It suits there own purpose, I am sure they will have some reason in order to prove a point of their own particular doctrine!

They actually didn't. They just translated it as "congregation" which is what the word actually means.

With respect, Highlander, i must point out that your very question contradicts itself as well as the Greek text. Nowhere does the word "church" appear in any Greek manuscripts. Church is an English word of Germanic origin. The modern German word is "Kirche", a Gaelic form being 'kirk'. How many times have you seen an empty building with a cross or steeple and recognized it as a 'church'? What relation does the structure have with Ekklesia? "Church" has become such a misused word that it's about time to return to a word that means exactly what 'ekklesia' does. Logical is getting to the point of the matter. 'Qahal' does indeed mean assembly or gathering of people for an ordained purpose. It is an ancient root that led to Greek 'Kalein' to call, which comes to us through Latin 'clamare' as 'clamor' and 'call'. 'Ek', like Latin 'ex' means 'out'. 'Ekklesia' refers to those called out [of their homes, for example] to meet or gather for a purpose. 'Con' is a Latin root meaning 'with, together'. English has thousands of words that begin with form of it. 'Gregare' means to gather. 'Aggregate' is a related word. So, 'con gregare' and 'ek kalein' are almost identical verb thoughts. The ultimate etymology of 'greg-' is sheep or flock. How often do Jesus and the apostles refer to God's people as such? Thus, there is no finer translation of 'ekklesia' than 'congregation'. Next question

Peterpam and i went back and forth and even 'locked horns' in comments on this question. We both worked to come to a good conclusion which i think deserves answer status. If you give or take points, at least morally they belong to both of us. It's lengthy, but worth the read if you're interested in the question. Here it is: It suits there own purpose, I am sure they will have some reason in order to prove a point of their own particular doctrine! [p] Thank you, Peterpam for your explanation. Since you are sure there is some reason, will you please share it with the group? What particular point are they trying to prove and how is it at variance with the rest of the Scriptures? I'm eager for your explanation. peterpam Sep, 04 2007 at 04:23 PM Any change or deviation from the original or accepted text of any document is devised for the particular advantage of whatever grouping orders the changes. Therefore if the questioner is right and there are deviations there must be reasons that suit the translators choice! bruceytom Sep, 06 2007 at 03:49 PM Oh, Peter. I will kindly tell you that your statement is not only only very cynical but patently untrue. "Congregation" as a translation of 'ekklesia' is far from a deviation, as i've explained. The original text is not in question, but the translation. The word 'church' didn't exist in first century Greek. "Accepted text" means little. Note how many translate 'YHWH' as Lord, which is plainly absurd. The majority are often mistaken. You are stating an opinion, not a fact; since you have not labeled it such, i will. Your second statement simply repeats your first. Please explain and specify. To make sweeping generalizations is easy; please do the real work of telling us just what that advantage is. Prove that this is a deviation and tell us the significance. Remember that every decision of translators 'suits their choice'. Choice is the heart of translation. Translators can choose differently in good faith and both be right. I eagerly await your specific explanation. Thanks. peterpam Sep, 06 2007 at 03:57 PM If you look again YHWH in most translations is LORD (capitalized) in order to show that it refers to God. Not at allinconsistent! You are personalizing a simple statement of general truth! Any group which changes the text to suit their own agenda has reasons to do so! Notice I never actually addressed the question I merely generalised as to the reason for text editing. bruceytom Sep, 07 2007 at 02:00 PM Peter, let's dig a bit deeper. Capitalizing a mistranslation doesn't change the mistake. LORD in now way translates YHWH. It refers not to God, but to the personal, self-chosen name of the one true God. It is consistent, but consistently wrong. Question: Is this deviation devised for the advantage of the group ordering it? I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you saying that exchanging 'congregation' for 'church' is more devious than replacing the personal name of God with a generic title that can apply to many? You said well that you never addressed the question. You did the easy part by generalizing (inaccurately, i would say); now will you do the real work of specifying. Back your opinion with fact and example. Tell us why you answer so. I've explained why your 'general truth' is not true. If i'm wrong, will you please enlighten us all. Thank you yet again. peterpam Sep, 07 2007 at 04:07 PM Tell me what you think church means! bruceytom Sep, 08 2007 at 10:34 AM Gladly, Peter. According to Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition: 1) a building for public and esp. Christian worship. 2) the clergy or officialdom of a religious body. 3)a body or organization of religious believers as a]the whole body of christians b]a denomination c]CONGREGATION Webster agrees with what i think it means. Note that the first (hence most common) meaning is a building. The second is a separate class of members. Finally, it can mean the body of believers--congregation. bruceytom Sep, 08 2007 at 10:37 AM [Continued from above] The first definition of 'congregation' is a]an assembly of persons met for worship, b]a religious community. Congregation's first meaning fits 'ekklesia' as does the last (least common) meaning of church. Note the synonyms (Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms): Congregation--assembly, gathering, collection. Church--religion, denomination, sect, communin, creed, faith, cult, persuasion The conclusion is that 'church' is a marginally acceptable translation. 'Congregation' fits perfectly. You asked what i think and i told you. As you can see, it's more than just my opinion, but authoritative and common usage. Armed with that information, are you now able to answer my question? My eagerness for your detailed explanation grows daily. If you need more data, feel free to ask. And once more, thank you. peterpam Sep, 08 2007 at 01:52 PM What do you think that Jesus meant when he said I will build my church and the gates of hell wil not prevail against her! bruceytom Sep, 08 2007 at 05:02 PM You are wise to collect information in order to make a reasoned response. We are left in no doubt as to what he meant. In gathering his congregation or assembly of loyal anointed disciples who would rule with him in heaven, he is building. Paul explains this well in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. He makes it plain that this is not a physical structure (as most people consider a church) but an assembly or congregation. Again, 'church' acceptably (if marginally)translates ekklesia, but Christ certainly isn't laying bricks and glass. 2 Peter 2:4-9 makes this clearer still. As to how the gates of Hades prevails not, Revelation 12:10-12; 14:1-5; 16:14,16 show that the congregation of chosen kingdom heirs die on earth, but are raised to eternal heavenly life where they are immune from death. Again, clearly not a material structure which cannot die or go to 'hell'. Peter, do you feel that the word 'congregation' in any way fails to convey the meaning of the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Peter and John? peterpam Sep, 08 2007 at 05:06 PM Jesus never referred to the church ekklesia as a building it is always the congregation of His people!! bruceytom Sep, 08 2007 at 05:08 PM [Continued from above] Does this make plain both what the Scriptures teach and what i think Jesus meant? If so, i await your next question or your answer to my questions regarding any deviation from the Greek or the motives behind the rendering under discussion. Thank you for the opportunity to expand on the truth of the matter. Of course, if you have reason to dissent, i beg you to share with us. bruceytom Sep, 08 2007 at 05:10 PM Aha. While i was adding comment, you made a good point. We agree, then, don't we, that 'congregation' is a clear and accurate translation of 'ekklesia'. Thank you so much for confirming. Does this resolve the question? peterpam Sep, 08 2007 at 05:11 PM Also Bruce how is it that the gates of hell might prevail against the church. It is clear that Jesus never intended the church to be a building. In this I believe we have found complete agreement!?? peterpam Sep, 08 2007 at 05:12 PM Bruce the same has happened to me you posted whilst I was typing. I have to go to bed now and will look forward to discussion again with you1 Peter! bruceytom Sep, 08 2007 at 05:15 PM Hooray! Yes, we have. Thank you again for taking the time to work this out. It will surely clear up the matter for anyone else who reads our conversation. Congratulations on the good work, my friend. (By the way, i never meant to infer that you or anyone was calling the Biblical 'church' a building, only that there is an inherent weakness in the English word, one that 'congregation' resolves.) peterpam Sep, 08 2007 at 05:17 PM Thanks for all the effort and look forward to chatting again.

Peterpam and i discussed this at length and finally found common ground. (See other answers to this question.) We have agreed that congregation aptly translates 'ekklesia'. I would still like, however, to get an explanation of the statement: It suits there own purpose, I am sure they will have some reason in order to prove a point of their own particular doctrine! Does anyone believe there is anything sinister or biased in this translation?

very impressive Highlander. +

very impressive Highlander. +

very impressive Highlander. +

very impressive Highlander. +

same reason as all the other take away's and adding to's, and retranslating..fits their way, their truth, better..

King James was the King. He made 15 rules that the translation committee had to adhere to. Article 3 basically forbed them from using the word Congregation as William Tyndale had done and required them to use "the Old Ecclesiastical Words" such as Church. His interest was in uniting his Kingdom. When the Bible is talking about the "body" such as Col 1:18,24, 1Cor 12:14-18 and 1Cor 14:4 it is evident that the subject is the people, not the building. Do the research and see for yourself. The race between King James (King James Authorized Version 1611) and the Catholic Church (Douay-Rheims Version 1609) to make a new English Translation reminds me of when Israel and Judah split and Jeroboam made a golden calf in Bethel and another one in Dan to keep his Kingdom united and from going back to Jerusalem in Judah to worship. But that is just my thoughts and not a deep one at that.

Sorry if I missed the point, but this part of my original answer might suffice for some. "When the Bible is talking about the "body" such as Col 1:18,24, 1Cor 12:14-18 and 1Cor 14:4 it is evident that the subject is the people, not the building." I have not read those translations you alluded to, except part of William Tyndales which does not use "Church". I guess a better answer might be that the Greek word was translated in error when translated as Church, being the primary meaning of Church is more related to a building. If people who see the word Church and think of the congregated people rather than the building, i do not see why they would be upset at the word congregation being used. At Gal 1:13, I think more of Paul speaking about persecuting the Christian congregation rather than a Christian building which would be vandalism rather than persecution. Not sure, but the original Latin Vulgate may have been good, however I believe that a later copy of the Vulgate is the one that has some spurious verses at 1Jn 5:7,8 and Mark 16:9-20 which is the basis for those religions that handle poisonous snakes and drink poison to prove they are believers. Much more dangerous and misleading than using the word congregation which I believe from an earlier post, that some think of any way when some who agree with you read it. I am glad that we both think highly of the Codex Sinaiticus though. I guess by comparing the oldest, most accurate manuscripts and researching the original languages would be the reason to remove the errors. Strongs concordance and Vines both agree with Congregation being preferred over Church. I meant to reply to a comment on my previous post, new to site and having a little difficulty, sorry.

While i've already responded to this question, it seems that it really merits deeper consideration with wider meaning. We discussed why 'congregation' is a good translation of 'ekklesia' and how this translation is not a removal of 'church' but a clearer rendering of the original. The bigger point is that apparently many religious people don't know where the Bible came from or what the translation process is about. I've spoken to some who actually believe that the King James Bible (KJV) is the original and only correct Bible. A vital truth is that the Bible didn't start out in English, but in Greek and Hebrew (with small portions in the related Aramaic language). When translators vary their wording from the KJV or other older version, such as the Latin Vulgate or Douay, they are not changing the Bible but rendering the texts as they see fit. Some Versions are based on translations and so lose some of the strength and accuracy of a direct translation. The KJV is really a revision of the Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles; Douay is a translation of the Vulgate. So, unless an original language word is not rendered or replaced with a word that was not in the original, it hasn't been 'taken out', but rather the new word has replaced another rendering. An outstanding example of translators actually 'taking out' a Bible word is their removing the Divine Name (spelled in Hebrew YHWH) and putting in an ordinary word such as GOD or LORD. This truly is removing a word. Nearly 7000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, God's name appears in the original, but many translators have purposely removed it. Whether this name is rendered 'Jehovah', 'Yahweh' or similarly is a matter of preference and some debate, but of little true consequence. These are all different spellings (sometimes influenced by target language) of the same name. Most translators use their preference in good conscience. To remove it completely from sight and put in an impersonal title is a deliberate transgression of the translating process. So, to put it as kindly as possible, questioning a particular translation of a given word which may or may not serve is a good thing, but to worry about minor variations (such as between 'congregation' and 'church') while failing to recognize true mistranslations is, as Jesus said, to disregard the weightier things. He compared this to straining a gnat out of your drink while gulping down a camel. Intentional mistranslation (changing God's words) really ought to be our real concern when appraising any version of the Scriptures.