Post by unkleE on Apr 16, 2010 22:33:14 GMT
Hi Eastshore, here's my take on your questions (I'm sure you'll get some varied responses) ...
Just curious, where is "here" and what brand of church were you thinking of? (Or do you wish to retain your anonymity?)
Like Jamie said, they are all translations of basically the same text. (The NT books were originally copied manually and so variations can be found. The variations don't affect anything all that important, and most translations use an agreed text.) But translators have to balance readability in today's language and culture in different locations, vs literal accuracy to the original text. For simple reading, a looser translation is better; for serious study, a more literal translation may be better. The New International Version (NIV) is the most popular compromise between the two, but I sometimes prefer a looser translation like the old Todays English Version, the Contemporary English Version or even The Message. But there is a Bible minefield out there with some strong opinions. so I reckon just get one that reads OK and simply read.
Yes, this also is a minefield. Everyone has a viewpoint, from literal inerrancy to the Bible as merely a book of its time. But there is plenty in the middle, both scholarly and popular - it depends on what you want to know.
My feeling is that the best place to start is the Gospels - after all, Jesus is the main man. (I don't recommend starting at Genesis and reading right through first up.) And for the gospels, you may want to read someone who has a good grasp on Jewish and Roman history and culture. I reckon the best and simplest book on Jesus is John Dickson's "Jesus, a short life" (he's a historian who writes at a popular level). I also really enjoy William Barclay's commentaries on the gospels and AM Hunter's "The Words and Works of Jesus" if you can still get them, even though they are several decades old now (shows my age!) I think Jamie's suggestion of finding a couple of good online sources is a good one - there are plenty to try, not all of them good, and not all of them in the middle ground that you want (most will tend to the literal end of the spectrum).
I think most people who say that the whole Bible is inspired and without any errors nevertheless have to re-interpret lots of bits so it all fits together consistently in their own minds - which actually negates their original view, but they don't recognise this. So I can't see how we can deny that the Bible is progressive revelation. Certainly there is clear progression from Old to New Testament, and pretty clear progression from the early NT ("the Law") to the prophets. I personally don't see how progressive revelation makes it any more likely that it is all a human construct than the more literalist view - in both cases, we are faced with a choice of believing that God inspired the writers, or not.
Why would God do it this way? Well it seems to be his way. Evolution rather than 6 day creation. A baby in a stable rather than a fanfare and a conqueror. A group of 12 fishermen and the like rather than a full multimedia PR team. An organic grass roots movement rather than a huge organisation (I show my anti big church prejudice there!). I think he wants to give us and the entire world autonomy, which means him keeping at arms length most of the time, and generally only intervening in subtle ways. (I think we can interpret his more powerful interventions in the OT as necessary for the time, like a parent has to do everything for a baby, but less as the child grows, and I suppose some may be mythical rather than historical.)
For myself, I would find it difficult to believe literally in it all, and I note that many I have come across on the web who have lost their faith tended to come from literalist backgrounds. I think, once I have decided that the NT is reliable history and I believe in Jesus, I am quite happy to allow a few things to remain unclear and unexplained - what else would I expect regarding God?
I hope your reading and church-going prove helpful. It would be interesting to hear your impressions of both.
Apr 16, 2010 20:39:55 GMT @eastshore4 said:
I'm going to start going to Church here.Just curious, where is "here" and what brand of church were you thinking of? (Or do you wish to retain your anonymity?)
I wanted to get my own bible, but from what I understand there's a few different "versions" out there, King James version, etc. Do they more or less have the same content despite perhaps differences in certain translations? Is there any particular one you can recommend?
Like Jamie said, they are all translations of basically the same text. (The NT books were originally copied manually and so variations can be found. The variations don't affect anything all that important, and most translations use an agreed text.) But translators have to balance readability in today's language and culture in different locations, vs literal accuracy to the original text. For simple reading, a looser translation is better; for serious study, a more literal translation may be better. The New International Version (NIV) is the most popular compromise between the two, but I sometimes prefer a looser translation like the old Todays English Version, the Contemporary English Version or even The Message. But there is a Bible minefield out there with some strong opinions. so I reckon just get one that reads OK and simply read.
Is there any good books on a sort of "middle-of-the-road" interpretation of the bible? Right now I'm still kind of stuck in this whole "either/or" mindset. Reading some of the dialogue between Evangelists and Episcopalians has got me into this mindset that the Bible's gotta be either entirely literal or entirely rhetorical, and those who try to strike a balance are only well-wishers. I've always been drawn to walking the line between the two extremes, but I want to make sure it's a coherent stance to believe the bible is "inspired" instead of divine dictation or a human-constructed self help book.
Yes, this also is a minefield. Everyone has a viewpoint, from literal inerrancy to the Bible as merely a book of its time. But there is plenty in the middle, both scholarly and popular - it depends on what you want to know.
My feeling is that the best place to start is the Gospels - after all, Jesus is the main man. (I don't recommend starting at Genesis and reading right through first up.) And for the gospels, you may want to read someone who has a good grasp on Jewish and Roman history and culture. I reckon the best and simplest book on Jesus is John Dickson's "Jesus, a short life" (he's a historian who writes at a popular level). I also really enjoy William Barclay's commentaries on the gospels and AM Hunter's "The Words and Works of Jesus" if you can still get them, even though they are several decades old now (shows my age!) I think Jamie's suggestion of finding a couple of good online sources is a good one - there are plenty to try, not all of them good, and not all of them in the middle ground that you want (most will tend to the literal end of the spectrum).
One argument I've come across lately has been the argument of how God and Theology evolve. Just reading about the transition from OT to NT shows many "theological upgrades" going on, then there's the whole "trimming" of many gods down to one. I guess a theist can argue that it's a sort of progressive revelation, but it also seems to give credence to the idea of God as a human construct, i.e. us influencing God instead of the other way around. What's the general impression of this?
I think most people who say that the whole Bible is inspired and without any errors nevertheless have to re-interpret lots of bits so it all fits together consistently in their own minds - which actually negates their original view, but they don't recognise this. So I can't see how we can deny that the Bible is progressive revelation. Certainly there is clear progression from Old to New Testament, and pretty clear progression from the early NT ("the Law") to the prophets. I personally don't see how progressive revelation makes it any more likely that it is all a human construct than the more literalist view - in both cases, we are faced with a choice of believing that God inspired the writers, or not.
Why would God do it this way? Well it seems to be his way. Evolution rather than 6 day creation. A baby in a stable rather than a fanfare and a conqueror. A group of 12 fishermen and the like rather than a full multimedia PR team. An organic grass roots movement rather than a huge organisation (I show my anti big church prejudice there!). I think he wants to give us and the entire world autonomy, which means him keeping at arms length most of the time, and generally only intervening in subtle ways. (I think we can interpret his more powerful interventions in the OT as necessary for the time, like a parent has to do everything for a baby, but less as the child grows, and I suppose some may be mythical rather than historical.)
For myself, I would find it difficult to believe literally in it all, and I note that many I have come across on the web who have lost their faith tended to come from literalist backgrounds. I think, once I have decided that the NT is reliable history and I believe in Jesus, I am quite happy to allow a few things to remain unclear and unexplained - what else would I expect regarding God?
I hope your reading and church-going prove helpful. It would be interesting to hear your impressions of both.
