Author Topic: 2010 Bible  (Read 50892 times)  

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
2010 Bible
« on: December 05, 2009, 09:13:39 PM »
I cannot believe that 2010 is almost here!!! It seems we just started our one-year bible just a few months ago!

This thread is to start a discussion about what bible the group would like to read in 2010.

This is the one we are currently reading:



Here is a very nice one-year bible by Max Lucado that I purchased earlier this year: It is very similar to the one we are currently reading, but at the beginning of each day's reading there is a devotional by Max pertaining to that day's reading.



As for me, I am going to read a one-year chronological bible. It is not available for Kindle. This is the link to the one I chose:



Even though I won't be doing a one-year bible on Kindle next year, I will still participate in discussions for whatever Bible you all choose. If you choose a different one than the one we are currently reading, I'll purchase it so I can participate in the discussions when they come up.

Does anyone have any suggestions for next year?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 04:46:26 PM by Suzanne »

Offline Angela

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 5905
  • Gender: Female
  • Texas
  • aka: tx_angel, A Wayt, Babe, Mom, Grandma, Hey YOU
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2009, 10:18:03 PM »
I was so hoping that Tyndale publishing would make other translations of the OYB available for the Kindle, but time is almost up! I don't mind reading it again, but I would like to read a different translation this year. I will be on the look out for something else as well.
 

Offline mwvickers

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2009, 07:16:07 AM »
Maybe someone could e-mail a request to the publishers of the chronological Bible Suzanne mentioned to see if they might consider making one available for Kindle in the next 20 or so days.  LOL

Offline Anju No. 469

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 7048
  • Gender: Female
  • Lakeside, Mexico
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2009, 08:28:06 AM »
It appears the Grace for the Moment by Max Lucado is on the Kindle, as well as New Spirit Filled Life Daily by Jack Hayford.  I requested samples of both and once I check them out I'll post here, if the sample is more than just TOC  ::)
Dona
on the shores of Lake Chapala, Mexico

Offline Anju No. 469

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 7048
  • Gender: Female
  • Lakeside, Mexico
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2009, 08:47:52 AM »
Grace for the Moment is the one I am going to buy and use.  The translation is a little different and it is set out in days, Jan. 1, Jan. 2, etc.  The other is not.  I will go back some day and use the OYB translation, but not next year.  I need this structure to keep me on track.
Dona
on the shores of Lake Chapala, Mexico

Offline mwvickers

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2009, 09:38:41 AM »
Lucado's is the New Century Version.

This may be a little off-topic, but here's a very brief explanation of how Bible versions/translations are broken down.

There are two different translation philosophies, basically: formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent.

Formal equivalent translations (also called literal or word-for-word translations) tend to try to reproduce what the original languages say even so far as the very wording.  They are, therefore, more "literal" when compared to the original languages.  So, an extremely literal translation of the Greek for Mary's pregnancy with Jesus, to my understanding, would be "and she was having it in the belly."  No translation, to my knowledge, is this literal for that sentence, so all translations, at that point, seem to switch to a more dynamic form of translation.

Dynamic equivalent translations, then, are also called "thought-for-thought" translations.  They try to read the original languages and then translate the thoughts or ideas into our language and into the way we would normally say it.  So, the literal Greek might say "and she was having it in the belly," but a more dynamic (or thought-for-thought) way of saying it would be simply, "and she was pregnant," "and she became pregnant," or even the more archaic "and she was found to be with child." 

So, one more example of the two types is as follows:  The literal form of a certain Greek sentence would be "let these words sink down into your ears," versus the more dynamic "listen carefully to these words." 

There is one other form of translation called "paraphrase" that is more of a commentary or interpretation of Scripture rather than a strict translation (translation tries to tell you what the text said, while interpretation may try to get across more of the meaning).  The Living Bible was a paraphrase of a previous English translation.  The Message is a paraphrase directly from the Greek and Hebrew. 

When it comes to English translations, these are the main translation styles.  But English versions do not always fall clearly into one or the other.  It is more of a spectrum than a direct division.  So, for example, the following translations would be considered literal, but in varying degress (from most literal to least): an interlinear of any sort, New American Standard Bible (updated edition), English Standard Version, New King James Version/King James Version. 

In the same way, even dynamic equivalent trasnlations are on a spectrum (again, descending into more dynamic): New Living Translation second edition (what we were reading this year), New Century Version, etc.

Some translations are what have been called "optimal equivalent" (I think), in that they try to be as literal as possible, but switch to dynamic when necessary.  Usually, the New International Version, Today's New International Version, and Holman Christian Standard Bible fall into this category.

This site has a chart that shows the spectrum (though keep in mind that the NLT is actually more literal than the NCV now that it has been updated, I think this is an old chart): http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

I hope this helps at least a little. 

Martin

Offline Sendie

  • Status: Lewis Carroll
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Qawra, Malta
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2009, 10:46:27 AM »
This is my first post here, (my husband is getting me a Kindle for Christmas  ;D) and I would love to participate next year if you'll let me?  I have never heard of a One Year Bible and it sounds very interesting!  I also would like to get the hardback version of whichever one is going to be read next year for my friend as a Christmas gift so we could also read together....how soon will it be decided which one it is to be?  Thanks so much!

Offline marianneg

  • Status: Dostoevsky
  • ******
  • Posts: 3137
  • Gender: Female
  • Dallas, TX
    • View Profile
    • Mariannerisms: my ramblings about books, TV, and life
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2009, 10:57:39 AM »
Hi, Sendie, and welcome!  I don't know if there is really a set schedule - we're pretty disorganized around here ;D  Feel free to jump in anywhere, though, if you have a comment.
Read my blog about books, TV, and my life at mariannerisms.wordpress.com
Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Pinterest
Friend me at Goodreads

Offline mwvickers

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2009, 11:02:17 AM »
Welcome, Sendie.  We are very glad to have you join us.

My vote would be for one of the following:

1) The Max Lucado version mentioned above on Kindle.  We would, of course, have to remember that the notes by Max are not inspired, LOL, but they could prove useful, too.

2) The Daily Bible in Chronological order as mentioned above.  Granted, it is not yet on Kindle, but I don't see any reason we could not bend the rules and read a Bible not on Kindle.  LOL

3) We could always just pick a translation, even if it is not in 1-year format.  My understanding is that by reading 3 chapters a day Monday through Saturday and 5 chapters a day on Sundays, one will finish the Bible in about 1 year (a few days less, but that gives leeway for the occasional missed day).  The upside to this is that there are many versions for Kindle.  The downside is that we would not have a mix of OT, NT, and Psalms and Proverbs, it would just be straight through. 

Martin

Offline marianneg

  • Status: Dostoevsky
  • ******
  • Posts: 3137
  • Gender: Female
  • Dallas, TX
    • View Profile
    • Mariannerisms: my ramblings about books, TV, and life
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2009, 02:17:14 PM »
3) We could always just pick a translation, even if it is not in 1-year format.  My understanding is that by reading 3 chapters a day Monday through Saturday and 5 chapters a day on Sundays, one will finish the Bible in about 1 year (a few days less, but that gives leeway for the occasional missed day).  The upside to this is that there are many versions for Kindle.  The downside is that we would not have a mix of OT, NT, and Psalms and Proverbs, it would just be straight through. 

Here's a thought - if we go with Martin's number 3 option, we could still do it chronologically.  I've done that in the past - I just found a website that gave me this information and printed it out to keep with my Bible.  We could even go off of Suzi's Bible.
Read my blog about books, TV, and my life at mariannerisms.wordpress.com
Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Pinterest
Friend me at Goodreads

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2009, 02:45:45 PM »
Maybe someone could e-mail a request to the publishers of the chronological Bible Suzanne mentioned to see if they might consider making one available for Kindle in the next 20 or so days.  LOL

I have been clicking & requesting that bible on Kindle all year.  I will keep clicking!! I am very stubborn!

The Max Lucado Bible (Grace for the Moment) is absolutely wonderful. I love his zeal for God's Word and it's reflected in his daily inspirations. If you guys all decide to go with the Grace for the Moment Bible, I will still participate in all discussions. I purchased that Grace for the Moment Bible months ago. If you decide to go with a different one, I will just buy the one you choose & I will still be able to participate.

I wanted to share something with you all. When I was looking at chronological bibles, I saw one called Reese Chronological Bible. To get an idea what it was like, I clicked under the picture of the book where it says Look Inside This Book. If you have a minute, do it. Click until you get to the first page of Genesis. I love the way they rendered this! They have it all in chronological order and thus, on the very first page when it speaks of the creation account, it has the scriptures about Satan's fall. I found that so interesting. I thought you all would find it interesting also. Here is the link:



(Of course, I bought it! I have no strength of will whatsoever about buying books, much less about buying Bibles & Bible-related things!!! Weak! Weak! Weak!  :D)

I would not be put off by reading a DTB such as the chronological bible I had planned. It is a wonderful book. There are little articles every day explaining things & giving background. We would definitely learn a lot if we did that book.

One reason I wanted to try a chronological bible is something we are experiencing right now with our OT reading. Back in 1Kings & 2Kings we read of all the various kings and how so-and-so was wicked and kept doing bad what was in God's eyes. And we just went through all the kings that way. Now we are in the prophets and their warnings. I would hope in a chronological bible (I don't know yet as I haven't read one) that they would blend the prophetic books such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc. with the particular kings and the warnings each king received.

That is something we do not get the full impact of in the version we are reading right now. We read in 1Kings & 2Kings how very wicked some of those kings were. But later on we read of the prophetic warnings they received. And they were warned. Time & time again. But they were a stiff-necked people and did not heed the warnings.

It was only after warning these kings that God finally punished them. They had this punishment coming. God had warned them in the book of Numbers exactly what would happen if they were unfaithful .. even to the point of saying they would be taken to a foreign land. They were unfaithful -- brazenly so. They were warned -- repeatedly. But they would not change. So they were justly punished.

And when you think of it, God HAD to punish them. What kind of a precedent would it have set for the entire universe (angels & humans) if God simply said, Oh, it's okay; I'll let you off? How could God have continued to rule without problems? Parents already know the consequences of not carrying out their word when they threaten punishment to their children. God would have this problem on a universal level.

Okay, Suzi will now step down from the soapbox!  :D
« Last Edit: December 25, 2009, 04:49:49 PM by Suzanne »

Offline lynninva

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Female
  • Central Virginia, USA
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2009, 03:10:02 PM »
I read through the Chronological Bible one year & I enjoyed that version for a change.  I particulary remember being struck by the impact of reading the Psalms in context with the underlying circumstances.  And it was nice to have it flow in order, rather than going through the history a couple of different times.

Our pastor has said that he would like everyone in our church to follow the same plan next year to read the Bible in one year.  He said that he knows that many people have various versions of One Year Bible, or follow different reading plans, but he would like all of us reading the same passages each day.  They are supposed to give us the list of daily readings near the end of December.

I've enjoyed the convenience of having the Kindle version of the OYB.  It has helped me to read it more consistently.  I will probably put the list in the pocket of my K cover & look up each passage.  But I will miss the automatic opening to the next day's passage.

Offline Anju No. 469

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 7048
  • Gender: Female
  • Lakeside, Mexico
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2009, 03:18:37 PM »
As much as I enjoy the group reading, and as much as I would like to read the chronological version, unless it is on kindle I just can't see myself being very good at following on a daily basis.

As for me I'll do the Max Lucado one, unless someone comes up with a better Kindelized version.
Dona
on the shores of Lake Chapala, Mexico

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2009, 04:41:23 PM »
Another suggestion is that if some want to read the Bible we are currently reading, we can have a thread for those comments, like 2010 One-Year Bible. We could have a thread for 2010 Grace for the Moment One-Year Bible. And we could have a thread for the chronological bible. And everyone can participate in all the threads.

It is so nice that there are so many of us that are in the habit of reading the Bible everyday now & we don't want to give up that habit.

Offline mwvickers

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2009, 04:51:59 PM »
Does the Lucado Bible look good on Kindle? 

Martin

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2009, 07:13:42 PM »
Does the Lucado Bible look good on Kindle? 

Martin

Yes, it does. It is as nice as or even nicer than the one we are currently reading. You can download a sample & it's a nice sample. You can see what it is like for the Jan. 1st reading.

Offline Angela

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 5905
  • Gender: Female
  • Texas
  • aka: tx_angel, A Wayt, Babe, Mom, Grandma, Hey YOU
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2009, 11:18:17 PM »
Like Dona, I am leaning towards the Max Lucado. I think I would do better if it was on the Kindle. Unless, of course I can convince someone to get me another bible for Christmas!! I never have done the chronological reading before.

Suzi, great idea about the different threads for the different bible readings!

I think it is so wonderful that we are all still here at the end of the year and looking forward to spending 2010 with all my friends!! and the new ones, too... WELCOME SENDIE!! :)
 

Offline Pawz4me

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • Gender: Female
  • North Carolina
    • View Profile
    • Goodpaws
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2009, 03:48:43 AM »
I want a chronological Bible for the Kindle!  Pout, pout, whine . . . .

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2009, 08:13:07 AM »
I want a chronological Bible for the Kindle!  Pout, pout, whine . . . .

Me too! *sniff*

Offline Anju No. 469

  • Status: Edgar Allan Poe
  • *******
  • Posts: 7048
  • Gender: Female
  • Lakeside, Mexico
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2009, 06:15:09 AM »
I like the idea of separate threads on the various OYB.  I might read something on one thread that will take me to that book, and I'll learn more, and we can have a pretty nifty feed back.
Dona
on the shores of Lake Chapala, Mexico

Offline Sendie

  • Status: Lewis Carroll
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Qawra, Malta
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2009, 07:18:02 PM »
Today when I got off work I went to the store and bought the Grace for the Moment Bible for my friend for Christmas and I plan on buying it for myself in a few days for the Kindle.  I've been intrigued by the thought of a chronological Bible since I've never heard of one until I read of it here, so I bought one of those for myself.  I was pleasantly surprised when I got home to find out its the same one mentioned in the first post here!  I almost can't wait until January 1st to start!

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2009, 10:37:44 AM »
Today when I got off work I went to the store and bought the Grace for the Moment Bible for my friend for Christmas and I plan on buying it for myself in a few days for the Kindle.  I've been intrigued by the thought of a chronological Bible since I've never heard of one until I read of it here, so I bought one of those for myself.  I was pleasantly surprised when I got home to find out its the same one mentioned in the first post here!  I almost can't wait until January 1st to start!

This will be my first time reading a chronological Bible. I am really looking forward to it! The version you & I have looks very interesting with all the little articles that we will read on a daily basis. I am sure we will learn a lot.

Offline Suzanne

  • Status: Arthur Conan Doyle
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Gender: Female
  • N. Huntingdon, PA
  • No. 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2009, 07:31:51 PM »
Lucado's is the New Century Version.

This may be a little off-topic, but here's a very brief explanation of how Bible versions/translations are broken down.

There are two different translation philosophies, basically: formal equivalent and dynamic equivalent.

Formal equivalent translations (also called literal or word-for-word translations) tend to try to reproduce what the original languages say even so far as the very wording.  They are, therefore, more "literal" when compared to the original languages.  So, an extremely literal translation of the Greek for Mary's pregnancy with Jesus, to my understanding, would be "and she was having it in the belly."  No translation, to my knowledge, is this literal for that sentence, so all translations, at that point, seem to switch to a more dynamic form of translation.

Dynamic equivalent translations, then, are also called "thought-for-thought" translations.  They try to read the original languages and then translate the thoughts or ideas into our language and into the way we would normally say it.  So, the literal Greek might say "and she was having it in the belly," but a more dynamic (or thought-for-thought) way of saying it would be simply, "and she was pregnant," "and she became pregnant," or even the more archaic "and she was found to be with child." 

So, one more example of the two types is as follows:  The literal form of a certain Greek sentence would be "let these words sink down into your ears," versus the more dynamic "listen carefully to these words." 

There is one other form of translation called "paraphrase" that is more of a commentary or interpretation of Scripture rather than a strict translation (translation tries to tell you what the text said, while interpretation may try to get across more of the meaning).  The Living Bible was a paraphrase of a previous English translation.  The Message is a paraphrase directly from the Greek and Hebrew. 

When it comes to English translations, these are the main translation styles.  But English versions do not always fall clearly into one or the other.  It is more of a spectrum than a direct division.  So, for example, the following translations would be considered literal, but in varying degress (from most literal to least): an interlinear of any sort, New American Standard Bible (updated edition), English Standard Version, New King James Version/King James Version. 

In the same way, even dynamic equivalent trasnlations are on a spectrum (again, descending into more dynamic): New Living Translation second edition (what we were reading this year), New Century Version, etc.

Some translations are what have been called "optimal equivalent" (I think), in that they try to be as literal as possible, but switch to dynamic when necessary.  Usually, the New International Version, Today's New International Version, and Holman Christian Standard Bible fall into this category.

This site has a chart that shows the spectrum (though keep in mind that the NLT is actually more literal than the NCV now that it has been updated, I think this is an old chart): http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

I hope this helps at least a little. 

Martin

Out of curiosity, Martin, which Bible is your favorite? You are so knowledgeable about Bible translations; which one is the one you always seem to grab first? And why do you like that particular Bible?

Offline mwvickers

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2009, 09:25:47 PM »
Out of curiosity, Martin, which Bible is your favorite? You are so knowledgeable about Bible translations; which one is the one you always seem to grab first? And why do you like that particular Bible?

Suzanne,

Thanks for the compliment, first of all.  I really appreciate it.

I usually go for the New International Version first.  When I first became a Christian, that was the translation someone recommended to me, and that is the one I've used the longest, memorized the most, and the one that most of the Christian books I read at the time quoted.  In other words, I merely became most familiar with that version.  And indeed, it is, I believe, overall a good version.  As described by editor Kenneth Barker, it strives to be an optimal equivalent translation, trying to strike a balance between literal and dynamic, as described in my earlier post.  

The NIV, though, is not perfect (neither is any translation).  They all have strengths and weaknesses.  For example, in the NIV, Jesus asks the religious leaders if they ever heard that "the stone that the builders rejected has become the capstone."  Most translations, I believe, say "cornerstone" instead of "capstone."  In buildings of those days, the cornerstone was one of the most important stones, carrying and bearing all the weight.  If the cornerstone was removed or weak, the building would collapse.  So, Jesus was saying that the stone the builders rejected (Himself) was the foundational stone of the new building God was creating through salvation, so to speak.  The capstone, however, was, to my knowledge, merely an ornamental stone in the top of a building.  It was mainly for decoration.  So it's odd that the NIV translates it this way.  There may be a reason I'm not aware of, but overall, I think it's just a poor translation at that verse.  But it's easily corrected by comparing it to other translations.  

Realizing that, I have come to adopt Saint Augustine's view, as quoted in the original preface of the King James Version from 1611, that a "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."  This can apply merely to footnotes in the text, or to actually comparing multiple translations (and translation types) to one another.

So, I might read the NIV mainly, and then compare to a more literal version (probably the New American Standard Bible) and a more dynamic version (like the New Living Translation or New Century Version) as well as to a paraphrase (like The Message).  This gives me a broader idea of what was originally written (with the literal) and what may have been more clearly meant (with the dynamic).  I do, though, recommend sticking with one main translation for most reading and study, just to become more biblically literate without having too many varying translations in mind at once; in other words, as I was always advised, don't read one translation one day, and another the next, and so on.  Stick with one mainly, and use others to cross check.  Many have recommended, however, switching translations every year, to keep the text fresh.  It's up to what seems to help you most. 

I wish I could say I choose a Bible based on what I think most accurately translates the original languages, but I don't know them, at least not yet.

I am actually wanting to learn Koine Greek (the Greek of the New Testament) and Biblical Hebrew to be able to read the Bible in its original languages.  I've taught myself a little (very little) Greek, and have learned the Hebrew alphabet (rather, alephbet, in Hebrew), but it's slow going with all I have going on.  

I hope that helps some.  If I gave too much information, I apologize.  If I wasn't specific enough in my reasons, or if you have any other questions about Bible versions or anything, feel free to ask me to clarify or to explain more.  I will always do my best to answer anyone's questions if I am able, and if not, I'll be more than happy to help people research to find answers.

Martin

« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 09:31:40 PM by mwvickers »

Offline mwvickers

  • Status: Scheherazade
  • *****
  • Posts: 1139
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: 2010 Bible
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2009, 05:56:52 PM »
Was that just way too much information, Suzanne?  LOL

Martin