I'm looking for an outline or map of where Jesus was during the various chapters in Mark. There are questions on it in this year's upcoming March 19th Bible Bowl.
Thought it would be nice to have an outline or map to visualize things. Could make an outline, but it would take an hour or two. Have already spent gobs of time doing the multiple choice questions, reformatting to cut down on # pages to copy and computer quiz for them. They kinda went overboard this year with the number of questions. Chapter 14, for instance, went on for 115 questions. Think we need some rules on how many questions the local congregation can make up. This one has been arduous compared to last year's on the first 20 chapters of Exodus.
This year's contest is in Spotsylvania. Last years was in Waynesboro.
I am currently reading the book of Mark (from a "New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs In Five Minutes A Day" bible). When I read verses I don't understand, I go to my big Life Application Bible because it has a LOT of commentary at the bottom.
The first page of the first chapter of Mark has a map of where Jesus went in the course of Mark.
I was just at a Bible Book store and bought a version called The Story. Was actually looking for one of those chronological Bibles. They had one, but it was in KJV version, which I abhore because of the way it renders Lev. 18 and the language in general (poetic but not ours any more).
Got some maps by Tim Dowley, The Student Bible Atlas, and copied maps 20 and 21 for the kids.
Think I'll go back over there and see if they have this Life Application Bible.
Have you tried the New King James Version? It updated alot of the language while still keeping the poetics. I had a copy given to me several years ago, and I like it.
The Leviticus verses still say "the nakedness of", but realistically most people do understand that those verses are about sex, not just nakedness. The section heading even says "Laws of Sexual Morality".
That's the trouble. The language says not to "uncover the nakedness of..." Now you tell me the title is Sexual morality. Therefore, nakedness = sex. However, the chapter isn't about nakedness at all, it's about having sex with your relatives, mostly. Too many people could be led astray by the wording. It's just plain wrong.
Of the translations that I have, the King James, New King James, and the New American Standard use the wording "uncover the nakedness of".
The New International Version, the Max Lucado Devotional Bible, and the Quest Study Bible all say "do not have sexual relations with".
Interestingly, the Living Bible paraphrase says "do not marry". I hadn't seen that before. Another reason to not like paraphrasings.
I don't think that it's wrong that some older translations use "uncover the nakedness", but i think there should be an explanation as to what that phrase meant when it was originally used. Language changes over time, and we need to be aware of the meaning that the WRITERS were attempting to get across, not what it means to our modern understanding.
"uncover the nakedness of" was a colloquilism of the writers' time- a PC way to say "have sex with". Some people were overly "proper" back then, and great care was taken to not offend.
When somebody said "uncover the nakedness of", everybody knew that what was being talked about was sex. That meaning has since fallen away, but since the words are still all part of the modern language it dosn't seem overly important to make any clarifications as to original meaning, unless of course you actually want to know what the author meant. What an original idea that is.
I'm a stickler for details. I like the fact that we can still read things how they were written way back when. I even have an OLD KJV with all the "though's" and "thine's" and "hither's". Try reading that sometime.... BUT, I also have several modern translations that I can compare the old to. I understand that language changes over time and that I have to take that into consideration, which means making sure that I have at least a basic understanding of the language used at the time what I'm reading was written. Sounds like alot of work, huh? It is... but it's alot better than being spoon-fed somebody else's interpretation of what something means. I'd rather know the author's meaning.
Here's another verse where the KJV is exceedingly "kind" to folks unused to hearing about sexual things. Ezekiel 23:20 "For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses."
My Biblepro doesn't have one of the really modern verses on this one, but I think it goes something like this: "For she lusts after those who are hung like horses and whose semem will fill her up." Maybe some of you have one of them. I hope I have the right verses of Ezekiel. There are a couple sections that are quite revealing (in modern translations, almost hidden in KJV).
The Bible is good to teach teens about sex and stuff if we'd only use it with the versions that tell it like it is instead of smearing butter over it or ignoring it.
My Mom grew up in the era of King James thinking folks. She never uses the word "pregnant" and cuts out or covers up penises of little babies. Just recently, we were looking at pics of her new grandson. He was naked, lying on his back. She'd cut out his penis. Both myself and CJ almost simultaneously asked, "Why?", soon as we saw it.
You were pretty close with your literal paraphrase I think. On that web page, you can flip between versions to see what each says.
From what I remember hearing in the past, Song of Solomon was almost not included in the general canon of the bible because it was a little steamy. Isn't it wonderful that it was, showing that God does appreciate Sex in the proper context.
I remember having the first printing of the Living Bible as a High Schooler. In reading through the bible, I ran across 1 Samuel 20:30.
The KJV had translated it:
Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?
But, the Living Bible had it printed up as "You son of a bitch...".
For some reason, they have changed that now. The New Living Translation now says: "You stupid son of a whore!" and The Message says: "You son of a slut!".
The point of both the Living Bible and The Message was to put the Bible into the days terms. I am not sure the "cleaning up" of the passage in later printings is quite as clear when taken in context.
It makes me wonder how many other compromises have been made to make the Bible more "proper" in it's context while doing a disservice to issues such as nudity. (I needed to bring this back onto topic )
For the past few years, I've been using the New Living Translation which supposedly has been pulled together by translators from many denominations for the purpose of being as modern but still using correct translations as possible. According to the publishers, this translation is considered "thought-for-thought" while others are considered as "formal equivalence" (each word rendered into the modern word) and "dynamic equivalence" or "functional equivalence" to translate to the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original language text. They are supposed to somehow mean the same thing to the modern reader as it did the original reader.
But the Thought for thought version seems to "get into the mind" of the original author to help us translate for our modern readers in our own language.
Seems to work pretty good for me, but at time there are words and thoughts that tend to get weakened or watered down a bit much. Such as "Representatives of Christ" may be better rendered as "Christ in us doing the work" Representatives of Christ makes it look as if we are doing the work and Christ is off somewhere else, not here doing the work. So you see the weeknesses that may creep in. But yes, they use "sex" in this version!
Here is how they translate the Genesis account:
Gen. 3:7 "At that moment, their eyes were opened, and they suddenly felt shame at their nakedness. So they strung fig leaves together around their hips to cover themselves."
Does that sound more like it?
Leviticus 18:6 "You must never have sexual intercourse with a close relative,..."
And each verse starts with "Do not have sexual intercourse with your..." Or it will say "Do not [violate][defile]yourself by having sexual intercourse..."
I think that is plainly said.
Boyd
This message has been edited by boydallen on Mar 7, 2005 7:02 AM
)