I'm getting a new study Bible. I've never looked at it in person but

[GreenPartyVoter]

the pages I can see online were enough to sell me.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195282175/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0822305-9093400#reader-page

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[RobertSeattle]

1. Someday I plan to read the Jefferson Bible

Have always heard about it, but never actually picked it up

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0807077143/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-5477819-2099040#reader-link

[pelagius]

2. Looks like a good version!

Looks like the introductory material is quite helpful -- backed by good scholarship, but addressed to general reader.

The NRSV is generally accepted as the best "word-for-word" translation available in English, but the editors' choice to use gender-inclusive language has raised the hackles of traditionalists. For example, 1 Corinthians 12:1 in the KJV:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

Is rendered in the NRSV as:

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed.

Big deal, huh? Well, it is to some people, since the original texts do say "brothers" or "brethren" and don't refer to women. Of course, we all understand the traditional use of the male-normative to express the idea of male _and_ female, so the editorial revision isn't untrue to the spirit of the text. And, in any event, the notes to the text indicate each time this not-unreasonable substitution has been made.

Now would it surprise you to know that the denominations most likely be identified as associated with the Christian Right are also the ones squawking about the gender-neutral language in the NRSV? No, I didn't think it would surprise you. :-)

Most evangelicals and "conservative" Christians prefer the New International Version (NIV). Excellent translation, well worth using for study and devotion. If there's a questionable passage to translate (note: there are many, many such passages in the Bible), the NIV editors come down on the most traditional or conservative side. Fair enough. The NIV represents a huge scholarly improvement over previous translations used by evangelicals. Especially over the odious (and immensely popular) "Living Bible" which was one man's _paraphrase_ of the Bible.

So if you have fundie friends or family, they might give your NRSV the hairy eyeball. But most mainline Protestants use the RSV or NRSV. And, of course, most American wouldn't know there are different translations of the Bible, since, if they are familiar with anything, it's "Bible stories" like Noah and the Ark or pithy aphorisms like "Never count your chickens until they're hatched"

Have fun!


On edit: grammar corrected

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Even hubby's conservative-ish church uses NIV.. and the pastors

quote the Message now and then. :) HAve to give them credit for that.

Want to see a really funky Bible site? Should come as no surprise who owns it. *lol*

http://www.kjbbn.net/new_age_bibles.htm

[pelagius]

9. Even with gender-neutral language...

...there are plenty of horribly sexist (to our way of thinking) things in the Bible that are consistent with a Near Eastern patriarchal society, but are repugnant to modern people. Except in the red states, of course. :-)

Please note that Jesus seemed to have, for his time, rather amazing free and frequent contact with women, whom his society regarded, at best, as chattel, and at worst, unclean and untouchable. The Gospels describe woman as chief among his friends and followers, a very unusual thing for a first century rabbi.

On edit: This post is a misplace response to Post 3.

[Maat]

3. Thanks for the Bible education.

I was looking for one that was on the more modern, non-sexist- (NRSV)-side. I just didn't know the name.

I'm a Religious Scientist, and we honor all paths to God (and yet are a unique one ourselves). But the point is ... I want to show my daughter that wisdom is found in a variety of 'holy' texts.

[pelagius]

5. May I suggest reading the Gospel of Mark first

...if you're interested in an introduction to the Christian gospel story? It's short and contains the basic narrative. Then read the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles (really two volumes of the same book) for further understanding of Jesus' message and the response of the earliest Christians to it. (One tidbit: they didn't call themselves "Christians" back then!)

Do that and then consider what connotations the word "Christian" has in today's America. Re-read the "Sermon on the Mount". And consider this description of the early followers of Christ:

"They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers....All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people."

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. This will be a good one for that.. but if you can't wait til

you have it in hand, you might try this one:
http://www.quixote.org/pfe/index.html

[pelagius]

12. Thanks for that pointer. Very nicely rendered passage. n/t

[pelagius]

10. Oops, my post number 9 was in response to this post. n/t

[Az]

4. Stay very far away from the Queen Jane's translation of the bible

Unless you have a very very open mind and are very very tolerant..... better just stay away from it. :evilgrin:

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Have you seen this one?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[pelagius]

11. I like that one!

I actually became a much better Christian when I stopped viewing the Bible through "holy spectacles" and read it as I would any other narrative. It's the stuff of life -- funny, bawdy, tragic, horrifying, sentimental, cruel, mysterious, and plain-spoken all at once.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Yep. literalism allows no room to think

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Telly Savalas]

14. Another online source of the Bible is...

located at http://www.biblegateway.com/versions

It's nice because it has several different English versions, and also translations in numerous other languages if you happen to read any.

[Az]

16. The advantage of the skeptics site

is namely that it presents a number of resources for those that do not wish to spend a great chunk of their time delving into the bible on their own. One could spend a lifetime following the twists and turns of that work. The annotated site sums up some of the better known arguments against literalists and other issues.

[Az]

15. Indeed, it is a valuable resource for some debates

I actually suspect that the Queen Jane's version may have been compiled by the same person behind the skepticsannotated. Although the website is not as openly hostile.

[Maat]

17. Again, thanks for the post.

And thanks for the information, DUers! I've bookmarked the pages.

[BoogDoc7]

18. Good response to Skeptics site...

http://www.tektonics.org/ though a little condescending at times, is a GREAT resource for all those typical skeptics' questions.

[trotsky]

19. BWAH HA HA HA

Any site that purports to be an apologetics site yet still uses the totally demolished "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" false trilemma created by Josh McDowell is a joke. Nice try. Surely your faith is worth a more scholarly support system!

[BoogDoc7]

20. Try reading it...

And it even gives a pretty decent answer to that question...which was a CS Lewis theory, actually.

[trotsky]

21. I did read it.

It's the same old garbage, restated for the umpteenth time hoping that by repeating it enough it will become true.

Every version contains logical holes large enough to drive a Mack truck through.

If this is seriously supposed to pass for advanced Christian apologetics today, you guys are in a world of hurt.

[BoogDoc7]

22. Mind posting...

A resource, or your own argument, as to why the argument is wrong or why the tektonics refutation is wrong?

[trotsky]

23. It is not a "refutation" on that site.

Lord, Liar, or Lunatic is a false logical construct created by apologetics so they can verify their beliefs by discounting two of the three given options, and then force their audience to assume the last one must be true. The refutation comes from skeptics who point out, legitimately, that there are innumerable other options not even considered, but also logical holes in any application of it. An apologetics site like Tektonics doesn't refute anything, it tries to salvage the argument.

Simply, here is how just one part of Tektonics' reasoning is destroyed:

They attempt to focus on the "liar" option, and first state that Jesus claimed to be divine. They base this on:

1) Mentions by Porphyry and Celsus of his supposed divinity. The problem with those sources? Celsus lived in the 2nd century, and Porphyry in the 3rd! They are so far removed from 1st hand witnesses, their testimony cannot be considered relevant. They are simply basing it upon existing Christian mythology. (Never mind that no original texts of Celsus exist anymore - only claimed citations by Christians of the time, who already had an agenda and who had already been forging historical documents to promote their religion.)

2) The claim that there are no extant texts of the 1st century showing that Jesus claimed only to be human. But that is no reason to say that he DIDN'T. As we know, very soon after Christians gained power they destroyed and altered pagan and Roman records and books to eliminate competing ideas and religions.

3) The "martyr" reasoning. Newsflash: ALL religions have martyrs. The Branch Davidians died for their savior god, you know. Does that mean they were right? Joseph Smith and the early Mormons were persecuted and executed for their religion - none of them recanted. Does that make Mormonism true? According to the martyr logic, yes. And that of course causes huge problems for you.

That's just a start showing the big problems. I'll be happy to demolish it more if you wish.

[BoogDoc7]

24. Martyr argument...

Actually, the martyr argument stands, because we know well that the disciples of Christ were martyred. If He really did what they claim - rise from the dead - then they were true martyrs. Would they have died for something they KNEW to be false? Doubtful.

[trotsky]

25. Heh

So you grant that Joseph Smith and the other Mormons KNEW that Mormonism was true? That there really were golden plates and all that?

Why aren't you a Mormon, then?

[BoogDoc7]

26. Check your history...

Most of what the Mormons claim as to what actually happened is quite inconsistent....claims of "witnesses" have shown a large amount of doubt and such...and we're close enough time-wise to actual events to know what and where to question. This doesn't even account for no historical evidence being made for Mormonisms historical claims, anyway.

Never found that with Biblical history. What we have on paper is considered too close to actual events to be seriously corrupted, if at all.

[trotsky]

27. You do the same.

Answer me these questions:

How many women went to Jesus' tomb?

What time did they arrive?

How many angels did they see?

Where was (were) the angel(s)?

What did the angel(s) tell them?

You haven't learned what "inconsistent" means until you look at the different answers to these questions between the 4 gospel accounts.

Sorry, bub. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. You are perfectly willing to admit martyrs of all the other religions were wrong or misguided, but when it comes to YOUR martyrs, oh no, they were right.

Sure thing.

[Az]

28. The Easter Challenge

There is a challenge issued called the Easter Challenge. It is quite simple in premise. Simply read the gospels and using their text as the basis decribe what happened during the days of Jesus crucifixion and return. Do so without leaving out any details from any of the gospels. And do so without including any contradictions or inconsistancies.

This challenge is of course not a problem to those that do not insist that bible is infallible. But for those that insist it is without flaw they will have a difficult time getting things set right.

[trotsky]

29. Yes, exactly.

The whole "Easter Challenge" encompasses even more contradictions - what time did Jesus die, what happened when he died, what were his last words, and so on and so on. Do you have a link to that handy, Az? I can't seem to find mine, I could only remember a few of the ones that centered around the women going to the tomb.