mightychurch.com

Hi Guys,

I am working on something with my parish at the moment, and was wondering if you could please assist me with an enquiry I have on multicultural church services/bible study groups.

Would you know of any parishes or other denominations that have a somewhat similar multicultural services and bible study groups that cater for people with poor english skills - that come in and learn about the Word of God in an easy english format.

So far, I have found Campsie Anglican Church that have these type of services in their parish.

I was wondering if there are any other parishes, or outside our denomination that do somewhat similar.

Thank you.

None I heard apart from Campsie Anglican, they do well in marketing that aspect (easy english services).

Of course there are plenty of multicultural churches in Sydney (wiki my church Grace Church Kogarah for instance), but I think you’re looking for easy english service material right?

Wesley Mission (UCA) have an international service at 9.30am on Sundays, I think that it is predominantly Asian but services are in English and I think they cater for NESBs.  I think they get a few hundred people each Sunday.

http://www.wesleymission.org.au/Christian_Life/Congregations_Services/wic.asp

St Michael’s Wollongong used to provide some easy English resources in John Thew’s time there.. not sure if they still do.

We have just started an Easy English ladies Bible study at St Marys.

Our ESL classes also usually do a short Bible study during their lessons.

Shame the people who did the english translation from latin used old english with the thys and thous to give the bible an old feel.
Thys and thous were put in for effect as the english language had move on from using these pronouns by the time the translation came along.

Latin had been used supposely to keep the ignorant ignorant. Wasn’t much before that translation that englands official languages were latin and french.

The original translators purposefully put the thous and thys in ........why not take them out ......the thous and thys were a man made idea .........so take ‘em out!

an aside but a useful idea.
I used to make training tapes for automotive mechanics that were isolated to familiarise them with latest innovations in steering and suspension.
I used a womans voice for the narration….....beauty is you can slow the tapes down for study purposes as done with the old dictaphones .......drops the voice an octave and makes it sound like a man talking in a very slow voice.
Works well and instills confidence in those that feel the lesson is flashing past them ....not everyone can soak up the knowledge as fast as others ......but certainly doesn’t mean the lesson is less learnt.

just a thought but could be used in bible studies I’m sure.  Old knowledge but useful.

The original translators purposefully put the thous and thys in ........why not take them out ......the thous and thys were a man made idea .........so take ‘em out

Oh, what you mean like they’ve done in all the English bible translations that have been published last century, like the RSV, NIV, New RSV, Good News etc etc etc?

I was just pointing out how the original translation was done with still that view to keep it too highbrow for average public consumption and thence the way it was purposefully translated to older english…..was always the case to keep the scum in their place…...and now in recent time the opposite applies with the bible having its many translations.

I just found it ‘profound’ (good word that!) that the old minders of the bible didn’t translate it for years as they liked to keep the WORD for themselves etc….....now this thread is about spreading the Word.

and I’ve always wondered if this turn around could be applied to other parts of this christianity.
I may not be a believer but my christian values have done me well through my life ......I’m just curious about which bits are from where now.
Way off thread there but I’d love to see a thread on christian values /maybe protestant work ethic against the great aussie or US dream.
I found big business more bent than any lowly workers and I’ve been both ends…...I just wonder if the same framework applys within all the churches ......dribble dribble, way off topic ......:rolleyes:

The way I understand it, the “thous” and “thys” were included in an era where such spoken language was common.  Now that times have changed, they were replaced by more user-friendly language.

Not changing the meaning either.  However I do like the more expressive versions such as Tyndale’s Living Bible as well as the NIV.  Perhaps that’s a way to facilitate greater understanding of the Bible, particularly by non-English-speaking background people.

I hear that some other churches like Wesley Mission and the Salvos now use The Message, the most expressive version of all.  But I won’t go there lol as that might open another can of worms (accuracy issues).

Not true apparently Arthur, my cousin (now by divorce) is a language lecturer at Melb Uni and she was giving me a great rave about during her early english studies in wales she found this to be true of the thous and thys being written into the bible to give it more credance in the period ....carry more weight if you wish.
Not necessarily thys and thous, as I use that generically ......but that is how she explained it to this low lander from the bush heheheeee
I’d quote her but I’d need to ask her first ......is it that important? .....I think propaganda is part and parcel of any delivery of any message…...human nature doesn’t let us do it any other way.
(now I’m getting hydraulic oil on my keyboard :( ......later guys :) )

I was just pointing out how the original translation was done with still that view to keep it too highbrow for average public consumption and thence the way it was purposefully translated to older english…..was always the case to keep the scum in their place…...and now in recent time the opposite applies with the bible having its many translations.

I think that you’re assuming a sinister motive and you have no basis on which to do so.

From what I can gather, yes the original translations from the Latin into English tended towards a very formal, slightly archaic use of language “verily I say unto thee…” but I don’t believe that this was done with the intention of keeping things highbrow, that’s a bit silly, cos the educated classes all read Latin anyway so they wouldn’t have bothered to translate into the vernacular if they wanted to keep the scum in their place.  The intention was to give the language a solemnity and a dignity so that, particularly when read aloud (the main means to communicate the word to the non-literate scum who made up the majority of the population) people would take the word seriously.

I think this obsession with making the bible “easy” to read is much over rated. I’m not much fussed which translation is used but to get het up about the bible only being available in contemporary ENglish is misguided.  I think part of it is a conspiracy to keep translations copyrighted and make money.  At my old school, we got our first bible in 3rd grade (age 8yo) and we read along in assembly and we read and learnt our memory work during scripture from it.  Which version I hear you ask. Well verily I say unto thee that it was the King James version that was given unto us and we readeth happily from it.  Perhaps the beauty of the language in the KJV gave some of us an appreciation of the word that we wouldn’t have got if we’d had the Good News Bible, I’m certain that it improved our literacy and vocabulary.  I don’t think anybody was unable to grasp its meaning despite being a form of English that we didn’t use every day.

Melinda Seed - 06 March 2009 11:31 AM

I think this obsession with making the bible “easy” to read is much over rated.

For people from non-English speaking background, it may be necessary.  However I’d agree that dumbing it down too much would be of detriment to a person’s understanding of the true Biblical meaning.

I think this obsession with making the bible “easy” to read is much over rated. I’m not much fussed which translation is used but to get het up about the bible only being available in contemporary ENglish is misguided.  I think part of it is a conspiracy to keep translations copyrighted and make money.

That’s possibly the case… but it’s undeniable that language changes fast, several times over a lifetime and some changes are even noticable over 5-10 years. If the Bible is that important then it needs to be updated that frequently too. I read that the KJV was originally intended to be updated every year or so, which is especially ironic considering those KJV-onlyists!

At my old school, we got our first bible in 3rd grade (age 8yo) and we read along in assembly and we read and learnt our memory work during scripture from it.  Which version I hear you ask. Well verily I say unto thee that it was the King James version that was given unto us and we readeth happily from it.  Perhaps the beauty of the language in the KJV gave some of us an appreciation of the word that we wouldn’t have got if we’d had the Good News Bible, I’m certain that it improved our literacy and vocabulary.

Beauty is a completely subjective quality and should not be the basis for any decisions about which Bibles to use…
that said, was the Bible intended to be beautiful? Some parts definitely were, like the Psalms. A translation like the NASB makes these so clunky and awkward that the beauty is very hard to see. But for something like Romans, well Paul wasn’t writing poetry, he was writing rhetoric. His arguments need to be understood, with great clarity, so that their full persuasive power can be released. If the translation is old and uses unfamiliar words and phrase constructions the rhetoric won’t work.

I don’t think anybody was unable to grasp its meaning despite being a form of English that we didn’t use every day.

Maybe everyone could grasp some meaning, but I doubt that everyone could have grasped the full meaning of every phrase. I couldn’t do that now as an university-educated adult who has even studied some old modern English at uni.

Beauty can’t decide what translation we use. Not even such noble goals as increasing vocab and literacy. Clarity and comprehensibility must guide our translation choices.

Beauty is a completely subjective quality

Agreed, but when talking about dealing with a translation of a 2,000 yo old document that has been written in Hebrew and Greek, clarity and comprehensibility are also subjective and depend on defining your audience, are you talking about people with the reading level of a 5yo, a 13yo (which is about average I understand) or University Professors.  In many cases, to try to make things clear, subtleties and nuances of the original are ignored, and the simplest version is chosen at the expense of meaning.  To take a non-biblical example, try translating a poem into prose. you’ll see the shortcomings of simple translations very clearly.

Maybe everyone could grasp some meaning, but I doubt that everyone could have grasped the full meaning of every phrase. I couldn’t do that now as an university-educated adult who has even studied some old modern English at uni.

Do you claim to grasp the “full meaning of every phrase” of any translation of the bible? How very bold, or perhaps naive of you. 

A basic familiarity (gained through reading it) with the KJV should enable a literate person to make as much sense of it as any other translation, I’m surprised that anybody who has studied English up to HSC level, let alone Uni would find difficulty with it.

I’m not arguing for the KJV as being a better choice than other translations, just that the fuss about translating something into the current vernacular is much overrated.  If people take the bible seriously they’ll read whatever translation is available and educate others to do the same.

Many thanks for your input guys, I really appreciate it.