ephesians, and synonyms -- all which informs the child of God that His church is not a gothic cathedral, which was the battle Tyndale was up against we he pushed for an alternate translation.

Yes re Tyndale. He eventually paid for such clarifications with his life.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

The word we use — church — is not really used for anything else and has no reason to be rejected as the word to use. It may be found to have originated in a way or place that is not seen are having the "correct' meaning, but whatever that meaning was, it is not what is intended when it is used today.

If the KJV translators hadn't of changed it to "church" back then, and used something accurate like "assembly," then we might not have the issue today that many think the word refers to a physical building (which was actually an associated definition of the old word we got "church" from).

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If the KJV translators hadn't of changed it to "church" back then, and used something accurate like "assembly," then we might not have the issue today that many think the word refers to a physical building (which was actually an associated definition of the old word we got "church" from).

So what did "church" mean back in the days of the Right Honorable King James? I see in the initial post that it was from German and meant something like "the lord's house." I understand the angst around a word with even a hint of other than "assembly" in it. But if we had just used "assembly" from the KJV forward, would that really solve anything? It is only the English language that is using this particular word. (And maybe the Germans use that original German word?)

Do you think that using assembly would result in no one saying that they are "going to the assembly?" Still makes the location of the gathering seem like the point rather than the gathering.

And do other languages use words related to their building rather one related to the collection of those who gather there? Or is this mainly an English problem?

I can assure you that no one today (other than the few nerds like us) have any idea that the word church does or does not include an implication of the building in which the gathering occurs.

The real problem, if there is one, is the extent to which people read the bible and think that the passages that make important reference to "church" (in English) are about some building rather than the people that might meet there or anywhere else.

It is not that important that they do or don't say "go to church." It is not about the lexicon. But when they are there (whether or not they think about it as having "gone to church") what is going on.

Are they engaged in worship of God? Or are they spectators?

Are they equipped for the rest of their constant worship as they live out their faith? Or are their heads filled with propositional "truths" that do nothing for their daily lives?

Are they focused on the "tasks" of worship? Or on getting out quickly so they can see the kick off of their favorite team?

Is being uplifted more important than being grounded in worship? (I must confess that while I played guitar for contemporary worship for many years, I now think that too much of it is some kind of search for personal gratification rather than real worship of God.)

I think that worrying about the word "church" is a distraction from the things that really matter.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you think that using assembly would result in no one saying that they are "going to the assembly?" Still makes the location of the gathering seem like the point rather than the gathering.

I think that worrying about the word "church" is a distraction from the things that really matter.

I doubt someone would now be saying, "Oh look (at that structure) - isn't that the prettiest assembly you've ever seen!?"

If you think it's a distraction (and I'm not saying it isn't) then just stop replying to this thread . . . I'll stop responding, and thereby maybe you'll be doing both of us a favor!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

If you think it's a distraction (and I'm not saying it isn't) then just stop replying to this thread . . . I'll stop responding, and thereby maybe you'll be doing both of us a favor!

Do you really think that what someone says about the building is relevant to the nature of the assembly that uses it? It seems that the distraction is when Christians get bent out of shape concerning something that doesn't actually impact their worship or practice.

(BTW, it seems that your last sentence is backwards. I thought I was the one that thought it wasn't really a problem.)

As for your challenge to stop responding, do you mean that you do not want to consider how "church" may not be an actual problem? I thought the point of the thread was to discuss it, not to make statements that everyone has to accept or ignore.

Am I missing something?

Not saying you have to agree with me. But you have not actually given me a reason to consider it in a way other than what I have proposed.

And since you are not the only reader of the thread, should I simply ignore what I think is a potential problem and just let it stand? Should I just be a good LC member and not make waves?

Not digging at you. Just trying to see if there is a way to discuss rather than leave it alone because everyone does not agree. The purpose is not necessarily to agree, but to at least be open to discuss and think. My views on a lot of things have changed because I joined into these kinds of discussions and thought about it as I admitted I could be wrong.

Otherwise, I would still be in the LC.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you really think that what someone says about the building is relevant to the nature of the assembly that uses it? It seems that the distraction is when Christians get bent out of shape concerning something that doesn't actually impact their worship or practice.

(BTW, it seems that your last sentence is backwards. I thought I was the one that thought it wasn't really a problem.)

As for your challenge to stop responding, do you mean that you do not want to consider how "church" may not be an actual problem? I thought the point of the thread was to discuss it, not to make statements that everyone has to accept or ignore.

Am I missing something?

Not saying you have to agree with me. But you have not actually given me a reason to consider it in a way other than what I have proposed.

And since you are not the only reader of the thread, should I simply ignore what I think is a potential problem and just let it stand? Should I just be a good LC member and not make waves?

Not digging at you. Just trying to see if there is a way to discuss rather than leave it alone because everyone does not agree. The purpose is not necessarily to agree, but to at least be open to discuss and think. My views on a lot of things have changed because I joined into these kinds of discussions and thought about it as I admitted I could be wrong.

Otherwise, I would still be in the LC.

Well I don't know how else to put it. You don't seem to agree and suggested it was a distraction in the first place. But you seem to want to continue the dialogue, and I'm willing too . . .

You may not have read through the previous part of the discussion, but earlier I talked about how it wasn't that big of a deal - just one of those interesting curiosities - kinda like that big mystery this time of year --> Christmas.

The older I get, the more I value simplicity in communication. That's because simple gets understood "more-better." It just seems to me that ekklesia would've been so much simpler to translate into "assembly" or "congregation" or "called-out ones," rather than the more removed meaning in "church." But, it appears there was some agenda by the KJV translators (or King James himself), so church is what they went with. Tyndale refused to use that word (evidently being promoted by RCC), and eventually lost his life for his translating the NT into English and taking such literal stands on words like ekklesia.

Church’ is an unfortunate mistranslation of the Greek word ekklesia — literally meaning called out. The Greek word carries no connotation of a building, but of people. William Tyndale understood this. In his 1525 completed text of the New Testament, there is no church. There is only community. Even under great pressure to translate ekklesia as church, Tyndale resisted. From Here: why-is-there-no-church-in-tyndales-bible

But, like Christmas, I've learned to go along with saying "church," and use it most frequently. I used to rail about Christmas to others, but this conveys nothing of Christ to anyone, including myself. In fact, telling people the origins of things like Christmas can be a stumbling to others, so I practice Paul's exhortation to not do that. Setting someone straight (according to my most wise understanding of these things) regarding Christmas, or church, or many other things, will save no one!

So in an attempt to keep it simpler, what did you think about this statement in my last post (regarding if a word like assembly had been used rather than church): I doubt someone would now be saying, "Oh look (at that structure) - isn't that the prettiest assembly you've ever seen!?"

[OBW]

StoG,

I was not reading every post. I was reading the last few and responding to what I read as I saw it. I really do not care what name is associated with it, but use the "quote" function so that it is clear what I am responding to (not who). And once a thread gets lengthy, even if I had previously been following, it is not always possible to remember exactly what everyone said on every thing. We tend to deal with the latest part of the thread, not the whole thing.

So if what I responded to was your own type of slight sarcasm or other sideways comment that reached back further than what I was reading in this recent pass-through, then just say so and we move along. But if you ask "what if" and I cannot find a reason to think the what-if is truly important, then I will say so. If you think it is, then let me know why. You have to remember that these threads become somewhat unwieldy as they get longer. Harder to keep everything about what is going on strait. I write today and the next 10 posts could be about someone else's post three days ago. Then tomorrow or even later someone responds to me. It is not purely sequential. So I try to just keep to what appears to be the "current" life of the discussion.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

StoG,

I was not reading every post. I was reading the last few and responding to what I read as I saw it. I really do not care what name is associated with it, but use the "quote" function so that it is clear what I am responding to (not who). And once a thread gets lengthy, even if I had previously been following, it is not always possible to remember exactly what everyone said on every thing. We tend to deal with the latest part of the thread, not the whole thing.

So if what I responded to was your own type of slight sarcasm or other sideways comment that reached back further than what I was reading in this recent pass-through, then just say so and we move along. But if you ask "what if" and I cannot find a reason to think the what-if is truly important, then I will say so. If you think it is, then let me know why. You have to remember that these threads become somewhat unwieldy as they get longer. Harder to keep everything about what is going on strait. I write today and the next 10 posts could be about someone else's post three days ago. Then tomorrow or even later someone responds to me. It is not purely sequential. So I try to just keep to what appears to be the "current" life of the discussion.

Of course - these threads can get laborious to read through entirely! Please forgive any frolicsome wording on my part, but my nature is to find a little humor in most everything, albeit those attempts are not always entirely successful!

So what would you say to the last line in my previous post? For expediency, I'll quote it here again:

So in an attempt to keep it simpler, what did you think about this statement in my last post (regarding if a word like assembly had been used rather than church): I doubt someone would now be saying, "Oh look (at that structure) - isn't that the prettiest assembly you've ever seen!?"

Does that make sense? Please let me know if it needs better clarity . . .

[OBW]

StoG,

The "quote" button did not include it, so I will restate it here:

I doubt someone would now be saying, "Oh look (at that structure) - isn't that the prettiest assembly you've ever seen!?"

I would agree that making that statement would be pretty silly. But is the point of not using "church" to make sure that the word used cannot have other meanings? Or to keep the uneducated from using it in a way that is not our intention?

I must admit that I tend to be a dog with a bone on many topics. But the point is less to make anything clear and more to bring out things to consider. If you are OK with that, it may be that the ones who get the most out of it are not directly involved in the conversations, but instead are just lurking. Put the whole conversation on record for them. Even if we are quickly clear (whether or not in agreement).

So when you ask a question or bring up a point, it is just as much for everyone else as it is for you. Let's go beyond figuring it out for ourselves, but use it as an opportunity to flesh it out for others. They may not conclude what either of us thinks, but at least they had the opportunity to think.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

StoG,

The "quote" button did not include it, so I will restate it here:
I would agree that making that statement would be pretty silly. But is the point of not using "church" to make sure that the word used cannot have other meanings? Or to keep the uneducated from using it in a way that is not our intention?

I must admit that I tend to be a dog with a bone on many topics. But the point is less to make anything clear and more to bring out things to consider. If you are OK with that, it may be that the ones who get the most out of it are not directly involved in the conversations, but instead are just lurking. Put the whole conversation on record for them. Even if we are quickly clear (whether or not in agreement).

So when you ask a question or bring up a point, it is just as much for everyone else as it is for you. Let's go beyond figuring it out for ourselves, but use it as an opportunity to flesh it out for others. They may not conclude what either of us thinks, but at least they had the opportunity to think.

Thanks for the coaching! Seriously. And you make another good point I think (you are on a roll) - regarding just moiling over the ideas, and letting the Anointing speak in others as it may! (I often go and look at how many are viewing this forum, which is indicated at the bottom of the main page. There are rarely more than 2-3 members on here at the same time, but often 70-90 people viewing.)

Regarding the "church" word, your 1st paragraph hits it well - if a more accurate word is used, then yes, people will not be able to misapply it so readily.

BTW: This thread is now about 45 posts past where Ohio first posted his "dead horse" reference! LOL

[OBW]

The point at which things are a "dead horse" is always an opinion. If there are issues for which there is any more information (even information you/I might not agree with) then for some it is still not dead. And recognizing a stalemate, or someone making a conclusion that no one directly disputes may not be the end. There still may be a "rest of the story" to be considered.

And resolved off-line for those willing to consider.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

The point at which things are a "dead horse" is always an opinion. If there are issues for which there is any more information (even information you/I might not agree with) then for some it is still not dead. And recognizing a stalemate, or someone making a conclusion that no one directly disputes may not be the end. There still may be a "rest of the story" to be considered.

And resolved off-line for those willing to consider.

Well I think his dead horse comment was a "back-atcha" for when I did it to something he was, IMHO, belaboring excessively . . . .

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Why do translations use the word "church"!?!? It is a really bad substitution for the Greek word "ekklesia," which means "assembly" or "called-out gathering." Translator William Tyndale was adamant not to follow the King James translators in substituting the word church, and used the much more accurate "congregation."

King James wanted it in there, evidently, because calling Christian gatherings "congregations" might infer something of an independent body and he wanted to have better control of these. The original Old English/German word came from "kirche," meaning The Lord's House, or building. James could also much better control physical property, which "church" implied.

From there it was a slippery slope and many today therefore equate the physical building with church, which is just sad. So why do current translators - and the rest of us - continue this highly egregious error today?

Bringing to the top for further review of “What is the church really.” thread.