I want to get into the scriptures. This is my plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter SalesianSDB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SalesianSDB

Guest
I really want to get into Scriptures. I am sometimes jealous of our Protestant brothers and sisters that can recite verses upon verses from memory. So I decided that I am going to get deep into scripture. I have two ideas:

Plan #1- New Testament Very Long Term plan
I thought of this plan as the plan to help me out the most with knowing Scripture, especially the New Testament. I would spend one year with the Gospels, one year with the Pauline Letters, 6 months with the other Epistles (maybe a year), a month or 2 with Revelation.

As you can see, it would take a very very long time to read through the New Testament. If anything, this plan will help me out in delving deep into the New Testament and may even get me to memorize verses.

Plan #2: Daily Readings
I just saw a book at a Catholic store yesterday of all the readings for 2012. I just thought of maybe getting that and just reading the reading of the day. I’m just going to have to be very disciplined and read every day.

What do you think? Which do you think I should follow? Any other suggestions?

Also, if I do decide on a plan that isn’t #2, I was considering getting a new Bible. Maybe Scott Hahn’s Ignatius Bible or the Orthodox Study Bible (mainly because of the septuagint and I like the NKJV). I currently have the NRSV-CE Youth Bible.
 
both plans are really good i grew up in a protestant church and we were taught the bible verses from a young age at sunday school basically given a verse a week to memorise for that week i converted when i was 18 but out of the 2 plans i would go for number 2 but i like both of the plans number 2 plan would be great as a more longterm one i think
 
I’ve been reading for the last few months according to a reading plan which can be found on the Coming Home Network’s website. It has three short Biblical readings, usually a chapter or two each, for every day. The first reading is from the OT, the second from the Psalms and other wisdom literature, and the third from the New Testament. The best part of this reading plan is that it also includes readings from the Catechism, which is also good to get deep into as well.

You can find it here: chnetwork.org/readguide04.pdf

Hope this helps! God bless your efforts to learn more about the Scriptures!
-ACEGC
 
In my experience reading anything aloud is the best way to remember it. I think it is like remembering songs or poetry. I’ve noticed people with dementia can often recite long poems or scriptures they learned when young, and songs also. The English of all the older Bibles and some of the new is written in a way that makes it memorable when read aloud. It is also a good way to practice your speech skills! 🙂 Incidentally when I saw the heading of your post about “getting into scripture”, although I understood the idiom,my first thought was that the post was about time travel, and that you hoped to get a mention! I have since been trying to work out where I would choose to travel to and what I would do to ensure the scripture writer recorded my presence. Maybe by turning up with a basket of fruit to augment the loaves and fishes?🙂
 
You should easily be able to make your way through a prayerful study of the NT in a month or less, and a very detailed study of commentaries, words, etc. in two months: it’s about 300 pages long if printed like a normal book in single-column, and I’m sure you’ve read a fiction book of the same length in a single day before: multiply that by 30 or 60 to allow for study, reverence and prayerfulness. Read half a dozen chapters a day (two pages) minimum, and you may find yourself drawn in - you will - and want to continue reading. Remember to give yourself another book to read, religious or not (any fiction book or philosophy text, or the Imitation of Christ, or anything by GK Chesterton, CS Lewis, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Papal writings, etc.) so you don’t get “over-Scriptured” by having nothing else to read in the beginning, and feeling like you’ve mentally backed yourself in to a corner, and losing interest or evading it. Reading the Bible is a grace and pleasure, not a penance. Read it like so:

St John
1 John
2 John
3 John (these four works written by John are greatly related, and nuances are picked up much more easily when reading them together)

Matthew (or, you can come back to Matthew later, if you have “synoptic overload”)

St Luke
Acts (Luke and Acts should always be read back-to-back, as they were originally one book)

Romans
1-2 Corinthians
Hebrews

And the rest in whatever order they’re in the Bible, or any other order, except Revelation last.

I think that Pope Benedict XVI’s two-volume commentary on the Gospels, “Jesus of Nazareth”, would make a good companion at some part in the study, possibly after you’ve read the New Testament or the Gospels, as a way of diving deeper in to the text theologically.

It’s important to read it in a good translation, as well. I would recommend the Douay-Rheims above all others if you can handle the language. If not, the Confraternity, and if not that, the RSV-2CE, the RSV-CE as contained in the Navarre Bible, the King James, or New King James. Some translations (like the NAB) should be avoided at all costs if you want to read for spiritual edification and growth in faith. The Orthodox Study Bible NT, except for one or two notes about the Papacy, is far more orthodox, in the Catholic sense, and faith-inspiring than the NAB or NRSV. If you read the NAB without taking the time to become an amateur Biblical scholar, it will be faith-challenging, to say the least: not an edifying experience. One has to mentally wrestle with an NAB whenever you attempt to read it and if you’re not prepared, it’s far from certain which one of you will win.

A Douay-Rheims Bible can be bought for $10 used on Amazon, an new RSV-2CE ICSBNT for $15, the entire RSV-2CE text-only for $20, a pocket Confraternity for $10, the entire Confraternity-Douay Bible for $10, and various King James editions from $7 and up (including shipping). It’s definitely worth it (alas, I would say mandatory, and highly advisable at the least) to spend the little money for a better Bible.

Don’t waste the money on a “reading plan”. Use the money for a useful Bible, and follow the reading plan in it (most Bibles come with a reading plan), or follow one off of the internet, or read it like I’ve suggested. A “daily Bible” gimmick seems to be a waste of money that can be much better spent since you don’t have a decent Bible already.

The NRSV should be avoided like the plague for devotional reading, both for inaccuracy, modernism, inclusive language, and inelegant rendering (although not nearly as bad as the NAB on the last charge, and on most of the former ones: it’s far better than the NAB all around), not to mention the fact that it’s translated with an eye to anti-supernaturalism and disregarding any possibility of OT prophecy or miracle, obscuring much of the intertextuality. The NRSV-CE is identical to the NRSV, except it has the deuterocanon in the OT. The text is identical.

Edit: the first reading plan is ridiculous, and seems worthless. With something like that, you’ll have forgotten Matthew by the time you read Luke (or, more likely, you’ll have forgotten the Annunciation before the Crucifixion), and so on: it’s hard to put in to words, but - you won’t get anything from the text, taking it that slowly, unless you memorize it all and then re-read it mentally at a quicker pace. You’ll not be able to tie connections together, nor will you remember the context in that sense.
 
SalesianSDB said:
What do you think? Which do you think I should follow? Any other suggestions?
.
Click to expand...
I went to the Denver Catholic Biblical School before they had these nifty workbooks. amazon.com/Denver-Catholic-Biblical-School-Program/dp/0809194198 I don’t know, since I left Denver, if they are still publishing, have an active four year program as they used to or what. But I’d start with this. (I might re-buy myself as the person I lent mine to never returned it!)

Also, if you get a few Bibles in the house, make sure you have concordances for them. The USCCB site is a great one for study because the references are all linked together. usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

A Harmony of the Gospels is also very useful.
 
If you’re already thinking of the Orthodox Study Bible, and don’t mind the few notes on the Papacy (they’re not faith-challenging in the slightest compared to something like the NAB), I would highly recommend it, especially in the Old Testament (although I think the NETS is better in places, especially Sirach: the OSB’s rendering of Sirach leaves much to be desired), which doesn’t obscure prophecy and is unapologetically Christological. The NKJV is one of the best, if not the best, modern translations for devotional purposes, whether it originally was Protestant or not, and in the OSB, you get a decent LXX translation and the full canon of Scripture.
 
Everybody is different and what works for some may not work so well with others. The way I like to study Scripture is to pick a book of the Bible to study and then read along with a good commentary or two. It really helps to have a good commentary in order to explain the meaning of those hard to understand passages.
 
There’s also a Bible that’s called My Catholic Bible (I think that’s right), which has daily readings and takes you all the way through the Bible in one year. Each day is divided up with a couple of Old Testament Chapers and a couple of New Testament chapters. I did this one year and found it very helpful.

Scout :tiphat:
 
I do the daily liturgical readings of the Church. I pray the LOTH in the morning and then follow with the daily readings.
 
My wife and do both. We’re reading a chapter a night of the NT, and once we finish Revelation, we’ll start reading a chapter a night of the OT (in sequential order of both). We also read the daily readings. It takes us about 10 minutes to do both.
 
Other, because I have tried both methods and there is a third that blows both of them out of the water.

Let me illustrate:

Get one of your Protestant friends who can quote verses from memory to tell you what the previous and following verse are. Do you know John 3:15? Or when someone quotes Hebrews, ask him what the overall argument of Hebrews is, get him to give you a summary/outline. Bet he can’t. Ask him what the five major discourses of Jesus are in Matthew. Ask him about Luke/Acts, if he sees a sort of “path” that the two-part work takes, and if he sees any significance to the times and locations of the things Jesus and the Apostles said and did. I’ll bet he doesn’t have a view of the whole, just isolated verses like those quotation websites that give you the quote and the author but not the context.

You never hear of people who say they’re going to read all of Shakespeare that they slept through in high school English and they say well I’m going to devote X amount of time to the histories, X amount to the tragedies, and so on. They just start at either the first play, or they start with the one they like, or they have the video to. Then they just read the play, straight through if they can. They don’t read one chapter a day as if some artificial controlling/dispensing plan like it was an antibiotic is the way to go, they just read and read until lights-out. They also don’t get out their old notes and read it in the same plan as their teacher assigned it. They just read until they’re done.

Then the great quotations start emerging. If you read with a pencil, you can mark the lines that make great quotes, and after you’re done reading you can go back every so often and look at what you marked, and you’ll be memorizing quotes without trying to. O brave new world that has such people in it! Is this a dagger I see before me? The lady doth protest too much methinks. See? And I can tell you exactly where and why each quote is important in each play. Can your Protestant friend explain the role that 3:16-17 has in the bigger picture of 2 Timothy? If you read one chapter per day, you will totally miss what’s going on overall.

I do not recommend following the lectionary tables. If you follow (or worse, read) the lectionary you will be missing huge chunks of important stuff. Plus isolated verses are scratched from the readings. That’s because it’s just easier to avoid reading certain uncomfortable things out loud to the congregation and then having to explain it away in the sermon. If you examine the chapter and verse references and check off what’s missing and look it up, you’ll see what I mean. The Psalms are so heavily edited for brevity that it’s not worth it.
 
I would caution all that the Bible is first and foremost a story. It is the story of the history of covenants. It is the story of man’s inablity to trust God, and God slowly teaching man that he can be trusted, eventually rising from the dead to prove it to us. It is the story of God the King establishing his kingdom. It is all these stories and more. Like any story, it really has to be read as a story. As an example, the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, place Revelation at the end for a reason. God assumes that we have and understood everything before it. That’s why it is last. We are supposed to understand what came prior. We are not supposed to read the last book of the Bible first and expect to understand it. The Bible doesn’t work that way.

You can read the NT, or different readings every day, and you can come to a great understanding of what some passages and verses mean, but a good understanding of what God is trying to tell us in the Bible is only achievable when we read it as a narrative, as a story, which starts “In the Beginning” and ends with “Come Lord Jesus.” We don’t read the Lord of the Rings or a Tom Clancy novel by jumping from chapter to chapter randomly, and a good understanding of the Bible comes with study of the narrative thread - the story of covenant, the story of trust, the story of salvation. And some books are narrative, part of the story, like Exodus and Kings and Matthew, while other books supplement the story, like Leviticus and 1 John and many of the epistles and pastoral letters.

At a minimum, it is importnat to get some guidance on how Catholics read the Bible, the senses of scripture - literal and spiritual senses - and begin to read the Bible the Catholic way. There are many good books on how Catholics read the Bible. Just Google “How Catholics read the Bible” or “The four senses of scripture.”

I would stronly urge anyone who want’s to have any kind of deep understanding of the Bible to get into a good study which cover the whole Bible as a story revealed to us by God. The best I have seen is The Bible Timeline by Jeff Cavins. It is worth the effort and cost. Your parish might pick up the cost of the DVD sets, which arn’t cheap, and help you do a study. It is definitely worth the cost and effort.

-Tim-
 
Khalid said:
…Read it like so:… And the rest in whatever order they’re in the Bible, or any other order, except Revelation last… good translation… You’ll not be able to tie connections together, nor will you remember the context in that sense.
Click to expand...
Agree, agree, agree.

I read the whole Old Testament in one summer. But if I had read it straight through I would have burned out by the 4th of July. So instead I had an overarching project: I decided to put the Bible in chronological order. Not order of writing; order of subject matter.

So I downloaded the whole text of the KJV (no copyright issues there) and every few days of reading and comparing back and forth using a study Bible that had notes and references, I would literally cut and paste parallel and/or sequential passages of the Bible into a word-processor program so that at the end I was able to print out 1 Samuel-2 Kings side-by-side with 1-2 Chronicles with parts that covered the same thing side-by-side and with gaps where one said something that the other leaves out. Veeery interesting what gets left out and whats get told in a different way. Veeery interesting.

Then along the way I would cut and paste psalms into where they had a historical context, like Psalm 51 which David wrote when the Prophet Nathan confronted him about the Bathsheba incident (2 Samuel 12), and cut & pasted prophecies based on if they are said to have been given at a certain time, like Isaiah 6 goes with 2 Kings 15 / 2 Chronicles 26, because it’s a prophecy that came to Isaiah in the year King Uzziah of Judah died.

I know there are already “chronological Bibles” out there that have all this stuff rearranged. Yes it was a lot of work. But since I turned it in to a personal project, that kept up my interest, and plus I now know why certain things in the OT go together and what the issues are in dealing with all this and dating everything.

As for other translations, I highly recommend the New English Bible if you can find it. It’s very smooth, especially if you have a friend read it to you instead of reading it yourself. It has a couple quirks but they are pretty much all very smart and intelligent alternative ways of putting things in translation.
 
Lubomyr said:
Other, because I have tried both methods and there is a third that blows both of them out of the water.

Let me illustrate:

Get one of your Protestant friends who can quote verses from memory to tell you what the previous and following verse are. Do you know John 3:15? Or when someone quotes Hebrews, ask him what the overall argument of Hebrews is, get him to give you a summary/outline. Bet he can’t. Ask him what the five major discourses of Jesus are in Matthew. Ask him about Luke/Acts, if he sees a sort of “path” that the two-part work takes, and if he sees any significance to the times and locations of the things Jesus and the Apostles said and did. I’ll bet he doesn’t have a view of the whole, just isolated verses like those quotation websites that give you the quote and the author but not the context…
Click to expand...
Great post! I agree 100%.
 
I was reading some of Saint D Francis’ writings tonioght and I thought thid might be appropriate for the thread:
The Apostle says: “The letter kills, the spirit, however, vivifies” (2 Cor 3:6). · Those have died by the letter who desire to know only the words, so as to be held as wiser among others and be able to acquire great riches to be given to relatives and friends. · And those religious have died by the letter, who do not know want to follow the spirit of the Divine Letter, but rather desire only to know words and to explain them to others. · And those have been vivified by the Divine Letter, who do not attribute every letter, which they know and desire to know, to the body, but in word and example render them to the Most High Lord God, of whom is every good.
Click to expand...
 
SalesianSDB said:
I really want to get into Scriptures. I am sometimes jealous of our Protestant brothers and sisters that can recite verses upon verses from memory. So I decided that I am going to get deep into scripture. I have two ideas:

Plan #1- New Testament Very Long Term plan
I thought of this plan as the plan to help me out the most with knowing Scripture, especially the New Testament. I would spend one year with the Gospels, one year with the Pauline Letters, 6 months with the other Epistles (maybe a year), a month or 2 with Revelation.

As you can see, it would take a very very long time to read through the New Testament. If anything, this plan will help me out in delving deep into the New Testament and may even get me to memorize verses.

Plan #2: Daily Readings
I just saw a book at a Catholic store yesterday of all the readings for 2012. I just thought of maybe getting that and just reading the reading of the day. I’m just going to have to be very disciplined and read every day.

What do you think? Which do you think I should follow? Any other suggestions?

Also, if I do decide on a plan that isn’t #2, I was considering getting a new Bible. Maybe Scott Hahn’s Ignatius Bible or the Orthodox Study Bible (mainly because of the septuagint and I like the NKJV). I currently have the NRSV-CE Youth Bible.
Click to expand...
…it is good to feel the need to know Scriptures (check the book of Wisdom); yearning to know God and to be close to God is a wonderous undertaking… for Catholics, Scriptures should be as water to fish–we should be immersed in it… live it… depend on it…

But we must be careful…there’s the danger of accumulating a wealth of text while being empty of Christ (Pharisees, Sadducees, Jehovah Witnesses and other fanatics); Scriptures should be second nature to us… but not just knowing where to locate a certain passage or reference of study… Nicomdemus was a Master of the Law… yet, he could not see beyong the temporal values attributed to the Word of God… for most religious elite Jews knowing the Word of God (Written/Oral Traditions) was a source of pride and demonstrative of their religiousness… so it is quite baffling that when the Word became Incarnate they failed to understand that God’s Plan was unfolding right in front of their very eyes… Scriptures show us a few windows which those saturated with the Sacred Text should have easily understood… one such hint is the words of the man born blind… one of the premise of the prophecies is that no one would know the origins of the Messiah… yet when engaging the man whose sight Jesus had granted this very same issue emerged… ‘this Man, we know not where His from…’ the man whose sight was restored reiterates this very same statement: ‘interesting, is it not, that you do not know His origins?’ (I’m paraphrasing, of course)

Knowing Scriptures (the actual content) does not necessarily translate to knowing God.

You must find a balance… one that allows you to retain the content of Scriptural passages without lossing your personal relationship with Christ…

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Lubomyr said:
As for other translations, I highly recommend the New English Bible if you can find it. It’s very smooth, especially if you have a friend read it to you instead of reading it yourself. It has a couple quirks but they are pretty much all very smart and intelligent alternative ways of putting things in translation.
Click to expand...
There are a couple of very major problems with the New English Bible and its successor the Revised English Bible, especially in the handling of the Old Testament to obscure prophecy. However, John 1:1 is rendered more accurately in the NEB/REB than in any other translation: many other passages are rendered horribly inaccurately.

If you’re not comparing versions (which I believe is an absolute must if you’re not reading out of the Greek), I recommend the NETS and DRC and OSB and ESV OT, the DRC, CCD, KJV, NKJV/OSB, and RSV-CE and RSV-2CE NTs, NT (listed from first choice to last, except for the NT, the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE are just about as good).

Beyond those that I’ve mentioned, the quality of translations drops of dramatically for one reason or another (and I have virtually every translation of the English Bible [about 20] and I believe every translation that contains the full canon), except for the NASB, which has an excellent OT, but is without the deuterocanon. In any case, the ESV is just as accurate, nearly as literal, and much, much more readable. If moderate gender-neutral language bothers you, stay away from the ESV, because, no matter how it’s advertised, it contains about the same, if not a little more, gender-neutral language than the NJB.

The NEB is about as dynamic as translations get (the REB is a little better on this count) and it’s decent for comparing versions, or for a third or fourth Bible, not for a primary Bible.
 
Khalid said:
There are a couple of very major problems with the New English Bible and its successor the Revised English Bible, especially in the handling of the Old Testament to obscure prophecy. However, John 1:1 is rendered more accurately in the NEB/REB than in any other translation: many other passages are rendered horribly inaccurately.

The NEB is about as dynamic as translations get (the REB is a little better on this count) and it’s decent for comparing versions, or for a third or fourth Bible, not for a primary Bible.
Click to expand...
Right. The NEB totally disrespects Christian exegetical tradition in a few disappointing places. But overall, if you’re just reading to get a view of the whole, it’s really, really well written. Someone once said that in this translation St Paul sounds like he went to Oxford. I have the REB also, and it’s a shame they marred the lovely work of the original in kowtowing to feminism etc. Besides, any educated (i.e. properly catechized) Catholic is immune to all that silliness, and the modernist biases that are programmed into well-known verses are good for a smirk.

Here’s what I think is the finest example of just how gorgeous the NEB translation is, the end of Philippians 4:It is a great joy to me, in the Lord, that after so long your care for me has now blossomed afresh. You did care about me before for that matter; it was opportunity that you lacked.** Not that I am alluding to want, for I have learned to find resources in myself whatever my circumstances.**** I know what it is to be brought low, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have been very thoroughly initiated into the human lot with all its ups and downs — fullness and hunger, plenty and want.**** I have strength for anything through him who gives me power.**** But it was kind of you to share the burden of my troubles. **
Now that is just expert.
 
It’s a loose translation. I’m opposed to the principle of dynamic equivalence translations/interpretations/paraphrases in general (yes, I know, even the KJV is a dynamic translation, but I’m speaking of loose translations that are considered dynamic in comparison to others) but specific renderings may be superior. Genesis 1:1-2 in the NEB is pure heresy, just like in the NAB - it translates, “In the beginning when God created…a mighty wind was over the waters”, which is wrong philologically and theologically. This will miscolor the entire reading of the Bible from that point on, blows the cosmological argument’s connection to Scripture out of the water, removes the first foreshadowing of the Trinity and the “two hands of the Father”, and obscures the remaking of the world in John 1.

On reading the Bible for the first time, it’s important to have a good translation that follows proper exegetical standards and is somewhat literal, for then one begins to see the interconnections and intertextuality as an integral part of the story itself, instead of an add-on or neat soundbites.

Even the much-favored today amongst conservatives (which was considered so liberal as to be blasphemous when it was released RSV), even in the newest emended Catholic editions, still introduce errors in Psalm 2, a major error in Psalm 16, and major errors in the “seed promises” in Genesis (“in your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”) by changing it to “all of the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants”, eliminating any possible prophetic interpretation. Bibles that are translated in such a way as to state that the New Testament authors - that is, the Holy Spirit - were wrong in their interpretation of the Old Testament are plainly heretical (such as those that translate Is 7:14 “young woman”, for the famous example).

The DRC, KJV, OSB, NKJV, ESV, and NASB are the best at this - not obscuring prophecy. The NETS is alright in this regard, better than many modern Catholic translations, but, still, in order to please the Jews that collaborated in the project, some prophecies are obscured and poor renderings (“divine wind”) are chosen. Overall, though, it’s a work of the first rate.

The best “dynamic translation” is definitely the Ronald Knox Bible. It’s easy to read, has good English style, etc. while remaining faithful to 2000 years of Catholicism and Christianity, and the Holy Spirit himself.

The ESV, even though it is strongly adherent to the Masoretic (medieval Jewish) text, has an excellent Old Testament, although several NT renderings are dubious-bordering-on-wrong. The NASB NT is a bit better, but I still wouldn’t use it as a first choice, as the few interpretive decisions that are made are in favor of a “grace alone through faith alone” theology, although not nearly as bad as the dreadful NIV.

The NAB/RE is one of the, if not the, worst of all. The various modern Catholic editions (JB, NJB, RSV) all fall towards the bottom end of the ranking. The RSV-2CE restores a few prophecies, and is the best of the crop of Bibles widely used amongst non-traditional Catholics (who almost always use the superior DRC). There seems to be a problem with “proof text Bibles” like this, where they change Is 7:14 to “virgin” and Lk 1:28 to “full of grace” and call it a “faithful Christian Bible”, while leaving the rest of the OT in dreadful shape, because it seems those two verses are used as the main “litmus test” - the publishers adapt quickly (although in some cases, such as the NRSV, NJB, and NABRE, the translators’ unapologetic allegiance to hyper-skeptical modernism and complete ignorance of the Christian tradition and disowning of the NT authors’ exegesis is flown like a Jolly Roger on a sailboat).

However, in one case, the NEB does bring out the meaning of the Greek much more perfectly than any other translation, and should be adopted: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and everything God was, the Word was”, which expresses the sense of the Greek much better than “and the Word was God”, also removing what can seem to be a contradiction in the process (the NAB - not NEB - is “emended” in several places with the verse-order switched around to introduce contradictions that aren’t actually in the text in service of documentary presuppositions, cf the story of Joseph in the NAB and NABRE) . It shows the differentiation in person but not in essence, and closes the door on Monarchic, Sabellian, Unitarian, Modalist and Arian interpretations of the passage (although Proverbs 8:22 seems to remain the weapon of choice for modern Arians, who one and all are proof-texters like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, instead of hyper-rationalists like Arius himself).

Thus, the NEB is an excellent third or fourth Bible to be used to compare verses, or to read, after one has already read, connected, and understood the Bible, but not as a first- or second-line Bible (which should be a modern translation that isn’t completely marred by bowing to Jewish interpretation of the OT and a DRC).

In any case, it seems that some terms (hypostasis, energion, etc.; theological terms) should be transliterated and not translated, and people would end with a better understanding of Scripture and of theology, and misunderstanding could be avoided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top