A question on the bible

[Slater]

Some Bibles divide SoS into differently named parts; maybe that's what's going on here. Haven't seen any of those in like 6 years tho

[chibiphonebooth]

Also, I dont know if you want to try this- but I know it helped me.

Pray that God will make the Bible come alive and just be amazing while you read it. XP

I have trouble reading the Bible. I've barely read any. >.>;;;
But I did get through some cause God made me interested. :p

(also, fi, if you have any questions- feel free to ask. I'm actually on a Bible school thing in England at the moment- so I would be glad to answer any questions about God and having a personal relationship with him.) XP

[USSRGirl]

Hey.

I'm a non-christian gal looking for some in sight into the bible texts, and I'm trying to learn about Christianity. However...whenever I crack open the book...I get partway through Genesis and I get a bit bored. ><

I'm trying to educate myself about your faith but I get lost, it seems, because I'm not sure what to read.

What parts would you reccomend?

Hey there FiFi. When I first tried to read the Bible on my own I made the exact same mistake. Start at the begining, get to parts where they start rambling on about Jewish tradition and how such-and-such thing should be made/washed/eaten/ect. get bored and give up.

Then, I tried starting with New Testament instead and found it a LOT easier to read and understand. I'd reccomend you start with maybe the Gospel of Luke to get the most straight forward informative play-by-play of who Jesus was and what He did.

Also, what translation of the Bible are you using? Like King James version, New International version, ect. Try New American Standard version if you have it or see it at the library. The language is easier to read without any "thee" and "thou" and it's pretty close to the original Hebrew/Greek texts. New International version is okay too for easier reading. Just stay away from the old, old, older than your great-grandmother's grandmother King James version. Alsoooo.... check out http://www.biblegateway.com for free Bible passages and such. Sorry no free iPods though.

[termyt]

No Bible omits Song of Solomon that I know of.

Sirach and Maccabees are books "omitted" from most Bibles because they're considered apocryphal by Protestant Christianity but used by the Catholic and Orthodox churches as canonical Scripture. (Rocklobster is catholic, in case anybody's forgetting).

Actually, that’s slightly backwards, although I think the point you are making is good. They are considered apocryphal because they aren't included. Apocryphal basically means "hidden away" as in, since they were not canonized, the books were hidden away.

It seems to me that apocrypha does not mean false, gnostic, wrong, or anything of that sort. It simply means that the text was not included in the cannon for one of several reasons:

1) The text contradicts the accounts of the Apostles and other first hand witnesses of events. The Gnostic texts fall under this category and many people assume this is true of all apocryphal texts but that is not necessarily true. In actuallity, books that fail for this reason aren't truly apocrypha, by some standards. Apocryphal books were often included as appendices to the Bible in many early editions, which implies that they were considered true and good. Books failing this first and most basic test would not have been included.

2) Although the text does not contradict the canonized text, the text’s authenticity as a document written by the first generation of believers could not be verified. That doesn’t mean the text is false, it just means it isn’t old enough. Writings today by the likes of Max Lucado, Phillip Yancey, or Billy Graham could, at least in theory, fall under this category, not that anyone includes them.

3) The text was not known at the time the Bible was assembled. This is the most likely reason for the difference in the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Bibles. Some texts were lost to time and discovered after the first canonized texts were assembled. Even though they may have sufficient evidence to be included, all of Christendom was no longer under a single church authority, so some included the text, some did not.

There could be other reasons as well. For example, some scholars assert that some books were omitted because adding them would be redundant since everything covered in that book was already covered elsewhere. That's a possibility, but there's a lot of redundancy in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and we have all three of them, so I don't know about that being a legitimate cause for not including a book.

[JasonPratt]

Well, strictly speaking 'apocryphal' means 'revealing' as in 'revealing more about'. It's picked up a more negative connotation because a lot of the texts purporting to 'reveal more about' are judged (by Christian and non-Christian alike) to be spurious. (Similarly 'deutero-canonical' just means '2nd canon'. Not a bad thing for EOx and RCC. Protestants protest. {g} There are some respectable arguments on either side. Several other people, including Termyt just now, have given some good extra info. Thus endeth the digression.)

That was a _GREAT_ way of describing Ecclesiastes! {bow!} The internal context is very interesting, if a bit daunting to plow through. It's about a man who used to be a prophet but went way off the tracks, and is now trying to pick up the pieces--and isn't really succeeding very well yet. But he's still trying. That's one of the amazing things about the Jewish scriptures: they're so intensely self-critical about their own failings, _they include it in their canon!_

While the NASV is perhaps the most scholarly 'popular' text (though not without some translation foibles here and there, at least back in the previous edition--not sure about currently, I need to upgrade my copy {wry g}), Eugene Peterson's _The Message_ is a pretty decent 'contextual paraphrase'. It translates the colloquial effect, not the actual phrasing. That's a fancy way of saying that he uses phrases like "cash n carry". {g} It can be useful to read side-by-side with a more sober text. Kind of like those Geico commercials, where one guy is saying things about insurance in technical language and the other guy is saying it in rap. {lol!} (But Peterson _is_ a serious scholar. He isn't doing it as a lark; more as an outreach project.)


I agree with the consensus, the Gospels are the most fun and helpful (and arguably just the most useful) place to start. If possible, try to get a text that includes little callback refs in the margin (see Exodus chapter blah verses blahdeblah); it'll help you start getting a handle on the OT, too.

While I certainly don't recommend throwing out the four source texts, I do recommend finding a harmonization of the Gospels eventually. They won't all be exactly the same, as there are various ways to 'solve for the ranges', so to speak, but they can be helpful in pulling the story contexts together. I put up a fairly lengthy portion of a harmonization project of my own (originally composed several years ago while studying time/place cues in the language of the texts, posted publicly this year for Easter season), over on the Christian Cadre journal. I chose to start (for the public posting, not the whole project {g}) just before the Transfiguration, and just after the Feeding of the 4000 (_not_ to be confused with the feeding of the 5000; thematically similar, but happens in different places and times in the story).

I haven't yet made an easy way to sort the entries in order, in a search (not real sure it's possible), but they can be found by going to christiancadre.blogspot.com and doing a site search for "The King of Stories". "The Resolution of the King" is the first entry, and whenever I posted up an entry I made sure to mention which one came before, so it should be possible to sort through them with a little effort.

They're written in a poetic rhythmical form, a bit archaic in the wording but also pretty straightforward and with some translation choices you wouldn't normally see. I've also included some contextual plotnote commentary, too. People seemed to like it as a fresh retelling--I received several compliments on it. {shrug}{s} (Some critical questons, too, on occasion.)

If they're helpful, great; if not, leave them alone. {g}

[rocklobster]

Sorry to confuse people here. Guess I need to redo my research. Forget what I said.

[Slater]

Meh... N/C on Catholic books or The Message (not that it's bad, it just got on my nerves sometimes... some verses are just... corny to me)...

My recommendation is to read Genesis first, Chapters 1 thru 11 (At the very least, to chapter 3). This segment of the Bible pretty well explains WHY we need Jesus' sacrifice.

After that, skip to the Gospels. My recommended order (tho it's really not important) is Matthew, John, Mark, Luke.

Then, try to read one psalm/proverb (one chapter) per day; those books are full of wisdom. Then hop back over to the NT... read up some on what we as the human race have to look forward to (Revalations), and then head back to Acts and read up on Paul's life...

It's fun

[LandmineLuv]

Song of Solomon in nice if you like romance.

[Slater]

Yeah, I can also vouch for SoS. It really emphasizes God's relationship to the Church, and even foreshadows things in the New Testament.

We are the bride of the most high God, and as the Husband He (Jesus) laid down His life for us.

This is the love that Christianity is all about, that us as human beings were created to experiance and live out... not this feeble, corrupted life of sin and death. Much like Revelation, it's what we have to look forward to after this earth fades away...

[Nate]

I would just like to say that the books such as Maccabees, Tobit, and the like in the Catholic bibles are only referred to as "Apocrypha" by Protestants.

The correct name for the books is the Deuterocanonical books.

[RedMage]

I would just like to say that the books such as Maccabees, Tobit, and the like in the Catholic bibles are only referred to as "Apocrypha" by Protestants.

Given that I'm a Protestant, I shall therefore feel quite at ease in continuing to call them Apocrypha.

[Kkun]

Meh... N/C on Catholic books or The Message (not that it's bad, it just got on my nerves sometimes... some verses are just... corny to me)...

Yeah, the Message can be totally cheesy. I read an interview with Eugene Peterson, and I really like him as a person, though.

[Slater]

Cheese with the Bible would be a good thing. I'm particularly fond of cheddar and brie.

[Technomancer]

Yeah, I can also vouch for SoS. It really emphasizes God's relationship to the Church, and even foreshadows things in the New Testament.

We are the bride of the most high God, and as the Husband He (Jesus) laid down His life for us.

This is the love that Christianity is all about, that us as human beings were created to experiance and live out... not this feeble, corrupted life of sin and death. Much like Revelation, it's what we have to look forward to after this earth fades away...

You can interpret it that way, although that idea largely originates with St. Bernard of Clairvoux.

[Mitsukai]

Hiya Fifi!

I recommend reading the Message translation of the four gospels.

The Message is the same as any other Bible translation, but it's updated with modern speech.

It's easier to understand, and it also reads smoothly.

Yeah, the Message can be totally cheesy.

The Message changed my life, so shush. >.<

[Nate]

[quote="RedMage"]Given that I'm a Protestant, I shall therefore feel quite at ease in continuing to call them Apocrypha. ]
Eh...I find it disrespectful...it burns me up when atheists call Jesus "Jeebus" or the like. It's almost like an insult, given what other books are included in the apocrypha. I mean, just because I don't agree with another religion, doesn't mean I'm going to call things insulting names...least of all fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

But if you can call them that without feeling convicted, more power to you, I guess... *shrug* I know I couldn't though.

[Momo-P]

Eh...I find it disrespectful...it burns me up when atheists call Jesus "Jeebus" or the like. It's almost like an insult, given what other books are included in the apocrypha. I mean, just because I don't agree with another religion, doesn't mean I'm going to call things insulting names...least of all fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

But if you can call them that without feeling convicted, more power to you, I guess... *shrug* I know I couldn't though.

Ah, just curious, but why can't those books be called Apocrypha? In 2 Maccabees 12, 41-46, prayers and offerings are made to, and on behalf of, saints who have died. Such a practice is contrary to the teaching of salvation by grace.

2 Maccabees 14, 41-46 justified suicide and Ecclesiasticus 33, 25-29 justified cruelty to slaves. Tobit 4, 11 states, "alms do deliver from death," but Christ taught that He was the Deliverer. The preexistence of the soul is alluded to in the Wisdom of Solomon 8, 20: "Being good, I came into a body undefiled."

I mean, call me crazy, but shouldn't things that go against our original teachings be pushed out? Not trying to start a war, but just saying...

[Nate]

CAA isn't the place for theological debate.

I wasn't talking about the content of the books. I didn't claim to agree with everything in them either. But then there's things Baptists believe that I don't. Things Lutherans believe that I don't. Things Catholics and Calvinists and Presbyterians believe that I don't agree with. But I'm not going to be disrespectful to their beliefs simply because I don't agree with it. I wouldn't call baptism a "pool party" if I didn't agree with baptism, because that's disrespectful to those who do believe in it (I do agree with baptism, for the record, I was using it as an example).

But whatever...I can't see this thread lasting much longer after that post anyway...

[termyt]

Don't be too quick to judge Maccabees. Firstly, I would be very careful about claiming parts of some Christian's Bible are not true or that any part of the Bible would be pushed out. Second, I would also be very careful about saying that some parts of the Bible should not be believed.

For example, in the book of Judges (Chapter 11), Jephthah promises to sacrifice to the Lord the first thing that walks out of his house should the Lord grant him victory. The first thing out of his house? His daughter. He made an oath, so he kept it. That's mean and cruel and not in accordance with our beliefs today, perhaps we should strike that story from the Bible? That book has a lot of stories of Godly people doing what we would consider today to be bad. In chapter 19, a Levite cuts his concubine into 12 pieces and sends them all over Israel. Just having a concubine is bad today, let alone cutting her into pieces and mailing her around the country. So maybe the entire book should go.

The point is that we should be very careful about judging the actions of people who died thousands of years ago with the morality of today. They had different rules then we do. Hopefully we've gotten better, but regardless, judging them based on our rules is not fair to them or to the God who is the same today as He was then.

[Momo-P]

I didn't say they weren't true, I merely meant those stories should be questioned because they DO approve of things the rest of Scripture says is wrong.

Take Tobit 4, 11 again. "alms do deliver from death"? Christ was the deliever. The stories could be true, but just like many Christians are led into traps today (moms saying God told them to kill their family and other crap like that), I believe there's a possibility it happened in some of these stories. Otherwise how can you explain that? Why would God want anyone to say anything but Christ is the deliever?

Having a concubine isn't right, but my point is--I don't ever remember the scripture saying it was right either. In these cases, these stories were basically giving the go-ahead on things we were once told were wrong. To love your slaves and treat them with care, to take care of the body because it's the Lord's temple, etc.

But anyway I'll stop. Like I said, I don't want to start a war, I was just pointing something out. In fact, I don't even know what Apocrypha means to you. In my teachings I remember it said something about questionable books (it went back to the original greek word meaning and stuff), so if anyone thinks I'm saying those books should burn and crap, I ain't saying that either. Just that I don't blame anyone who wants to set these books aside. Especially since the guys who put the Bible together obviously did more research on the subject any of us have and most likely ever will. I also believe God was with them on it (well it's His scriptures, I can't see Him NOT watching what they did), so if they threw something out He wanted there, I'm sure He would've made sure it got put back.

[Technomancer]

fact, I don't even know what Apocrypha means to you. In my teachings I remember it said something about questionable books (it went back to the original greek word meaning and stuff),

The original Greek word has nothing to do with being questionable: it meant "hidden", which the deuterocanon has certainly never been.

[Mithrandir]

CAA isn't the place for theological debate.

Word.

Apparently when I said, "Now then, let's not digress into this disussion" everyone assumed I was kidding.

Kid this: LOCKED.