• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bible scholarship

Tom Morris

Thinker
T
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
155
Anyone know of a good place on the Internet with a forum for discussing the Bible as a scholarly text? Preferably somewhere where a visitor isn't harrassed with evangelism - Christian or otherwise - but just allowed to discuss issues like translation, historical accuracy, authorship and how the Bible matches up with fact.

Also, as a quick straw poll - what's your favourite edition for these purposes? I've got a Good News Bible (American Bible Society - OT from Kittel's Biblia Hebraica and NT from United Bible Societies 1975 Greek text - plus it's got lots of nice pictures) and maybe a KJV.

For a wannabe sceptic, is it a good idea to get an annotated Bible with academic commentary? In most cases, if one is going to seriously try to look in to a piece, it's probably easier to have your favourite and use the online services to compare translations (etc.).
 
Tom Morris said:
...what's your favourite edition for these purposes? I've got a Good News Bible (American Bible Society - OT from Kittel's Biblia Hebraica and NT from United Bible Societies 1975 Greek text - plus it's got lots of nice pictures) and maybe a KJV.
Click to expand...

Just from my personal experience, the "Good News" bible is worthless for anything but personal study. Most conservative denominations don't even recognise it as valid.

Most of your dyed-in-the-wool Fundies are going to insist on KJV.
 
Tricky: thanks, I love the Skeptic's Annotated Bible!

Piscivore: Thanks too. I blame the Catholic Church for this. Then again, I blame the Catholic Church when it rains or I can't find my wallet.
 
Tom Morris said:
Tricky: thanks, I love the Skeptic's Annotated Bible!

Piscivore: Thanks too. I blame the Catholic Church for this. Then again, I blame the Catholic Church when it rains or I can't find my wallet.
Click to expand...

Really? I should try that the next time the kittens drag off a sneaker.

The only thing about the SAB is that, I'm fairly certain, it's the King James version and I've heard some whacko's denounce that one.

I blame Shakespeare.
 
Tom Morris said:
For a wannabe sceptic, is it a good idea to get an annotated Bible with academic commentary? In most cases, if one is going to seriously try to look in to a piece, it's probably easier to have your favourite and use the online services to compare translations (etc.).
Click to expand...
I regret that I know of no single source, but I can say that I have found enlightenment in many of the following:

Isaac Asimov's Commentaries on the Bible are excellent. Asimov does not discuss every verse, and there are many skeptical topics that are omitted. Nevertheless, I recommend this work. In particular, I recommend the edition that combines Old and New Testament commentaries into a single volume.

I also recommend Steve Allen's commentaries.

I further recommend Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason." Part 1 is a general indictment of religion based upon so-called revelation (which includes but is not limited to Christianity), and Part 2 is a scathing analysis of what Paine perceives as problem passages in the Bible.

If you check with the library of your local seminary, you should be able to find the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek, with translations provided and with variations on the text discussed. Many pastors have to learn at least some Hebrew and Greek, and these texts are valuable to them when they have to "go to the source" and their knowledge of ancient langages is a little rusty. These books are, understandably, quite large. Many pastors have used these books to point out inaccuracies in the various translations of the Bible.

There is also a book--which I have seen because one of my relatives owns it, but the title and author of which I do not know--that "explains" Biblical contradictions, anachronisms, scientific errors, and the like. The book is very matter-of-fact, and yet some of the "explanations" are so preposterous that I was left to wonder whether it might have been written by someone who was trying to establish that the Bible was full of nonsense.

I do not know of any annotated Bible that has a good skeptical commentary. The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is pretty good, but I'd recommend not taking everything said there at face value.

The KJV is often confusing, perhaps deliberately so. The RSV and NIV are better. The Living Bible (touted for a while by Art Linkletter) is easy-to-read and includes some good annotations, but I have heard many ministers denounce it as a "lousy translation."
 
Re: Re: Bible scholarship

Piscivore said:

Most of your dyed-in-the-wool Fundies are going to insist on KJV.
Click to expand...
Why not? Isn't it the one written in English which has been the least bit tampered with?
 
Re: Re: Bible scholarship

Brown said:
[/B]
Click to expand...

I was going to quote parts of your post, Brown, but it's simpler just to say I second everything you said.


the KJV 1611 is the "Standard" bible most "fundamentalists" use, I'd go with that. If not, the only modern translation that gets good press is the NIV, but the NIV won't be recognized by some of the more fundy fundies.

The Good News Bible, as stated, is hardly worthy of being called a Bible.

And as for finding greek/hebrew, I wouldn't bother to buy a greek/hebrew bible, I'd just get a nice concordance. There are some online that I know of... I think http://www.blueletterbible.org has several concordances searchable online.
 
Then again there's Emanuel Swedenborg's Apocalypse Revealed, a verse for verse accounting to the Book of Revelation which, was supposed to have been fulfilled in the year 1757. Of course this only applies if you wish to hear something profoundly different from the story we continue to hear today. He also wrote an excellent book called, Heaven and Hell, by the way, which illustrates how completely ethical God was in setting things up the way He did ... that basically people are in hell due their own choosing, based upon the things they regarded most out of life. So, where lying and cheating are not tolerated in heaven, it pretty much rules the day in hell.
 
Re: Re: Re: Bible scholarship

Iacchus said:
Why not? Isn't it the one written in English which has been the least bit tampered with?
Click to expand...

Actually, Iacchus, the NIV is generally considered to be a more accurate translation today. Up until the point of the NIV, the KJV 1611 was considered the most accurate, and it's been around long enough that most scholars are aware of where the mistakes in translation came through. Still, a good concordance is a good tool.
 
Iacchus said:
Then again there's Emanuel Swedenborg's Apocalypse Revealed, a verse for verse accounting to the Book of Revelation which, was supposed to have been fulfilled in the year 1757.
Click to expand...


It's been a long time since I've read Asimov on the Bible but if I recall, that's where I have read the most plausible verse-by-verse explanation of The Revelation of John. Even better than your 1757 comparison, Asimov manages to explain that everything John had to say was related to things happening *when he was alive* (ie: in John's time, not the future)

Which makes sense; we see in the apocryphal writings many examples of how the early church liked to "hide information in plain sight" -- to use codes and numbers that would only be meaningful to the initiated.
 
Iacchus said:
So, where lying and cheating are not tolerated in heaven, it pretty much rules the day in hell. ;)
Click to expand...

Just out of my own personal curiosity, Iacchus, how much weight do you give to such extra-biblical sources?
 
scribble said:

Just out of my own personal curiosity, Iacchus, how much weight do you give to such extra-biblical sources?
Click to expand...
Just out of my own personal curiosity, scribble, how much weight do you give to biblical sources at all? You know, if you don't give credence to what came before, how can you give credence to what came after? It's all a bunch of ficticious lies and BS isn't it? Of course it is possible that the second rendition might render the first rendition more meaningful don't you think?
 
Damn, I must have pushed a hot-button. I didn't mean any offense.

Iacchus said:
Just out of my own personal curiosity, scribble, how much weight do you give to biblical sources at all?
Click to expand...

In the context of studying the Bible, they must be given the ultimate weight. After all, they're the source text.

In a broader context, I have no conception of how much weight I give to the Bible. I can only assume it's more than I'd like, considering my intimate familiarity with it.

You know, if you don't give credence to what came before, how can you give credence to what came after? It's all a bunch of ficticious lies and BS isn't it? Of course it is possible that the second rendition might render the first rendition more meaningful don't you think?
Click to expand...

I think you mean, "Sometimes it helps to have someone else explain things to you," and I agree completely.

As for how much BS is in the Bible, I don't see how that's relevant. If you want to derail the thread, I can go find some things in the Bible I think are probably true, if it'll make you feel better.
 
scribble said:

It's been a long time since I've read Asimov on the Bible but if I recall, that's where I have read the most plausible verse-by-verse explanation of The Revelation of John. Even better than your 1757 comparison, Asimov manages to explain that everything John had to say was related to things happening *when he was alive* (ie: in John's time, not the future)
Click to expand...
Of course if there was anything Universal about the Book of Revelation to begin with which, most Atheists tend to disagree with, then this becomes an excellent way to lose sight of that.


Which makes sense; we see in the apocryphal writings many examples of how the early church liked to "hide information in plain sight" -- to use codes and numbers that would only be meaningful to the initiated.
Click to expand...
This is one way of looking at it suppose, but it only helps to obscure the fact that a God In Spirit does exist, that is, for those who wish to argue otherwise.
 
Iacchus said:
Of course if there was anything Universal about the Book of Revelation to begin with which, most Atheists tend to disagree with, then this becomes an excellent way to lose sight of that.


This is one way of looking at it suppose, but it only helps to obscure the fact that a God In Spirit does exist, that is, for those who wish to argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

I can't make either heads nor tails of this post.

You do realize that in this thread I've said nothing doubting any portion of the Bible.
 
scribble said:

Damn, I must have pushed a hot-button. I didn't mean any offense.
Click to expand...
No problem. ;) I didn't realize you had posted three posts, as this is the only one I saw when I opened up the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom