Has the chapter:verse convention led people astray?

[fermat]

I was behind a van the other day on my way home from work. It had a bumper sticker that said,
"If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, you will be saved. Romans 10:9".

It occurred to me that if I were to engage this person in conversation that he/she would probably believe in Sola Fide and that all they needed to do to be saved was to ‘confess with their mouth’s…’

I realize I am generalizing here, but is seems that most discussion with my protestant brethren focus on chapter and verse renditions of scripture, as opposed to looking at it in context. My favorite example is Ephesians 2:8-10. Ephesians 2:8-9 and used quite frequently and 10 is ignored even though it plays a critical role in understanding the verse.

Now I tend to say, ‘…scripture says…’ when evangelizing, as opposed to, ‘… in Ephesians Chapter 2…’

Has anyone had an luck breaking people out of the chapter:verse mind set?

 

[JimG]

I don’t have any problem with using chapters and verses in order to cite particular passages of scripture. But I don’t really like to see long passages quoted with those numbers still marking each verse, because it sort of distracts from the continuity of the reading.

We have to realize that such divisions–chapter & verse–are not part of the bible as originally written and are a relatively recent innovation.

 

[VetA]

I was behind a van the other day on my way home from work. It had a bumper sticker that said,
"If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, you will be saved. Romans 10:9".

It occurred to me that if I were to engage this person in conversation that he/she would probably believe in Sola Fide and that all they needed to do to be saved was to ‘confess with their mouth’s…’

I realize I am generalizing here, but is seems that most discussion with my protestant brethren focus on chapter and verse renditions of scripture, as opposed to looking at it in context. My favorite example is Ephesians 2:8-10. Ephesians 2:8-9 and used quite frequently and 10 is ignored even though it plays a critical role in understanding the verse.

Now I tend to say, ‘…scripture says…’ when evangelizing, as opposed to, ‘… in Ephesians Chapter 2…’

Has anyone had an luck breaking people out of the chapter:verse mind set?

[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 2:8-10[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JRKH]

Short answer - Yes. Chapter and verse has led some astray.
Not as many as one might suppose though.
I’ve been in enough conversations with verse quoting christians to know that many have looked not just at the verse but the context as well. Of course that does not mean they have drawn the correct conclusion from it…

Peace
James

 

[Apollos]

I was behind a van the other day on my way home from work. It had a bumper sticker that said,
"If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, you will be saved. Romans 10:9".

It occurred to me that if I were to engage this person in conversation that he/she would probably believe in Sola Fide and that all they needed to do to be saved was to ‘confess with their mouth’s…’

I realize I am generalizing here, but is seems that most discussion with my protestant brethren focus on chapter and verse renditions of scripture, as opposed to looking at it in context. My favorite example is Ephesians 2:8-10. Ephesians 2:8-9 and used quite frequently and 10 is ignored even though it plays a critical role in understanding the verse.

Now I tend to say, ‘…scripture says…’ when evangelizing, as opposed to, ‘… in Ephesians Chapter 2…’

Has anyone had an luck breaking people out of the chapter:verse mind set?

I see it as part of the Protestant ethic of pseudolearning. It’s the same ethic that produces labors of love such as interlinear editions of Biblical texts (e.g. amazon.com/Interlinear-Bible-Hebrew-Greek-English-English-Hebrew/dp/1565639774) so that you can tell your friends some truly amazing things about the original Hebrew and Greek without actually learning any Hebrew and Greek.

I like to catch my Protestant friends off guard by asking them what the previous verse says. For example, if they try to convince me of something against the Catholic faith by quoting John 3:16, I ask them, “Yes, but what does John 3:***15 ***say?”, and I remind them that context is important. Occasionally, if they can’t quote verse 15, I’ll say something like, “Hm. You gave me the impression that you have the text memorized. Now I see that you only memorized a sentence or two here and there. Isn’t there anything to be gained by mastery of the whole, or do you approach holy writ the way others approach Nostradamus?” (But that’s a little heavy handed and I only use it when they’re actually trying to convert me.)

Partly because of the Protestant tendency to “give chapter and verse”, I have deliberately moved away from that way of thinking and speaking. I have moved away from Bible study methods that focus on unpacking individual verses and passages, and instead I just read an entire book straight through at once. I have noticed that the fifty or so proof texts that Protestants use all the time are embedded in much larger and more subltle overall arguments that they generally don’t seem to be aware of - forest for the trees.

In an argument with a Protestant I was able to explain that Romans 3 is not about our inability to be justified by virtuous behavior, but about our inability to be justified by conformity to Mosaic Law with special emphasis on rules that have no apparent moral import, like keeping kosher. I was able to do this only because I had a perspective on the first third of Romans in context, and all the proof texts like 3:23 and 4:3 were but threads in a cloth. The apparent contradiction with James was a non-issue.

You can drive home the point by asking broader, mid-level questions of your Protestant friends. “What is the overall argument of Hebrews?” “Why do you think 2 Corinthians has such an abrupt change of thread right in the middle?” “Do you think Peter copied from Jude, or that Jude copied from Peter?” If they don’t know what you’re talking about, tell them to go read their Bibles

 

[StTommyMore]

I see it as part of the Protestant ethic of pseudolearning. It’s the same ethic that produces labors of love such as interlinear editions of Biblical texts (e.g. amazon.com/Interlinear-Bible-Hebrew-Greek-English-English-Hebrew/dp/1565639774) so that you can tell your friends some truly amazing things about the original Hebrew and Greek without actually learning any Hebrew and Greek.

I like to catch my Protestant friends off guard by asking them what the previous verse says. For example, if they try to convince me of something against the Catholic faith by quoting John 3:16, I ask them, “Yes, but what does John 3:***15 ***say?”, and I remind them that context is important. Occasionally, if they can’t quote verse 15, I’ll say something like, “Hm. You gave me the impression that you have the text memorized. Now I see that you only memorized a sentence or two here and there. Isn’t there anything to be gained by mastery of the whole, or do you approach holy writ the way others approach Nostradamus?” (But that’s a little heavy handed and I only use it when they’re actually trying to convert me.)

Partly because of the Protestant tendency to “give chapter and verse”, I have deliberately moved away from that way of thinking and speaking. I have moved away from Bible study methods that focus on unpacking individual verses and passages, and instead I just read an entire book straight through at once. I have noticed that the fifty or so proof texts that Protestants use all the time are embedded in much larger and more subltle overall arguments that they generally don’t seem to be aware of - forest for the trees.

In an argument with a Protestant I was able to explain that Romans 3 is not about our inability to be justified by virtuous behavior, but about our inability to be justified by conformity to Mosaic Law with special emphasis on rules that have no apparent moral import, like keeping kosher. I was able to do this only because I had a perspective on the first third of Romans in context, and all the proof texts like 3:23 and 4:3 were but threads in a cloth. The apparent contradiction with James was a non-issue.

You can drive home the point by asking broader, mid-level questions of your Protestant friends. “What is the overall argument of Hebrews?” “Why do you think 2 Corinthians has such an abrupt change of thread right in the middle?” “Do you think Peter copied from Jude, or that Jude copied from Peter?” If they don’t know what you’re talking about, tell them to go read their Bibles

You know, this is good stuff. I will remember that whenever some of my Protestant relation start throwing individual verses around. Once you realize that Hebrews was written to a homogeneous community of Jews that was being led back to the Old Covenant, verses usually taken out of context take on their proper meaning.

 

[SalesianSDB]

Yesterday I heard a Protestant pastor talking about the Psalms and he said that with the verse division it sometimes loses its meaning and loses its poetry since the mind usually reads, stops at the verse number, and then continues. And he told his congregation that since the verse divisions are not inspired they can cross them out with their pens or pencils. I thought it was interesting.

 

[inocente]

I was behind a van the other day on my way home from work. It had a bumper sticker that said,
"If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord’, you will be saved. Romans 10:9".

I like that a lot. I mean, you’re driving along never having heard of Jesus and all you have to do is shout “Jesus is Lord” to your windscreen.

One simple incantation and you’re good to go. The rest of us have been getting it totally wrong all these years with our comprehension + faith + works.

"If you confess with your mouth, ‘Einstein is super’, you will get the Nobel prize for physics”.

 

[StTommyMore]

I like that a lot. I mean, you’re driving along never having heard of Jesus and all you have to do is shout “Jesus is Lord” to your windscreen.

One simple incantation and you’re good to go. The rest of us have been getting it totally wrong all these years with our comprehension + faith + works.

"If you confess with your mouth, ‘Einstein is super’, you will get the Nobel prize for physics”.

That is a dreadful oversimplification of the Gospel. This interpretation is a direct contradiction with other passages. That is the problem that the OP is talking about. Pulling a single verse out of context like this leads to a misrepresentation of the meaning of the Scriptures.

 

[COPLAND_3]

The numbers, chapters, verses, etc has not led people astray, if anything they have helped people to find their way around the Scriptures more practically. Whether or not those things are in there, people always find ways to bring confusion to lead people astray. If those things lead some people astray then those people have no buisness handling the Scriptures. I do like what someone said in this thread about those numbers at each verse are distracting concerning the continuity. I can see that. But that can be overcome with a little effort. I used to be distracted by some of the older translations that use thee, thou, henceforth, etc, but over time I learned to read it without being distracted.

When it comes to the Bible, we as Catholics need to learn to be versatile, to where we can have dialogue with anybody about the Scriptures.

 

[StTommyMore]

The numbers, chapters, verses, etc has not led people astray, if anything they have helped people to find their way around the Scriptures more practically. Whether or not those things are in there, people always find ways to bring confusion to lead people astray. If those things lead some people astray then those people have no buisness handling the Scriptures. I do like what someone said in this thread about those numbers at each verse are distracting concerning the continuity. I can see that. But that can be overcome with a little effort. I used to be distracted by some of the older translations that use thee, thou, henceforth, etc, but over time I learned to read it without being distracted.

When it comes to the Bible, we as Catholics need to learn to be versatile, to where we can have dialogue with anybody about the Scriptures.

It can be said that people have been led astray as an unintended consequence. Focusing on a single verse, while ignoring the rest of the chapter or book has led to gross misinterpretation.

 

[COPLAND_3]

It can be said that people have been led astray as an unintended consequence. Focusing on a single verse, while ignoring the rest of the chapter or book has led to gross misinterpretation.

True, but that is not the fault of numbering in the Bible, those are there so people can quickly locate particular passages or give citations for many reasons. You can only imagine how difficult it would be to find certain things or to verify someones quotation of Scripture if we did not have the numbering system. It is for our benefit, but it is expected to be handled responsibly. Our Catechism of the Catholic Church has numbered paragraphs, and thankfully so or it would be the same kind of nightmare to locate passages.

 

[NHInsider]

Today’s first reading is a great example of the “problem” with the chapter/verse divisions - makes it seem like John saw the Ark in Heaven, and then sometime later, he saw the Woman crowned with the stars. Whereas without the breaks, you get “I saw the Ark - a Woman!”

 

[Apollos]

Today’s first reading is a great example of the “problem” with the chapter/verse divisions - makes it seem like John saw the Ark in Heaven, and then sometime later, he saw the Woman crowned with the stars. Whereas without the breaks, you get “I saw the Ark - a Woman!”

There’s nothing quite like reading a book of the Bible - or an encyclical for that matter - with all the numbers deleted and all the paragraphs sewn together. You get a real feel for the flow.

In a religion class I taught this summer I had them read Humanae Vitae in the unformatted version I prepared for them, one long continuous paragraph, and had them break it up themselves into what seemed like logical chunks and insert their own headings.

 

[inocente]

That is a dreadful oversimplification of the Gospel.

My sense of humor, reread my post . The guy with the bumper sticker is preaching to his choir out of pride, it’s ridiculous of him to think one verse can bring anyone to Christ.

 

[colmcille1]

My sense of humor, reread my post . The guy with the bumper sticker is preaching to his choir out of pride, it’s ridiculous of him to think one verse can bring anyone to Christ.

Hi inocente,
I actually got your sense of humour straight off on that one! Funnily enough, I am amused when atheists start quoting Bible passages! My first thought is: what a cheek! My second, more reflective, thought is: well, maybe they are really searching to come home!
Btw, I love my Douay-Rheims Bible. It’s poetry appeals to a wordy fellow like me!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.

 

[Vixit]

It can be said that people have been led astray as an unintended consequence. Focusing on a single verse, while ignoring the rest of the chapter or book has led to gross misinterpretation.

Agreed. The chapters and verses are extremely helpful, which is why every single one of us uses them. It is the fact that most Prots are raised to cherry-pick from among those verses that is the problem. I’m from a Prot background, and let me tell you, it’s not an accident. They have to deliberately ignore large chunks of scripture to make their various beliefs make sense.

 

[StTommyMore]

Agreed. The chapters and verses are extremely helpful, which is why every single one of us uses them. It is the fact that most Prots are raised to cherry-pick from among those verses that is the problem. I’m from a Prot background, and let me tell you, it’s not an accident. They have to deliberately ignore large chunks of scripture to make their various beliefs make sense.

Absolutely correct. I was introduced to Christianity by way of the “Romans Road” which is dependent on taking verses out of context.

 

[inocente]

It is the fact that most Prots are raised to cherry-pick from among those verses that is the problem. I’m from a Prot background, and let me tell you, it’s not an accident.

What’s the equivalent nickname for Catholics, or would you find that offensive, antagonistic and demeaning? Just wondering.

 

[twinc]

I see it as part of the Protestant ethic of pseudolearning. It’s the same ethic that produces labors of love such as interlinear editions of Biblical texts (e.g. amazon.com/Interlinear-Bible-Hebrew-Greek-English-English-Hebrew/dp/1565639774) so that you can tell your friends some truly amazing things about the original Hebrew and Greek without actually learning any Hebrew and Greek.

I like to catch my Protestant friends off guard by asking them what the previous verse says. For example, if they try to convince me of something against the Catholic faith by quoting John 3:16, I ask them, “Yes, but what does John 3:***15 ***say?”, and I remind them that context is important. Occasionally, if they can’t quote verse 15, I’ll say something like, “Hm. You gave me the impression that you have the text memorized. Now I see that you only memorized a sentence or two here and there. Isn’t there anything to be gained by mastery of the whole, or do you approach holy writ the way others approach Nostradamus?” (But that’s a little heavy handed and I only use it when they’re actually trying to convert me.)

Partly because of the Protestant tendency to “give chapter and verse”, I have deliberately moved away from that way of thinking and speaking. I have moved away from Bible study methods that focus on unpacking individual verses and passages, and instead I just read an entire book straight through at once. I have noticed that the fifty or so proof texts that Protestants use all the time are embedded in much larger and more subltle overall arguments that they generally don’t seem to be aware of - forest for the trees.

In an argument with a Protestant I was able to explain that Romans 3 is not about our inability to be justified by virtuous behavior, but about our inability to be justified by conformity to Mosaic Law with special emphasis on rules that have no apparent moral import, like keeping kosher. I was able to do this only because I had a perspective on the first third of Romans in context, and all the proof texts like 3:23 and 4:3 were but threads in a cloth. The apparent contradiction with James was a non-issue.

You can drive home the point by asking broader, mid-level questions of your Protestant friends. “What is the overall argument of Hebrews?” “Why do you think 2 Corinthians has such an abrupt change of thread right in the middle?” “Do you think Peter copied from Jude, or that Jude copied from Peter?” If they don’t know what you’re talking about, tell them to go read their Bibles

of course scripture does say “remove the beam from thine own eye” or as near as that that makes no difference - you keep on harping on how to read a/the whole book through at once and no longer study the bible and here you do greatly err for we are in fact advised to search and study the scriptures and not to just read it,by Christ,St.Paul and the Church - anyway what does Jn.3:16 say that negates what is said at Jn.3:15 - btw the apparent contradiction with James is not a non issue.James it seems was a by works believing Jew and so acceptable by the Jews as Bishop of Jerusalem.It was it seems that only just before his death,which was after he wrote his by works epistle that he proclaimed and accepted Jesus as the door or way.It was because of this that he was hurled from the temple pinnacle to his death and final bludgeoning to death by a fullers staff - twinc