Free book of John

[Dale]

Dale: Great stuff here. So, question- as one who at the age of 50 is trying to gain back his spiritual side, how would you suggest one study the bible? Or, would you even suggest that?

Anyone with real thought is free to jump in here, I'm really wondering.

Thanks. All the Best, Tom

Thanks. So sorry for the delay. I missed your question the first time through.

The first thing I would suggest is to get a book that will introduce you the critical approach to reading the Bible. Critical as in analytical and trying to get behind the text, as opposed to critical as in looking for fault.

My favorite is Raymond E. Brown's Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. Paulist Press 1990. The late Father Brown is a hero of mine and is on everybody's short list of Bible scholars of the 20th century. Vastly intelligent, rigorous research, a man of Faith and reason. Just incredible. This is a great introduction and actually answers questions about how to read and study the Bible.

Another interesting choice, which I recommend with reservations, is John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism. There are a lot of things that irritate me about Spong, and no one would accuse him of the kind of intellectual discipline characteristic of the great Bible scholars. But, he is an effective writer and communicator and provides this good introduction to alternative ways of understanding the Bible. (Alternatives to the literal-or-go-to-hell approach.)

I'd also suggest using a Bible with good footnotes. Yes, footnotes. Footnotes that help you understand the context of various passages. Examples of Bible translations with good footnotes: The New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Now both of these are "Catholic" Bibles, and someone may know of other translations with good footnotes.

Catholic Bibles, of course, aren't nearly as 'Catholic' as most people think. There are no critical differences between Catholic New Testaments and any of those NT translations used by most Christian denominations. Catholic Bibles include a handful of additional Old Testament books which Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha and Catholics refer to (if they do at all) as deuterocanonical. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. It's not that these are unimportant, but ....welll...let's just say that if God made them miraculously disappear from all Catholic bibles overnight, it might be a couple of weeks before anyone noticed.

The Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version are also excellent translations, but I can't recall how useful the footnotes are.

The single most important piece of advice I'd give you, though, is DO NOT TRY TO READ THE BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER. You'll stop reading in the Book of Numbers, if not before then. It's a shame, really, because the Bible as a book does have a broad sweeping story about the relationship between God and people and God's plan for human salvation. But, we just lose way too many readers who try to read it like a John Grisham novel.

If you are interested in the teachings of Christ, start with the Gospels. I'd suggest this order: Mark, Matt, Luke, John. (Mark appears 2nd, but is almost certainly the oldest of the canonical Gospels). Matt and Luke incorporate most of the Mark, but in much better Greek and the inclusion of a lot of sayings of Jesus that are not in Mark. (These sayings, by the way, are believed by many to have once been part of a now lost collection of the sayings of Jesus which scholars call "Q.")

John was written later and presents a very different picture of Jesus.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Dale

[TomB]

Dale: Great stuff here. So, question- as one who at the age of 50 is trying to gain back his spiritual side, how would you suggest one study the bible? Or, would you even suggest that?

Anyone with real thought is free to jump in here, I'm really wondering.

Thanks. All the Best, Tom

Thanks. So sorry for the delay. I missed your question the first time through.

The first thing I would suggest is to get a book that will introduce you the critical approach to reading the Bible. Critical as in analytical and trying to get behind the text, as opposed to critical as in looking for fault.

My favorite is Raymond E. Brown's Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. Paulist Press 1990. The late Father Brown is a hero of mine and is on everybody's short list of Bible scholars of the 20th century. Vastly intelligent, rigorous research, a man of Faith and reason. Just incredible. This is a great introduction and actually answers questions about how to read and study the Bible.

Another interesting choice, which I recommend with reservations, is John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism. There are a lot of things that irritate me about Spong, and no one would accuse him of the kind of intellectual discipline characteristic of the great Bible scholars. But, he is an effective writer and communicator and provides this good introduction to alternative ways of understanding the Bible. (Alternatives to the literal-or-go-to-hell approach.)

I'd also suggest using a Bible with good footnotes. Yes, footnotes. Footnotes that help you understand the context of various passages. Examples of Bible translations with good footnotes: The New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Now both of these are "Catholic" Bibles, and someone may know of other translations with good footnotes.

Catholic Bibles, of course, aren't nearly as 'Catholic' as most people think. There are no critical differences between Catholic New Testaments and any of those NT translations used by most Christian denominations. Catholic Bibles include a handful of additional Old Testament books which Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha and Catholics refer to (if they do at all) as deuterocanonical. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. It's not that these are unimportant, but ....welll...let's just say that if God made them miraculously disappear from all Catholic bibles overnight, it might be a couple of weeks before anyone noticed.

The Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version are also excellent translations, but I can't recall how useful the footnotes are.

The single most important piece of advice I'd give you, though, is DO NOT TRY TO READ THE BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER. You'll stop reading in the Book of Numbers, if not before then. It's a shame, really, because the Bible as a book does have a broad sweeping story about the relationship between God and people and God's plan for human salvation. But, we just lose way too many readers who try to read it like a John Grisham novel.

If you are interested in the teachings of Christ, start with the Gospels. I'd suggest this order: Mark, Matt, Luke, John. (Mark appears 2nd, but is almost certainly the oldest of the canonical Gospels). Matt and Luke incorporate most of the Mark, but in much better Greek and the inclusion of a lot of sayings of Jesus that are not in Mark. (These sayings, by the way, are believed by many to have once been part of a now lost collection of the sayings of Jesus which scholars call "Q.")

John was written later and presents a very different picture of Jesus.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Dale

Dale: Thanks for your response, I truly appreciate it. I'll look for the books that you spoke of.

A friend of mine has suggested that I get a copy of the NIV Life Application Bible. I realize that it's not a "Catholic" bible, but do you know of it, and have you heard good or bad about it? Uh, I hate to say have you heard "bad" things when talking about a bible, but you get what I mean.

Again, thanks much Dale.

Tom

[emmline]

and to throw a crooked monkey wrench into the whole shootin' match, I suggest a book that introduce and discuss the gnostic gospels, such as one by Elaine Pagels (I think someone mentioned her...) Here's a link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 66-7460011
I, for one, am having trouble remaining comfortable in conventional Christianity, for a variety of reasons, including the prevalent tacit acceptance (in most midline congregations) of all the add-ons to the basic teachings of Jesus which have evolved from a post-Nicene understanding of Christianity.

I probably shouldn't even add my craziness here. It's why I no longer teach church school to children, or try to participate in conventional Bible studies, etc...why try to screw up people up who may be best served by a traditional understanding?

edit: for the most part, I like Spong. And Marcus Borg.

[TomB]

and to throw a crooked monkey wrench into the whole shootin' match, I suggest a book that introduce and discuss the gnostic gospels, such as one by Elaine Pagels (I think someone mentioned her...) Here's a link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 66-7460011
I, for one, am having trouble remaining comfortable in conventional Christianity, for a variety of reasons, including the prevalent tacit acceptance (in most midline congregations) of all the add-ons to the basic teachings of Jesus which have evolved from a post-Nicene understanding of Christianity.

I probably shouldn't even add my craziness here. It's why I no longer teach church school to children, or try to participate in conventional Bible studies, etc...why try to screw up people up who may be best served by a traditional understanding?

Thanks, Emm. I've heard about that book before, but I've never read it. I may, at some point, but not just yet/now, though.

I have some problems with some of the things too, as I think most folks do. I guess each works through them his or her own way.

I'll definitely keep this book on a list, though, but hey, you've already recommended a book I want to read- Life of Pi! I can't go running around reading everything you recommend now, can I??

Again, thanks. Tom

[littlejohngael]

Dale: Great stuff here. So, question- as one who at the age of 50 is trying to gain back his spiritual side, how would you suggest one study the bible? Or, would you even suggest that?

Anyone with real thought is free to jump in here, I'm really wondering.

Thanks. All the Best, Tom

Thanks. So sorry for the delay. I missed your question the first time through.

The first thing I would suggest is to get a book that will introduce you the critical approach to reading the Bible. Critical as in analytical and trying to get behind the text, as opposed to critical as in looking for fault.

My favorite is Raymond E. Brown's Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. Paulist Press 1990. The late Father Brown is a hero of mine and is on everybody's short list of Bible scholars of the 20th century. Vastly intelligent, rigorous research, a man of Faith and reason. Just incredible. This is a great introduction and actually answers questions about how to read and study the Bible.

Another interesting choice, which I recommend with reservations, is John Shelby Spong's Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism. There are a lot of things that irritate me about Spong, and no one would accuse him of the kind of intellectual discipline characteristic of the great Bible scholars. But, he is an effective writer and communicator and provides this good introduction to alternative ways of understanding the Bible. (Alternatives to the literal-or-go-to-hell approach.)

I'd also suggest using a Bible with good footnotes. Yes, footnotes. Footnotes that help you understand the context of various passages. Examples of Bible translations with good footnotes: The New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible.

Now both of these are "Catholic" Bibles, and someone may know of other translations with good footnotes.

Catholic Bibles, of course, aren't nearly as 'Catholic' as most people think. There are no critical differences between Catholic New Testaments and any of those NT translations used by most Christian denominations. Catholic Bibles include a handful of additional Old Testament books which Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha and Catholics refer to (if they do at all) as deuterocanonical. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. It's not that these are unimportant, but ....welll...let's just say that if God made them miraculously disappear from all Catholic bibles overnight, it might be a couple of weeks before anyone noticed.

The Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version are also excellent translations, but I can't recall how useful the footnotes are.

The single most important piece of advice I'd give you, though, is DO NOT TRY TO READ THE BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER. You'll stop reading in the Book of Numbers, if not before then. It's a shame, really, because the Bible as a book does have a broad sweeping story about the relationship between God and people and God's plan for human salvation. But, we just lose way too many readers who try to read it like a John Grisham novel.

If you are interested in the teachings of Christ, start with the Gospels. I'd suggest this order: Mark, Matt, Luke, John. (Mark appears 2nd, but is almost certainly the oldest of the canonical Gospels). Matt and Luke incorporate most of the Mark, but in much better Greek and the inclusion of a lot of sayings of Jesus that are not in Mark. (These sayings, by the way, are believed by many to have once been part of a now lost collection of the sayings of Jesus which scholars call "Q.")

John was written later and presents a very different picture of Jesus.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Dale

Dale: Thanks for your response, I truly appreciate it. I'll look for the books that you spoke of.

A friend of mine has suggested that I get a copy of the NIV Life Application Bible. I realize that it's not a "Catholic" bible, but do you know of it, and have you heard good or bad about it? Uh, I hate to say have you heard "bad" things when talking about a bible, but you get what I mean.

Again, thanks much Dale.

Tom

Tom,

I've not got that one, but I do have the NIV Study Bible. I've found over the years that the notes in study Bibles often have theological slants. The least slant I've found is in the NIV Study Bible -- almost non-existent by comparison. What you'll find in the notes on the NIV Study Bible is commentary geared more toward historical/cultural background, than theological leanings.

The NIV Life Application Bible will do mostly what it's title implies. It will tell you how to incorporate the scriptures into your life. Not a bad thing at all, but if you're looking to study the Scriptures, it might not be what you're looking for.

All the best,

Little John

[Lorenzo]

The Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version are also excellent translations, but I can't recall how useful the footnotes are.

The RSV and NRSV set a new standard for bibles. Soon after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the RSV came out changing the meaning of about 8 texts in the Old Test., based on new understanding from the scrolls. The New Revised Standard Version excludes about 16 entire verses from the New Testament and a couple dozen half-verses. The New King James Version includes all these interpolations, but provides footnotes describing which verses are not to be found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. IOW, the verses appear to have been inappropriately added later by church editors hoping to reinforce such doctrines as the Trinity, Hell, etc. 1Jn 5:7,8 is but one example where most of each verse is missing. Acts 8:37 is completely missing.

The NT is tricky to anyone who cares about authenticity and original unaltered texts.

In the NRSV, you'll be reading along in the book of Acts of the Apostles, and suddenly, without warning, it will go from verse 36 to verse 38 with no signs of v. 37. A little disconcerting to any reader. IT HAPPENS A LOT. Footnotes explain why in both the NRSV and the NKJV. Another interesting warning about the RSV is that most churches do not accept it because of the seemingly intentional attempt by editors to use human terms relating to Christ rather than divine. The RSV has wrongly (IMO) been accused of not believing in the divinity of Christ.

[Jack]

There is [some really good stuff here Cranberry, but there is also a bit of error. When you (or me or anyone) talk about reading (and understanding) the Bible I think it's important to make sure we get its teachings correct.
One of the more important doctrines contained within the New Testament concerns the indwelling Holy Spirit. Many people (I assume) believe that the Holy Spirit is in all of us; probably because we are indeed God's creatures. But the Bible does not teach that. In fact it teaches just the opposite.

What the Bible teaches is, in far more cases than many people are able to concede, open to interpretation.

The account about the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 when the believers received the Spirit, coupled with the reaction of everyone else in Jerusalem indicates that not everyone then had the Holy Spirit.
A study of the rest of the New Testament will show that as well. The letter writers in particular often mentioned the fact of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers, but their comments were always addressed to those in the various churches at that time. (see 2nd Corinthians 1:22) Those who were not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, did not have the Holy Spirit. (see Jude 17-19) He was and is given only to those who believe in Christ.
And His presence (or lack of presence) actually does have a great influence and benefit for understanding to those who read the Bible

I am actually taking a course on Understanding The New Testament as we speak. I believe each person on earth does in fact have the ability to speak with and the access to the Divine Light Of The Inner Christ. This means all people, from child molestors in prison cells to pygmies in the jungles of African into whose languages the Bible has never been translated.

It doesn't have much to do with what the Bible says or doesn't say, but with life as I've experienced it (and consequently, I believe direct experience in search of Truth is always superior than Bible verses, even if seemingly contradictory).

[Jack]

Don't listen to any church or religious group - listen to God directly.

Sorry, God is only available through the regular dispensers. Are you trying to go directly to the spring for water?

Some of the most beautiful people I've know have had an experience with God. Then, after an experience with theology and church structure, I watched the light in their eyes go out gradually, and turn into confusion and disappointment, or indifference...never able to regain what they'd lost. That's one of the saddest things I've ever seen--someone filled with such hope and energy...structured into a good little denominational puppet as if there were some virtue in it.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And they'll beckon you onto this hill, or that temple, and let you know all about tithes and offerings, and diet, and doctrine, and how to sign up for official membership, baptizing you into their church and into Christ...all fused (confused) into one ceremony. They go together, you are told. Now, you must trust and obey, for there's no other way.

Beware.

That's why I like (traditional Christian) Quakerism so much. No doctrines, no rituals, no clergy, no church buildings, no observance holidays (in some but not all cases), no baptism, no special diet, nothing at all into which one could get trapped, except utter silent worship of the group (it's very hard to get caught up in silence the same way you've talked about with other things).

[emmline]

(and consequently, I believe direct experience in search of Truth is always superior than Bible verses, even if seemingly contradictory).

...and there's one place that you and I (and others) diverge from the recommendations of many prominent purveyors of religion.

[Jack]

(and consequently, I believe direct experience in search of Truth is always superior than Bible verses, even if seemingly contradictory).

...and there's one place that you and I (and others) diverge from the recommendations of many prominent purveyors of religion.

I know I may sound like a mad person mentioning Quakerism yet again in this same thread, but many (not all, some meetings are more Protestant-ish) Quaker meetings recognize that the Bible is not the end-all be-all of everything and that revelation continues, and also understand that we each have direct access to God, and no priests or other "purveyors of religion" like Catholic, Jewish or Protestant clergy are required - each and every person in the meeting is equal in the eyes of God and has direct access and ability to talk with (not to) God. It's such a beautiful thing.

[Lorenzo]

That's why I like (traditional Christian) Quakerism so much. No doctrines, no rituals, no clergy, no church buildings, no observance holidays (in some but not all cases), no baptism, no special diet, nothing at all into which one could get trapped, except utter silent worship of the group (it's very hard to get caught up in silence the same way you've talked about with other things).

Many of my Quakers are Friends, oops...I have that backwards. These friends include lawyers, doctors, pshychologists, and other highly educated people. Quakers love to dance too, as their name implies. Several of my Quaker friends are dance callers too (contras). The thing I've always admired about them is they seem to always know when to be quiet. Quietism is a big part of their belief. The inner light is another.

Good choice.

[Jack]

That's why I like (traditional Christian) Quakerism so much. No doctrines, no rituals, no clergy, no church buildings, no observance holidays (in some but not all cases), no baptism, no special diet, nothing at all into which one could get trapped, except utter silent worship of the group (it's very hard to get caught up in silence the same way you've talked about with other things).

Many of my Quakers are Friends, oops...I have that backwards. These friends include lawyers, doctors, pshychologists, and other highly educated people. Quakers love to dance too, as their name implies. Several of my Quaker friends are dance callers too (contras). The thing I've always admired about them is they seem to always know when to be quiet. Quietism is a big part of their belief. The inner light is another.

Good choice.

I feel I should share a quote from Mother Teresa's <i>No Greater Love</i>, written in her characteristic simple yet so effective style:

It is difficult to pray if you don't know how to pray, but we must help ourselves pray. The first means to use is silence. We cannot put ourselves directly in the presense of God if we do not practice internal and external silence...

The intererior silence is very difficult, but we must make the effort...

In silence of the heart, God speaks. If you face God in prayer and silence, God will speak to you. Then you will know that you are nothing. It is only when you realize your nothingness, your emptyness, tha God can fill you with Himself. Souls of prayer are souls of great silence.

Silence gives us a new outlook on everything. The essential thing is not what we say, but what God says to us and through us. In that silence, He will listen to us; there he will speak to our soulds and there we will hear His voice.

Listen in silence, because if your heart is full of other things you cannot hear the voice of God. But when you have listened to the voice of God in the stillness of your heart, then your heart is filled with God. This will need sacrafice, but if we really mean to pray and want to pray we must be ready to do it now. These are only the first steps toward prayer but if we never make the first step with a determination, we will noty read the last one: the presense of God...

We cannot find God in noise or agitation. Nature: trees, flowers, and grass grow in silence. The stars, the moon, and the sun move in silence. What is essential is not what we say but what God tells us and what He tells others through us. In silence He listens to us; in silence He speaks to our souls. In silence we are granted the prigalege of listening to His voice.

Silence of our ears.
Silence of our eyes.
Silence of our mouths.
Silence of our minds.
...in the silence of the heart
God will speak.

[Lorenzo]

[rodfish]

Cranberry wrote: It doesn't have much to do with what the Bible says or doesn't say, but with life as I've experienced it (and consequently, I believe direct experience in search of Truth is always superior than Bible verses, even if seemingly contradictory).

Well I certainly can't argue with your "experience" Cranberry; I only hope that it is always the Truth that you encounter in your search, or that you can at least, tell when it isn't. In my experience, human beings are easily decieved in spiritual matters when they don't have a guide.

Be careful and stay well.

Rod

[Dale]

I have an NIV but I've not read it much. I think I understand it to be a major alternative to the King James version.

So many choices. Alternately, you could learn Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic and just read it in the original languages.