Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Plurailty is just part of the innacuracies of English translation. It does not exist in the original Greek. That is irrelevant.
1 Corinthians 6:19
ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐστιν οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἐστε ἑαυτῶν;
Your = ὑμῶν
This is the genitive case of ye, you, your. There is no implied plurality.
Body =σῶμα
The primary meaning is body, flesh. It can be applied to the body of the church also though if you really want.
So yes, ultimately the interpretation can go both ways. It can refer to the individual or the congregation/church. A great majority of Christian denominations do not take it YOUR intepretative context of addressing the Corinthian fellowship though and constantly ex-pew these verses as evidence to why one should not violate one's own body. In fact, it's probably the majority of churches. Many denominations would interpret it in the context of the addressing of sexual morality as a violation of the individual body. He's writing to everybody, of course you can just say everything is figuratively speaking about the congregation and has no implications for the individual.
|
Ye, you, your are plural: Thee, thou, and thy are singular. That is why the King James Bible used those archaic words in their translation: they wanted to mirror the greek usage. If you read the original foreward to a King James Bible you won't find any "ye" "thee's""thou's" or "thy's". Those words hadn't been used since Shakespeare's time. They did it to keep the meaning of the greek clear.
Forget what denominations think. Being as this letter was written to a specific church and deals with personal problems of this church isn't it correct to interpret "your" to be refering to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
Anyway, lets get back on topic. What was the name of that woman who was in a coma several years back and there was a huge political hubbub about her family wanting or not wanting to take her off life support? It exploded into a huge political storm that was debated in the House of Representatives and the Senate wasn't it? Why can't this stuff remain private, with family, with next of kin, with those who have power of attorney instead of being elevated to something that is debated in national legislatures?
I remember ridiculous things in that case like politicians hiring experts and Doctors to give evidence showing that she was not in a persistent vegetative state and still had cognitive thought. Well if she was still cognitively alive, she must have been going through hell to be in a coma and paralyzed for a decade. There has to be room for rational compassion here.
|
It got pushed into the courts because experts disagreed on the women's cognitive state and some close kin regarded starving her as murder.
The women had been raised and married in a religious sect that seen starving her as murder. There was conflicting opinions because of that of what this women's wishes would have been. Also, the power of attorney in this case was believed to be suspect because of problems within the marriage and questions about how she got into her veg state.