Have you read the Bible?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

smacl

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Barrel of laughs your missus. These seem more like books you would inflict on someone as a penance rather than for pleasure. Very worthy reads no doubt, but for those of that don't consider ourselves immortal, life is short. :pac:

Nick Park

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd much prefer Pratchett.

looksee

I have an old copy of the Catholic Daily Office in Chinese if you really want a challenge

recedite

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its a sobering thought that this is still a belief in 21st century Europe (I'm assuming it was in Europe) It seems more like the 17th C.
Anyway, I think my point about the RC meme being more competitive than the Calvinist meme is still backed up by this scenario. I sincerely hope things go well for her in future, and by the sounds of it, you are already doing your best for her.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hinault

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd strongly recommend that if you do undertake to read the Bible that you do so by obtaining a Catholic bible which provides a commentary.

I thoroughly recommend Father Haydock's 1859 Bible and commentary.
You can access 1859 Bible and commentary here
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/

oldrnwisr

hinault wrote: »

I'd strongly recommend that if you do undertake to read the Bible that you do so by obtaining a Catholic bible which provides a commentary.

I thoroughly recommend Father Haydock's 1859 Bible and commentary.
You can access 1859 Bible and commentary here
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/

So a Catholic recommends a Catholic apologetics bible. Gee, there's a surprise.

There are a number of reasons why using the above bible is not a good idea. The Haydock bible is a commentary of a copy of a copy if you will. Firstly, the original basis for the bible is the Latin Vulgate rather than any original manuscripts. This was later translated into English in the 16th century in what became known today as the Douay version (still the go-to version for Catholics). Still further into the 18th century the text was revised and annotated by Richard Challoner and his text was then revised and annotated again by Fr. Bernard McMahon. It was this Challoner-McMahon version that Haydock uses as the basis for his commentary which only really serves to explain Catholic church teaching and apologetics chapter by chapter. As such it is very problematic if you want to find out the true historical and cultural context of the bible.

For example, in Mark Chapter 5, the story opens with Jesus exorcising some demons from a man:

"They came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs. And no one was able to bind him anymore, even with a chain; because he had often been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him and the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him. Constantly, night and day, he was screaming among the tombs and in the mountains, and gashing himself with stones. Seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran up and bowed down before Him; and shouting with a loud voice, he said, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!” For He had been saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” And He was asking him, “What is your name?” And he *said to Him, “My name is Legion; for we are many.” And he began to implore Him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now there was a large herd of swine feeding nearby on the mountain. The demons implored Him, saying, “Send us into the swine so that we may enter them.” Jesus gave them permission. And coming out, the unclean spirits entered the swine; and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea."

There are several things which stand out about this story which show why the Haydock bible is not a useful resource.
Firstly, the story opens in "the country of the Gerasenes" which refers to Gerasa, a town approximately 30 miles SSE of the Sea of Galilee MAP. This creates a geographic problem for the story since it ends with: "and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea, about two thousand of them; and they were drowned in the sea." A 30-mile steep hill would stand out and is one of the telltale signs that the author of Mark's gospel never set foot in 1st century Palestine.
Secondly, Mark's gospel was finished (according to scholarly consensus) sometime around 70CE. This means that it was most likely begun sometime in the mid to late 60s CE, around the time of the First Jewish Roman War. This explains the reference to legion in the story above. The demons give their name as Legion in the story and when expelled flee into a herd of swine. This is odd for two reasons. Firstly, generic demons are rarely given names in these stories. Secondly, why pigs? Why would Jews who can't eat pork anyway be farming pigs. It makes sense when you consider the cultural context of the story. As I have stated above, the gospel comes in the midst of the first Jewish Roman war, a conflict spear-headed (on the Roman side) by Legio x Fretensis, a Roman legion garrisoned in Judea, commanded by Vespasian one of whose symbols was a boar as seen below:



The exorcism story is an allegorical foreshadowing, a hope that Jesus would expel the Romans from Judea like the demons were expelled from the man.
The Haydock bible omits any such reference to this and thus deprives the reader of a valuable insight into the cultural zeitgeist of the time.

Moreover, the story in Mark 5 is retold in the other synoptics. However, in Matthew 8, the author (who was evidently much more familiar with Palestine than that of Mark's gospel) tries to correct Mark's glaring error by changing the location of the "miracle" from Gerasa (modern day Jerash), to Gadara (modern day Umm Qais) about 6 miles ESE of the Sea of Galilee. This makes the story slightly more plausible, but the failure of Matthew to reconcile his version with Mark's merely highlights the discrepancy. However, since the Haydock commentary is based on the Douay bible, none of this is mentioned because the translator changes the text of Matthew 8:28 from Gadarenes to Gerasenes to make it better fit Mark's version. Also, it includes the following fairly feeble attempt to explain why there are two possessed people in Matthew's story and only one in Mark and Luke:

"except that St. Matthew makes mention of two demoniacs, and Sts. Mark and Luke only of one. The difficulty is thus solved by St. Augustine. St. Mark and St. Luke only mention one, as being more generally known, and particularly frightful in the neighbourhood."

This story from Mark as well as other examples like the nativity and passion narratives underscore the value of reading the bible horizontally. Looking at where the stories disagree and why they do is much more valuable than seeing where they agree.
The Haydock Bible is useful if you want to understand what the Catholic church teaches and believes about the bible but it's pretty useless for actually learning about the background of the bible.

P.S. Permabear, sorry for skipping ahead to the NT, I'm not sure if I should wrap this all in spoiler tags for you but hopefully it might show why an accurate translation is better than 1000 commentaries. Also, as far as translations go, the New American Standard Bible is probably going to be the best balance IMHO between readability and accuracy.

Zubeneschamali

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The Haydock Bible is useful if you want to understand what the Catholic church teaches and believes about the bible

I think this is rather the point of Permabear's reading.

oldrnwisr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think this is rather the point of Permabear's reading.

Yes, however what the Bible actually says and what the Church believes it says are two very different things. Understanding what the difference is and why it exists is a very important and useful exercise.

For example, (again borrowing from the NT) the Catholic church holds to Matthean priority and the belief that Matthew was the disciple of Jesus, which we know to be doubly wrong. Reading the bible through such a distorted lens like the Douay-Rheims or the Haydock commentary is doing a major disservice to the original text and to modern academic scholarship on the subject.

Also, since Permabear expressed an interest in the works of people like Bart Ehrman, it seems clear that they are also interested in an unbiased view of the topic.

Zubeneschamali

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Also, since Permabear expressed an interest in the works of people like Bart Ehrman, it seems clear that they are also interested in an unbiased view of the topic.

I would be very cautious telling a recent convert to Catholicism (who has benefited from conversion) that what the Church says about the Bible is often baloney.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oldrnwisr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would be very cautious telling a recent convert to Catholicism (who has benefited from conversion) that what the Church says about the Bible is often baloney.

I wasn't, and am not suggesting that Permabear tell their partner that what the Church says about the Bible is baloney. That would be needlessly provocative. I'm suggesting that it's better to learn about the bible from an accurate and unbiased source and not from one which is distorted and objectively demonstrably flawed. However, if Permabear and their partner wanted and both approached it open-mindedly, comparing a tone netural source to something like the Haydock commentary could be a useful learning exercise.

It is my understanding from the OP that Permabear's objective is to learn more about the bible by reading it cover to cover since the bible represents a significant influence on their partner's life. Doing this using an unbiased source without preconceived ideas like those found in a commentary on the bible would be best IMHO.

oldrnwisr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Vulgate is really just another translation, it just happens, because of the actions of the Catholic church to have spawned a number of translations of its own. As such, there are copying errors and subjective changes in the vulgate not found in the original text. For these reasons I would recommend Knox's Translation of the Vulgate. It was written in 1950 making it a modern translation. It also refers to the original Greek and Hebrew texts showing where the Vulgate makes errors and including the original translation as a footnote. As a translation of the Vulgate it's the one I'd recommend. Of course, the original Latin text is available online on several different sites.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yup, I'm thinking wood, trees. For your purposes it seems to me that the array of different translations is a relatively minor issue. If you decided to read the classics of European literature, starting with Don Quixote, Le Rouge et le Noire and Bocaccio's Decameron, would you be concerned to acquire six translations of each? You would not; you'd work with a translation that you found accessible and readable, and I suggest that's probably your best approach to the bible as well. Maybe have one or two others for reference so you can double-check the occasional passage that seem controversial or that you know to be disputed.

Apart from readability, the other criterion you may want to bear in mind is comprehensiveness. There is not unanimity as to exactly which texts are biblical, and which not. A Catholic edition of the bible will contain a few texts that do not appear in (most) Protestant editions; an Orthodox edition will contain a few more again. And of course a Jewish edition will contain fewer texts than any Christian edition. So if your goal is to read "the whole thing", as stated in your OP, you have to take a position on what comprises "the whole thing", and choose your edition accordingly. Since your wife is a Catholic that might suggest (at least) a Catholic edition, or a Protestant edition which includes the controverted texts. Plus, if either of you is interested in exploring the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and how they are related to the slightly different collections of scripture that each recognises, you'll need an edition that includes the controverted texts.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would be very cautious telling a recent convert to Catholicism (who has benefited from conversion) that what the Church says about the Bible is often baloney.

The pseudonym odlrnwisr is anything but wise. Do not be fooled by the pseudonym

The Catholic Church is the only church founded by Jesus Christ. Therefore it is bestowed with the authority, the only authority that gave humanity the Bible.

This is why it is important to read and study only a Catholic bible.

The commentary for a Catholic bible will assist you to better understand what the Bible is saying, and what the Church teaches.

The Bible itself commands that Jesus instructed the Apostles to go teach all nations.

nozzferrahhtoo

Read a couple of different versions myself over the years. It is not an easy read I admit. AJ Jacobs wrote about reading the full Encyclopedia Britannica from A to Z and I figure he had less of a motivational task ahead of him to do that, than reading Bibles cover to cover. At least much of what he read was interesting, educational, and likely true.

hinault wrote: »

The pseudonym odlrnwisr is anything but wise. Do not be fooled by the pseudonym

Perhaps, rather than snide personal attacks on the user hidden inside responses to someone else.... you could actually address his post and point out what or where anything he said was inaccurate or misleading?

Because when you run away from such a post, and lash out at him indirectly in the third person inside another post, this comes across as not only cowardly, but that it should be YOU not HIM that we should not allow ourselves to be fooled by as you recommend.

But as I say, by all means address the post in question and show us where and why we have been "fooled".

hinault wrote: »

The Bible itself commands that Jesus instructed the Apostles to go teach all nations.

Then by all means teach us, rather than pointless insults thrown around at some of us. Because I am pretty sure the latter approach was not included in those "instructions". Who was this person. How do we know he even existed. And by what authority should we be concerned with what he instructed his mates to do 2000 years ago? And why should we treat him as anything more than another human moral philosopher much like many others in history.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

looksee

Mod: Less of the personal digs please. Hinault, your opinion is of no more consequence in here than a member of any other sect, your personal beliefs do not give you the right to make personal digs about other posters. Whatever about teaching, you are tending towards soapboxing, which will get you an infraction.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

The Bible itself commands that Jesus instructed the Apostles to go teach all nations.

Interestingly, in Matthew 10:5 Jesus (before his death) explicitly tells the 12 NOT to preach to the Gentiles.

It is only after his death that this instruction to preach to all nations appears.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

Nick Park

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Interestingly, in Matthew 10:5 Jesus (before his death) explicitly tells the 12 NOT to preach to the Gentiles.

It is only after his death that this instruction to preach to all nations appears.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

Prior to his death, he did say that the Gospel would be preached to all nations (Matt 24:14), but after his death and resurrection the instruction to do so was given.

Zubeneschamali

If you stick with protestant bibles, you will miss a whole Archangel.

They only name two, Michael and Gabriel, while the Catholics get Raphael too, in the Book of Tobit (not considered canonical in Protestant churches).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fourier

I think having an accurate translation, a readable translation and a culturally impactful one, i.e. the KJV, is the maximum required.

Also most modern readable translations, eg , common English Bible and others in this thread, function as realible translations as well, so the first two needs can be met with one copy.

I just think one needs something to offset the inaccuracies and false unity of the KJV.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Interestingly, in Matthew 10:5 Jesus (before his death) explicitly tells the 12 NOT to preach to the Gentiles.

It is only after his death that this instruction to preach to all nations appears.

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

You raise a very interesting point about verse 5, chapter 10.

Here is Father Haydocks commentary on that verse

Go not into the way of the Gentiles, or among the Gentiles. In this first mission, the apostles were ordered to preach to the Jews only, or to the children of the kingdom. (Matthew vii.[viii.?] 12.) See also Matthew xv. 24. and Acts xiii. 46. (Witham) --- These twelve Jesus sent. In this mission of the apostles we may observe three things: first, whither Jesus sent them; secondly, what he ordered them to teach; and thirdly, what they were to do. As to the first, he tells them not to go in the way of the Gentiles, nor enter into the city of the Samaritans; but to go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. We must here take notice that this commandment, given by Christ to the apostles, of confining their preaching to the house of Israel, does not contradict one related in Matthew, (chap. xxviii.) Go teach all nations, &c. We observe that these two commandments were given at two very different times; the first indeed, (the subject of our present annotation) the apostles received before the resurrection of Christ; the other after. It was necessary first to warn the Jews of the arrival of the Messias amongst them; otherwise they might have excused themselves for having rejected him, by saying, "He had sent his apostles to preach, not to them but to the Gentiles and Samaritans." (St. Jerome) --- St. Chrysostom assigns another reason why the apostles were sent first to preach in Judea, viz. that having withstood the opposition of one nation, they might be more prepared to hold out against the attacks, which they would no doubt have afterwards to sustain, in their endeavours to convert the whole world. (St. Chrysostom) --- He forbids them to preach to the Gentiles, because it was proper that the word of God should first be announced to the Jews, children of the kingdom. See Acts chap. xiii, ver. 46. (Menochius)

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id24.html

jigglypuffstuff

Don't forget to read The Book of Enoch! (Interesting that a lot ofpeople aren't aware it exists)

That might lead you down an interesting road

robindch

hinault wrote: »

Do not be fooled by the pseudonym

The clue is in the pseud bit of the word pseudonym.

More generally, your comment is anti-social towards a fellow-poster so, as looksee points out, please cut out this juvenile behavior or you will be carded/banned.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

Here is Father Haydocks commentary on that verse

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id24.html

All very reasonable, but it still leaves us with the fact that as written, Jesus (while alive) told his followers not to preach to the Gentiles.

The bit about preaching to all nations is only claimed to have been said by him after he was already dead. You can't really expect a bunch of atheists to give that bit much credence.

It sounds rather like the kids learning at a Seance that their mother wants them to have the money, not the Dogs & Cats home as stated in her will.

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The bit about preaching to all nations is only claimed to have been said by him after he was already dead.

Incorrect.

The account given to preach to all in the New Testament clearly states that this command was given by the resurrected Jesus Christ.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

You can't really expect a bunch of atheists to give that bit much credence.

What atheists refuse to accept, does not change the facts contained in the Bible.:pac: