The Bible

[Lestat]

hashi92 suggested talking to a priest. Wouldn't a priest have to have a good idea on how to interpret any questions I might have? My kids go to religious school and I know a priest there. I'd just feel very awkward having a priest explain questions to my kid's atheistic father. Like you, few are able to take an atheist seriously when he wants to learn about religious doctrine.

Thanks for the link. I have a hard time reading books online (it's hard on the eyes). Maybe if I can tone my monitor down it will be worth a try. And before I even read the very first page....

Am I to understand that interpretations are not important? If Christians can disagree amongst each other, I honestly don't understand how you (or anyone), can be so sure that you're exact interpretation is the correct one. Either such interpretations can't be important, or God is really putting us through a rigorous IQ test. How can God limit His Kingdom of Glory to only those intellectually capable of sifting through such complicated writings and arriving at the exact right answers over other like-minded pious people who mistakenly got it all wrong?

But now I'm back to debating. I just want to get this out of the way before I start reading so I can keep an open mind.

[hashi92]

if you ask a priest you will get one (his) interpretation. if you ask the forum you will get numerous some will agree some wont. debates will probally occur.

[BluffTHIS!]

The point I have made here to protestants is that the very fact of differing interpretations means that there needs to be an authentic interpreter of scripture, and obviously I think that is the Catholic Church. But some interpretations aren't important, i.e. they concern the "details" that David is always criticising some believers for emphasizing too much over the core beliefs. And with the Catholic Church to properly interpret, the the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God are not limited to only those with enough intelligence and a detailed knowledge of scriptural matters.

Regarding talking to a priest, not all catholic priests are fully orthodox in their views, and some go to far the other direction (more catholic than the pope), plus it will likely prove an imposition to have to continually go to someone and ask questions as you read through the bible.

So my suggestion is that you purchase a new bible with footnotes and cross references, and if you really want to be diligent and have a thorough reference, the above mentioned Jermome Commentary. However, I will be happy to answer your questions here as well to the best of my ability using those references, if you want a catholic view.

Different interpretations are important to read.
The first english bible was very controversial, a lot of people at the time believed that the english language could not capture the wholeness of the message.

I'm not sure of the actual figures but I know that the english translation contained far less words than the original text. people have studied the original text and put every effort into capturing the meaning of the original text while presenting a text that is relevant and understandable. I can't speak for all translations and not being a catholic I can't suggest one. I read the NKJ (new king james), NIV(new international version) and the message(a paraphrase written in contemporary language). I find that reading the three side by side give me a good understanding of any passage. May not be liked by catholics though...I'm not sure.

[hashi92]

people have been misinterpreting the bible for hundreds of years. imagine all the misinterpretations of the oral traditions which the bible is based on.

These misinterpretations that you imagine are disproven by fact. The number of bibles that have been made and the uncanny consistency between them even though seperated for a long time shows a very careful and accurate recording of the text from the oral tradition.

"Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, the new testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book - a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

[hashi92]

Different interpretations are important to read.
The first english bible was very controversial, a lot of people at the time believed that the english language could not capture the wholeness of the message.

This is a qoute from you. Isnt this saying that the bible has been misinterpreted?

Not at all.
Different languages are structured completely differently. There is only one word for love in english, the same word is used for saying "I love chocolate", "let's make love", "I love you". Other languages contain many more discriptive words than the english language. It was controversial at the time because it was considered a harsh language, not one fit for The Book. Because there were less words, does not mean it was misinterpreted, just interpreted.
Hence the need for different translations.
The largest need for different versions though is because language changes over time. People nowdays need to be able to understand it so it is translated and interpreted very very carefully to be contemporary and relevant to it's readers.

[hashi92]

oral tradition is also not very accurate. as time goes on things get added, subtracted and even exaggerated.