Best Bible for research?

Post Reply New Topic

VIDEODROME: You are likely better off getting a functional knowledge of the Bible through any relevant means, and then supplementing that with theological writings. Trying to get a Bible to do everything is not likely the best way to go about this, as the possible interpretations are not something you're likely to see without guidance. You need to have other writings that work on contextualizing scriptures with each other and the background ideas. I would also question the study bibles as valuable, as the big issue is that you'll need flexibility in proper theology, and study bibles are simply means to promote a particular person/group's interpretation.

I would also advise you think about what topics interest you, and how you'd want to pursue them. I'd suggest major focus on the credibility of your sources though, as there are a lot of people peddling crap, so I'd suggest trying to find the best academics for whatever you want to read on. This is not to say that non-academics can't be good sources, only that academics are generally more reliable as much of what they do is already vetted on quality.

Also, I understand the RSV or variations of it to be the best Bibles, as the New RSV was the result of a major interdenominational and inter-religious research project.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 13 Jun 2011, 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well my mom can be a very determined person and was a business owner for a while as well as raising 2 boys. I think she did the work of 3 people and would sleep short nights just to do everything. She didn't have to do this all my Dad had a decent job, but she was determined.

Mom is also Irish Catholic and she married a German. For quite a while my dad didn't go but now he's older and decided to go to a rural United Brethren Protestant church. He mostly likes it because it's informal country folks without as much heavy ritualism. My mom is beside herself. For years she prayed my Dad would go to church and now he picked a sect of the Protestants.

Now I'm somewhere in the middle of this theological mess.

Spong has a lot of books, and is a prolific author. The one I picked is an overview of scripture, where he criticizes it, mentions a lot of conclusions of a relatively mainstream scholarship, and still tries to revitalize it. (Although the last part seemed weaker to me)

The man has a lot of different writings, and I haven't kept up with his videos.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqc[/youtube]

For the original testament read the Masoretic text in Hebrew and Aramaic.

For the gospels read the Greek-Koine texts.


Do not rely on translations

ruveyn

Okay - that puts her in place. Given that and the situation between them [my Episcopalian Balto German mother gritting her teeth she could not get my atheist father into church even to sing in the choir - both into singinh] yes, you are in the middle. Don't be like your father, says my momma.

Be strong. Know thyself. To thine own self be true and damn the torpedoes.

Some of my forebears were big in the Brethren.

huh?
http://www.bricktestament.com/

You are going to have to gloss that.

I actually - despite my avoidance of links posted by uncertified sources - hoping to put the "huh" in context.

I still do not get it.

No, I don't really have to.

Avoidance of links is rather silly. Unless you are still on a 2000 computer in which viruses can actually enter through web pages, but that would be your fault, not that of people posting links.

If I wanted to make you go to a place you don't want to, I could give my links context that make them look affable to you. But that is not my interest.

Great advice - but that means waiting years while learning. And even then most are at the mercy of the lexical and grammatical resources / traditions, AND you are stuck with texts edited not always without axes to grind.

Learn the lingo if you can and will, by all means, but meantime use serious translations critically. It can help if you are serious enough to compare and contrast two translations - and then dig into the reasons for their different takes.

I wouldn't start with Spong. Spong is revolutionary. Your mother is coming from a perspective of Catholicism. Spong is controversial even for Episcopalians. It's best, in my opinion, to study mainstream theology and become secure in that knowledge, then turn all that knowledge and theology on its head with Spong.

Regarding the original question of translations: NASB if you want the most scholastically accurate contemporary translation. I like the ESV for readability. The Net bible has fundamentalist leanings (because of its affiliation with DTS) but the grammatical notes can be helpful.

Here is a hint if you are going to use translations. Look at Isaiah 7:14. If you see the word "virgin" there consign the translations to the flames. That is not what the Hebrew says.

ruveyn

I know many liberal thinkers on the subject of hell with more credibility than Spong. Thinkers like Glen Peoples and Greg Boyd subscribe to annihilationism (as did Origen; apocatastasis is not a new idea). Personally, I can see why people are attracted to people like Spong but in my view they don't really offer anything other than resistance to orthodox Christianity. Those who think that this resistance is a good thing, seem to naturally embrace his views, regardless of their veracity. Spong does make legitimate criticisms of established Church assumptions, but for the most part, he falls victim to the statement made by C.S. Lewis, that Christ is essentially either God or mad; describing him as a radical preacher, prophet or social reformer, is not really something he left open to us..

There seems to be this view, in the mainstream culture that only the vocal liberal fringe of the Church engages in criticism of the Orthodox teachings, they imagine this massive iconoclastic culture where independent thought is not encouraged. Anyone who thinks that should read people like Henri de Lubac, Walter Kaspar, Bernard Lonergan or Hans Urs von Balthasar all of whom have challenged aspects the orthodoxy and succeeding in creating real change within the Church. People, however, prefer to focus on the Huns Kungs (who seems more interested in defending a radical splinter of Vatican II orthodoxy) and Spongs of this world, giving them far more credibility than the quality of their ideas really entitles them to.

As to the doctrine of hell; my view is largely influenced by the great theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar (probably the great theologian of the last century) and I don't think Spong gets within six feet of overcoming his work; who concluded that we cannot remove hell from Christian theology. He did breakup the view put forward by both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas that hell would be a crowded place full of sinners. He replaced it with nothing, he concluded essentially that we cannot know who goes to hell but that as Christians it was REQUIRED of us, to hope for all to be saved.



I would agree with this statement.



I agree. Though it takes a great deal more effort.

You do realize that the trilemma doesn't really work, don't you?

I mean, even if Jesus is actually mad, it doesn't mean that he isn't a radical preacher or social reformer. It means that he is a radical preacher or social reformer with a delusion. To say that we can't separate out the messages as we please though is not plausible, as we clearly do this in cases where we find it relevant. The same holds for him being a liar. The same would even hold, if for whatever reason, we actually don't believe he proclaimed himself as truly being God.

You are correct in that it does not work in relation to our understanding of the results of his life. It certainly does apply in relation to our view of his own self-understanding. I think it is useful to separate the two out.