OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 09:51:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodox Study Bible - Should I buy it?  (Read 4353 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« on: May 20, 2012, 06:53:35 AM »

Hi All, Hows it all going ?.

I am looking at buying the OSB but I have a question is it worth it ? Does the commentary meet a good standard of explaining verses/chapters ? Has the old Testament in the OSB been translated full from the LXX or partially ? Have all the Apocryphia books which are accepted by the church from the LXX included in OSB with full commentary ?. Also could anyone recommend me a good book regarding an orthodox commentary on the Book of Revelation ?

I have read previous reviews on the forum about and even on amazon but just thought I'd ask some basic questions.

Thanks in advance .
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2012, 07:03:02 AM »

OSB is good, doesn't have Macc IV...yes it has been translated from the LXX although using NKJV for its translation. Commentary on Revelation? Apocalypse by Archbishop Averky: http://www.amazon.com/The-Apocalypse-Teachings-Ancient-Christianity/dp/0938635670. Dr. Vladimir Moss has an interpretation on it here (although his theologumen is questionable): http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/5_THE_BOOK_OF_THE_END.pdf

Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios has homilies on it here: http://www.saintnicodemos.org/

EDIT: Just an FYI, Dr. Moss is a schismatic and actually did a good refutation on the River of Fire by Kalomiros (which can be found here: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/207/%E2%80%9C-river-fire%E2%80%9D-revisited/)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 07:07:14 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
wayseer
Disciple
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: No longer Anglican
Posts: 103


- a student


« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2012, 08:15:53 AM »

The OSB is a good buy. 
Logged

Not all those who wander are lost.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2012, 08:51:07 AM »

Save your money.

http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=512

http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=550

http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=552
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2012, 08:54:54 AM »

It's your money.  Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise, so get it if you want it.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2012, 09:02:56 AM »

It's currently the best thing we have. It has problems, but largely in the footnotes and commentary. Ignore most of the inane footnotes and the translation itself is decent.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2012, 10:33:11 AM »

Hi All, Hows it all going ?.

I am looking at buying the OSB but I have a question is it worth it ? Does the commentary meet a good standard of explaining verses/chapters ? Has the old Testament in the OSB been translated full from the LXX or partially ? Have all the Apocryphia books which are accepted by the church from the LXX included in OSB with full commentary ?

The canon is not exactly set in stone, but for the most part, yes, it has every book an Orthodox Christian could justifiably want. It does not provide even a partial verse-by-verse commentary, but merely has notes or comments on passages here and there. As for the translation, I was under the impression that they used the NKJV as a base and consulted the LXX to make corrections as needed (usually making the proper corrections but sometimes missing one). IMO yes it is worth purchasing, especially if you do not currently have a Bible with 3 Maccabees and the like (and especially especially if you don't have one with Tobit, Sirach, etc.)


Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2012, 01:03:07 PM »


Wow.  That was harsh.  Very very fair, but harsh.  Given the duration the OSB took to complete, and the amount of scholars involved, it is a disappointment to be presented with this.  I looked up all the issues/errors mentioned and, sure enough, they were glaring.  That being said, since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2012, 02:10:59 PM »

I think you should buy it, Psalm110.  It's pretty good, has some helpful explanations, and provides info on liturgical readings.  That last bit was particularly helpful, as it keeps things tied in (Scripture and Worship) for me.  I don't know of other Bibles that do that.
Yes, some of the footnotes are a bit inane, but just skip through those.

I chuckle at most of the silly criticisms about it.

since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice.

Say huh?  Most Orthodox never used to read the Bible.
Did you mean to write "should," or were you referring to Orthodox converts?  Confused I be.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2012, 02:12:39 PM »

Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise...

Are those magical Christian languages?  Slavonic? Really?
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,744


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2012, 02:35:15 PM »

I don't have a problem with it really. I'd recommend it. I know that it gets a lot of flack and criticism from people, but it has always been absolutely fine to me. Better than some Bibles I had where it felt like you were reading more commentary from John Piper and why liturgical Christianity is so bad that it really offered you nothing of self benefit. My only complaint with the OSB is that there is not enough room on the pages to take notes.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 02:36:05 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2012, 02:40:16 PM »

Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise...

Are those magical Christian languages?  Slavonic? Really?

Pretty sure he was referring to languages we have manuscripts of the Septuagint in. Nice try, though.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2012, 03:02:25 PM »

Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise...

Are those magical Christian languages?  Slavonic? Really?

Yes, really.  Or do you doubt the accuracy of the translation, or suggest that the meaning of the Slavonic words have changed - even slightly as much as English over the same period.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2012, 03:25:27 PM »

Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise...

Are those magical Christian languages?  Slavonic? Really?

Pretty sure he was referring to languages we have manuscripts of the Septuagint in. Nice try, though.

The Septuagint?  Nice try, yourself.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2012, 03:31:19 PM »

Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise...

Are those magical Christian languages?  Slavonic? Really?

Yes, really.  Or do you doubt the accuracy of the translation, or suggest that the meaning of the Slavonic words have changed - even slightly as much as English over the same period.

Perhaps overly jerky on my part.  I don't doubt the translation into Slavonic, I'm just wary of comments that imply English is somehow incapable or inadequate for scripture.  My mistake if you were just talking about the Septuagint translations.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2012, 04:11:07 PM »

since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice.

Say huh?  Most Orthodox never used to read the Bible.


 Sure they did.  You're not suggesting they were illiterate are you?  I don't think they read it in group studies like we do nowadays, but I wouldn't be comfortable saying they "never used to read the Bible.". 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2012, 04:48:14 PM »

Unless you read Greek or Slavonic, anything you buy will be a compromise...

Are those magical Christian languages?  Slavonic? Really?

Yes, really.  Or do you doubt the accuracy of the translation, or suggest that the meaning of the Slavonic words have changed - even slightly as much as English over the same period.

Perhaps overly jerky on my part.  I don't doubt the translation into Slavonic, I'm just wary of comments that imply English is somehow incapable or inadequate for scripture.  My mistake if you were just talking about the Septuagint translations.

Understood.  It was a combination of both.  First, there are really few English translations that use the LXX.  I do not consider this an issue since the New Testament is, for me at least, the primary Scripture on which I rely.  All that I really need out of the OT is a good translation of the Psalms, properly numbered, and a collection of the Wisdom Literature, some of which is in the LXX but not the Hebrew.  I really do not need the rest of the books because I am not arguing history, nor do I have to be convinced by the prophets.  However, it IS nice having the entire canon of Scripture in on convenient location (btw - I also have a good collection of most of the books that did not make it, or did not stay, in the Bible).  As for English translations of the New Testament, there are several good ones.  Why I consider them all a compromise is that 1) English is a living language, so the meanings of words change, 2) there is really no agreed upon standard for English.  The English, the Americans, the Australians and the like all speak a different version of it (not that it matters that awful much), and 3) other than the OSB, few if any of the English versions were translated by Orthodox Christians.  Unless one is going to make a clumsy word for word literal translation, with all the meanings of each word included (I once had a Bible that did exactly that), the accuracy of a translation depends somewhat on the similarity in the Faith of the original writer and the current translator.  If they both share the same Faith, the translation should convey the original intent rather well.  If they do not, there will be problems, as seen by some of the rather hideous translations out there now.  Thankfully, many of the better English versions were made at a time where the deviance in belief between the various Christian denominations is not what it is now.  My comment on the Greek and Slavonic was not to imply that those versions contained word for word exactly what came out of Jesus' mouth, but that they were written down 1) by Orthodox Christians, and 2) in Languages that are relatively fixed in meaning.

As an aside for our Latin friends, I also highly value the Vulgate and probably should not have excluded Latin in my original statement.  The Bible that I use most was translated from the Latin of the Vulgate.  Of course, since it is also in English, and it was not translated by Orthodox Christians, so all of the above comments would apply.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2012, 05:07:34 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2012, 05:41:47 PM »

it's usage is liturgical.
This is 100% true, but...

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense;
Saints and Elders down through the ages have admonished the faithful to read the Bible more.  Bishop Kallistos Ware, St. Seraphim Rose, even entire jurisdictions, such as the Antiochians, have/are encouraging private/group Bible studies.  Even all those behind the OSB are in on it (Remember, the 'S' stands for Study...)  And why not?  After all, the Church's Liturgies, Services, and Hymnody are all Bible-based.  No Bible- No Church;  when the stone was rolled away, the Tomb was empty- it didn't contain the Bible were Jesus was laid down.  The Church gave it to us.  Golly, they don't call it Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth for nothing, y'all! Cheesy
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 05:42:22 PM by GabrieltheCelt » Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2012, 06:25:11 PM »

..... No Bible- No Church;......

I must admit that I am happy to see someone defend this position (even if I think it just part of the story). The standard (and by coincidence, incorrect) Orthodox/Catholic apologetics about the relationship between the Bible and Church does become somewhat tiring after a while.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2012, 06:36:20 PM »

 when the stone was rolled away, the Tomb was empty- it didn't contain the Bible were Jesus was laid down.  

Huh?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2012, 07:09:56 PM »

it's usage is liturgical.
This is 100% true, but...

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense;
Saints and Elders down through the ages have admonished the faithful to read the Bible more.  Bishop Kallistos Ware, St. Seraphim Rose, even entire jurisdictions, such as the Antiochians, have/are encouraging private/group Bible studies.  Even all those behind the OSB are in on it (Remember, the 'S' stands for Study...)  And why not?  After all, the Church's Liturgies, Services, and Hymnody are all Bible-based.  No Bible- No Church;  when the stone was rolled away, the Tomb was empty- it didn't contain the Bible were Jesus was laid down.  The Church gave it to us.  Golly, they don't call it Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth for nothing, y'all! Cheesy


The Church doesn't need the Bible. Heck Christianity would have spread just fine without the Bible too.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,609



« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2012, 07:36:38 PM »


Wow.  That was harsh.  Very very fair, but harsh.  Given the duration the OSB took to complete, and the amount of scholars involved, it is a disappointment to be presented with this.  I looked up all the issues/errors mentioned and, sure enough, they were glaring.  That being said, since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice.  

OK both of you. I know I read this ages ago, but what are your referring to. I am too lazy to read it again. Of course I realize Kevin Edgecomb's greatest claim to fame is as a biographer (I think photo and  certainly textual) of one of our moderators. What does Kevin recommend for us run of the mill Eastern Orthodox. Is there something equivalently accessible (say for a 12 year-old) and understandable? Is it so bad that we must throw out the bath water?

edit - I am just looking for a bottom line here
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 07:37:56 PM by Opus118 » Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2012, 09:01:22 PM »

 when the stone was rolled away, the Tomb was empty- it didn't contain the Bible were Jesus was laid down.  

Huh?

It's an old argument (usually popping up when discussing Sola Scriptura) used when speaking to those of the Protestant persuasion.  It goes something like this:

P- Well, the Bible doesn't say that.
OC- It is the Church's understanding passed down from the time of Christ.  It is the Church that gave us the Bible and not the other way 'round.  The Bible didn't fall out of the sky and land in the empty tomb to be found by people. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2012, 09:02:26 PM »

it's usage is liturgical.
This is 100% true, but...

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense;
Saints and Elders down through the ages have admonished the faithful to read the Bible more.  Bishop Kallistos Ware, St. Seraphim Rose, even entire jurisdictions, such as the Antiochians, have/are encouraging private/group Bible studies.  Even all those behind the OSB are in on it (Remember, the 'S' stands for Study...)  And why not?  After all, the Church's Liturgies, Services, and Hymnody are all Bible-based.  No Bible- No Church;  when the stone was rolled away, the Tomb was empty- it didn't contain the Bible were Jesus was laid down.  The Church gave it to us.  Golly, they don't call it Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth for nothing, y'all! Cheesy


The Church doesn't need the Bible. Heck Christianity would have spread just fine without the Bible too.

A 2,000 year old Tradition scoffs at such a thought. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2012, 09:03:44 PM »


Wow.  That was harsh.  Very very fair, but harsh.  Given the duration the OSB took to complete, and the amount of scholars involved, it is a disappointment to be presented with this.  I looked up all the issues/errors mentioned and, sure enough, they were glaring.  That being said, since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice.  

 I am too lazy to read it again.

 That is not my problem.  The essays are not difficult to follow.
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,609



« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2012, 09:23:42 PM »


Wow.  That was harsh.  Very very fair, but harsh.  Given the duration the OSB took to complete, and the amount of scholars involved, it is a disappointment to be presented with this.  I looked up all the issues/errors mentioned and, sure enough, they were glaring.  That being said, since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice.  

 I am too lazy to read it again.

 That is not my problem.  The essays are not difficult to follow.

I guess I should have paid more attention to your current avatar.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2012, 09:43:04 PM »

..... No Bible- No Church;......

I must admit that I am happy to see someone defend this position (even if I think it just part of the story). The standard (and by coincidence, incorrect) Orthodox/Catholic apologetics about the relationship between the Bible and Church does become somewhat tiring after a while.

You said it.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2012, 09:51:37 PM »

..... No Bible- No Church;......

I must admit that I am happy to see someone defend this position (even if I think it just part of the story). The standard (and by coincidence, incorrect) Orthodox/Catholic apologetics about the relationship between the Bible and Church does become somewhat tiring after a while.

You said it.

Why must it be either or (and I'm not accusing you, orthonorm, or engaging in this either or thinking)?  Why must people seem to either believe that without the Church, there would be no Bible or that without the Bible there would be no Church?  It seems to me that without the Bible there would be no Church AND without the Church there would be no Bible.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2012, 10:01:02 PM »

..... No Bible- No Church;......

I must admit that I am happy to see someone defend this position (even if I think it just part of the story). The standard (and by coincidence, incorrect) Orthodox/Catholic apologetics about the relationship between the Bible and Church does become somewhat tiring after a while.

You said it.

Why must it be either or (and I'm not accusing you, orthonorm, or engaging in this either or thinking)?  Why must people seem to either believe that without the Church, there would be no Bible or that without the Bible there would be no Church?  It seems to me that without the Bible there would be no Church AND without the Church there would be no Bible.

The interesting question is why the anxiety of EO apologists who seek to fix the origin of Scripture within some historically measured activity of the "Church".

Frankly, they don't understand the notion of the Church to begin with.

Since I am messing around here a little tonight, I just can't help pointing out that almost all these "serious" questions get caught up in within the same prejudicies. Prejudicies as such are not bad or to be avoided, as if one could, but these prejudicies have long been laid bare and have been shown to be less than productive, thus the same old questions over and over.

But really, I doubt anyone cares to understand, hence the desire for mere apologetics to be able to simply avoid anxiety and find some sort of axiomatic security in lieu of belief or thought.





Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,744


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #30 on: May 20, 2012, 10:19:17 PM »

Pffh, I don't even read the Bible. That's too Protestant. Real Orthodox Christians rely solely on the Church to work out their salvation. That's why most Orthodox Christians are so scripturally illiterate.

/Hyperdox Herman joke
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #31 on: May 20, 2012, 10:56:04 PM »

I like it a lot.  ive heard people complain that the notes arent "deep" enough, but I actually like that about it.  if im reading the Bible, I dont want 10 paragraphs of notes I feel like I have to read too. i guess im just a simple minded guy.  if I really need more help with a passage, ill get on the internet or asks someone knowledgeable.
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #32 on: May 20, 2012, 11:16:33 PM »

Hi All, Hows it all going ?.

I am looking at buying the OSB but I have a question is it worth it ?

If you're not already familiar with Orthodox theology or the Orthodox exegetical tradition, then yes, it is a good investment. Otherwise, it may be too elementary for you.

Quote
Does the commentary meet a good standard of explaining verses/chapters ?

No. Its verse-by-verse commentaries on many passages poorly researched. For all its shortcomings, there is nonetheless plenty of valuable material in there as well. The notes just aren't carefully done. My main problem with them is that the editors seem to have been more interested in refuting Evangelicalism than simply giving either an explanation of the Scriptures or a neutral presentation of Orthodox doctrine.

Quote
Has the old Testament in the OSB been translated full from the LXX or partially ?

The translation is a hybrid of the LXX and the MT.

Quote
Have all the Apocryphia books which are accepted by the church from the LXX included in OSB with full commentary ?.

Yes. Someone mentioned IV Maccabees, but this book is not considered canonical.

Quote
Also could anyone recommend me a good book regarding an orthodox commentary on the Book of Revelation ?

Not me.

Quote
Thanks in advance .

You're welcome.
Logged
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2012, 11:18:48 PM »

I like it a lot.  ive heard people complain that the notes arent "deep" enough, but I actually like that about it.  if im reading the Bible, I dont want 10 paragraphs of notes I feel like I have to read too. i guess im just a simple minded guy.  if I really need more help with a passage, ill get on the internet or asks someone knowledgeable.

I am more of the opinion that if you are going to write a commentary, do so.  There are a lot of fine commentaries out there (I happen to like Lenske).  I find a "Study Bible" of any kind to be rather a waste of time.  It makes the Bible unnecessarily large and really adds no real value.  As I have said in the past, I would probably use the OSB if you took the S out of it.  And I probably have a different word for the S than was intended.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #34 on: May 20, 2012, 11:29:35 PM »

I like it a lot.  ive heard people complain that the notes arent "deep" enough, but I actually like that about it.  if im reading the Bible, I dont want 10 paragraphs of notes I feel like I have to read too. i guess im just a simple minded guy.  if I really need more help with a passage, ill get on the internet or asks someone knowledgeable.

I am more of the opinion that if you are going to write a commentary, do so.  There are a lot of fine commentaries out there (I happen to like Lenske).  I find a "Study Bible" of any kind to be rather a waste of time.  It makes the Bible unnecessarily large and really adds no real value.  As I have said in the past, I would probably use the OSB if you took the S out of it.  And I probably have a different word for the S than was intended.

that would be even better.  id like to have a smaller, compact version of it without the notes, and then get a nice commentary.  

but i suppose for what it is, its not awful.  it really just sits at my icon corner and doesnt move.  if I take a Bible with me somewhere, i dont bring the OSB because of its size and price.  i bought it during my Hyperdox phase anyways.  i just figured since it had a 3 bar cross on it, it was the only Bible God would want me to read.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 11:30:22 PM by Timon » Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 705



« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2012, 01:17:15 AM »

I like the OSB, which is what we use at our Bible study, but I purchased a HC copy of the EOB New Testament, and I really prefer it.  Here is a link if you are interested:

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,744


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2012, 02:13:11 AM »

I'd personally like a compact pocket-sized book with just the Psalms, Creed and Trisoginan (sp?) prayers for praying throughout the day on the spot. The small red Antiochian prayer book is good, but I'd love having all of the Psalms.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2012, 03:26:46 AM »

Are the verses accurate when comparing it to the LXX ? And Are the commentarys accurate to what the church fathers have written / explained ?. from the comments above and from other posts I gather the verses are accurate, but the commentary is not a lot ?
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2012, 04:43:19 AM »

Pffh, I don't even read the Bible. That's too Protestant. Real Orthodox Christians rely solely on the Church to work out their salvation. That's why most Orthodox Christians are so scripturally illiterate.

/Hyperdox Herman joke

You may joke, but I had almost exactly that response when I used to do our parish's bulletin translations from Romanian into English. I got one to translate from the usual source (another guy on the parish council who composed them in Romanian) and it contained rather a long Biblical quote. At this point my natural reaction was to say 'Could you give me the chapter and verse for that quote?' Only to be dumbfounded to hear 'We don't do that.' Apparently only Protestants quote verses, which would be fine if all the Orthodox knew the whole thing off by heart, but I know that not to be true, and I certainly don't. It was only when I pointed out to him that learning Romanian by absorption whilst working in a small town in Bucovina didn't actually qualify me to do Biblical translations even if they were into my native tongue and that if he could give me the reference I would use an English Bible for the quote that needed to go in my translation. And this guy wasn't a Hyperdox Herman at all. Rather he was a pretty devout and reasonably normal cradle Orthodox. Much as I find sola scriptura ludicrous I think the almost panicked aversion to anything that sounds like it may hint at sola scriptura in some Orthodox circles is perhaps even more ludicrous. Honestly it almost sounds like we're letting the Protestants have the Bible because we have the Church. As an ex-Protestant myself I find that very sad.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2012, 04:55:08 AM »

it's usage is liturgical.
This is 100% true, but...

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense;
Saints and Elders down through the ages have admonished the faithful to read the Bible more.  Bishop Kallistos Ware, St. Seraphim Rose, even entire jurisdictions, such as the Antiochians, have/are encouraging private/group Bible studies.  Even all those behind the OSB are in on it (Remember, the 'S' stands for Study...)  And why not?  After all, the Church's Liturgies, Services, and Hymnody are all Bible-based.  No Bible- No Church;  when the stone was rolled away, the Tomb was empty- it didn't contain the Bible were Jesus was laid down.  The Church gave it to us.  Golly, they don't call it Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth for nothing, y'all! Cheesy


The Church doesn't need the Bible. Heck Christianity would have spread just fine without the Bible too.

A 2,000 year old Tradition scoffs at such a thought.  
Christianity does not hinge on the reliability of the Bible. It's mission and message would be unhindered and intact even without the Bible. It is not the source or foundation of our faith.

Sometimes I wish the Bible never existed but it is the product of the Church so...
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 05:05:31 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2012, 05:05:15 AM »

Hi All,

Just thought would it be better just to buy the New English Translation of the Septuagint ? http://www.amazon.com/A-New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757/ref=tmm_hrd_title_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1337590999&sr=8-2

and then just buy commentary on the early church fathers on the bible on certain chapters/verses, would that be the best bet to go with  with the NETS ?
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2012, 06:18:34 AM »

Much as I find sola scriptura ludicrous I think the almost panicked aversion to anything that sounds like it may hint at sola scriptura in some Orthodox circles is perhaps even more ludicrous. Honestly it almost sounds like we're letting the Protestants have the Bible because we have the Church. As an ex-Protestant myself I find that very sad.

James

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Too bad most folks here will gloss right over this.  mulţumesc, prieten!
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2012, 06:31:21 AM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,917


« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2012, 07:22:41 AM »

As a layperson, I highly recomend it for any layperson in the 6,000,000 (or is it 600,00 & dropping?) within American Orthodoxy so that maybe there will remain something called American Orthodoxy.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2012, 07:54:56 AM »

I like it a lot.  ive heard people complain that the notes arent "deep" enough, but I actually like that about it.  if im reading the Bible, I dont want 10 paragraphs of notes I feel like I have to read too. i guess im just a simple minded guy.  if I really need more help with a passage, ill get on the internet or asks someone knowledgeable.

I am more of the opinion that if you are going to write a commentary, do so.  There are a lot of fine commentaries out there (I happen to like Lenske).  I find a "Study Bible" of any kind to be rather a waste of time.  It makes the Bible unnecessarily large and really adds no real value.  As I have said in the past, I would probably use the OSB if you took the S out of it.  And I probably have a different word for the S than was intended.

that would be even better.  id like to have a smaller, compact version of it without the notes, and then get a nice commentary.  

but i suppose for what it is, its not awful.  it really just sits at my icon corner and doesnt move.  if I take a Bible with me somewhere, i dont bring the OSB because of its size and price.  i bought it during my Hyperdox phase anyways.  i just figured since it had a 3 bar cross on it, it was the only Bible God would want me to read.

I am glad to see that I was not the only one  Cheesy
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2012, 07:56:18 AM »

I'd personally like a compact pocket-sized book with just the Psalms, Creed and Trisoginan (sp?) prayers for praying throughout the day on the spot. The small red Antiochian prayer book is good, but I'd love having all of the Psalms.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery makes a pocket sized version of their Psalter of the Seventy.  I have one an really like it.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2012, 08:16:31 AM »

I'd personally like a compact pocket-sized book with just the Psalms, Creed and Trisoginan (sp?) prayers for praying throughout the day on the spot. The small red Antiochian prayer book is good, but I'd love having all of the Psalms.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery makes a pocket sized version of their Psalter of the Seventy.  I have one an really like it.

Me too. Though I guess I should warn James that it doesn't have the trisagion prayers. But it does have a nice section in the back telling you what psalms are to be read at what hour, and how the division of the psalter into kathismata works.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 08:33:58 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2012, 08:17:06 AM »

I'd personally like a compact pocket-sized book with just the Psalms, Creed and Trisoginan (sp?) prayers for praying throughout the day on the spot. The small red Antiochian prayer book is good, but I'd love having all of the Psalms.

I have one an really like it.

I carry mine with me just about everywhere.  I wish I could say more about using it.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
age234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 555


« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2012, 01:04:03 PM »

Hi All,

Just thought would it be better just to buy the New English Translation of the Septuagint ? http://www.amazon.com/A-New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757/ref=tmm_hrd_title_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1337590999&sr=8-2

and then just buy commentary on the early church fathers on the bible on certain chapters/verses, would that be the best bet to go with  with the NETS ?

I would do that. Have the best of both worlds, rather than a mediocre combination of both worlds. I like the NETS.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2012, 01:22:29 PM »

To fully nerd out on a single volume Psalter:

http://www.amazon.com/Comparative-Psalter-Masoretic-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195297601/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337621309&sr=1-1
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2012, 01:32:40 PM »


Hexapla or Death!
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2012, 01:47:17 PM »

Hi All,

Just thought would it be better just to buy the New English Translation of the Septuagint ? http://www.amazon.com/A-New-English-Translation-Septuagint/dp/0195289757/ref=tmm_hrd_title_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1337590999&sr=8-2

and then just buy commentary on the early church fathers on the bible on certain chapters/verses, would that be the best bet to go with  with the NETS ?

I haven't read the NETS, but this sounds like a good idea. If you read some books by the Church Fathers, you'll gain a much deeper and more accurate understanding of the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures than you would from the OSB.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2012, 02:05:10 PM »

I gotta say, I bought the OSB and I love it. Very spiritually enriching for me.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,833



« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2012, 02:14:07 PM »

I gotta say, I bought the OSB and I love it. Very spiritually enriching for me.

PP

I also like the OSB.  The translation isn't that bad, and I honestly wouldn't know the difference if it was off.  It sounds "Bibley" and that's enough for me.  The little snippets of commentary are good for a quick answer that won't disrupt the reading.  For anything more, I have been reading the Commentary on the Gospel of John by the Blessed Theophylact [sp?].  This goes into a much greater depth, but for everyday Bible readings I have found the OSB to read better than the Presbyterian Bible I had been using and was much easier to understand than the Vulgate that I read from time to time.
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,505



« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2012, 03:45:21 PM »

When we talk about the OSB are we talking about the translation or about the notes? They are two different things.

There's not a chance in the world that we will agree on any one translation into English. We could easily argue about insignificant points like the difference between honour and honor; we could argue about which Greek or Hebrew manuscript was taken as authoritative. We Orthodox don't even agree on the wording of the Lord's Prayer! The SAAS/NKJV translations that make up the OSB are as good as any others - I don't need to name them as this thread is specifically about the OSB. We've discussed them elsewhere. The best translation is the one that you will actually read.

I find the notes to be of varying quality -perhaps based on their authorship. Some have interesting insights, others are quite useless IMO. As someone else said earlier, it's easy to get distracted in reading the passage by being drawn to the notes, rather than just reading the text itself. That being said, I generally do like the Study Articles. They are informative and provide a good starting point for further study. I thought that Dn Michael Hyatt did a good job showing how this can be done in his earliest podcasts of At the Intersection of East and West. A study Bible is not a commentary or a seminary textbook that some seem to think it should be.

Should you buy the OSB? Yes - but only if you promise to read it  Wink.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2012, 05:56:06 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
What are you talking about not patristic?

His Grace Isaiah of Denver:
Quote
Strictly speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”. Instead, the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 705



« Reply #56 on: May 21, 2012, 06:05:08 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
What are you talking about not patristic?

His Grace Isaiah of Denver:
Quote
Strictly speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”. Instead, the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/


That is a great link Achronos, thanks for posting it!
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 21, 2012, 07:28:07 PM »

The OSB is a good start, but definitely has its problems. When you are ready for deeper and better, get this for New Testament and Psalter:

The Orthodox New Testament with Commentary
The Orthodox Psalter with Commentary

Each volume is bigger than the OSB and far more complete and accurate IMO.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #58 on: May 21, 2012, 07:33:11 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible, I would trust his advice.

That said, Nigula, what do you think about The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox by Johanna Manley? As seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=YLmbkbpANpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orthodox+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KtK6T9DJB4rF6gHchY3SCg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20bible&f=false
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 07:36:34 PM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2012, 08:24:56 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2012, 08:26:49 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh
LOL which one?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #61 on: May 21, 2012, 08:33:16 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
What are you talking about not patristic?

His Grace Isaiah of Denver:
Quote
Strictly speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”. Instead, the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/

Sounds like something the Greeks would say.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #62 on: May 21, 2012, 08:54:38 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh
LOL which one?

All three books mentioned in his post are from the same cult, so as far as I'm concerned they're essentially part of the same Bible translation, just split into parts.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #63 on: May 21, 2012, 09:45:32 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
What are you talking about not patristic?

His Grace Isaiah of Denver:
Quote
Strictly speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”. Instead, the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/

Sounds like something the Greeks would say.

Sadly, yes. The books of the Bible, even though many of them were liturgically, were clearly never liturgical books per se (except for the Psalms). They are meant to be read and learned. Thank God for the printing press--without it, most of us would never have that opportunity.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #64 on: May 21, 2012, 09:48:45 PM »

The OSB is a good start, but definitely has its problems. When you are ready for deeper and better, get this for New Testament and Psalter:

The Orthodox New Testament with Commentary
The Orthodox Psalter with Commentary

Each volume is bigger than the OSB and far more complete and accurate IMO.
Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh

Although there are a few loony translations in the ONT, I think it is still well worth reading because of the different perspective found both in the translation and in the notes.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #65 on: May 21, 2012, 09:50:30 PM »

Sometimes I wish the Bible never existed but it is the product of the Church so...

What an impoverished world that would be.
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #66 on: May 21, 2012, 09:50:49 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh

Agreed.
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #67 on: May 21, 2012, 10:17:03 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
What are you talking about not patristic?

His Grace Isaiah of Denver:
Quote
Strictly speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”. Instead, the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/

You go read five or six of St. Basil's epistles and then tell me that his only use for the scriptures was liturgical. Or tell me why every Nicene apologist had to produce a good explanation of how the Father could be greater than the Son, if the only use they had for the scriptures was liturgical. Frankly, this is nothing more than an asinine anti-protestant polemic, which has been repeated so much that some have actually managed to drink their own poisoned well water and convince themselves that it's true.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2012, 10:21:37 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #68 on: May 21, 2012, 10:23:49 PM »

There's really no "Bible" in the Orthodox sense; it's usage is liturgical.

This attitude towards the Holy Scriptures is not at all patristic.
What are you talking about not patristic?

His Grace Isaiah of Denver:
Quote
Strictly speaking, there never was a “Bible” in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as “the Bible”. Instead, the various “Books” of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.

The Epistles (or, again, their pericopes) are bound together in another book, called the Apostolos, which is normally found at the chanter’s stand. Usually located next to the Apostolos on the chanter’s shelf are the twelve volumes of the Menaion, as well as the books called the Triodion and Pentekostarion, containing various segments of the Old and the New Testaments.

The fact that there is no “Bible” in the church should not surprise us, since our liturgical tradition is a continuation of the practices of the early Church, when the Gospels and the letters from the Apostles (the Epistles) had been freshly written and copied for distribution to the Christian communities. The “Hebrew Scriptures” (what we now call the “Old Testament”, comprising the Law (the first five books) and the Prophets, were likewise written on various scrolls, just as they were found in the Jewish synagogues.
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/

Sounds like something the Greeks would say.

Sadly, yes. The books of the Bible, even though many of them were liturgically, were clearly never liturgical books per se (except for the Psalms). They are meant to be read and learned. Thank God for the printing press--without it, most of us would never have that opportunity.

Exactly.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,025


"My god is greater."


« Reply #69 on: May 21, 2012, 10:26:45 PM »

Sometimes I wish the Bible never existed but it is the product of the Church so...

What an impoverished world that would be.

Yup. Throw a good chunk of great art and literature from the past two millenia in the trash, me boys.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,917


« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2012, 07:41:11 AM »

Is it so complicated how an average layperson can read a Bible & learn most of their faith basics like the role of the priest in confession with the foundation in Leviticus 7 for ex., the explanation of blood sacrifice no longer necessary in hebrews 9, read 1st John 1, & see the powers conferred by Christ to the apostles in John 20 (I beleive). Not to mention the patterns in Ezekiel 18, 33 etc. I can think of past times when people did not read the Bible & devoured each other over whether to make the sign of the cross with 2 or 3 fingers; ignorance making life more sorrowful than it already is cannot be a good thing.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 07:46:59 AM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,570



« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2012, 10:33:25 AM »

Sadly, yes. The books of the Bible, even though many of them were liturgically, were clearly never liturgical books per se (except for the Psalms). They are meant to be read and learned. Thank God for the printing press--without it, most of us would never have that opportunity.

Agreed.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2012, 10:41:03 AM »

If you read some books by the Church Fathers, you'll gain a much deeper and more accurate understanding of the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures than you would from the OSB.

Any recommendations on this specific matter?
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2012, 04:22:11 PM »

The OSB is a good start, but definitely has its problems.

Like?

Quote
When you are ready for deeper and better, get this for New Testament and Psalter:

When you have graduated to the 11th degree (holy most sublime supremacy wisdom) of Orthodox knowledge, you will be ready for this actual Bible.  It's got totally different teachings in it, but only ones suited for the elite.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2012, 04:25:23 PM »

If you read some books by the Church Fathers, you'll gain a much deeper and more accurate understanding of the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures than you would from the OSB.

Any recommendations on this specific matter?

Apparently not.  I usually just sit down for a read through, accompanied by "the Church Fathers" (ALL OF THEM!) in order to really really get it.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 705



« Reply #75 on: May 22, 2012, 04:45:39 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh
LOL which one?

All three books mentioned in his post are from the same cult, so as far as I'm concerned they're essentially part of the same Bible translation, just split into parts.

Agreed.  I used to have one of their translations and it was awful.  I gave it away.  I wouldn't recommend any of their translations.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 04:48:45 PM by peteprint » Logged
peteprint
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 705



« Reply #76 on: May 22, 2012, 04:47:06 PM »

If you read some books by the Church Fathers, you'll gain a much deeper and more accurate understanding of the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures than you would from the OSB.

Any recommendations on this specific matter?

Apparently not.  I usually just sit down for a read through, accompanied by "the Church Fathers" (ALL OF THEM!) in order to really really get it.

Commentaries by the Fathers are indispensable to gaining an understanding of the scriptures.  Excellent advice!  
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 04:47:53 PM by peteprint » Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #77 on: May 22, 2012, 05:13:29 PM »

If you read some books by the Church Fathers, you'll gain a much deeper and more accurate understanding of the Orthodox understanding of the Scriptures than you would from the OSB.

Any recommendations on this specific matter?

Apparently not.  I usually just sit down for a read through, accompanied by "the Church Fathers" (ALL OF THEM!) in order to really really get it.

Commentaries by the Fathers are indispensable to gaining an understanding of the scriptures.  Excellent advice!  

This works. I don't want to overstep my knowledge base, but I think most people like Blessed Theophylact's commentaries best. Other famous commentators include St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory the Dialoguist, and St. Bede.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #78 on: May 22, 2012, 05:29:19 PM »

Ever since I discovered Orthodoxy, I kind of was brought up into the "Greek Orthodox" understanding of the Bible. I've never considered the Bible to be just a singular book. I haven't seen any evidence at the start of Christianity that Christians referred the Bible as one book containing the OT/NT. I'm open to being corrected on this issue, and would like to see the epistles you are talking about, Mario.

Yes my attitude towards the Bible is a bit negative. I'm more referring to the protestant fundamentalists. Of course there hasn't been a single more influential book than the Bible when it comes to the arts, philosophy, politics, etc. Ignoring that would be wholly ignorant. I'm sorry for being grumpy about it.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #79 on: May 22, 2012, 07:38:56 PM »

Ever since I discovered Orthodoxy, I kind of was brought up into the "Greek Orthodox" understanding of the Bible. I've never considered the Bible to be just a singular book. I haven't seen any evidence at the start of Christianity that Christians referred the Bible as one book containing the OT/NT. I'm open to being corrected on this issue, and would like to see the epistles you are talking about, Mario.

Yes my attitude towards the Bible is a bit negative. I'm more referring to the protestant fundamentalists. Of course there hasn't been a single more influential book than the Bible when it comes to the arts, philosophy, politics, etc. Ignoring that would be wholly ignorant. I'm sorry for being grumpy about it.

What I find objectionable is the attitude that some take towards the Scriptures. It's true that they were historically different collections of books (the apostles, epistles, prophets, the law, etc.), but that doesn't mean they were only used liturgically. Just read any epistle of St. Basil's and see how much he quotes the scriptures. It's clear that the fathers gave the Scriptures much authority and studied them in depth as a source of solid doctrinal teaching. This is why it was important, for example, that the Nicene Christians produced a good exegesis of John 14:28, because without one, their entire argument for the divinity of the Son could have been undone with just one verse. That was the power and weight which the Church Fathers gave to the Scriptures.

When I see things like, "we don't need the Scriptures because we have tradition," it drives me absolutely nuts because that's simply not true. St. Athanasius did not tell Arius, "your doctrine is wrong, and no scriptural argument will avail you, because we know by Tradition that Jesus is divine;" he met Arius' challenge, interpreting the troublesome passages of Scripture which appeared to support Arianism, and providing his own scriptural counterexamples to bolster his argument. The written and oral Tradition without the Scriptures would be absolutely incomprehensible, lacking a common source of authoritative revelation. Likewise, the depth of the Scriptures cannot be revealed without the tradition which allows for a proper understanding of the Scriptures. The two are an organic whole, not meant to be separated or to be set up in opposition to each other.

What have we to fear by exalting the Scriptures to their proper place, as Orthodox Christians? Do we fear the charge made by Protestants that our tradition is inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures? Must we resort to denigrating the greatest recorded source of revelation which exists in the entire literary corpus of our two-thousand-year-old Tradition? Surely we have nothing to fear from our own Holy Scriptures. It is our responsibility to meet these charges made by Protestants head-on instead of dismissing them with such a lazy apology for Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 07:47:05 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #80 on: May 22, 2012, 08:10:53 PM »


Wow.  That was harsh.  Very very fair, but harsh.  Given the duration the OSB took to complete, and the amount of scholars involved, it is a disappointment to be presented with this.  I looked up all the issues/errors mentioned and, sure enough, they were glaring.  That being said, since most Orthodox don't seem to read the Bible nearly as much as we used to, right now, there isn't much choice.  
Well, one can always not read the Bible.  Of course, the Orthodox Fathers would be appalled at that.

Pioneers often make mistakes, because they dare to go where no one has gone before.  When the OSB's detractors outdo it, I'll buy their  arguments.

This criticism, for instance, is nonsense:
Quote
The OSB's first study article (online here) is dedicated to the doctrine of Creation. There we read that the Orthodox Church has “dogmatically proclaimed that the One Triune God created everything that exists.” This Church, in fact, has proclaimed no such thing. Nowhere in the Scriptures, the Fathers, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, or the liturgical texts does one find reference to the “One Triune God.” What one does find is the term “Tri-hypostatic Divinity/Godhead (theotis/bozhestvo)”– which is not at all the same as “Triune God,” which is distinctly modalist, as if the one God appeared in three forms. Furthermore, the very term “Triune God” is difficult if not impossible to construct in either Greek or Slavonic.
http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/04/orthodox-study-bible-my-turn-iii.html

Not that it is relevant, but it is not a problem rendering Triune God into Greek (Τριαδικός Θεός) nor Slavonic (триединий Бог).

And yes, that is exactly what the Church has proclaimed.

Quote
Fr Felix Culpa (his nom du clavier) of the Ora et Labora blog, has recently brought forward some interesting examples of innovating and incorrect theological language attempting to pass for Orthodox theological instruction in the first few pages (!) of the new Orthodox Study Bible, in a post entitled Orthodox Study Bible, My Turn III. Fr Felix begins his post, buttressed by no less than our Father among the Saints Basil the Great (or “BasilG” in OSB-speak), with the same focus that the first post of this series began with: a concern for the proper use of language in theology. I find the most shocking of the abuses of theological language that are noted by Fr Felix to be the use of “They” as a pronoun for God. God is He, never “They.” We Orthodox are not tritheists, or polytheists of any stripe. Using “They” is as improper and heterodox as using “She” or “It.” That is not Orthodox, no matter what label the book bears. While it is clear that the authors are referring to the three hypostases of the Trinity, the impropriety of the language and its implications are un-Orthodox. This almost certainly occurred through an unexamined glossing of hypostases as persons, leading to the anthropomorphizing of God as though He were a group of three human persons. This is, as a professional diplomat might say, unfortunate. We’re apparently treated in this example not only to an unreflective shoddiness in theological language itself, but also in the theological understanding of whoever penned it. So much for a shockingly poor example of Orthodox theological instruction.
http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/?p=552

The issue with "they" is the problem where English grammar hasn't caught up to Orthodox theology.  Btw, Syriac has used "She" (Trinity is grammatically feminine), and the New Testament itself uses "It" (along with "He") for the Holy Spirit (spirit being grammatically neuter in Greek).
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 08:39:25 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #81 on: May 24, 2012, 04:23:55 AM »

Ever since I discovered Orthodoxy, I kind of was brought up into the "Greek Orthodox" understanding of the Bible. I've never considered the Bible to be just a singular book. I haven't seen any evidence at the start of Christianity that Christians referred the Bible as one book containing the OT/NT. I'm open to being corrected on this issue, and would like to see the epistles you are talking about, Mario.

Yes my attitude towards the Bible is a bit negative. I'm more referring to the protestant fundamentalists. Of course there hasn't been a single more influential book than the Bible when it comes to the arts, philosophy, politics, etc. Ignoring that would be wholly ignorant. I'm sorry for being grumpy about it.

What I find objectionable is the attitude that some take towards the Scriptures. It's true that they were historically different collections of books (the apostles, epistles, prophets, the law, etc.), but that doesn't mean they were only used liturgically. Just read any epistle of St. Basil's and see how much he quotes the scriptures. It's clear that the fathers gave the Scriptures much authority and studied them in depth as a source of solid doctrinal teaching. This is why it was important, for example, that the Nicene Christians produced a good exegesis of John 14:28, because without one, their entire argument for the divinity of the Son could have been undone with just one verse. That was the power and weight which the Church Fathers gave to the Scriptures.
No doubt the fathers studied them, that's not exactly what myself or the His Grace Isaiah is saying here. We aren't saying it is only used liturgically, we are saying that is the primary usage in the Church. But I think it is an error to think the Church's foundation is on the Bible, it's not.

Quote
When I see things like, "we don't need the Scriptures because we have tradition," it drives me absolutely nuts because that's simply not true.
Well Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition, it's not separate or running parallel to it. I don't believe His Grace Isaiah is saying we don't need the Scriptures because we have tradition.

It is something that I believe that if we did not have the Scriptures, Christianity's mission would have remained wholly intact. Does one need the Scriptures to preach the Gospel?

Quote
What have we to fear by exalting the Scriptures to their proper place, as Orthodox Christians? Do we fear the charge made by Protestants that our tradition is inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures? Must we resort to denigrating the greatest recorded source of revelation which exists in the entire literary corpus of our two-thousand-year-old Tradition? Surely we have nothing to fear from our own Holy Scriptures. It is our responsibility to meet these charges made by Protestants head-on instead of dismissing them with such a lazy apology for Orthodoxy.
So then this is wrong:
Quote
. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible”. In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible”. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which “books” of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #82 on: May 25, 2012, 05:24:44 AM »

Ever since I discovered Orthodoxy, I kind of was brought up into the "Greek Orthodox" understanding of the Bible. I've never considered the Bible to be just a singular book. I haven't seen any evidence at the start of Christianity that Christians referred the Bible as one book containing the OT/NT. I'm open to being corrected on this issue, and would like to see the epistles you are talking about, Mario.

Yes my attitude towards the Bible is a bit negative. I'm more referring to the protestant fundamentalists. Of course there hasn't been a single more influential book than the Bible when it comes to the arts, philosophy, politics, etc. Ignoring that would be wholly ignorant. I'm sorry for being grumpy about it.

What I find objectionable is the attitude that some take towards the Scriptures. It's true that they were historically different collections of books (the apostles, epistles, prophets, the law, etc.), but that doesn't mean they were only used liturgically. Just read any epistle of St. Basil's and see how much he quotes the scriptures. It's clear that the fathers gave the Scriptures much authority and studied them in depth as a source of solid doctrinal teaching. This is why it was important, for example, that the Nicene Christians produced a good exegesis of John 14:28, because without one, their entire argument for the divinity of the Son could have been undone with just one verse. That was the power and weight which the Church Fathers gave to the Scriptures.
No doubt the fathers studied them, that's not exactly what myself or the His Grace Isaiah is saying here. We aren't saying it is only used liturgically, we are saying that is the primary usage in the Church. But I think it is an error to think the Church's foundation is on the Bible, it's not.

Ok then, why did the church fathers have to successfully provide an exegesis of John 14:28 against Arianism? Why didn't they just use your response and deny that the Scriptures had any authority? I'm sorry, but you simply have not acquired the mind of the Fathers on this matter. Because of the universal recognition of the authority of the Scriptures, they are a foundation of our Church. We cannot hold to beliefs which contradict the Scriptures, and because of the historical authority given to the Scriptures, we are not free to revoke the authority of the Scriptures. It is "too late" for you to be making this argument after the fact. Now that it has happened (by the fourth century, 26 books of the New Testament were universally agreed upon), they are a foundation of our Church, end of story.

What Metropolitan Isaiah is trying to say is that the authority of the Church is not drawn from the Bible. This much is true. But the Bible, owing to the authority invested in it by the Church in time, is now an irrevocable source authority itself. Its authority is derived, but that doesn't mean its authority is lesser than the authority of the body which gave it its authority.

Quote
When I see things like, "we don't need the Scriptures because we have tradition," it drives me absolutely nuts because that's simply not true.
Well Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition, it's not separate or running parallel to it. I don't believe His Grace Isaiah is saying we don't need the Scriptures because we have tradition.

The Scriptures are definitely set apart from the rest of Tradition. To say otherwise is foolish. They are invested with more authority than anything other writings of the tradition. When St. Symeon the New Theologian writes things that seems kind of funny, we can always say "well, Saints are not infallible;" we simply do not have this option with St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Peter, St. James or St. John. If tradition truly contains the same amount of authority as the Scriptures, why does this not bear out in practice? Why is it that just one verse of St. Paul contains more authority than any one sentence of St. John Chrysostom?

It is something that I believe that if we did not have the Scriptures, Christianity's mission would have remained wholly intact. Does one need the Scriptures to preach the Gospel?

This is perhaps true, but it's not the reality we live in today. Fantasies are not a good evangelizing tactic.

Quote
What have we to fear by exalting the Scriptures to their proper place, as Orthodox Christians? Do we fear the charge made by Protestants that our tradition is inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures? Must we resort to denigrating the greatest recorded source of revelation which exists in the entire literary corpus of our two-thousand-year-old Tradition? Surely we have nothing to fear from our own Holy Scriptures. It is our responsibility to meet these charges made by Protestants head-on instead of dismissing them with such a lazy apology for Orthodoxy.
So then this is wrong:
Quote
. Rather, the Bible is a product of the Church. For the first few centuries of the Christian era, no one could have put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible”. In fact, there was no one put his hands on a single volume called “The Bible”. In fact, there was no agreement regarding which “books” of Scripture were to be considered accurate and correct, or canonical. Looking back over history, there were various “lists” of the canonical “books” comprising the Bible:
http://www.omhksea.org/2011/02/holy-scripture-in-the-orthodox-church/

I don't see how my statement conflicts with metropolitan Isaiah's statement. I just think you're misinterpreting him. The Protestants have accepted the authority of the Scriptures (which our own Church has invested with its own authority). That is good. Now we simply have to show them that they are using the Scriptures incorrectly, and bring them to understand that our Tradition is not incongruous with the Scriptures. Using this argument, "well, the Bible has no authority of its own," does nothing for evangelizing protestants, but instead does tremendous harm to Holy Orthodoxy, because in trying to undermine the authority of the Scriptures, we only wind up undermining the authority of the Church itself, by contradicting her revelation from God in time to invest the Holy Scriptures with authority.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #83 on: May 25, 2012, 06:37:11 AM »

I x'd my original message so I'm going to try this again, be warned it's probably much more edited than I had originally intended it to be.

I'm not denying the authority of the Bible and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion. The Bible is of no foundation itself. Proof? Check out all the Protestant denoms who all use the Bible as their foundation but wildly differ on many things. You need Holy Tradition to correctly interpret it but Scriptures also belong to the community (i.e. Orthodox) who produced them.

We aren't Sola Scripturists. You do realize nothing in Orthodoxy hinges on the reliability of the Bible right? Orthodox do not appeal to the authenticity of the Bible for our tradition.

Fr. Hopko (oh my I actually cited him):
"At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible."
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

That settles that.
Quote
This is perhaps true, but it's not the reality we live in today. Fantasies are not a good evangelizing tactic.
Like myself, and many atheists, we would have to disagree. What convinced me of Orthodoxy's truth was those that actually lived out the Gospel. And speaking of the atheists I have encountered, many wished Christians practiced what they preached. How much more would be Orthodox if we shone our light amongst men? Or showed the fruits of our faith? You're exactly right about the reality we live in today, because simply quote mining the Bible isn't really going to change the hearts and minds of people IMO.

You have to preach Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection. In fact the Resurrection is the only significant thing in all of the world. Without it, nothing matters.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #84 on: May 25, 2012, 07:40:00 AM »

I x'd my original message so I'm going to try this again, be warned it's probably much more edited than I had originally intended it to be.

I'm not denying the authority of the Bible and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion. The Bible is of no foundation itself. Proof? Check out all the Protestant denoms who all use the Bible as their foundation but wildly differ on many things. You need Holy Tradition to correctly interpret it but Scriptures also belong to the community (i.e. Orthodox) who produced them.

You do realize that I wrote exactly that two posts earlier when I said that the Scripture can only be interpreted correctly by tradition?

We aren't Sola Scripturists. You do realize nothing in Orthodoxy hinges on the reliability of the Bible right? Orthodox do not appeal to the authenticity of the Bible for our tradition.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the Church is a body of revelation. Because the Scriptures have been revealed to us in time as unparalleled sources of divine inspiration, we are not simply free to ignore them. To do so would be to undermine the very authority of the Church itself.

Fr. Hopko (oh my I actually cited him):
"At this point, allow me to reiterate that Orthodoxy is in no way based on the Bible. Nor is it based or derived from a set of oral teachings running parallel to the Bible."
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_carltonrome.aspx

That settles that.

No, that doesn't settle anything. Orthodoxy is not based on the bible, that is true. Orthodoxy is based on divine revelation (hence we sing God is the Lord... at Orthros). But the Scriptures once revealed are of irrevocable authority, just as our symbol of faith, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is of irrevocable authority for us.  In that sense, Orthodoxy is based on the Bible and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, because we draw our teaching from sources like these (understood through the tradition), which are a pure distillation and consolidation of the Catholic faith. Remember some of the horrible and disparaging statements you've made about the Scriptures in this very thread. Let's see if you'd be comfortable making the same claims about the Nicene Creed. This claim most especially:

Quote
Christianity does not hinge on the reliability of the Bible.

That is of course one hundred percent bogus. Because the Church has recognized the authority of the Scriptures, its claim to being that which reveals God to mankind would be jeopardized if the Scriptures could be shown to be unreliable. The same is true of the Creed or of the essence-energies distinction. How about this little gem?

Quote
Sometimes I wish the Bible never existed but it is the product of the Church so...

Maybe next, you can wish that the Creed and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom never existed. Or why stop there? Maybe you can wish that the Church Fathers never wrote anything down at all, after you are done cutting Orthodoxy's nose off in order to spite Protestantism's face.
Quote
This is perhaps true, but it's not the reality we live in today. Fantasies are not a good evangelizing tactic
Like myself, and many atheists, we would have to disagree. What convinced me of Orthodoxy's truth was those that actually lived out the Gospel. And speaking of the atheists I have encountered, many wished Christians practiced what they preached. How much more would be Orthodox if we shone our light amongst men? Or showed the fruits of our faith? You're exactly right about the reality we live in today, because simply quote mining the Bible isn't really going to change the hearts and minds of people IMO.

You have to preach Christ's crucifixion and Resurrection. In fact the Resurrection is the only significant thing in all of the world. Without it, nothing matters.

Where did I say that it is an either or? Where did I mention quote mining? Living out the faith is a huge part of evangelism, but apologetics is another part of it. Right now, the sort of anti-protestant apologetics I've seen are completely self defeating, because they essentially say, "we don't have to answer your scriptural challenge, because we have the tradition," which is total crap. Could you imagine St. Basil or St. Gregory of Nyssa answering a Scriptural challenge with that sort of impious, dishonest, and intellectually lazy answer? This is why I say that this mindset of down-playing the importance of the Scriptures is completely unpatristic, an impious innovation unknown to the Fathers, and has nothing to do with the right and God-fearing faith which we have received.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 07:46:05 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #85 on: May 25, 2012, 10:25:48 AM »

Much of what you said in this post was factual, but wrong, but this in particular is just wrong...

When St. Symeon the New Theologian writes things that seems kind of funny, we can always say "well, Saints are not infallible;" we simply do not have this option with St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Peter, St. James or St. John.

Of course we can say that St. Paul or St. Matthew were fallible and got something wrong in their works (though I'm pretty sure St. James was as good as you could get)
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #86 on: May 25, 2012, 01:31:10 PM »

Much of what you said in this post was factual, but wrong, but this in particular is just wrong...

When St. Symeon the New Theologian writes things that seems kind of funny, we can always say "well, Saints are not infallible;" we simply do not have this option with St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Peter, St. James or St. John.

Of course we can say that St. Paul or St. Matthew were fallible and got something wrong in their works (though I'm pretty sure St. James was as good as you could get)

Again, if that is the case, why does it not pan out in the actual practice of the fathers? Why, when challenged by John 14:28, did the Nicene Christians not simply dismiss the attack by saying that St. John made a mistake, Jesus never said that? When challenged with 1 Corinthians 8:6, why didn't the Nicene Christians defend themselves by saying that Paul didn't know what he was talking about? What could have compelled St. Athanasius to write, "So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains," (first discourse against the Arians 1.1) if he ascribed to the Scriptures the same disgraceful status you have given them? Why, when combatting the essentialism of Balaam, did Gregory Palamas have to give an exegesis of Exodus 3:14? Why not deny that that particular verse was inspired instead?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #87 on: May 25, 2012, 02:12:17 PM »

Much of what you said in this post was factual, but wrong, but this in particular is just wrong...

When St. Symeon the New Theologian writes things that seems kind of funny, we can always say "well, Saints are not infallible;" we simply do not have this option with St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Peter, St. James or St. John.

Of course we can say that St. Paul or St. Matthew were fallible and got something wrong in their works (though I'm pretty sure St. James was as good as you could get)

Again, if that is the case, why does it not pan out in the actual practice of the fathers? Why, when challenged by John 14:28, did the Nicene Christians not simply dismiss the attack by saying that St. John made a mistake, Jesus never said that? When challenged with 1 Corinthians 8:6, why didn't the Nicene Christians defend themselves by saying that Paul didn't know what he was talking about? What could have compelled St. Athanasius to write, "So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains," (first discourse against the Arians 1.1) if he ascribed to the Scriptures the same disgraceful status you have given them? Why, when combatting the essentialism of Balaam, did Gregory Palamas have to give an exegesis of Exodus 3:14? Why not deny that that particular verse was inspired instead?

Because the Nicene Christians were not Asteriktos.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,619



« Reply #88 on: May 25, 2012, 02:21:36 PM »

Much of what you said in this post was factual, but wrong, but this in particular is just wrong...

When St. Symeon the New Theologian writes things that seems kind of funny, we can always say "well, Saints are not infallible;" we simply do not have this option with St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Peter, St. James or St. John.

Of course we can say that St. Paul or St. Matthew were fallible and got something wrong in their works (though I'm pretty sure St. James was as good as you could get)

Again, if that is the case, why does it not pan out in the actual practice of the fathers? Why, when challenged by John 14:28, did the Nicene Christians not simply dismiss the attack by saying that St. John made a mistake, Jesus never said that? When challenged with 1 Corinthians 8:6, why didn't the Nicene Christians defend themselves by saying that Paul didn't know what he was talking about? What could have compelled St. Athanasius to write, "So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains," (first discourse against the Arians 1.1) if he ascribed to the Scriptures the same disgraceful status you have given them? Why, when combatting the essentialism of Balaam, did Gregory Palamas have to give an exegesis of Exodus 3:14? Why not deny that that particular verse was inspired instead?

Because the Nicene Christians were not Asteriktos.

I am tempted to flip that statement around.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2012, 02:24:58 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #89 on: May 25, 2012, 06:21:54 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible, I would trust his advice.

That said, Nigula, what do you think about The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox by Johanna Manley? As seen here: http://books.google.com/books?id=YLmbkbpANpAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=orthodox+bible&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KtK6T9DJB4rF6gHchY3SCg&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20bible&f=false

I think it has some good value.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 25, 2012, 06:30:31 PM »

Nigula is the residest expert on the better versions of the Bible,

Then why did he recommend one of the worst ones out there?  Huh

I do not think it is the worst and the patristics are invaluable. There are so many Church Fathers represented and they even show differing views. I like woodenly literal translation because then you know you are getting the original words directly from the Orthodox Greek Bible.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #91 on: May 26, 2012, 01:24:22 AM »

BRB going to re-edit this.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 01:50:50 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #92 on: May 26, 2012, 04:49:14 AM »

You do realize that I wrote exactly that two posts earlier when I said that the Scripture can only be interpreted correctly by tradition?
Of course, I'm not accusing you of saying the contrary.

Quote
Again, you're ignoring the fact that the Church is a body of revelation. Because the Scriptures have been revealed to us in time as unparalleled
sources of divine inspiration, we are not simply free to ignore them. To do so would be to undermine the very authority of the Church itself.
Yes it is a body of revelation, but remember the Bible is only part of the revelation not the whole. Nor is it the foundation of the Church, but rather the product.

The Church was already in full operation with its sacraments, liturgies, etc about 20 years before St Paul's epistles were even composed.

We have to understand to, that before the printing press was invented, a Bible reproduction was exclusively used by the rich because of its cost.

There are thousands upon thousands who martyred their lives for Christ without even knowing of a written Gospel. Again that's why I say Christianity does not need the Scriptures to evangelize. Christians learned about the teachings of Christ by the living tradition of the Church. It is also a true statement to say that the Scriptures are an accurate reflection of the practices and beliefs held.

It was by preaching, not by the written word, with how many nations had converted to Christianity. Christ didn't leave books for His apostles but did promise that the Holy Spirit would inspire them on what to say. They preached on the authority that Christ gave them, by making disciples in all nations.
 

Quote

No, that doesn't settle anything. Orthodoxy is not based on the bible, that is true. Orthodoxy is based on divine revelation (hence we sing God is the Lord... at Orthros).
And nobody is disagreeing with this.

Quote
But the Scriptures once revealed are of irrevocable authority, just as our symbol of faith, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is of irrevocable authority for us.  In that sense, Orthodoxy is based on the Bible and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, because we draw our teaching from sources like these (understood through the tradition), which are a pure distillation and consolidation of the Catholic faith.

No it is not based on the Bible. There was never The Bible -> Orthodoxy. Stop.

Quote
That is of course one hundred percent bogus. Because the Church has recognized the authority of the Scriptures, its claim to being that which reveals God to mankind would be jeopardized if the Scriptures could be shown to be unreliable.
That just begs the question.  Before you can say the Church recognized the authority of the Scriptures you must first deal with the authority of the Church.

Quote
Maybe next, you can wish that the Creed and the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom never existed. Or why stop there? Maybe you can wish that the Church Fathers never wrote anything down at all, after you are done cutting Orthodoxy's nose off in order to spite Protestantism's face.
You do realize I apologized for my negative attitude about the Bible right?

Why the heck are you accusing me of wishing things I never have even said or implied? What is your deal?

Quote
Where did I say that it is an either or? Where did I mention quote mining? Living out the faith is a huge part of evangelism, but apologetics is another part of it.
Actually considering what kind of Orthodox apologetics are out there, it's more embarassing to have them.

I don't recall Christ saying you need to have apologetics when preaching the Gospel.

Quote
Right now, the sort of anti-protestant apologetics I've seen are completely self defeating, because they essentially say, "we don't have to answer your scriptural challenge, because we have the tradition," which is total crap.
Please quote me word for word on me saying "We don't have..."

Quote
This is why I say that this mindset of down-playing the importance of the Scriptures is completely unpatristic, an impious innovation unknown to the Fathers, and has nothing to do with the right and God-fearing faith which we have received.

The Fathers’ approach to the Scriptures is actually found and expressed through the liturgical services btw.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #93 on: May 26, 2012, 06:06:25 AM »

Mario, looking over my post I'm beginning to wonder if we really disagree here.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #94 on: June 20, 2012, 08:12:43 AM »

Been waiting nearly 2weeks for this to arrive from the State to Australia, I purchase off Amazon - But all good not whinging why it has not arrived sooner. Just eager to start reading it.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2012, 02:44:51 AM »

Much of what you said in this post was factual, but wrong, but this in particular is just wrong...

When St. Symeon the New Theologian writes things that seems kind of funny, we can always say "well, Saints are not infallible;" we simply do not have this option with St. Paul, St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew, St. Peter, St. James or St. John.

Of course we can say that St. Paul or St. Matthew were fallible and got something wrong in their works (though I'm pretty sure St. James was as good as you could get)

Again, if that is the case, why does it not pan out in the actual practice of the fathers? Why, when challenged by John 14:28, did the Nicene Christians not simply dismiss the attack by saying that St. John made a mistake, Jesus never said that? When challenged with 1 Corinthians 8:6, why didn't the Nicene Christians defend themselves by saying that Paul didn't know what he was talking about? What could have compelled St. Athanasius to write, "So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains," (first discourse against the Arians 1.1) if he ascribed to the Scriptures the same disgraceful status you have given them? Why, when combatting the essentialism of Balaam, did Gregory Palamas have to give an exegesis of Exodus 3:14? Why not deny that that particular verse was inspired instead?

I like to think of the scriptures as one of those acts of parliament which is clearly intended to consolidate/codify/crystallise the pre-existing common law on a particular subject matter.

It is true that (1) the common law predates the act; (2) the act's very promulgation is authorised and enabled by common law; and (3) the subject matter of the act is one or more parts of the common law, however, once that act has been promulgated, it would be most impossible to deny any part of it as being absolutely authoritative.

Rather, the common law on the act's subject matter then serves the purpose of (1) aiding interpretation of the statute as a whole; (2) aiding interpretation of particular provisions of the statute in an internally consistent manner and a manner consistent with the pre-existing common law; and (3) filling any gaps in the statute's operation.

Seems right?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 23, 2012, 12:12:30 PM »

I like the OSB, which is what we use at our Bible study, but I purchased a HC copy of the EOB New Testament, and I really prefer it.  Here is a link if you are interested:

http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/

The fact that is translates episcospos as overseer and presbyteros (when obviously it is speakign of the office of bishop and presbyter) as elder makes it rather flawed as an "Orthodox" Bible. I plan to avoid it.
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #97 on: June 23, 2012, 02:28:53 PM »

Posting to get rid of the stupid "thumbs down" image showing up on the title page.

The OSB is good.  Many inquiry classes use it, and many priests recommend it.  It's loaded with helpful Orthodox information that would be difficult to easily accumulate.  And, it's relatively inexpensive.

Is it perfect? Certainly not, but I find most criticism of it to be extremely vague, i.e. full of it, or nitpicking.  Other good Bibles, like the Oxford Annotated RSV have their own issues too, but contain little to none of the Orthodox material for inquirers.

Sure, get fuller commentary from other sources, but steering inquirers away from it, in lieu of some massive heap of "the Fathers" is irresponsible advice, in my opinion.



Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 23, 2012, 03:13:48 PM »

I think it (The OSB) is a good first bible for inquirers. But for Orthodox Christians wanting to understand the Bible better, and see an English translation direct from the Greek, I recommend the ONT for the Old Testament as well as the Orthodox Pslater for the Psalms. Just my opinion. :-)
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #99 on: June 23, 2012, 04:17:38 PM »

I like to think of the scriptures as one of those acts of parliament which is clearly intended to consolidate/codify/crystallise the pre-existing common law on a particular subject matter.

It is true that (1) the common law predates the act; (2) the act's very promulgation is authorised and enabled by common law; and (3) the subject matter of the act is one or more parts of the common law, however, once that act has been promulgated, it would be most impossible to deny any part of it as being absolutely authoritative.

Rather, the common law on the act's subject matter then serves the purpose of (1) aiding interpretation of the statute as a whole; (2) aiding interpretation of particular provisions of the statute in an internally consistent manner and a manner consistent with the pre-existing common law; and (3) filling any gaps in the statute's operation.

Like
Logged
Tags: Orthodox Study Bible 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.333 seconds with 126 queries.