This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is my first time using WikipediA, or anything like this. I'm not very computer smart. I actually am going to be taking classes soon. Anyways I just wanted to know what Soli Deo glori means?
I do not argue. I just want to know. It would bo good to put response in article, as some other people can have such doubts and mistakes also.
Does not Soli Deo Gloria mean that Glory belongs to God in term that there should not be any worship, bow down or glory given to graven or painted images of saints, relics etc.? Does it not also put emphasis that worship and Glory should go only to God, and not even to printed Bible Book {as some else religions express it in form of kissing} ???
Does it not source of Salvation is stated in Solus Christus? Does not Solus Christus also states that prayer shoudn't be addressed to saints?
I thought it was for them pretty important to put this emphasis to underline contrast to Roman Catholic Church and also to take away worship of human persons {Pope} and offices {bishops}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 ( talk) 21:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Would someone mind explaining the Latin grammar behind "Soli Deo gloria"? I've seen it cast that way a significant majority of the time, but the genitive/(dative/ablative)/(nominative/ablative) construction doesn't make very much sense.
It seems as if one of the following would be more appropriate:
Does anyone know 1) which case "Deo" is in (dative or ablative), 2) which case "gloria" is in (nominative or ablative), and/or 3) what phrasing makes these noun endings make sense?
Thanks! 72.218.206.109 ( talk) 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think there can be little doubt about what Bach meant by it, especially if you consider his Orgelbüchlein intro: Dem Höchsten Gott allein' zu Ehren, Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren.
But leaving that aside, I think we all agree that 'soli Deo gloria' has been used often in the sense of "glory to God alone". The question is if this is technically the correct translation of the latin phrase. The German article asserts that it isn't. I've tried to find reliable sources for a translation and come up with these.
1 The Cambridge companion to Bach gives To God alone be glory
[1]. (It may be argued that this is a book about Bach, not ancient languages, nevertheless it has a reliable publisher.)
2 Thesaurus of English words in its "Foreign words and expressions" gives To God alone be the glory
[2]
3 The Routledge dictionary of Latin quotations gives to God alone be the glory
[3]
It may be noted that the latter two authors (Sears, 1854 and Stone, 2005) have both published educational books on the Latin language, and may therefore be assumed to have an adequate understanding of the grammar. From this I conclude that the abovementioned translation To God alone be the glory is valid unless reliable claims to the contrary can be found.
I've also tried to find sources supporting the other translation, i.e. 'to the only God', but with less succes. However, there are books and websites that support this, for example Brief history of California, which states
Soli Deo sit semper gloria." The last sentence of the above inscription is in Latin, and means "To the only God, let there be glory forever." [4]
Thus it seems both are correct translations. However, the first is by far the most common and also the intended meaning. Therefore I see no reason to change the current translation that the article uses. Giving an alternative (albeit grammatically correct) interpretation that is not intended by those using the phrase is only confusing IMO. Lindert ( talk) 02:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand there are two biblical sources for this phrase: Romans 16:27 ( Latin, compare) and Jude 1:25 ( Latin, compare). It seems, the former is sometimes and the latter is invariably shown as "to the only God". -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with giving such a hatnote is that we still need a reliable source supporting that the current translation is in fact not 'what it really means'. We have not seen a single source for that. Without a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards (see WP:RS), we cannot add such a note. Lindert ( talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"An opposing view in Catholic ecclesiology is that the Church is Mystici Corporis Christi, the mystical body of Christ, therefore to honour the Church is to honour Jesus himself."
I would like to see a reference for this, and possibly a clarification of the doctrine. Protestants also believe that the Church is the body of Christ according as this Wiki page shows. There should be more clarification on this point or possibly its removal and an addition of a different opposing point.
Msenders ( talk) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is my first time using WikipediA, or anything like this. I'm not very computer smart. I actually am going to be taking classes soon. Anyways I just wanted to know what Soli Deo glori means?
I do not argue. I just want to know. It would bo good to put response in article, as some other people can have such doubts and mistakes also.
Does not Soli Deo Gloria mean that Glory belongs to God in term that there should not be any worship, bow down or glory given to graven or painted images of saints, relics etc.? Does it not also put emphasis that worship and Glory should go only to God, and not even to printed Bible Book {as some else religions express it in form of kissing} ???
Does it not source of Salvation is stated in Solus Christus? Does not Solus Christus also states that prayer shoudn't be addressed to saints?
I thought it was for them pretty important to put this emphasis to underline contrast to Roman Catholic Church and also to take away worship of human persons {Pope} and offices {bishops}. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.108.17.230 ( talk) 21:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Would someone mind explaining the Latin grammar behind "Soli Deo gloria"? I've seen it cast that way a significant majority of the time, but the genitive/(dative/ablative)/(nominative/ablative) construction doesn't make very much sense.
It seems as if one of the following would be more appropriate:
Does anyone know 1) which case "Deo" is in (dative or ablative), 2) which case "gloria" is in (nominative or ablative), and/or 3) what phrasing makes these noun endings make sense?
Thanks! 72.218.206.109 ( talk) 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think there can be little doubt about what Bach meant by it, especially if you consider his Orgelbüchlein intro: Dem Höchsten Gott allein' zu Ehren, Dem Nechsten, draus sich zu belehren.
But leaving that aside, I think we all agree that 'soli Deo gloria' has been used often in the sense of "glory to God alone". The question is if this is technically the correct translation of the latin phrase. The German article asserts that it isn't. I've tried to find reliable sources for a translation and come up with these.
1 The Cambridge companion to Bach gives To God alone be glory
[1]. (It may be argued that this is a book about Bach, not ancient languages, nevertheless it has a reliable publisher.)
2 Thesaurus of English words in its "Foreign words and expressions" gives To God alone be the glory
[2]
3 The Routledge dictionary of Latin quotations gives to God alone be the glory
[3]
It may be noted that the latter two authors (Sears, 1854 and Stone, 2005) have both published educational books on the Latin language, and may therefore be assumed to have an adequate understanding of the grammar. From this I conclude that the abovementioned translation To God alone be the glory is valid unless reliable claims to the contrary can be found.
I've also tried to find sources supporting the other translation, i.e. 'to the only God', but with less succes. However, there are books and websites that support this, for example Brief history of California, which states
Soli Deo sit semper gloria." The last sentence of the above inscription is in Latin, and means "To the only God, let there be glory forever." [4]
Thus it seems both are correct translations. However, the first is by far the most common and also the intended meaning. Therefore I see no reason to change the current translation that the article uses. Giving an alternative (albeit grammatically correct) interpretation that is not intended by those using the phrase is only confusing IMO. Lindert ( talk) 02:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand there are two biblical sources for this phrase: Romans 16:27 ( Latin, compare) and Jude 1:25 ( Latin, compare). It seems, the former is sometimes and the latter is invariably shown as "to the only God". -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with giving such a hatnote is that we still need a reliable source supporting that the current translation is in fact not 'what it really means'. We have not seen a single source for that. Without a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards (see WP:RS), we cannot add such a note. Lindert ( talk) 12:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
"An opposing view in Catholic ecclesiology is that the Church is Mystici Corporis Christi, the mystical body of Christ, therefore to honour the Church is to honour Jesus himself."
I would like to see a reference for this, and possibly a clarification of the doctrine. Protestants also believe that the Church is the body of Christ according as this Wiki page shows. There should be more clarification on this point or possibly its removal and an addition of a different opposing point.
Msenders ( talk) 13:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)