Author Topic: Latin Translation (Read 1201 times)

Binechi · « **on:** July 05, 2014, 07:00:10 PM »

Are there any Latin Scholars out there who can translate this for me, and be ready for questions on particular parts, and how it was derived ....

Latin
Cap. IV.

Insinmatur descriptio instificationis impii, et modus eius in statu gratioe
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii desceptio insinuator, ut sit translation ab eo statu, in qui homo nascitur filus primi Adac, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei3, per secundum Adam lesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quac quidem translation post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei4.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #1 on:** July 06, 2014, 08:04:05 AM »

I have a First Year Latin (Henle) Coursebook and a Primer for Ecclesiastical Latin that is collecting dust = which really means = I couldn't accurately translate your passage to save my.................... refraining from my first cup of coffee this morning (to wake up)

There should be Latin scholars lurking somewhere here who could accurately lay the smack down on your stuff and help you out

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #2 on:** July 06, 2014, 08:44:27 AM »

There are some errors in the Latin above (through OCR I presume), but the correct translation can be found in many places and I guess it has been posted here numerous times:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

In case you are wondering about aut: The word has a more disjunctive character than e.g. vel, -ve, sive or seu. It tends to mean: "either...or" while one alternative excludes the other.
When one wants to write that both are necessary, one would use "et...et"; if they are possibly not exclusive one would employ vel, seu etc.

Binechi · « **Reply #3 on:** July 06, 2014, 11:32:44 AM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

There are some errors in the Latin above (through OCR I presume), but the correct translation can be found in many places and I guess it has been posted here numerous times:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: “In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”

In case you are wondering about aut: The word has a more disjunctive character than e.g. vel, -ve, sive or seu. It tends to mean: "either...or" while one alternative excludes the other.
When one wants to write that both are necessary, one would use "et...et"; if they are possibly not exclusive one would employ vel, seu etc.

Thank you Pyrrhos, Since there are so many variations of this 6.4 and I am doing the research on it. Would you tell me where you located this rendition.

D.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 06, 2014, 05:22:31 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

In case you are wondering about aut: The word has a more disjunctive character than e.g. vel, -ve, sive or seu. It tends to mean: "either...or" while one alternative excludes the other.
When one wants to write that both are necessary, one would use "et...et"; if they are possibly not exclusive one would employ vel, seu etc.

au contraire -- In Trent's teaching on Confession it uses vel ... vel for either ... or, and the phrase saltem in voto in another. If Trent had meant either ... or here, one would have expected the same vel ... vel expression that it used for Confession.

Binechi · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2014, 05:50:31 PM »

let me put this to you lad..
Is this a valid translation in Latin of 6.4 on justification....
Do you see anything missing..

Latin
Cap. IV.

Insinmatur descriptio instificationis impii, et modus eius in statu gratioe
Quibus verbis iustificationis impii desceptio insinuator, ut sit translation ab eo statu, in qui homo nascitur filus primi Adac, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei3, per secundum Adam lesum Christum salvatorem nostrum; quac quidem translation post evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest, sicut scriptum est: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto non potest introire in regnum Dei4.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2014, 06:56:57 PM »

No, the translation looks fine except that I wouldn't translate insinuator as "is suggested". It's more along the lines of being introduced or led into or just begins (something like "here begins"). But the Latin is mangled somewhat. I'll try to look up the original Latin myself later this evening and will try my hand at a translation.