The Oxford article does however go on to appease the kyriakists by saying that while it is KNOWN that the Goths definitely and primarily used ekklesia, there is no proof that they might not have additionally picked up kyriakon, but, that if they did, kyriakon would have been ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY used by them for a BUILDING, or place, and absolutely NEVER applied to the body of Christ, the believers, the people of Christ (as the word "church" is so tragically used in the KJV). For, in EVERY Goth literary source referencing any of the New Testament's uses of ekklesia, the Goths PROPERLY used aikklesjo (the Goth ekklesia) for that. THAT is what is KNOWN. Mere CONJECTURE (or theory) is ALL that can be put forward by those who would like to ADDITIONALLY insert kyriakon into the Goth language. And since the main argument of this treatise is that in our BIBLE no word should be put in place of ekklesia whose definition is something OTHER than the definition of EKKLESIA (the called out), then T. J. Buckton and the Oxford are showing the Goths likewise to be this author's allies. They did NOT put a kyrios word in place of ANY ekklesia appearance in the Word of God! To put it another way, a GOTH Bible would agree with me, and REJECT "kyriaka" (kyriakon, etc) in all of the 113 places where ekklesia is found. In fact ALL sources agree with the Oxford Dictionary in admitting (even if they sympathize with the kyrios theory) that the ONLY conceivable use that ANY of the kyriakists can be theoretically granted is a possible application of kyrios-based words for a BUILDING, and NEVER, by ANY stretch, an attachment to any of the 113 verses of the Bible wherein ekklesia is found. In fact, if one's focus is the SCRIPTURES, then since there ARE no Christian buildings in the New Testament, the kyrios theory is locked out, as pathetically defending an utterly NON-Biblical or "extra-biblical" issue. It is worth weighing the fact that if the kyrios theory were someday proven 100 percent correct (which it can't be, for it is dead wrong), it would STILL leave us with the fact that "church" should not be used in place of ekklesia in any of those 113 verses in the New Testament! If the kyrios theory were to fully TRIUMPH and RULE, and every kyrios theorist's fondest wishes be granted, it would still ONLY be on matters OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE! Their greatest victory could only be (in a fantasy world) that the English word church only meant a building, and came from an earlier word that only meant a building, and, that ekklesia still means the called out ones (the faithful believers), and does NOT mean a building, and so, church or kyriakon would STILL mistranslate 113 verses of Scripture, and COVER OVER and HIDE the meaning of God's Word! What a very strange "accomplishment" for them to dream would be a victory! If they "won" it still would remain that "church" should not have been put in the Bible, for it meant something that the Bible did not. But, the fantasy here entertained of the kyrios theory being found true, is an utter impossibility. It is UNTRUE.
Let me spotlight a little irony on that matter: Numerous Bibles have REJECTED covering over "ekklesia" with "church": William Tyndale's Bible (1526) and the Coverdale Bible (1535) the Matthew Bible (1537) and The Great Bible (1538 and 1569), the Bishop's Bible (1568) and Martin Luther's German Bible (uses "gemeinde" to translate ekklesia, and NOT the German word kirche) and "Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible" (available from Baker Book House), and the Darby translation, and "The Simple English Bible - New Testament" (International Bible Publishing Company, NY) and the Concordant Literal New Testament, and others. Some, like the Concordant, actually KEEP "ekklesia" as "ekklesia" (or ecclesia), leaving it to the reader to render its proper meaning. Here is the "irony": There are kyrios theorists who try to enlist the Goths in their theory, trying to make the Goths an intermediary stage between kyrios words in south-eastern Europe, and northwestern Germany, to make them the messenger-boys who carried the kyrios words that supposedly eventually replaced ekklesia in the Bible. But the opposite is manifestly the fact: The Goths were CLEAR on the matter. The irony is that the attempt to enlist the Goths as a support to the kyrios theory actually militates AGAINST the kyrios theory. In fact we now know that the Goth BIBLE could be added to the partial list of Bibles in this paragraph, as yet one more Bible that does NOT utterly ruin the 113 ekklesia verses.
Interesting send.
No comments:
Post a Comment