OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 04:49:09 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 3944 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
Muted
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
Muted
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
Muted
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 0.06 seconds with 36 queries.