Which Bible

[steve_bank]

I used the Oxford Bible in a philosophy class. It as as close to an academic work as it can get. Its roots are in the standard revised version. A work was commissioned to create a new translation using all available histocrical documents and archeological evidence. It was intended to be non denominational in slants.

It has copious commentary on each book with translation issues and apparent problems. One I reber was a NT referral to a type of housing or architecture out of time for the period and place. It was also supposed to get rid of the Old English and put it in modern English terms.

The companion book is the Oxford Bible Commentary. Pretty much everything you wanted to know about translation and historical issues from an academic view.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/The-Oxfo...=sem&msclkid=74031aad417e177ce24846552f5d43d6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Annotated_Bible

The Oxford Annotated Bible (OAB) is a study Bible published by the Oxford University Press (OUP). The notes and the study material feature in-depth academic research from non-denominational perspectives, specifically secular perspectives for "Bible-as-literature" with a focus on the most recent advances in historical criticism and related disciplines, with contributors from mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and non-religious interpretative traditions.

The OAB also includes a number of interpretive essays. Essay topics include Bible translations, early Jewish history and the geography of the Bible. The NOAB also features maps of the Holy Land during various time periods. The NOAB is commonly used by colleges and universities.

A fully revised Fourth Edition was released in May 2010. It contains new color maps and updated essays and commentaries. As always, versions with and without the Apocrypha were made available.

A fully revised Fifth Edition was released on 1 April 2018 with similar improvements.

Some groups, including fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants as well as traditional Catholics, object to the OAB because the editors adhere to contemporary, scholarly views of Biblical criticism, and thus call into question the traditional authorship of some books

 

[HaRaAYaH]

If you are looking for a Torah Commentary, you should get The Torah a Modern Commentary. It's Hebrew and English. It has a modern gender neutral English translation. It has modern biblical criticism. It goes from the traditional to the modern.

 

[steve_bank]

If you are looking for a Torah Commentary, you should get The Torah a Modern Commentary. It's Hebrew and English. It has a modern gender neutral English translation. It has modern biblical criticism. It goes from the traditional to the modern.

Thanks. I am not really into Abram scripture across all three faiths beyond an understanding o theist claims and arguments.

I am getting into something useful, learning Spanish and Chinese spoken by people around me. Seattle is diverse.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

The 'Bible in English Just Like Jesus Talked' is the best bible. It's the original version.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[skepticalbip]

The 'Bible in English Just Like Jesus Talked' is the best bible. It's the original version.

Eldarion Lathria

Well the English King James version tries to make Jesus sound all la-di-dah. Everyone knows Jesus spoke plain old English like in the New International version.

 

[steve_bank]

There is no 'original' bible which is kind of the point.

 

[Politesse]

I too like my New Oxford Annotated. If I need to consult the Greek, I use the Nestle-Aland.

I actually love the KJV also, because few if any English versions match it for poetry and beauty. But it is obviously not a very "literal" translation, because it uses antiquated language and the Gospels were not in fact written in antiquated language.

Aside from these, I do have quite a collection of other Biblical titles. My great-great-grandmother had a Scofield reference Bible which ended up in my hands, and has an honored place on my mantle. Her personal notes are scribbled all over it in pencil. My parochial high school left me with an NAB edition which I keep around; it has surprisingly good background info also, and is often helpful if I want to understand the Catholic take on a passage. I have a massive Hebrew-Greek Interlinear that I seldom use practically but which is fun to look through at times. We keep a French and Esperanto copy about, my partner and I both have the former for a second language, so that one is for reading practice. He's trying to learn Esperanto, and we have a fireside game where we'll go over the same passage in Greek and Esperanto and deduce how the translator went about trying to handle all the participles. I also keep about, for sentimental reasons, the NIV "Illustrated Children's Adventure Bible" that I owned as a kid. It is in pretty poor shape, loved to death. I have the largest Nag Hammadi Anthology on the shelf, as well as Marcus Borg's annotated portrayal of the Q document, a five gospels harmony, and a stand-alone copy of Thomas and the Acts of Paula and Thecla.

And with all these books, when I have a quick question I usually open my phone anyway.

 

[Torin]

I was required to buy the NRSV Harper Collins Study Bible for my history of ideas class in college. I'd recommend it - the scholarship is secular and, from what I understand, up to date. Each book has an introduction explaining the context, and there are copious footnotes.

Caveat: I don't know much about the Bible or biblical studies.

 

[Lion IRC]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

 

[Torin]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.

 

[Politesse]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

Sounds like a plus to me. Why blame God for human weaknesses and failings?

 

[Lion IRC]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.

And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.

And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.

What is your evidence for this? I've always wondered why religious people will believe in the bible vs the Koran and vice-versa.

 

[Torin]

The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.

And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.

You claimed that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible," which is a faith based assumption. It assumes the existence of God, it assumes that God inspired the Bible, and it assumes that God has a single meaning across the whole of the Bible. Those assumptions cannot be demonstrated objectively, so they are a matter of personal faith and have no place in objective scholarship.

And this doesn't mean I think "that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up." That's clearly a false dichotomy. There are probably some true things, and some valuable things, and possibly some degree of similarity of theme, in the Bible. I can accept all of that without accepting the claim that the Bible was inspired by God in order to convey a unified message.

 

[Politesse]

I thought the historical critical method basically talked itself into irrelevance. How can you study the bible without canonical exegesis?

"A significant limitation of the historical-critical method is that its hyper-focus on human authorship tends to leave us with a jumble of at best vaguely related texts, each with its own distinctive finality and meaning. We have, in a word, what Isaiah meant and what the author of the book of Job meant and what Mark and Paul meant—but not what God means across the whole of the Bible."

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/pope-benedict-and-how-to-read-the-bible/22322/

The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.

And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.

Are you suggesting that the editors of the Harper Collins Study Bible have such a low opinion of the Biblical authors? Because I do not think that is true.

 

[Lion IRC]

No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.

 

[Politesse]

No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.

Well, then the trajectory of your critique is really wandering.

 

[Lion IRC]

The idea that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible" is a faith based assumption. You're free to believe it privately, but it has no place in objective scholarship.

And you are equally free to believe that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up. But THAT would stretch objective historical scholarship to breaking point.

You must surely understand how extraordinary that sort of claim is.

The Old Testament writers (Gods chosen people) were frequently writing to future audiences about the path along which God which had lead them thus far and the trajectory of future events. The New Testament writers were likewise writing about an unbroken chain of prophetic past events that lead up to exactly the point God intended for His chosen people, and the eschatology to follow.

You claimed that there is such a thing as "what God means across the whole of the Bible," which is a faith based assumption.

It's not faith based if that's what you heard directly from God.

It assumes the existence of God,

I can safely assume that a person who refers to themself as 'Torin' wrote that.
If I heard a voice speaking in the next room, I can safely assume it came from someone.
But I gather you think delusion or fiction are more plausible explanations.

it assumes that God inspired the Bible,

Yes. Either John of Patmos was God's stenographer or he was making it up.
Canonical exegesis reads John's testimony as if John himself really did view the entire corpus of scripture (Gods Word) in terms of an unfolding history of Gods relationship with mankind.

and it assumes that God has a single meaning across the whole of the Bible.

It assumes one single bigger picture over time.

Those assumptions cannot be demonstrated objectively,

The bible writers themselves explicitly state what their purpose is. It's right there in their text.
Any subjective assuming being done is on the part of those who claim that the existence of God must be excluded as ahistorical.

so they are a matter of personal faith and have no place in objective scholarship.

This is your personal belief. We should exclude it from objective scholarship.

And this doesn't mean I think "that the writers of the bible were all disconnected liars or lunatics who made everything up." That's clearly a false dichotomy. There are probably some true things, and some valuable things, and possibly some degree of similarity of theme, in the Bible. I can accept all of that without accepting the claim that the Bible was inspired by God in order to convey a unified message.

OK
Quick quiz.
Q1. Any/all of the bible writers knew that their writing contained deliberate falsehood? Yes/No
Q2. Any/all of the bible writers lunatics? Yes/No
Q3. Any/all of the bible writers wrote historical/scientific truths and we can't account for how they learned such? Yes/No

Bonus question - can the historical critical method provide objective proof/evidence that Moses or David or Luke were lunatics, liars or plagiarists?

 

[Lion IRC]

No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.

Well, then the trajectory of your critique is really wandering.

Where? In your mind?
Just stick to the quote function rather than putting words in my mouth.

 

[Politesse]

No. I'm not 'suggesting' that.

Well, then the trajectory of your critique is really wandering.

Where? In your mind?
Just stick to the quote function rather than putting words in my mouth.

I'm very confused about your postings. Are you trying to critique the "historical critical method", or just individual posters?