Bible Club

[madnak]

So, finals end soon and I was thinking about a special kind of book club. Over the next few months, we read a Book of the King James version of the Holy Bible every week, starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation. Each week we'll talk about what we read, and everyone will become more familiar with a major work of literature and will see many viewpoints from all sides of the spectrum about every part of the Bible in its full context.

It has to beat rehashing the same arguments over and over again, right? And everyone has access to the Bible.

Anyone up for it?

[Prodigy54321]

I'm in...

a good christian friend of mine bought me a bible..I said I'd read it, but I never got around to doing more than looking for specific things /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[surftheiop]

King James version - Bad idea
Its a VERY crummy translation,

get the NIV

[ConstantineX]

I did this before when I was young (12ish), but I'm down for it again. I'd actually like to be able to quote Scripture.

[madnak]

The thing about the King James is that a lot of the phrases from it became part of our linguistic and literary heritage. But that's not the point, so we can go with another translation.

[DonkBluffer]

Is this the King James version you're talking about? It says it's 'with apocrypha' but is it the same book besides that?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Authorized...TF8&s=books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Authorized-Version-Oxford-Classics/dp/0192835254/sr=8-2/qid=1165951095/ref=pd_ka_2/202-4929822-1860652?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I tried to read it and it's pretty hard (I'm Dutch, but I can read normal English obv).

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
King James version - Bad idea
Its a VERY crummy translation,

get the NIV

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we'd be better served reading the most common translation..(it is the KJ right?)

it depends on what our purpose is...

I'd think it would be to understand the bible as (most) christians know it

[surftheiop]

NIV is what the majority of christians know.
Problem with the KJ is it translates idioms literally so alot of stuff gets completly lost.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

we read a Book of the King James version of the Holy Bible


[/ QUOTE ]

I will follow and contribute if you guys actually do this but don't want to commit due to time. I would highly recommend using the New American Standard version. I believe it's the English version that is closest to a true translation. KJV is beautifully written but much of the vocabulary is from the 16th (?) century.

I highly recommend The Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/) as it has many translations and very good search engines - the NAS version is also heavily footnoted.

[surftheiop]

Yeah thats good too, but plz dont read KJ lol its not very good unless you happen to be a greek scholar and can see the things it translated oddly

[goldcowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

we read a Book of the King James version of the Holy Bible


[/ QUOTE ]

I will follow and contribute if you guys actually do this but don't want to commit due to time. I would highly recommend using the New American Standard version. I believe it's the English version that is closest to a true translation. KJV is beautifully written but much of the vocabulary is from the 16th (?) century.

I highly recommend The Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/) as it has many translations and very good search engines - the NAS version is also heavily footnoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been using the NRSV, which I believe is regarded highly by most seminaries. I have actually been in a Bible study for several years and once when I was on the road for a week and didn't want to lug around a heavy bible I figured I could just use the Gideon's Bible in the hotel room. Didn't realize Gideon's are always in KJV. I really couldn't get myself to read that crap. Sheesh, how do they expect to do any evangelizing with the KJV.

[goldcowboy]

Yeah, I'm in.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

we read a Book of the King James version of the Holy Bible


[/ QUOTE ]

I will follow and contribute if you guys actually do this but don't want to commit due to time. I would highly recommend using the New American Standard version. I believe it's the English version that is closest to a true translation. KJV is beautifully written but much of the vocabulary is from the 16th (?) century.

I highly recommend The Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/) as it has many translations and very good search engines - the NAS version is also heavily footnoted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually use that site to compare translations..

which one we use doesn't matter to me..madnak, you can make that decision

[dknightx]

NAS w/ strong numbers is probably your best bet. It is the closest you'll get to a true translation.

I think this is a good idea, and would support it whole heartedly

[surftheiop]

One other suggestion, seeing as Christians believe the whole bible is pointing towards Jesus you might be well served to read one of the Gospels (like matthew) first, (it would only take you like an hour to read one gospel)

[JayTee]

I'm definately in. I've been trying to force myself to start this for the past few months.

[kurto]

I will be curious if anyone makes it all the way through. There are many parts that, I suspect, are just laborious.

Good luck.

[Hoover]

I was brought up reading the NIV, and I have one. If the group chooses another version, then there's probably a free copy on the internet somewhere.

[vhawk01]

Madnak is so sneaky. So, so sneaky. Cheapest sociology experiment ever.

Oh, and I'm in.

[MidGe]

I am definitely up for it. I think that it is the best way to convince oneself about the sordid truth of christianity and their beliefs. A thorough, open minded, reading of the bible will make you a non christian at least and may even push you on the verge of atheism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I note already the difficulty of choosing which version is the word of god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I am definitely up for it. I think that it is the best way to convince oneself about the sordid truth of christianity and their beliefs. A thorough, open minded, reading of the bible will make you a non christian at least and may even push you on the verge of atheism. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I note already the difficulty of choosing which version is the word of god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is one thing you can count of Midge for, its unintentionally hilarious posts.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
A thorough, open minded, reading of the bible will make you a non christian at least and may even push you on the verge of atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Midge:

I should warn you that when people speak of "open" minds they mean "receptive" not "filled with empty space."

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A thorough, open minded, reading of the bible will make you a non christian at least and may even push you on the verge of atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Midge:

I should warn you that when people speak of "open" minds they mean "receptive" not "filled with empty space."

[/ QUOTE ]

do you ever offer anything of worth in this forum?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A thorough, open minded, reading of the bible will make you a non christian at least and may even push you on the verge of atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Midge:

I should warn you that when people speak of "open" minds they mean "receptive" not "filled with empty space."

[/ QUOTE ]

do you ever offer anything of worth in this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Be honest: Thats a pretty legitimate response to Midge's post.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
do you ever offer anything of worth in this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends how highly you value wit and intelligence. I DO know a lot of good fart jokes.

[surftheiop]

fwiw i smiled when i read it

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Midge:

I should warn you that when people speak of "open" minds they mean "receptive" not "filled with empty space."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey IronUnkind,

Thanks for the warning(?). I only hope that you understand there is a difference between "receptive" and "prejudiced". /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

Getting things started already, huh?

Okay, I'll be using the NAS because all the Christians like it. I really hope that doesn't just mean it's biased - at least KJ is ambiguous enough it's always open to interpretation. But it's not the ancient Israelites I'll be arguing with, it's just the modern Christians, so it makes sense to use what they consider to be the best representation.

I'm sure if you read the KJ or the NIV or whatever you won't feel too lost. The Gateway will give various translations of different passages, I prefer bible.cc (http://bible.cc/) which is very simple and slick, either way.

We may "skip ahead" in theory - I'm sure those of us who really want to read the "X begat Y" stuff will be dedicated enough to get through a couple of books in a week, and let's face it - this isn't going to last if everyone tries to slog through the boring stuff. Personally my goal is cover to cover - I've read sizable portions of the Bible, but never the whole thing, and so it would feel pointless to me if I didn't go through all the "boring stuff." Some boring stuff we'll keep though, like Job. Only if it's inane is it worth skipping.

We can start with Matthew, that's fair.

Mostly I want to keep it informal, no rules. So I'll start the Matthew thread around next tuesday. Then on to Genesis for Christmas, or should I say Hanukkah?

[goldcowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I note already the difficulty of choosing which version is the word of god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, of course, midge, that any modern-day version is a translation (or a translation of a translation) of the original manuscripts, so obviously cannot be taken as the literal "Word of God". You are indirectly alluding to the concept of the Bible as the infallible inerrant Word of God. But in fact this concept basically only arose in the early twentieth century, and has caused a great deal of trouble for everyone ever since. You might want to take a peek at http://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html

which is an essay on the inerrancy debate written by a theologian from the Church of the Nazarene. This in itself is interesting because Church of the Nazarene is one of the more conservative denominations in the Wesleyan tradition.

[vhawk01]

Ok, but when the first parts of Matthew aren't on my Biochem exam on Friday, I'm coming on here firing.

[madnak]

Would it help if I petitioned for religion in schools?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Would it help if I petitioned for religion in schools?

[/ QUOTE ]

I go to Georgetown, and we actually DO have religion in med school. Its amazing.

But we don't have a whole lot of religion in Biochemistry. Its multiple choice so I can't just pencil in "and then a miracle occurs..."

[madnak]

Well, I know where I won't be applying...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I know where I won't be applying...

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you want to go? The problem is, if you like DC, GW is just as expensive, but you don't get the same 'name recognition.' Its almost entirely BS, their school is just as good as ours, but it makes a difference at some residency programs, etc. I love DC though, and I really like my school, so I can only give positive reviews.

[madnak]

I'm really not very interested in DC. Seems very political. But I'm open right now - I'm going to maximize my chances at an MSTP slot.

[MidGe]

heya goldcowboy,

[ QUOTE ]
You are indirectly alluding to the concept of the Bible as the infallible inerrant Word of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if we can pick and choose from the bible, I'll take the good parts, and leave the abominations, monstrosities and cruelties, out, as mere aberrations. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really not very interested in DC. Seems very political. But I'm open right now - I'm going to maximize my chances at an MSTP slot.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the off chance you were considering MCG, dont.
oh yah, I read matthew 2 weeks ago but I thnk i have a KJ bible so thats kinda moot. Im also goign to be in vegas once finals finish for a while but maybe ill try to catch up when I get back. Hopefully by then Ill have finished The Bell curve, The intelligent investor and From beirut to Jerusalem.

-JP

-JP

[MaxWeiss]

When do we start?

[madnak]

Next tuesday, Matthew.

[ICMoney]

I've never gotten into the OT much.

This should be a good jump start.

ICMoney

[kurto]

Just curious -- why are you guys starting with Matthew then going to Genesis.

Clearly I haven't read a Bible in years. I thought Genesis was the first book?

[madnak]

Right here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8397136&page=0&vc=1) .

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Right here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8397136&page=0&vc=1) .

[/ QUOTE ]

I would personally rather start at the proverbial "beginning"

whatever you want to do madnak..but just for reference..

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8397136&page=0&vc=1) .

[/ QUOTE ]

I would personally rather start at the proverbial "beginning"

whatever you want to do madnak..but just for reference..

[/ QUOTE ]

Its madnak's thread, his club, I say we let him be. The problem is that Genesis is crazy boring. And thats probably the only book many of us have actually read, and maybe only the first 15 pages or so. This forces us to get deeper in.

Its not like the Bible is really a chronological account. Each book essentially stands alone.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=8397136&page=0&vc=1) .

[/ QUOTE ]

I would personally rather start at the proverbial "beginning"

whatever you want to do madnak..but just for reference..

[/ QUOTE ]

Its madnak's thread, his club, I say we let him be. The problem is that Genesis is crazy boring. And thats probably the only book many of us have actually read, and maybe only the first 15 pages or so. This forces us to get deeper in.

Its not like the Bible is really a chronological account. Each book essentially stands alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure, many of the theist I've met have recommended reading the bible "from beginning to end" and claim that it will enlighten me...maybe they didn't mean it so strictly..

I just don't want the theists to claim that we did it wrong when we are solidified in our beliefs of how ludicrous it is, rather than being miraculously inspired to find Christ /images/graemlins/grin.gif

of course we all just have "hardened hearts" anyway, so what's the difference /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[madnak]

Hey, we're just following the theist request anyhow. You can read Matthew again when we get to it if you want. This will just provide a "warm and fuzzy" to get started, so we don't jump straight into the whole "wrath and vengeance" part without proper context.

[vhawk01]

Finished my reading, and its technically Tuesday. Just a bump reminder, I guess. I decided on the NSRV because my other option was KJV and people seemed to think that was a bad choice.

Madnak, I think you made a good choice for an introductory chapter. Plenty of great material to discuss here, and its not the same old stuff from Genesis that EVERYONE is familiar with. Obviously I'm more excited about the OT stuff, but this was a good book.

[BluffTHIS!]

I probably won't contribute much to this thread or anything past this post necessarily, as I don't wish to just end up arguing with non-catholics over interpretation issues especially when it could involve differences in translation with different bibles. And I can see how atheists/agnostics could sincerely be interested in reading this in a book club format. However if such a non-believer is only doing so with an intent to bash, then I suggest starting with the first two lines of Psalm 1 (RSV-CE):

[1] Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
[2] but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
....as I don't wish to just end up arguing with non-catholics over interpretation issues especially when it could involve differences in translation with different bibles. ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes indeed... Talk about not walking in the counsel of the wicked!

Now, just a second! Who are the wicked, and which bible is not of them? All bibles I have read have been very wicked indeed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably won't contribute much to this thread or anything past this post necessarily, as I don't wish to just end up arguing with non-catholics over interpretation issues especially when it could involve differences in translation with different bibles. And I can see how atheists/agnostics could sincerely be interested in reading this in a book club format. However if such a non-believer is only doing so with an intent to bash, then I suggest starting with the first two lines of Psalm 1 (RSV-CE):

[1] Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
[2] but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, how do I walk the fine line between that and suffering fools?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
All bibles I have read have been very wicked indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Which thus shows your insincerity in wishing to participate in this book club and your intention to use it as a vehicle to bash christianity as was your intention in countless threads you started on religious issues. You're just a SMP troll and nothing else.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But, how do I walk the fine line between that and suffering fools?

[/ QUOTE ]

Walk with God and you can walk behind Him on a tightrope without fear of falling. He'll let you know who the fools are although you will see many for yourself who have fallen off and are a stain on the floor below.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, how do I walk the fine line between that and suffering fools?

[/ QUOTE ]

Walk with God and you can walk behind Him on a tightrope without fear of falling. He'll let you know who the fools are although you will see many for yourself who have fallen off and are a stain on the floor below.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was really just that because the Bible is such a long book, Bible quotes are like cliches and idioms, you can always find one to support whatever point you are making. "He who hesistates is lost" is countered by "Look before you leap" quite nicely. Your quote helps us as long as what you want us to do is not criticize, but I'm fairly certain I can find a quote from the Bible that tells me explicitly TO scoff, or something to that effect.

Like cliches, it comes down to our wisdom to decide which are appropriate and when, which basically invalidates their usefulness.

But, while you might not believe me (although perhaps I have a little more credibility than Midge?) I really do intend to read this book and contribute to this club in an honest fashion. I won't say I don't think "MAN is that not how Christians usually act" from time to time, but I am not reading this solely to fuel my anti-Christian crusade.

I put the chances of my 'hard heart' being won by the Lord at a small percent, but not zero.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All bibles I have read have been very wicked indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Which thus shows your insincerity in wishing to participate in this book club and your intention to use it as a vehicle to bash christianity as was your intention in countless threads you started on religious issues. You're just a SMP troll and nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? You don't like facts?

[BluffTHIS!]

I like the fact that I can't be proved wrong in my 100% certain belief that you are a troll.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I probably won't contribute much to this thread or anything past this post necessarily, as I don't wish to just end up arguing with non-catholics over interpretation issues especially when it could involve differences in translation with different bibles. And I can see how atheists/agnostics could sincerely be interested in reading this in a book club format. However if such a non-believer is only doing so with an intent to bash, then I suggest starting with the first two lines of Psalm 1 (RSV-CE):

[1] Blessed is the man
who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,
nor stands in the way of sinners,
nor sits in the seat of scoffers;
[2] but his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

[/ QUOTE ]

any theory can seem true if you are not critical of it...

the mark of real truth is when the theory holds up to criticism.

I really hope you are not suggesting that we accept everything that we read as true, rather than being skeptical.

[vhawk01]

*tapping my foot impatiently* Madnak....

[madnak]

Hey, hey, hold your horses. I've still got a few hours.

[John21]

Madnak,

I'm not a literalist or fundandamentalist. I consider myself a Gnostic Christian, which probably puts me in the Unitarian camp, but the particular gospel you chose to start with and more particularly, the Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) is what I consider to be the summary of the whole Christian teaching. However, I consider it as a spiritual, more than literary synopsis, summarizing the spirit of the message rather than the letter.

The Beatitudes is pretty much the only part of the Bible I read anymore, and at least from a spiritual standpoint, I feel I have a pretty good understanding of it - line by line. I don't feel it would be right to jump in uninvited, but if you want a slightly mystic, highly spiritual perspective or commentary, let me know.

[madnak]

Would be appreciated, I'm about to start the thread and as you'll see I didn't quite "get it."

[GBP04]

I haven't really read too many Bible threads lately, and I have no intention of bashing supporters of the Bible right now, but I have to ask: Aren't some of the actions that God condones in the Bible cruel? For starters, he's very partial towards one particular race of people. The Bible supports slavery (or at least guidelines for slavery), and makes bold statements about minorities. Haven't we agreed that slavery should be condemned as it is a basic violation of natural human right? Is the Bible cruel, or are these aspects not meant to be taken seriously?

Thanks for the enlightenment.

[GBP04]

also, can the Bible evolve after it has been written? Should it? No new evidence is gathered, so should it be changing or stagnant?

[madnak]

Genesis next week.