Another "best" Bible question

[dcana]

I have been having such a hard time in figuring out what the “best” Bible would be to read and study. I know many will say, “the one that you would use most” or advise to have many translations, if possible, and I’m sure that’s good advise to some extent but I would like to have “one” that I hold above the others, one that I would go to if there are differences in translations or if I wanted to memorize a passage, for example. I’ve read so much commentary on the pluses and minuses of the Vulgate/DR, NV, and RSV (these are the three I’m mostly looking at) and others that my head hurts. There are so many different opinions. I am well aware of what Trent said about the Vulgate, namely that it is free from teaching error in faith or morals, and this holds much sway with me. But we must keep in mind Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu that says that biblical scholars should look at the many Hebrew and Greek manuscripts we have today and use sound scriptural scholarship in making future translations.

Sometimes I want to say “I’m using the RSV and that’s it” then I think I might as well use the Vulgate/DR; even if it might not be the most accurate Bible, at least I know what I read will be free of doctrinal error. One thing I don’t like about the OT of the DR is that it, naturally enough, uses the Greek forms of Hebrew personal and place names. I much prefer using Hebrew for Hebrew names of persons and places. For one thing, that’s what everybody does these days, Catholic and Protestant. A while ago a missionary priest was discussing Osee’s wife and I had no idea who he was referring to (Hosea). And call me critical (I agree with you) but I hate all the apostrophes used in the OT names in the RSV. For me, they detract from the flow of reading and provide no real useful information. Simply knowing where the accent is is insufficient if you want to know how to correctly pronounce many Hebrew proper names. For that information one needs a pronunciation dictionary (I saw one in a Sacristy once - presumably for the lectors’ use).

It seems to me the “best” Bible would be based on the Vulgate and use original language manuscripts that we have today to modify it where necessary to make it more literally accurate. However, if the passage unambiguously touches on faith or morals, or if there is much disagreement between different manuscripts as to what the most accurate wording would be, then the Vulgate should be kept as is. So, my question is, does such a version exist? Doesn’t the New Vulgate purport to be exactly that? If so, why do so many have such a problem with it? (those who can read Latin, anyway). I guess the most important question is, in its goal to more accurately reflect the original authors’ words, have errors in faith or morals crept in? If so, what are some examples? In one of his posts (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5896692&postcount=14), RonConte says that,

“The Nova Vulgata has some serious scholarly issues. Some sections are merely a light edit of the Clementine Vulgate. Other sections are substantially revised and even retranslated based on the Hebrew and Greek. This causes the Nova Vulgata to depart from the Latin Scriptural tradition, so that the Nova Vulgata does not fit the statement of the Council of Trent on the authority of the ‘old’ Latin Vulgate. The Nova Vulgata has not been in use for centuries, and it is not representative of the oldest Latin editions. Also, certain sections of the Nova Vulgata have translated the Greek or Hebrew loosely, much like a paraphrase translation. This makes the NV unsuitable as the source text for a translation into the vernacular.”

If much improvement can be made on Jerome’s translation, owing to him having a much more limited set of manuscripts to work from, or for whatever reason, what is wrong with “retranslating it based on the Hebrew and Greek” as long as it does not make any changes to the “faith and morals” of the Vulgate? Isn’t that what DAS is all about? His major second point on its purportedly loose translation of the Hebrew or Greek would be another, separate problem with the NV, if true. I, for one, have no idea. I’ll have to defer to Mr. Conte’s opinion.

 

[swampboy]

I, like you and countless others that post on here, have asked the same questions as you. I have been stuggling to find a decent Catholic bible for years…after purchasing the NAB, JB, NJB DR Haydock, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, I have finally found a translation that fits the bill…the Confraternity Bible. I have both 1962 and 1949 editions, with the 1949 edition being a hybrid of the DR OT and Confraternity NT, with a new translation of the psalms; and the 1962 edition having most of the OT re-translated as well as the Psalms. I think this translation covers it all…it as good notes, cross-refernces, and is built on a solid foundation–the DR. I do read the RSV-2CE and JB, with the JB being my next favorite for the notes and cross-refs, but the Confraternity edition really sings to me. Yes, it is based on the vulgate in essence, it seems to me that it is accurate and orthodox in its pesentation of the Scriptures.

 

[dcana]

I, like you and countless others that post on here, have asked the same questions as you. I have been stuggling to find a decent Catholic bible for years…after purchasing the NAB, JB, NJB DR Haydock, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, I have finally found a translation that fits the bill…the Confraternity Bible. I have both 1962 and 1949 editions, with the 1949 edition being a hybrid of the DR OT and Confraternity NT, with a new translation of the psalms; and the 1962 edition having most of the OT re-translated as well as the Psalms. I think this translation covers it all…it as good notes, cross-refernces, and is built on a solid foundation–the DR. I do read the RSV-2CE and JB, with the JB being my next favorite for the notes and cross-refs, but the Confraternity edition really sings to me. Yes, it is based on the vulgate in essence, it seems to me that it is accurate and orthodox in its pesentation of the Scriptures.

I have seen a lot of people recommending the DR OT with the Confraternity NT. Isn’t the Confraternity Bible an early version of the NAB? I thought the NAB was translated completely from the original Hebrew and Greek and basically disregarded the “Latin scriptural tradition.” How are these versions as far as accuracy goes? Are either of them still in print?

 

[crazzeto]

I like looking at two different translations when I study, in my last bible study RSV + Douay Rheims. I really like the Haydock Douay Rheims bible, Rev Haydock wrote some terrific notes!

 

[dcana]

Another question: what is the source of the included notes? Do they seem to be consistently orthodox?

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

I’m throwing this up here, in case you are abandoning the other post.​

Originally Posted by dcana
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, I know nothing in the way of biblical Greek or Hebrew. Thanks for the second bit of advice. I put them in in my 2nd post.

That’s the beuaty of an interlinear translation. You don’t need to know the language. It is a word for word literal translation. Not a translation that is put into proper english speach to make it understandable.

Check out this link an you’ll see what I mean. It’s the entire Septuigent in interlinear. Its very interesting to read the text in a literal translation. But you’ll see what I mean about wanting to read a mondern translation first.

It’s 17.6 MB so it may take a few seconds to load.
septuagint-interlinear-greek-…dTestament.pdf

 

[dcana]

I’m throwing this up here, in case you are abandoning the other post.​

That’s the beuaty of an interlinear translation. You don’t need to know the language. It is a word for word literal translation. Not a translation that is put into proper english speach to make it understandable.

Check out this link an you’ll see what I mean. It’s the entire Septuigent in interlinear. Its very interesting to read the text in a literal translation. But you’ll see what I mean about wanting to read a mondern translation first.

It’s 17.6 MB so it may take a few seconds to load.
septuagint-interlinear-greek-…dTestament.pdf

Thank you but aren’t you then at the mercy of the translators? Can’t there be different interpretations as to what a word actually means in a given context? They are interesting though.

 

[dcana]

I cant seem to download the file - I get a “problem loading page - server not found” error in Firefox.

 

[dcana]

I know, the best thing to do would be to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek - I’ll put that on my list of things to do. Even if one were to do that, it would seem rather presumptuous to think that your interpretation based on a few years of study is superior to bona fide Scripture scholars’ interpretations who have spent their whole lives studying the ancient languages - and not just as found in the Bible, but in thousands of texts.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

Here’s the parent site, try it
ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/2008/11/septuagint-interlinear-bible-lucians.html

As for being at the mercy of the translator, well… it’s not near the problem with an interlinear as when someone’s trying to word a phrase into English rather than give you a literal translation.

As a very simple example if some one were to say to you Buenos daiz, most people would translate it as “hello” or “hi” when it literally means “good day”.

“hello” is not really wrong, (it is a common greeting) but is not exactly what they said. The interlinear give you that exact literal translation. Sure someone might get a word wrong, but most of the problem with translation happens when people are attempting to give you the contextual meaning of what is said, and are paying less attention to giving you the literal translation. And, in scripture, many times it helps to have the literal translation, and then compare that to the contextual translation to see how they match up

 

[swampboy]

I have seen a lot of people recommending the DR OT with the Confraternity NT. Isn’t the Confraternity Bible an early version of the NAB? I thought the NAB was translated completely from the original Hebrew and Greek and basically disregarded the “Latin scriptural tradition.” How are these versions as far as accuracy goes? Are either of them still in print?

Yes, the Confraternity Bible is th predecessor of the NAB, but it is a revision of the DR. I do not know if the Greek/Hebrew was used in conjunction with the DR, but it makes sense that it might have been. The Confraternity Bible was scrapped in is entirety and replaced by the NAB which was a new translation, not just a revision. The Confraternity was completed I guess just prior to the NAB in 1970 (I think) but it is hard to find a complete edition. I just found a 1962 which has 33 books of the OT revised, including the Psalms. The notes are very orthodox-- I think they are mostly new, although I wonder if the notes in the OT of the older edition I have are from the DR. In my exerience, this bible is one of the fe that gives the balance of accuracy, decent notes, and cross-references. It also has features that newer Cathoic bibles typically lack such a a list of references, scripture readng guide, and other nice informational tables and maps. Everything about this bible is truly Catholic, unlike the modern translations. No inclusive language and no heretical notes…liberalism must not have infiltrated the Church when this project was in the works. It is out of print in its entirety (you still can get the NT) but they are al over ebay nd used book stores. If you like the DR, then get an olde verson with just the NT revised, or if you want it a little more modernized try to find one that was published after 1961 or so, as the later the date (closer to 1970) the more of the OT will be revised.

 

[Nicea325]

**I have been having such a hard time in figuring out what the “best” Bible would be to read and study. I know many will say, “the one that you would use most” or advise to have many translations, if possible, and I’m sure that’s good advise to some extent but I would like to have “one” that I hold above the others, one that I would go to if there are differences in translations or if I wanted to memorize a passage, for example. I’ve read so much commentary on the pluses and minuses of the Vulgate/DR, NV, and RSV (these are the three I’m mostly looking at) and others that my head hurts. There are so many different opinions. I am well aware of what Trent said about the Vulgate, namely that it is free from teaching error in faith or morals, and this holds much sway with me. But we must keep in mind Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu that says that biblical scholars should look at the many Hebrew and Greek manuscripts we have today and use sound scriptural scholarship in making future translations.

Sometimes I want to say “I’m using the RSV and that’s it” then I think I might as well use the Vulgate/DR; even if it might not be the most accurate Bible, at least I know what I read will be free of doctrinal error. One thing I don’t like about the OT of the DR is that it, naturally enough, uses the Greek forms of Hebrew personal and place names. I much prefer using Hebrew for Hebrew names of persons and places. For one thing, that’s what everybody does these days, Catholic and Protestant. A while ago a missionary priest was discussing Osee’s wife and I had no idea who he was referring to (Hosea). And call me critical (I agree with you) but I hate all the apostrophes used in the OT names in the RSV. For me, they detract from the flow of reading and provide no real useful information. Simply knowing where the accent is is insufficient if you want to know how to correctly pronounce many Hebrew proper names. For that information one needs a pronunciation dictionary (I saw one in a Sacristy once - presumably for the lectors’ use).

It seems to me the “best” Bible would be based on the Vulgate and use original language manuscripts that we have today to modify it where necessary to make it more literally accurate. However, if the passage unambiguously touches on faith or morals, or if there is much disagreement between different manuscripts as to what the most accurate wording would be, then the Vulgate should be kept as is. So, my question is, does such a version exist? Doesn’t the New Vulgate purport to be exactly that? If so, why do so many have such a problem with it? (those who can read Latin, anyway). I guess the most important question is, in its goal to more accurately reflect the original authors’ words, have errors in faith or morals crept in? If so, what are some examples? In one of his posts (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5896692&postcount=14), RonConte says that,

“The Nova Vulgata has some serious scholarly issues. Some sections are merely a light edit of the Clementine Vulgate. Other sections are substantially revised and even retranslated based on the Hebrew and Greek. This causes the Nova Vulgata to depart from the Latin Scriptural tradition, so that the Nova Vulgata does not fit the statement of the Council of Trent on the authority of the ‘old’ Latin Vulgate. The Nova Vulgata has not been in use for centuries, and it is not representative of the oldest Latin editions. Also, certain sections of the Nova Vulgata have translated the Greek or Hebrew loosely, much like a paraphrase translation. This makes the NV unsuitable as the source text for a translation into the vernacular.”

If much improvement can be made on Jerome’s translation, owing to him having a much more limited set of manuscripts to work from, or for whatever reason, what is wrong with “retranslating it based on the Hebrew and Greek” as long as it does not make any changes to the “faith and morals” of the Vulgate? Isn’t that what DAS is all about? His major second point on its purportedly loose translation of the Hebrew or Greek would be another, separate problem with the NV, if true. I, for one, have no idea. I’ll have to defer to Mr. Conte’s opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------**

I completely understand your confusion. What I did over the course of years is buy Bibles printed by the RCC,Protestants,Orthodoxs and read from all of them. That is what works best for me. I’ll be honest I have no ‘favorite’ per se. One month I will read my NKJV Study Bible and perhaps a few months later my RSV-CE 2nd edition. I like to compare them when I read. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Dcana,

What a delightful question. I have been learning Greek and scratching the surface of Hebrew for some years now – It will never have been all my life, even when I die – for there was a time as a child when I didn’t study either of them or even the bible, per se.

What you seem to be asking for is the “short” solution. Should I tell you anything about Greek, you are my mercy – unless you take me up on comparing the words and passages and wrestling with the scriptures. Ignorance of scripture, is ignorance of Christ – and it means the whole of scripture.

Do you recall the Council of Trent specifying which version of the Vulgate is without error? I don’t – and if it does not, then one ought not consider that the book of the “day” is what they mean – but rather that common (vulgar) Latin is sufficient, whether or not the best, to show forth the meaning of the scriptures accurately – eg: any vulgar bible published under the authority of the Catholic church. I’ll let you tell me if I am mistaken in my memory, as easily happens with the medications I take.

So, I would say that it is permissible to have new versions of the Vulgate which are covered under the auspices of Trent, as you suggest in your opening post.
There is also a danger in that the versions of the Vulgate may not be under direct control of church authority, (I don’t know whom translates and updates it as of now), and that errors could pop into newer versions. One simply has to look for the authority of the bishop (which even the NAB has) and hope for the best.

But as to the modern day sources – that is all we have for “originals”. Yet the Hebrew has not been maintained by the Catholic church, and many liturgical changes suggest that in order for Jews to fulfill their part purposely changed their liturgies to emphasize the scriptures differently than in Jesus’ day. There are also many footnotes from many different scholars indicating that the modern Hebrew is extremely obscure in places – and one doesn’t know if this is purposeful, accidental tampering, or simply loss of history and usage.

I think you know I ought NOT recommend a bible; and I don’t want to rub “caustic soda” or “lye” into your sore. But I do want to emphasize one thing – memorizing scripture verses in isolation is not what it means to learn scripture.
Scripture is a living dialog with God – if you wish a commentary, read the encyclicals of the popes. For example, on the parable of the prodigal Son there is an encyclical teaching on the core meaning. If you do not find what you are looking for easily, then God’s plan for you is to dig in more deeply the HARD way.

As far as the bible itself, you will always be at the mercy of translators and traitors. I suggest you pray to the only one who can inspire and grant you wisdom in addition to what he has revealed through the universal church. It is as Christ said, No-one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the son and anyone to whom he wishes to reveal him.

Matth 11:27 All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.

Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal him.

Amen, Amen, I say to you Filioque!

John 4:21 Jesus saith to her: Woman, believe me that the hour cometh, when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, adore the Father.
John 4:22 You adore that which you know not: we adore that which we know. For salvation is of the Jews.

The Samaritans were Hebrews who intermarried with pagans by force on account of God’s judgement of northern Israel. They held the books of Moses as did the Jews – to them also was revealed the Father’s name in triplicate. The knowledge being spoken of is IN the Holy spirit not about, or from, the holy spirit. Indeed:
And to samaritans and Jews alike, Jesus can say:

John 5:45 Think not that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one that accuseth you, Moses, in whom you trust.
John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him. And I will raise him up in the last day.

And he says this becuase experience is the meaning of knowledge;
Not words on a page which can be searched in vain; but only if he is found in that word.

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:
John 14:17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

And so we shall worship in “sprit, Holy, and Truth, Christ Jesus” because – and ONLY because filioque:

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go. For if I go not, the Paraclete will*** not ***come to you: but if I go, I will send him to you.

I happen to like the RSV (not the NRSVE, etc.) as an apologetics bible. It has problems, but like the NAB it has been approved for even liturgial use in the past – and I do not recall that ever being REVOKED explicitly. And neither do any of the priests I put the question to. I find it less annoying than the newer NAB.

I happen to be quoting the DR at the moment, just so you know.

–Andrew.

 

[StMarkStLuke983]

I have both NAB and the RSCV -2E
I often bounce back and forth to look for the best translation of a particular passage.
No version is perfect, but compared to all the Bible’s I have experienced the RSCV-2E has the least slips in the translation (compared to more than a 100 different Bible’s including Catholic and Protestant)

Avoid the KJV and other similar takes, they have some extremely misleading slips strategically placed in some key Scriptures. Very Misleading!

If you can afford it, I would recommend the Navarre Study Bible ($400 for the full set OT and NT)

Hope this helps,
God Bless

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have both NAB and the RSCV -2E
I often bounce back and forth to look for the best translation of a particular passage. …

There are a few books missing in the RSV without the CE, I am sorry to all for the typographical error. My computer beeps because of another’s post, and I behold what I wrote in haste

I haven’t read the RSCV-2E to know; but as long as it isn’t the same as the NRSV and is approved – then enjoy. – But I do agree if you can stand a bit of over zealous piety in the footnotes, the Navarre series is enjoyable to read; I, being poor, only have Matthew, though.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is no one best translation. If you are serious about studying the Bible, you should own several different versions, and make use of various online Bibles and Bible resources.

 

[Nicea325]

Avoid the KJV and other similar takes, they have some extremely misleading slips strategically placed in some key Scriptures. Very Misleading!

Be more specific? Are referring to the KJV with the archaic usage of the English language?

 

[crazzeto]

Avoid the KJV and other similar takes, they have some extremely misleading slips strategically placed in some key Scriptures. Very Misleading!

Be more specific? Are referring to the KJV with the archaic usage of the English language?

Huh, that’s interesting (also responding to the person you are), because I love the Douay bible and it has extrodenarly similar verbage as the KJV. Differences:

KJV contains an error in Matthew 6:13 - Inclusion of the doxology here is erroneous.
KJV uses weaker “highly favored” verbage in Luke 1:28 rather than better (though perhaps still lacking) full of grace found in Douay. Some Catholic bibles use the weaker verbage too, but it’s still a differnce.
I know chapter / vs. #'s are different in some books
Perhaps the biggest issue for Catholics - Lack of Deutorcononical books.
Douay draws more heavily on Greek for Psalms, where as KJV strictly uses Hebrew (this was St Jerome’s choice, as the Douay is a very accurate translation of the Vulgate).

I’d recommend a Douay over a KJV for Catholics in general, but I wouldn’t say a Catholic reading the KJV is in for a heap of trouble. At least certinaly if they do at least moderate study of bible history.

 

[dcana]

Thank you all for all your answers. They have been very helpful, though I wish somebody would answer my questions regarding the Nova Vulgata.

Dcana,

What you seem to be asking for is the “short” solution.

Yes, exactly. It seems more and more apparent that there isn’t one.

Do you recall the Council of Trent specifying which version of the Vulgate is without error? I don’t – and if it does not, then one ought not consider that the book of the “day” is what they mean – but rather that common (vulgar) Latin is sufficient, whether or not the best, to show forth the meaning of the scriptures accurately – eg: any vulgar bible published under the authority of the Catholic church. I’ll let you tell me if I am mistaken in my memory, as easily happens with the medications I take.

I don’t know much about the specifics of it either, but it seems to me that they had to be referring to the version of the Vulgate that was in use at the time. If they were not holding up one particular version of the Bible to be the standard regarding teachings on faith and morals what would be the use of making such an affirmation?

I think you know I ought NOT recommend a bible; and I don’t want to rub “caustic soda” or “lye” into your sore. But I do want to emphasize one thing – memorizing scripture verses in isolation is not what it means to learn scripture. Scripture is a living dialog with God – if you wish a commentary, read the encyclicals of the popes

Yes, I agree, I didn’t want to imply that it was. However, it is still important to learn some passages by heart. I read somewhere that, by a miraculous grace from God, St. Anthony knew all of the Bible word-for-word. Don’t know if that’s merely a pious legend or if it is really true.

If you do not find what you are looking for easily, then God’s plan for you is to dig in more deeply the HARD way.

Aw, do I have to? It’s true, I look for the easy way to do things but God always seems to make me do things the hard way and to find things out for myself. Sometimes I wish He’d just out and tell me things I want to know from Him by one means or another. I feel like, "Well, Lord, you know exactly what you have in mind for me in this situation as to what would be most beneficial for me and what would make me most joyful and bring me closest to you and I don’t, so what’s your idea?

I suggest you pray to the only one who can inspire and grant you wisdom in addition to what he has revealed through the universal church. It is as Christ said, No-one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the son and anyone to whom he wishes to reveal him.

That’s some good advice. That’s what really matters, after all.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t know much about the specifics of it either, but it seems to me that they had to be referring to the version of the Vulgate that was in use at the time. If they were not holding up one particular version of the Bible to be the standard regarding teachings on faith and morals what would be the use of making such an affirmation?

Well … I Notice that Trent does not say that the earlier Greek copies are free from Error.
Thus, there are at least two standards anyway… and then multiple versions of the Hebrew as well for the old testament to throw in a third.

So I can echo your question right back to you – what is the use of the Latin Church saying the Latin translation is THE standard for faith and morals when much of the Catholic Church never HAS used that translation.

I would comment that most of the eastern rites still use Greek and no translation at all. (Though perhaps much is in modern Greek.) The protestant “reformation” is primarily a phenomenon in Latin cuhrch territories; that’s why it has concern for the Vulgate at all.

I think the writers of the documents of Trent wanted the common catholic to make the connection that the THEN present day Vulgate was as good as anything else – but it would be foolish to limit it to that one copy:

The Catholic church has never defined dogmatically that the Vulgate is free from misinterpretation, or poor translations in places; eg: If it did we would easily mocked (and justly), for in the earlier versions of the Vulgate – Moses came down from the mountains with “horns” rather than a glowing face. (That would be rather a devilish caricature in 20th century eyes.) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with horns, in the sense that at the time there were horns of the altar, and kings were represented by horns, so they DID indicate honor BUT … An unfortunate consequence of fascination with the evil nature of the kings in NT book of Revelation is to associate (connotation) “devils” with horns.
And frankly, there are places where the exact same sentence in Greek is translated TWO different ways into Latin in a single version of the Vulgate – which, then, is authoritative?

To the heart of your question, though, the purpose of making such a statement is simply to reply to the confusion that large numbers of new (and varied) translations were having. eg: against the bandwagon effect that the sheer numbers of new translations (and prints thereof) implied that these other translations were superior in some way.

Yes, I agree, I didn’t want to imply that it was. However, it is still important to learn some passages by heart. I read somewhere that, by a miraculous grace from God, St. Anthony knew all of the Bible word-for-word. Don’t know if that’s merely a pious legend or if it is really true.

Fair enough.
But which version?
and, as an aside, I think many priests were required to memorize large potions of scripture in times past. I recall a saint, whose name I do not recall, who could only memorize one passage – and his entire community believed he was too much of a dunce to pass the examination from memory to become a priest. But of all things, his test happened to consist of that one passage.

I feel like, "Well, Lord, you know exactly what you have in mind for me in this situation as to what would be most beneficial for me and what would make me most joyful and bring me closest to you and I don’t, so what’s your idea?

And you seem to be suggesting his present course of action is inadequate?

I share the feeling, but if I am to trust he knows best – then one of the things required is to be humble and willing to accept that God has a reason for the inconvenience; and just put the feeling aside as best I can. I sympathize with you.

Sometime I think it is for these causes (and more…):
As Peter said, the unlearned and the unstable twist scripture to their own destruction. And again, there is the psalm where the psalmist begs God that the wicked fall into their own traps.

They do – and we have guides to point the way where certain items have become obscure through the ages. The point of Dogma – not to repeat past mistakes.

Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.