At Moore we have chapel services 3 days a week, where we read a chapter of the OT and a chapter of the NT at each service, apart from the passage being preached. I think this is fantastic. Because it's big slabs of text, it promotes helpful reading of the Bible, in a way which draws your attention and brings the passage to life. I think this type of systematic reading is an increasingly integral way of educating Biblically illiterate people. It goes against the grain of thought which says that:
a. You need someone to explain the Bible to you in order for it to be beneficial
b. We need to be brief and schmick in our services, so there's no time for this kind of thang.
Reading the unadorned word is an outworking of our theology of revelation.
Another great thing is Moore does not promote one translation of the Bible. The closest we get is the voraciousness of defenders of the Holman Christian Standard Bible, mainly from the verbal aspect crew who think the Holman peeps incorporate their schtick more. The Holman is the Bible pushed by the Southern Baptists in the US. These Southerners are well known for their extreme translation debates (which sounds like it could be sorted out UFC style), and it is strange to think this voracity has somehow seeped into the translation itself so that proponents out here pick up the 'defender of the faith' attitude.
Anyways, we get through the whole Bible every couple of years in chapel reading the one translation, and then switch translations. The Holman is just about finishing its run and then we're onto the TNIV (to me it would make more sense to go with the NIV (2011) as TNIV will be out of print soon, but I guess there's no surprise in an Anglican college being slow to change).
One annoying thing the Holman does is some words which aren't in the original languages but are being supplied to make the translation smoother, are placed in brackets. It is helpful in showing what is and isn't a reflection of the original, however rather than drawing attention away from these words, it ends up serving to focus attention on them. I reckon they should just have a go. If it really is needed to make the sentence make sense, just put the word in. If its not necessary, leave it out. People can always cross check translations to see where ambiguities exist. This happens in Bible Studies all the time as people have different Bibles.
Oh, and speaking of translations, I've retired my joke about "What do you think about The Message? I think there's lots of great children's Bibles." I actually think there are better children's Bibles.
Voracity about veracity is a sign of militant tenacity concerning absolute inerrancy.
ReplyDeleteOh and could you please get rid of that extra apostrophe in your post brother. It's bothering me just having to think about it.
Gordo, it sounds like you've just been to see Mary Poppins!
ReplyDeleteAnd the apostrophe was a slip of the finger, I promise.
It must be hard being an editor-at-heart, when people's' apostrophe's irk you, '. The only equivalent I can think of is a positive one that as a radiographer needing to inject people, sometimes you notice a person's arm while you're shopping or something and think "nice veins".
ReplyDeleteWouldn't mind seeing Mary Poppins. That might be a fun Cowling-Cheng family outing actually. If I get a few more paying piano gigs I'll think about that.
ReplyDeleteYeah, veins, I've got very good ones for injections, which you don't appreciate until you marry someone who has to ask for the vein-finding specialist when they go to pathology.