2010 One-Year Chronological Bible Comments

[Suzanne]

 

Comments & questions about readings for these bibles will be in this thread. They both look interesting!

[Anju No. 469]

I have a sample - will see how long that will be -

[LauraB]

I'm reading the Chronological bible for kindle that was in the other thread. It was $26, but I'm liking it. I read all the introduction stuff yesterday and started the 1st couple chapters today. It looks good on kindle, is formatted well and all the links work.  So I think it will work. I compared the daily reading plan to the one in this thread and they are the same.  Think I can participate using a slightly different one?   

[Suzanne]

I'm reading the Chronological bible for kindle that was in the other thread. It was $26, but I'm liking it. I read all the introduction stuff yesterday and started the 1st couple chapters today. It looks good on kindle, is formatted well and all the links work.  So I think it will work. I compared the daily reading plan to the one in this thread and they are the same.  Think I can participate using a slightly different one?   

Absolutely!! I will start a thread for that particular version in a skinny minute. I have ordered that particular bible in DTV format and hopefully it will be here tomorrow!!

[Suzanne]

Well, I started this bible this evening. In the Preface they state that they group together the Psalms by themes: Psalms of the Troubled Soul, Psalms of Joy and Praise, Psalms of the Messiah. I am disappointed with that. I would have preferred to read the Psalms in the settings they were written in.

Today's reading had to do with the creation account. I am always astounded that it went back to the first humans, where they did not take responsibility for their actions. When Adam was asked why he ate of the forbidden tree his reply was, The woman YOU gave me told me to eat. Inferring that it was God's fault, and not his own. And Eve didn't take responsibility either. She blamed the serpent.

[LauraB]

I posted in the NKJV Chronological Bible thread, but since the reading assignments are the same can I just post here or should I stay in the other? Seems like there are so many we may end up just talking to ourselves, what does any one else think. All the Chronological in one thread or all seperate?
For now, I'll leave it in the other and copy here, until I figure out what others want then I'll remove one.

 (I started reading this, NKJV, on Kindle yesterday by reading all the introduction material.  I found it very informative in the timeline of history. It is formatted well and all the links work. I also looked at it on the iphone and what I like about that is the parts that are in sidebars is blue background on iphone. On the kindle they are indented slightly and have an * in front of them. So it is going well over kindle.)

 I learned some intersting ideas about why the moon and sun are referred to as "the greater light and lesser light" in Genesis, as opposed to sun and moon. The readings discussed the Gods that were being worshipped in other religions at the time and the testaments wanted to set God above them.
I do find it typical, with the other translations of Genesis I've read, that Adam says "not my fault, it's her's", she says "not my fault, it's the serpents", the serpent that turned on God, thereby making it God's fault? For giving people free will  , is that is what we are left with   

[Suzanne]

I posted in the NKJV Chronological Bible thread, but since the reading assignments are the same can I just post here or should I stay in the other? Seems like there are so many we may end up just talking to ourselves, what does any one else think. All the Chronological in one thread or all seperate?
For now, I'll leave it in the other and copy here, until I figure out what others want then I'll remove one.

 (I started reading this, NKJV, on Kindle yesterday by reading all the introduction material.  I found it very informative in the timeline of history. It is formatted well and all the links work. I also looked at it on the iphone and what I like about that is the parts that are in sidebars is blue background on iphone. On the kindle they are indented slightly and have an * in front of them. So it is going well over kindle.)

 I learned some intersting ideas about why the moon and sun are referred to as "the greater light and lesser light" in Genesis, as opposed to sun and moon. The readings discussed the Gods that were being worshipped in other religions at the time and the testaments wanted to set God above them.
I do find it typical, with the other translations of Genesis I've read, that Adam says "not my fault, it's her's", she says "not my fault, it's the serpents", the serpent that turned on God, thereby making it God's fault? For giving people free will  , is that is what we are left with   

Red, that sounds like a good idea that those of us who are doing a chronological bible stay in one thread. Otherwise, you might be talking to yourself on your thread & I'd be talking to myself on my thread.

I sure hope Mr. Mailman brings my Chronological Study Bible tomorrow. If it looks good, I might jump ship and do that one.

[LauraB]

I finished my reading for today and ran into the same difficulty as always. Everytime I attempt this I find I really struggle with the geneology. Is it this hard for others?

[Anju No. 469]

without a doubt!

[onanothernote]

I'm glad to have found this thread.  I have ordered this chronological Bible and the NKJV one mentioned.  The NKJV came first from overstock and the others should be here on Monday, I pray.

I found the rendering of the greater light and lesser light plus the additional explanation of the other gods worshiped at the time understandable.  This does explain my understanding that God wanted to make sure the people were able to set him apart from all others at the time and to make sure that he explained himself clearly, not just in word, but in a way that the people could grasp by a teacher, not just someone preaching to them and them having to struggle to understand.  God is a teacher, not just a leader to be followed.

I too get lost in genealogy of my own family, so with Biblical persons living so long, I really get lost.  I also get lost in the names and struggle to pronounce them.  People down here struggle to pronounce English correctly, even turning one syllable words into two or three syllables, so I don't always trust people's pronunciations of Biblical names or places.

I agree with keeping one thread for chronological Bibles because it makes sense that they will follow similar or the same paths.  This way we can discuss them and find differences when applicable.  I appreciate a good debate on both sides of the fence and the learning that comes forth.

[LauraB]

Welcome aboard!

[Suzanne]

I think the genealogies are difficult for everyone. And pronouncing the names -- good grief!! Good Luck on that one!!  But I can see God's hand in the matter of the genealogies, they would be very important when the Messiah came.

[onanothernote]

How do you instert a picture link like you did at the beginning of this thread?

[LauraB]

I do believe they are important, and will be in later reading. I bookmarked them on my kindle because I think part of my problem in the past has been frustration in my attempts to remember them. I also believe they are important or God would not have made them known to us.   

[onanothernote]

I'm making a list of people of the Bible.  I've already noticed two different Enochs and Lamechs, one set of Cain and the other of Seth.  I reckon that some Biblical names were common like our are today, unless I've missed something somewhere.

[Suzanne]

How do you instert a picture link like you did at the beginning of this thread?

http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,838.0.html

There is an informative video on that thread which shows you how to use the Linkmaker. If you have any questions, just send me a note. I use the manual version of the Linkmaker and you just copy & paste two things from the Amazon page to the Linkmaker. It's very easy.

[onanothernote]

   

I like this whole link thing.  Thanks for the instructions.  The video is real easy to understand.  Thanks again!! 

Keep reminding the publisher of "The Daily Bible" to make theirs in a Kindle version for those that want to read theirs on the Kindle.

[Suzanne]

You did great! WTG!

[Suzanne]

I have to disagree with one of the commentaries on Jan. 3rd's reading in The Daily Bible in Chronological Order. Under the section, Mankind's Degeneration into Wickedness, they say that the "sons of God" referred to in Gen. 6:1,2 were, to quote this version, "Sethites." Meaning offspring of Seth. Here is the direct quote: "At this point, however, the record seems to indicate that the "sons of God," perhaps referring to the Sethities, or in any event to those who have had a God-fearing heritage, now begin to intermarry with the "daughters of men," not because they are righteous women but only because they are physically attractive."

I have always understood that the "sons of God" referred to in Gen. 6:1,2 refers to fallen angels, angels who have rebelled against God.

Genesis 6:1 (NIV)
 1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,

Genesis 6:2

2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Look to Job 1:6 and it helps to looks to different translations.

NIV reads
Job 1:6 (New International Version)

Job's First Test
 6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

Footnotes:

   a. Job 1:6 Hebrew the sons of God
 
The footnote at [a] states that in Hebrew it is translated the sons of God.

Job 1:6 (English Standard Version)

Satan Allowed to Test Job
 6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Job 1:6 (New King James Version)

Satan Attacks Job’s Character
   
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan[a] also came among them.

When we read that passage about the sons of God cohabiting with the daughters of men, it says that the offspring were, as quoted in Gen6:4, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

I was never led to believe that it was something that God permitted, for angels to cohabit with humans. It was directly after this verse that God vows to bring the Flood that will destroy all mankind, except for Noah & his family.

[onanothernote]

I have to disagree with one of the commentaries on Jan. 3rd's reading in The Daily Bible in Chronological Order. Under the section, Mankind's Degeneration into Wickedness, they say that the "sons of God" referred to in Gen. 6:1,2 were, to quote this version, "Sethites." Meaning offspring of Seth. Here is the direct quote: "At this point, however, the record seems to indicate that the "sons of God," perhaps referring to the Sethities, or in any event to those who have had a God-fearing heritage, now begin to intermarry with the "daughters of men," not because they are righteous women but only because they are physically attractive."

I have always understood that the "sons of God" referred to in Gen. 6:1,2 refers to fallen angels, angels who have rebelled against God.

Genesis 6:1 (NIV)
 1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,

Genesis 6:2

2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.

Look to Job 1:6 and it helps to looks to different translations.

NIV reads
Job 1:6 (New International Version)

Job's First Test
 6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

Footnotes:

   a. Job 1:6 Hebrew the sons of God
 
The footnote at [a] states that in Hebrew it is translated the sons of God.

Job 1:6 (English Standard Version)

Satan Allowed to Test Job
 6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

Job 1:6 (New King James Version)

Satan Attacks Job’s Character
   
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan[a] also came among them.

When we read that passage about the sons of God cohabiting with the daughters of men, it says that the offspring were, as quoted in Gen6:4, "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown."

I was never led to believe that it was something that God permitted, for angels to cohabit with humans. It was directly after this verse that God vows to bring the Flood that will destroy all mankind, except for Noah & his family.

Is it possible that we are misunderstanding the difference between the human sons of God and the angelic sons of God?  I'm no expert by any means. The sons of God in Genesis refers to the human sons, thus the translators called them sons of God, not angles, while in Job they are referred to as angles.  This is a common problem when translating from one language to another.  There isn't a means to make an accurate translation, though two can mean the same but when placed in context it means something different, so to make it easier for the English world, they changed it to sons of man and angles.  I have the same problem with  people who use a thesaurus too liberally by looking up a word and just picking the longest most difficult sounding one and substituting.  This was done with effeminate in the Bible and translated into homosexual in some versions, which I have known many effeminate men that were not homosexual.  Effeminate was used in KJV 1611, if I recall correctly, so sometime in the 70's/80's version it became homosexual.  I think.  I'm not accurate with my dates or versions thereof.  I just remember this because of a debate and discovered the difference in Bible versions. 

I too don't think that God would allow angles to intermarry with human or that he would allow fallen angles to walk the Earth in that manner.  Demons are one thing, but angles in human form to marry and bread children is another.  That seems to be of Greek/Roman mythology.  This time in Biblical history does remind me of those days of Greek/Roman orgies running rampant in the streets and fields.  This would be a great reason to think the Earth was full of men wanting to marry women for their beauty not their holiness.  God took Noah's family because they remained pure of faith.

I just went back and review my NKJV Chronological Bible and it says in Job 1:6 sons of God instead of angles, so I don't know.  This is why I struggle to understand so many different versions when they all pick their words so liberally.  I don't agree with having one version of the Bible as we knew how much manipulation there was when there was one version of the Bible, but boy howdy how things have evolved into so much chaos in translation when people attempt to make a complicated text easy to read.  Do they have a Bible for Dummies book?

[mwvickers]

Suzanne,

There are two schools of thought, as you pointed out.  One says the "sons of God" were righteous people (as compared to the daughters of men, being unrighteous).  The other school says that the "sons of God" were angels (which became fallen angels after cohabiting with the daughters of men).  Both have interesting reasons for their claims.

Either way, this seems to have been a bad thing.  It does lead to the Nephilim (usually considered giants).  The fact that they were "heroes of old" is from a man's standpoint, not from God's.  

The way this directly precedes the flood leads many to believe that this did lead to it, at least in part.  

In fact, the clearest reason for the flood is stated in Genesis 6, when it says that the thoughts of men's hearts were always evil, continually.  

[onanothernote]

I just opened my Haley's Handbook that came today.  She suggests that "sons of God" are either fallen angels or those members of the sons of the Sethite families who intermarried with the godless descendants of Cain, so a in a metaphor way they are kind of both fallen angels as Cain should have been a godly child of Adam and so should have his people, so those that intermarried with them were intermarrying with fallen angles of Earth.  I can see how they became known as fallen angles by people since Cain was the first born of Adam and being the first male of the first man should have been a big deal, but Cain messed all of that up and so did his descendants.  I hope this helps.  This does put a whole different spin on common law marriage/cohabitation.

[mwvickers]

Is it possible that we are misunderstanding the difference between the human sons of God and the angelic sons of God?  I'm no expert by any means. The sons of God in Genesis refers to the human sons, thus the translators called them sons of God, not angles, while in Job they are referred to as angles.  This is a common problem when translating from one language to another.  There isn't a means to make an accurate translation, though two can mean the same but when placed in context it means something different, so to make it easier for the English world, they changed it to sons of man and angles.

Scholars disagree greatly on what "sons of God" means in Genesis 6.  I don't know that there is a solid consensus one way or the other.

 

I have the same problem with  people who use a thesaurus too liberally by looking up a word and just picking the longest most difficult sounding one and substituting.  This was done with effeminate in the Bible and translated into homosexual in some versions, which I have known many effeminate men that were not homosexual.  Effeminate was used in KJV 1611, if I recall correctly, so sometime in the 70's/80's version it became homosexual.  I think.  I'm not accurate with my dates or versions thereof.  I just remember this because of a debate and discovered the difference in Bible versions.

The difference in translations is troublesome, but we must look to the Greek, rather than just assuming one translation is right because we prefer it (not saying you do that, but some do).  There are many things we have to take account of as far as "effeminate."  First, what does the Greek say?  

The word appears to be "malakos" in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.  It carries the following meanings, among a few others: of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man; of a male prostitute.  (see here:  http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3120&t=KJV).  Also, go to the following site, look for 1 Corinthians 6:9, and click note 5 to see the explanation at the bottom: http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

We also need to know what "effeminate" meant in 1611, and it could have meant something more than a feminine man.  I honestly don't know at this point.  

The main point is that homosexuality is indeed in view in 1 Corinthians 6:9.  So no translation changed it to mean something it didn't orginally mean.

I too don't think that God would allow angles to intermarry with human or that he would allow fallen angles to walk the Earth in that manner.  Demons are one thing, but angles in human form to marry and bread children is another.  That seems to be of Greek/Roman mythology.  This time in Biblical history does remind me of those days of Greek/Roman orgies running rampant in the streets and fields.  This would be a great reason to think the Earth was full of men wanting to marry women for their beauty not their holiness.  God took Noah's family because they remained pure of faith.

Many might agree with you.  Both views are possible, and both have their own issues.  For example, if "sons of God" and "daughters of men" mean mere humans, how did it bring about a great race of mighty men of renown, usually considered giants?  I'm not sure there is a solid answer.

Judging by the note at the following site, there is also another view (though I wasn't familiar with it until just a moment ago).  Go to Genesis 6:1, note 4 at the bottom for a detailed explanation: http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

I just went back and review my NKJV Chronological Bible and it says in Job 1:6 sons of God instead of angles, so I don't know.  This is why I struggle to understand so many different versions when they all pick their words so liberally.

I don't mean to keep sounding like I'm correcting you, but translators hardly pick words liberally.  Much study, time, thought, and debate goes into making a translation.  There is no reliable translation to my knowledge that was ever brought about "willy nilly" so to speak.  Yes, doctrinal stances may have some part to play in word choice, but most good translations come about by a committee composed of a variety of scholars from various denominational backgrounds to safeguard against too much bias.

 

I don't agree with having one version of the Bible as we knew how much manipulation there was when there was one version of the Bible,

Well, the manipulation you may speak of, if you are referring to the so-called "dark ages," came about not because of one translation, but because the translation was in a language only scholars knew.  The normal person didn't have access to the Bible, so he or she was at the mercy of the scholars, even if they were corrupt.  That is hardly the case today, as we have many, many good translations to choose from and read ourselves.

 

but boy howdy how things have evolved into so much chaos in translation when people attempt to make a complicated text easy to read.  Do they have a Bible for Dummies book?

I just don't see chaos in translation.  I study Bible translation to a degree, and while there are differences, they are hardly major for the most part.  The few issues that may be considered major wouldn't affect one single Bible doctrine, to the best of my knowledge.  

[Suzanne]

Thanks for all this discussion. It has given me food for thought.

I always thought that humans were referred to in a different fashion in the Bible. One instance I just read about recently was in the building of the Tower of Babel. It's interesting to see this particular verse in different translations. Mind you, I'm most familiar with the English Standard Version, which is the one I use at church.

Genesis 11:5-10 (English Standard Version)

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built.

Genesis 11:5-10 (New International Version)

 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.

Genesis 11:5-10 (King James Version)

 5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Genesis 11:5-10 (New King James Version)

5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.


I was just surprised when I read that commentary I was telling you about. I had never in my almost 60 years heard anyone say that the "sons of God" in that scripture was anything but the fallen angels.

I have an Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (Genesis through Exodus) and looked it up. Gen 11:5 is "And men of sons built . . "

It's so nice to have you guys to toss ideas around with!
 

[onanothernote]

On effeminate and homosexual...why did this shift in publication come about?  Could this be due to the shift in society's thinking regarding the thinking of the times?  I realize that the Greek translation says male prostitute/homosexual but why was effeminate used in 1611 and was homosexual used in 1900, probably not?  I'm not sure because I don't have a KJV from that time, but given the conservative nature regarding sex at the time, homosexual had the word sex in it and they probably didn't use it.  Even the legs of the piano were covered because they were considered too sexy.  I just have a thing about society's views, especially politically driven, causing a shift in word usage in the Bible, or any important text.  I know homosexuality is against God because it is stated quite plainly in Leviticus 18:22 but no one points to that, they want to point to the actual word "homosexual" as if the word homosexual makes it mean more by its sheer presence.  This to me is as if they only want to obey what is plainly stated in their words, not what has to actually be looked up and read.  If the word has to be there for it to mean something.  Down here there are so many Bible thumping politicians who use the fact that now the word homosexual is in the Bible instead of referring to the Moses's law, which not many pastor's actually preach on instead of just the 10 Commandments though this law hasn't changed nor many of the others there.  They are still picking and choosing what to obey and pointing to it.  They forget that it is not their place to judge, but they still feel free to persecute those that are homosexual instead of praying for them and allowing God to be the one to pass judgement.  The power of semantics is awfully powerful down here, so even the slightest shift in words can move mountains or turn mole hills into mountains.  Words are just letters squashed together until someone assigns meaning to them.  Not that long ago "gay" mean happy, but today it means something different.  If I were to have a rainbow on my car problems would be caused due to the fact that I'm single, 29, and not dating anyone right now.  People forget that a rainbow is God's promise, but now it means something different.  Society changed that.  When did the majority gain so much power?  The ability to have groups to discuss the finer points of word meanings and translations and compare them provides a well rounded approach, especially if someone has access to Greek and Hebrew text and knows how to translate them with accuracy. 

With so many different versions of the Bible, I do feel lost when I go in a book store, look at all the Bibles, begin to look at all the different versions and then all the publishers.  This is the chaos I'm referring to, plus confusion over issues like Suzanne pointed out.  This is mental chaos.  I should have been clearer in my chaos.