Anyone here know Latin? I'd love to learn it so I could read the Vulgate, but I have no idea where to start. I'm from a poor area with no facilities that would be willing or able of teaching me Latin without making me go broke.
What do, Zig Forums? Would any churches or religious organisations be willing to help me?
Other urls found in this thread:
reddit.com
twitter.com
Possum latine dicere! Quid vulueris discere?
The difficult thing about Latin is that it's hard work, but not as hard as Greek. I know of books that can teach you however. The most influential and popular textbook is called "Wheelock's Latin" (pic related).
This volume is easily recognizable by having a picture of Virgil flanked on either side by the Muses of Epic Poetry and it really is a good book, one of the most worthwhile you will ever read, even though about the same size as the Bible that is read from during mass. Also it was designed for training people to read, write and speak Classical Latin spoken in the time of Julius Caesar not Ecclesiastical Latin of the middle ages.
You should supplement Wheelock's Latin with real Latin authors, buying Latin readers for poets such as Ovid and Martial. Then read Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars" and "Civil War." By this point the Vulgate presents no real challenge as it is easy Latin, but should you wish to continue, Tacitus, Virgil, Horace, Cicero, Juvinal, Marcus Aurelius and a boatload of Christian apologists and Church Fathers are also available.
I should mention, Classical Latin is no different than Ecclesiastical Latin, except pronunciation shifted slightly, and Ecclesiastical Latin has slightly more relaxed rules of grammar, such as the presence of simple words for yes and no responses, which don't exist in Classical Latin.
For instance, Ecclesiastical Latin for yes and no is "Sic et non" which is also the title of a famous essay by Peter Abelard, a theologian of the 13th century. In Classical Latin, to say yes you have to say "Ita vero" (pronounced EE-tah werb-O) which means "Forsooth" in English. Likewise to say "no" one must say "Minime" (mini-May) which means "not in the least."
lol ita vero is pronounced without a b in it. (EE-tah wer-O).
All Latin v's are w's in Classical Latin so it sounds a bit like it has a lisp like modern Castilian Spanish.
duolingo.com has a variety of languages you can learn. I am sure latin is on there also.
It does not, or I would know about it. Maybe that has changed recently however.
Why? The average translation of the Bible is as far away from the original texts as the Vulgate is.
Learn Koine Greek.
Latin's not nearly as hard as people make it out to be, I think the main difficulty is that English has such a highly reduced verb and noun system so we're not used to otherwise normal European grammar. The easiest way to get into it is to not question it. Don't translate "canem" as "to the dog" or whatever, just learn which verbs and prepositions goes with each case and you'll eventually start seeing the logic behind the madness. Learn it like you would any other language, learn the most common words and grammatical bits first; you don't need to know what the Passive Subjunctive is right away and it won't be used hardly at all in any beginner or intermediate texts. You'll just be bogging yourself down with useless tables and still won't be able to read a damn thing. Vocab is king, even if you don't know 100% what's going on you'll at least be able to tell who you're reading about.
Also, READ OUT LOUD. Latin was a real language spoken by real people, and your brain will have an easier time learning words and internalizing the grammar. This isn't C++, actually try to use stress and emotion as you would while learning a living language.
Don't dive straight into the bible or Cicero which uses flowery language, metaphors and advance grammar which will be difficult to interpret if you try to translate word for word. You don't start off learning German by reading Hegel, why on earth would Latin be any different? Start with simple shit like Aesop's fables: read the english to get an idea of what it means, then read the Latin straight through, then go back and analyze the grammar.
Sad!
In what way Greek is more difficult than Latin? My (superficial) impression is that these languages have similar grammars.
Too difficult and time consuming… Unless your native language is Romance, in which case this is a good advice.
This is what I do and it is very easy: instead of these authors I read the Bilical text while having before me some literal Biblical translation. In this way I don't have to look in the dictionary all the time and I learn the meaning of the words and even some grammar intuitively.
Actually I am using this approach for Greek, but I am sure it can be used for Latin too.
No. The ancient translations (Latin, Syriac and Slavonic) are literal translations. Closer to the original than any English translation I know.
No part of the Bible is written in Latin, so why bother. The Textus Receptus, the original NT version is written in Greek.
The Latin Vulgate is the literal Word of God infallibly preserved.
Maybe go to and understand Latin Mass
The original Greek says "born" in John 3:5, but the Vulgate changes this to say "born again." Why did it change this?
If you think there's something special about Latin over the original Greek and Hebrew, why the Vulgate and not the Vetus Latina which came before it, c. 175 AD?
Because it can.
Haven't you learnt your lesson? If the infallible Vilgate says "born again", then "born again" it is. The actual meaning and the wordplay of the original Greek in this place is irrelevant. What matters is to be with the one who holds the keys of Peter. So if the Pope says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then so it is. The original decision of the ecumenical council is irrelevant.
No Eucmenical Council save Lyon II and Florence even spoke about procesion of Holy Spirt from the Son and you defintion of infability is theologically analphabetic.
Or original greek said "born again" but it got dropped, while being preserved by the Vulgate.
TR is not original. It's critical edition, pet-project of Catholic monk.
Roma locuta, causa finita
Step 1: Learn Classical Pronunciation
Step 2: Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata, Extensive Reading over and over again, move onto Cicero's speeches, etc. afterwards
Step 3: Anki, sentence mining for i + 1 sentences
Step 4: Grammar, as in learn that stuff. Memorize your paradigms. Grammar is a proxy to understanding.
Do steps 2, 3, and 4 simultaneously.
Step 5: After getting good, learn the peculiarities of the Latin you want to read.
Since you wish to read the Vulgate, read the Vulgate from the beginning. Luckily for you, it's really simple Latin (similar to English in its syntax).
Trust me, user, I've been studying this stuff for years, will be studying it for years.
'ad canem' perhaps would be 'to the dog'. Otherwise, it's just 'the dog (acc.)'.
Greek has more verb tenses than Latin, and a slightly less clear case system for nouns.
English is the language used in Heaven.
If that is true, then why does the RCC allow people to read the RSV and other translations that follow the Greek?
So do you use the Sixtine Vulgate or the Clementine Vulgate? Both were approved. Also the RSV is also approved by them, is it not?
Repent
Because interpretation is the same, namely, Church's one.
I yield to bishops above me in their judgment about translation. Changes in old Vulgates doesn't change the meaning of the text.
Dunno. God did not cure me, I am not EFL.
*curse me
Here you go.
Are you either of these?
Because you seem to be disagreeing with them if you say it doesn't matter what exactly the word of God says; they were saying it does matter.
What.
Re-learning Latin, and I am currently learning Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. Latin is definitely the easier of the three, given if you natively speak any of the major European languages. If you know Hebrew it makes learning other Semitic languages like Aramaic or Arabic much easier.
How about you study the Bible in your native tongue, which fortunately for you happens to have the best translation anyway. Stop looking for hidden knowledge, unless you've learned literally everything your English Bible has to offer. Freakin' Catholics man…
The Reddit Latin Discord has a lot of good things in its #resources channel, including textbooks of PDFs.
reddit.com
I concur with the recommendation of Orberg Lingua Latina per Se Illustrata. I think it's probably the best textbook series for adult self-study. You can find PDFs for the main books as well as many companion readers in the Discord linked above, though I suggest buying the print copies and supporting the publisher would be the most Christian thing to do (I own the print copies, but prefer to read PDFs on a tablet).
Also, I would recommend Catholics stick to ecclesiastical pronunciation if they are interested in ecclesiastical Latin, though you should be aware of the basic classical pronunciation.
Would you mind reposting the PDFs here?
I don't like supporting Discord as a communications platform.
Re: pronunciation, I'll dissent from and say the beginning Latinist (especially one working through Lingua Latina) is better off adopting the Restored Classical pronunciation. Vowel length is central to many morphological and grammatical features. (Why is it 'di-ce-re but vi-'de-re? how do you know whether "causa" is ablative or nominative? etc.) Ecclesiastical pronunciation is bound to make these rules seem arbitrary and frustrating (though mileage may vary, I guess).
Plus, if you learn everything with Classical, Ecclesiastical can be picked up in an hour later on. The reverse isn't true – you've got to learn the vowel lengths with the vocab, which means a lot of damage already done. A midway might be to learn Eccles. with vowel length preserved, but this is a bit of a Frankenstein and might create bad habits.
Side note: if you're gonna use LLPSI, make sure to get the Exercitia and Teachers guide to reinforce the knowledge. There's also a companion book by the same publisher which lays out the important points from each chapter in English – I've found it indespensible.
I used Lingua Latina (make sure you get the Disco as well) but I am a native romance lang speaker so I found latin pretty easy
Ah yes, the classic pretend not to understand a basic question. Are you either of those posters? Because you seem to be disagreeing with them. They were saying things that you just said is wrong in your post, because you said those changes don't change the meaning.
No, I really just did not understand you. Reddit spacing and putting question mark before end of question made me think that rest of the post was not meant to me.
Because it does not. First of all, first of posters are salty fag who does not understand what papal infallibility means. Second is probably a member, since he really oversimplifies what preservation means.
And for verses in question - it does not change the meaning because Christ by both "born again" and "born (again) from water and Spirit" meant Sacrament of Baptism.
Actually it does, because John 3:5 is the explanation of what "born again" means. There is the first birth by water being physical and the second by Spirit. See John 3:6. This second one is what "born again" refers to. It was necessary to explain that to Nicodemus by mentioning both births in John 3:5-6. And so, to change John 3:5 to say "born again" only muddles this clear explanation, because it's going into detail about each birth separately.
John 3:5-6 shows how the first birth is physical, the second one is in the Spirit, which is when you get saved. Put together, you have "born again" which is someone who had both.
Which is Baptism.
No. It's not "born of water and born of spirit" but of water and spirit.
But all this is absurd and perverse, and condemned by the Church as heretical.
For, in the first place, why does Christ here make mention of water? Why did He not say briefly and simply to Nicodemus, who was ignorant of Christian doctrines (whom He here catechises and instructs like a child), except any one be born again of the Holy Ghost?
2. Because in a similar way S. Paul, alluding to this conversation, (Titus iii. 5), calls baptism the laver of regeneration. There in this spiritual birth we are born again of water, and are made sons of God, who before were children of the devil and wrath (Eph. ii. 3).
3. All the Fathers and orthodox interpreters explain the passage in the same way as the Council of Trent (Sess. 7, Can. 2). Nor are the words in S. Matthew, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” any contradiction. For there real fire is to be understood, as here true water. For there the day of Pentecost was referred to, when the Holy Ghost came down upon the apostles in the likeness of tongues of fire.
Very appropriately, moreover, was water ordained by Christ in baptism for this spiritual regeneration. 1. Because water excellently represents inward regeneration. For out of water at the beginning of the world were the whole heavens and all other things born and produced. 2. Because moisture, such as is in water, is a chief agent in the production of offspring, as physicists teach. Again, because justification is a cleansing of the soul from the filth of sin it is well figured by water. As S. Chrysostom says upon this passage, “Like as it were in a tomb our heads are submerged beneath the water: our old man being buried is hidden beneath the water, and then the new man ariseth in its stead.” Lastly, the commonness and abundance of water makes it to be convenient matter for the necessity of this sacrament. For it is everywhere easily procurable.
You may ask why Christ says, except a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, and did not rather say, of water and the form of baptism? For water is the matter of baptism, but the form is, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. For the sacrament of baptism consists of its matter and form, as its essential parts. I reply, because Christ wished to describe to Nicodemus, a prejudiced old man, the new teaching of spiritual life and generation, by means of the analogy and similitude of natural generation, in which a father and mother concur. So in like manner to spiritual regeneration, which takes place in baptism, water as it were the mother concurs, and the Holy Ghost as the Father. For He is the chief agent and producer of grace and holiness, by which the children of God are born again in baptism.
From this passage S. Augustine (lib. 1, de peccat. c. 10) proves, against Pelagius, that infants are born in original sin. For that is the reason why they must be born again in baptism, that they may be cleansed from that sin. And he exposes the folly of the Pelagians, who, in order to elude the force of this passage, said that infants dying without baptism would enter into the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, but not into the kingdom of God; as if the kingdom of God were something different from the kingdom of heaven.
Ver. 6.That which is born (produced), &c. Christ says this both to show the necessity of regeneration by water and the Holy Ghost, and at the same time to declare the reason for it, its excellence and its profit. His argument then is as follows: Flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God, for they are carnal, but the kingdom of God is spiritual. Since therefore of carnal generation only flesh is born, that is, the animal and carnal man, bound under sin, and prone to sin, and so unfitted for the kingdom of God, it follows that if such an one would enter into Gods spiritual kingdom, he must be spiritually born again of water and the Spirit, that he may become a spirit, that is, spiritual, and so fitted for the kingdom of God. Wherefore you have no cause for wonder, 0 Nicodemus, at what I said, that thou must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost. For as flesh generates flesh, that is, corporeal and carnal substance, so does the Spirit generate spirit, that is, spiritual substance: for like generates like. The Holy Spirit transmits His own substance into that which He begets, so far as it can be transmitted. For the Holy Spirit cannot transmit, or transfuse His own substance, or His Deity, into the baptized, for that would be to make them really and truly gods, as He Himself is really and truly God, which would be impossible. Therefore He transfuses Himself into them as far as is possible, by His grace and spiritual gifts, by which He makes the baptized like unto Himself, that is, spiritual, holy, heavenly, and divine. So SS. Cyril, Chrysostom, and others. Let us add that the Holy Spirit gives Himself with His sevenfold gifts to the soul which He sanctifies, and adopts for His child; and therefore that His justification is truly spiritual regeneration, by which we are born again as sons, and partakers of the Divine nature.
Born again means born of water and spirt. Baptism. Washing of RE-GENERation. Washing of again-generation. Washing of again-born. Water of being born again.
It does not. Born of water and Holy Spirit is to be born again.
And second birth is birth of water and spirt. Baptism. True Sacrament.
John 3:5 says "born of water and of the Spirit." The verse does not say "born again of water and the Spirit." The Bible never says that. This corruption is what they built the false doctrine from, you've just proven my point.
Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:5-7
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
You get used to the nouns over time. It's usually not hard to tell based on memory and the context. Also yes there are more tenses but they aren't that hard to memorize.
And? Born again=born of water and spirt.
christian server
discord gg/Xw4V7Jb