“We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people’s ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our o“We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people’s ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own.”
I wish I read this book forty years ago. Instead I was reading fantasy and science fiction and tripe like Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Not that I agree with Pirsig on everything, but he wrote about things I’m still pondering.
“The ultimate purpose of life, which is to keep alive, is impossible. One lives longer in order that he may live longer.”
Normally I read and review a four hundred page novel in three days. This book took several weeks because I kept stopping to look up or ponder things. The bottom line is: this is a deep investigation of life and reality. It’s a mashup of an autobiography and a survey of philosophy.
“Most people stand in sight of spiritual mountains all their lives and never enter them, being content to listen to others who have been there and thus avoid the hardships.”
That Pirsig wrote this in the 1970s before personal computers, the internet, cell phones, social media seems prescient. Reflective of C. P. Snow’s The Two Cultures, which I did read.
“Two realities, on of immediate artistic appearance and one of underlying scientific explanation, and they don’t match and they don’t fit and they don’t really have much of anything to do with one another.”
I recommend skipping the foreword. You’re smarter than he gives you credit. You’ll spot the translation error and the point of view shifts. Unreliable narrator. Mind-altered, literally.
“Caring about what you are doing is considered either unimportant or taken for granted.”
What little I know of Zen came from Alan Watt’s The Way of Zen. So, I can’t comment on Pirsig’s Zen. I suspect any art or avocation will trigger the described sense of oneness. Since I used to maintain my own cars--yes, Chilton’s and owner’s manual in hand--what he said about the art of maintenance was true. That style of maintenance is now impossible on modern, computer-laden vehicles, for the reasons Pirsig discusses.
“Science itself is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones.”
He made Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason intelligible. I’ve read it; it’s opaque. Pirsig’s illustration of the a priori presumption of continuity makes sense. More it’s understandable.
“You have to have faith in reason because there isn’t anything else. But it was a faith he didn’t have himself.”
He tends to set up straw men just to knock down. He’s not as rigorous as he’d have you believe. Some of his arguments are quibbles. For a supposed teacher of rhetoric, he didn’t write well. Oh, it’s good, the weaving of his musings and his story, but the word pictures were not always as clear as you’d expect. Excising the word “just” would improve the readability.
“What’s wrong with technology is that it’s not connected in any real way with matters of the spirit and of the heart.”
He makes Quality his absolute. Starting with that undefinable yet intuitively known quality, he parses it into something so arcane that the reader isn’t sure he understands what Pirsig’s talking about. Typical of classically-trained philosophers. Just because he (or we) views something as a hierarchy or a dichotomy doesn’t mean it is.
“The principle of objectivity is not an observable fact.”
Quibbles: He disarms us with western terms: motorcycle, Chautauqua, quality, but he’s really talking about Buddhism. (Read the title.) He dismisses Moses and Jesus for saying “heaven above” but neither of them said those words. Half the references in the Bible are in the same sense of the sky overhead that we use. (He’s getting at something deeper, of course, but shies from saying it.) No, the Renaissance was not caused by Columbus’ discovery of the New World. (Like saying firing on Fort Sumter caused the Civil War).
“The ultimate effect of the non-Euclidian geometries becomes nothing more than a magician’s mumbo-jumbo in which belief is sustained purely by faith.”
Paradox: Pirsig finds that the classic Greece divorce of truth and good both triggered the western development of technology and divorced it from meaning. Due to that separation, modern man can finally feed, shelter and clothe himself without working himself to death, but he doesn’t know what to do with the freedom gained.
“What I am is a heretic who recanted and thereby in everyone’s eyes saved his soul but one, who knows deep down inside that all he saved is his skin.”
I took notes. You should too. Mine filled fourteen notebook pages. This book will cause you to think even if you’re not a student of philosophy, even if you disagree with Pirsig, even if you don’t want to. You’ve been warned.
"Is it hard?" "Not if you have the right attitude. It's having the right attitude that's hard."...more
This book (and CDs) was highly recommended by a source I trust, therefore it’s all the more disappointing. And a disappointment it is.
The title suggeThis book (and CDs) was highly recommended by a source I trust, therefore it’s all the more disappointing. And a disappointment it is.
The title suggests the problem. Henderson has some helpful insights into prayer, but he presents it as a “secret” formula of “can’t” and “always” and “actually means” which runs contrary to the plain Biblical representation of God as a loving approachable father. (Applying the word “counsel” as if it means “council” also undercuts his exegesis.)
“We must not just do the right thing; we must do the right thing for the right reason.” Our motives are important. More important than devising arcane procedures only by means of which God is “freed” to do what he wants to do. Heaven is not limited by earthly rules of evidence. It’s like the guy with a hammer to whom every problem looks like a nail.
The Bible is full of imaginary from life. Jesus taught in metaphors and parables. To take his references to judges and courts as literal and to impose that image on the rest of scripture misleads readers. To impose saying the right words, making the right moves, genuflecting--no, he doesn’t recommend that. It’s been tried before, and it clearly is not the right approach.
Henderson has fifty or sixty pages of good material. Even padding it, he runs out of stuff halfway through. Nice cover art.
There is no substitute for a living relationship with the living God. He will lead you to truth and right living. ...more
“Do you wish people to believe good of you? Don’t speak.”
Pascal was the master of the one liner. Pensées is laced with aphorisms. It also overflows wi“Do you wish people to believe good of you? Don’t speak.”
Pascal was the master of the one liner. Pensées is laced with aphorisms. It also overflows with serious considerations. Not to be read fast or superficially. (Unfortunately my first reading in the 1960s was both.)Therefore, this review will be in sections, as I read the major subdivisions of the text.
“The last thing one settles in a book is what one should put in first.”
Since Pensées was not published before Pascal died in 1662, textual inclusion and order are disputed. This 1958 English translation (available free on Project Gutenberg) includes an excellent Introduction by Nobel laureate T. S. Eliot.
Part Two.
“The last act is tragic, however happy all the rest of the play is; at the last a little earth is thrown upon our heads, and that is the end forever.”
The first two sections of Pascal’s Pensées is filled with disconnected thoughts and aphorisms generally pointing to man’s misery separate from God. Now Pascal turns to his infamous wager. Here his argument becomes dense and philosophic. The casual reader is tempted to think, “I can skim this. Everyone knows what Pascal’s Wager is.” No, you don’t. In simplifying Pascal’s argument, modern scholars miss his point, and mislead you as well. If you read only one section on Pensées, read Section Three. Here his avowed purpose was “to incite the search after God.”
In brief, Pascal reasons why you should make the wager, only secondarily how you should make it. He was surrounded by mature, intelligent people who spent their entire life diverting themselves from the most important issue of life. The following are key thoughts, in his own words:
“Men despise religion; they hate it; and fear it is true.” “[God] will only be perceived by those who seek him with all their heart.” “They believe they have made great efforts for their instruction, when they have spent a few hours in reading some book of scripture, and have questioned some priest on the truths of the faith. After that, they boast of having made vain search in books and among men. This negligence is insufferable.” “They did not find within themselves the lights which convince them of it [and] neglect to seek them elsewhere.” “It is a great evil thus to be in doubt. The doubter … is altogether completely unhappy and completely wrong.” “All I know is that I must soon die, but what I know least is this very death which I cannot escape.” “It is not natural that there should be men indifferent to the loss of their existence.” “Let them at least be honest men, if they cannot be Christians. There are two kinds of people one can call reasonable; those who serve God with all their heart because they know Him, and those who seek Him with all their heart because they do not know Him.” “Let us imagine a number of men in chains, and all condemned to death, where some are killed each day in the sight of the others, and those who remain see their own fate in that of their fellows, and wait their turn, looking at each other sorrowfully and without hope. It is an image of the condition of men.” “We seek the truth without hesitation.” “Between us and heaven or hell there is only life, which is the frailest thing in the world.” “Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, time, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls nature, necessity, and can believe nothing else.” “It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist.” “You can defend neither of the propositions. Do not reprove then those who have made a choice. The true course is not to wager at all.” “Yes, but you must wager. It is not optional.” “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.” “It is impossible to take one step with sense and judgment, unless we regulate our course by the truth of that point which ought to be our ultimate end.” “Every play stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty.” “At least learn your inability to believe. Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Follow by acting as if [you] believed. What have you to lose?” “You will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.” “If we must not act save on a certainty, we ought not to act on religion, for it is not certain. But … there is more certainty in religion than there is as to whether we see tomorrow.” “According to the doctrine of chance, you ought to put yourself to the trouble of searching for the truth; for if you die without worshipping the True Cause, you are lost--‘But,’ you say, ‘if He had wished me to worship Him, He would have left me sign of His will.’ He had done so, but you neglect them.”
Did you notice how current some of that was? Moderns don’t even go so far as to read a little Bible and talk to a clergy, they read someone like Richard Dawkins and think they understand the whole issue. Tell me, do you believe what politicians claim their opponent believes or intends? Of course not. Then why do you accept the hatchet job of an unbeliever as definitive?
His argument is flawed, but deserves better treatment than it’s gotten. One problem is with his comparing infinities. He was supposed to be the greatest mathematician of his age, but equating mathematical infinities with supernatural ones appears unreliable.
Quibble: All that untranslated Latin was acceptable in 1660, when all educated people read Latin. It is not acceptable in a 1958 translation, when few read Latin, to not render the Latin into English. (Yes, the language and punctuation is archaic; blame that on the translators, too, not Pascal.)
So you see, Pascal’s wager is not believing or not believing, but on making a serious inquiry into the truth claims of Christianity. His argument was with his contemporaries (and ours) who amused themselves to death trying to avoid the most critical decision of their lives. Because, as he says, “We [all] die alone.”
“It is far better to know something about everything, than to know all about one thing.”
Being an unfinished work, inconsistency of flow and expression are not surprising. What is unexpected is that he beat the Enlightenment by a century and even anticipated some modern thinking.
“Who doubts that our soul, being accustomed to see number, space, motion believes that and nothing else?”
One of the greatest mathematical and scientific theorists of his time, Pascal intended Pensées to be a defense of the Christian religion, but boldly admitted the case of the sceptic. Pascal’s other great work, Provincial Letters, addressed abuses of contemporary Catholicism even though Pascal remained a communicant his whole life. He died in Paris at age 39.
“What is a man in the infinite?”
(Part Three)
“True nature being lost, everything becomes its own nature; and the true good being lost, everything becomes its own true good.” ¶ 426
A significant effort on the part of a troubled Catholic in 17th century France. At odds with his church, especially the Society of Jesus, on one hand and the secular humanist, such as Voltaire and Montaigne, on the other. That he carried his manuscript sewed inside his coat is indicative of how heretical he knew his Jansenist thoughts to be. (The thoughts of the Jansenists were condemned by Pope Innocent IX in 1653.)
“Nature confutes the sceptics, and reason confutes the dogmatists.” ¶ 430
I have reviewed the opening sections of this tome in too previous review. This will try to review the rest of the book and summarize my thoughts. Without a doubt, Pascal was an original and creative thinker, one of the first mathematicians worthy of the term. He was also an orthodox Christian, whatever the Catholic hierarchy of the day thought of him.
“We must love a being who is in us, and is not ourselves.” ¶ 485
Therefore, much of his sections on Fundamentals, Perpetuity, Typology, Prophecies, Proofs of Jesus Christ, and Miracles will be only of interest to students of theology. His last section, however, Polemical Fragments is a Hodge-podge of thoughts on a variety of topics which strata yield the occasional gem of a quote, as follows (referenced by their paragraph within the larger work): ¶ 832. “As it is certain that these are exceptions to the rule, our judgment must though strict, be just.” ¶ 860. “The Church is in an excellent state, when it is sustained by God only.” ¶ 861. “Faith embraces many truths which seem to contradict each other. The source of all heresies is the exclusion of some of these truths.” ¶ 863. “Truth is so more obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that unless be love the truth, we cannot know it.” ¶ 875. “God does not perform miracles in the ordinary conduct of the Church.” ¶ 894. “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”
Concerning this text, my primary criticism is that, even in the 1950s, few would have been fluent in Latin and Greek to read all the quotes as rendered. Fortunately, nearly half were Biblical citations, easy enough to obtain an English translation.
“There are only two kinds of men: the righteous who believe themselves sinners; the rest, sinners, who believe themselves righteous.” ¶ 533
As I said in my opening review, Pascal is worth reading in his own words if only because the great mass of humanity regularly misrepresent his famous “wager.” (I was among them.) He was not saying one should gamble on believing that God exists because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, but that you should gamble on investigating whether God exists because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. A difference in far more than semantics.
“We cannot know Jesus Christ without knowing at the same time both God and our own wretchedness.” ¶ 555
“Someone who celebrates before the answer … is someone who is about to experience the answer. Faith looks ahead and lives accordingly.”
An excellent re“Someone who celebrates before the answer … is someone who is about to experience the answer. Faith looks ahead and lives accordingly.”
An excellent resource for Christian living. Johnson challenges believers to new levels of surrender and relationship with God.
“Light drives away darkness without a fight. I can’t afford to live in reaction to darkness. If I do, darkness has a role in setting the agenda for my life. The devil is not worthy of such influence, even in the negative. Jesus lived in response to the father. I must learn to do the same.”
Well presented. Logical and forceful. The second half lacked the punch of the first. It’s as if he ran out of message before he had filled the page goal but kept writing.
“So much of the increased favor we get from God is really according to what we’ve done with the favor we already have.” ...more
“God does not require anything more than simple faith. However, He will not settle for anything less.”
Andrew Murray (1829 -1917) wrote this short volu“God does not require anything more than simple faith. However, He will not settle for anything less.”
Andrew Murray (1829 -1917) wrote this short volume to encourage non-believers into the Christian faith. However, it is also a valuable aid for believing Christians to examine and increase their faith.
“It is the Spirit of God who has broken your slumber and made you anxious to believe. Where there is someone who desires salvation, the Spirit will certainly work faith in him.”
This edition updates Murray’s prose to ease comprehension by modern readers. “Faith can only come in this poverty of the soul. While your feelings of unworthiness and guilt cause so much darkness and anxiety in the depths of your spirit, it is by this means that you will be driven to your Lord.” Andrew Murray A valuable addition to the reading of believer and seeker alike.
“Although you have no faith yet, take this word as a living seed into your heart, and it will awaken faith.” ...more
By this collection of essays, letters and articles Albert Einstein sought in 1934 introduced himself to the world beyond academia and the headlines. TBy this collection of essays, letters and articles Albert Einstein sought in 1934 introduced himself to the world beyond academia and the headlines. Though he was then fifty years old, the Einstein we find here brims with youthful hope and enthusiasm. Of Jewish linage, he was an agnostic, socialist pacifist (those labels seem inadequate).
Of particular interest to readers today is how some of his ideals seem current while others are so out-of-date as to seem quaint. “The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow-creatures as meaningless is not merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life.” “We exist for our fellow men.” He didn’t believe in God, but admitted to a “cosmic religious feeling” which maintained was “the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research.” He opposed nationalism but was a Zionist. He hoped that reasonable men could step beyond nationalism and achieve world peace. He renounced his German citizenship in 1933 upon Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.
This small volume contains many nuggets of wisdom and not a few chuckles for the reader with the benefit of eighty years of hindsight.
Unfortunately, this volume omits “essays by Einstein on relativity and cognate subject” because the editors fear readers unable to understand them.
Some of his views changed a lot in the following decade. World War Two did that to lots of folks.
“God’s dealings with nature parallel his dealings with humanity.”
Interesting. Entertaining. But not compelling. Dembski deconstructs many historic and“God’s dealings with nature parallel his dealings with humanity.”
Interesting. Entertaining. But not compelling. Dembski deconstructs many historic and current theodicies (reconciliations of God’s goodness and the existence of evil) and creates his own, pivoting on the retroactive tainting of creation by human disobedience, AKA The Fall. He takes on both classic and neo-atheists, young and old-earth creationists, and even classical philosophy. He’s better at disassembling than building.
Of course, the Judeao-Christian God could act retroactively. “God doesn’t live in time. He invented time for us,” said Gerri Dickens. And the redemption bought at the cross is explicitly applicable to those who died before Jesus, but possible doesn’t mean necessary and sufficient. Like all logical proofs for or against the existence of God, Dembski’s fails.
Dembski like many others in this debate equates “evil” with all disasters. I’m not so sure. Hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and the like are bad. They are destructive and deadly. But are they evil? I’m not sure. To me evil implies intent. So far as Demski’s thesis this is mere quibbling, but if we get sloppy with our terminology soon we can’t communicate.
He raises one interesting issue late in the book: the problem of good. If the existence of evil somehow proves there is no God, what does the existence of good imply? Or as Boethius put it 1,400 years ago, “If God exists whence evil; but whence good if God does not exist?” All the famous atheists from Darwin to Dawkins note that nature is in a state of unmitigated war with itself. Where then does the impulse, let alone the fact, of good come from?
A wise man warned, “The writing of many books is endless.” Especially theology books. ...more
This short study, based on the Luke’s record, examines how the temptations of Jesus after his baptism are p“We are born children, but we become sons.”
This short study, based on the Luke’s record, examines how the temptations of Jesus after his baptism are prototypes for both the trials we should expect and our best responses. Thoroughly scriptural, this teaching is both a challenge to selfless living and an encouragement to those who are experiencing troubles.
“We will not see the glory of God until there are sons and daughters who are willing to taste the death of humiliation, inexplicable disappointments and failures, because they are unwilling to commandeer God to their ends.” ...more
“There is nothing more opposed to the purposes of God than the well-wishing intentions that men perpetuate out of their own human and religious zeal.”“There is nothing more opposed to the purposes of God than the well-wishing intentions that men perpetuate out of their own human and religious zeal.”
Remember the “apostolic and universal” phrase in the old creeds? Well, it meant something. Katz explains what and challenges us to apostolic living. Prepare to see yourself, your pastor, your congregation in an unflattering mirror. Brutally honest, yet encouraging.
Well-written, if slightly archaic language. Katz died in 2007, but writes like people spoke fifty years ago.
As is true of the best books I’ve read, as soon as I finished it, I flipped back and started again (with highlighter in hand).
“God will not force upon us the perfect if we are satisfied with the counterfeit.” ...more
Disappointing. Started well, but devolved into century-old tales of who-knows-what origin (not scripture) and home-spun theories of what the Bible reaDisappointing. Started well, but devolved into century-old tales of who-knows-what origin (not scripture) and home-spun theories of what the Bible really means. We've got enough fools doing that today without waking the sleeping dogs of previous eras.
366 excerpts from the works of L’Engle arranged as daily readings by editor Chase.
L’Engle was of a previous generation (1918 to 2007) and her works re366 excerpts from the works of L’Engle arranged as daily readings by editor Chase.
L’Engle was of a previous generation (1918 to 2007) and her works reflect it. Very much hung up on the issues and trends of mid-twentieth century, her ideas have a quaint aspect which is not immediately obvious to the reader. Not that many of her thoughts aren’t profound, but they reflect a Cold war environment that current readers will have trouble understanding. She, and we, thought nuclear holocaust was a real possibility. Her reflections on nature and man’s place in it are still relevant.
L’Engle was a well-known Christian fiction writer. These “reflections” could well be used a daily devotions. Worthwhile. ...more
His most controversial doctrine may be that “salvation is limited wholly and entirely by the intercession, or lack of it, of the Church.” He skirts theologically close to discounting both free will and the sovereignty of God.
He supports this doctrine with several examples, such as Paul’s Damascus road conversion, using logic like “We are not told specifically that the church was praying for Saul, its most deadly foe, but can anyone doubt that they were…?” Followed by the assertion, “It can hardly be doubted that the desperate intercession was made for him…” to “Can it be doubted…” to “If God, in answer to the prayers of the Church, could so reveal himself to Paul….” He starts with speculations, grows them to assumptions, then graduates to his being the only possible interpretation of the cited biblical passages.
The editor, Edwin Messerschidt, acknowledges the “unbiblical extremes” to which these teachings had been taken by some readers, but his attempt to “clarify the points found troublesome’ falls short.
Despite his flaws, Billheimer makes a good argument that believers consist the Body of Christ, the Church, the Bride, and that we are living way below God’s plan for our purpose. He specifically touches on faith, prayer and praise as areas needing attention. Without being drawn into the heresy which others found troubling, the discerning reader will find much of value in these teachings.
Christians should read it carefully—even prayerfully—but read it. Non-Christians will find little of interest or use. ...more
Think: Plato’s The Republic meets Short Circuit (the movie) (or WALL-E, for you Millennials). Lots of dialogue punctuated by monologue, but very littlThink: Plato’s The Republic meets Short Circuit (the movie) (or WALL-E, for you Millennials). Lots of dialogue punctuated by monologue, but very little action. Boring.
Neat premise: Suppose the gods of Homer’s era were real, and all other gods before and since (including the Greek perceptions of them during the Classical Greek period) were not. And suppose a couple of gods decide to create Plato's Just City. There you have it. Having the point of view jump between two female characters is not so confusing as having it jump back and forth during their time—that is, of the experiment. I almost quit before page 100.
Then Sokrates shows up. Excellent. Yeah, that Socrates. He’s good for comic relief. “‘You can’t trust everything … Plato wrote.’ Said Sokrates.” The closing dialogue shows much like those recorded by Plato, and just as artificial.
As you can imagine, the wheels start wobbling, if not coming off, early. Still, Walton tries to make it work almost as hard as Athene, despite some improbably food, physical attribute and work distribution problems. “Children love philosophy.” Improbable, even with divine and high-tech help. Oh, about that help ...
A fun read, but not engaging enough to attract me to the rest of the series. ...more
A better-than-average critique of the cessation doctrine. Having taught at a seminary which held this view, Deere does a better job explaining it as wA better-than-average critique of the cessation doctrine. Having taught at a seminary which held this view, Deere does a better job explaining it as well as his reasoning and scriptural support against it than might someone raised in the direct theology. I’m no theologian, so I can’t say how a believer in cessationism would respond.
The reader will not doubt that Deere used to teach college. The text is structured, repetitive and detailed just as a college lecture might be. This is not light reading, but may help one truly searching for an explanation.
Observation: Having recently read C. S. Lewis Vs the New Atheists by Peter S. Williams, a critique of the new atheist thinking, I was struck by the parallel between the thinking of modern atheists and the cessationists. Both make an a priori commitment to a standard of proof which is itself not examined. Both rest their argument on the premise that what they have not experienced isn’t true. Similarly I detect a lot of talking past, not to, one another in both discussions. ...more
I can't rate this, of course, even though I've read it at least twenty times. Hopefully, the pay off will be for other readers.
This book grew from a sI can't rate this, of course, even though I've read it at least twenty times. Hopefully, the pay off will be for other readers.
This book grew from a set of Bible teachings I gave at my church: Prevailing Word Ministries. It aims at the Christian who may not have read a Bible study. My text and presentation reflect both the didactic nature of Paul's letter and the oral environment in which these lessons were initially presented. Not so much a verse-by-verse commentary as a companion: a chapter-by-chapter consideration of the implication of Paul's message for how we live our lives--both spiritually and in the world--today.
This massive and beautiful 1846 imprint of the Authorized Version of the Bible is lavishly illuminated by 1600 etchings of the highest quality. The paThis massive and beautiful 1846 imprint of the Authorized Version of the Bible is lavishly illuminated by 1600 etchings of the highest quality. The paper quality was not as good as the imprint and has suffered in the last 170 years.
Originally some family's presentation Bible, this particular book was saved from the refuse pile in the 1930s and presented to my maternal grandfather, MSgt John H. Hodge, then superintendent of Sunday Schools for the Fort Leavenworth, Kansas Protestant Chapel. The inscription reads, "To Sergeant Hodge/ In Memory of a delightful association--/ from his friends/ The Lawrences/Spring 1937"
I received this book from his widow when Rev. John Hodge went to his reward in April 1976. (Unfortunately, the study Bible he used daily, containing his marginal notes, was interred with his body.)
I rarely read this fragile old book, but occasionally open it to gaze upon the amazing illustrations.
A rare example of a nearly extinct art form....more
I was given this version for Christmas 2009 by my Mother-in-Law, Barbara Parson, two months before she died. (I am departing from my normal practice oI was given this version for Christmas 2009 by my Mother-in-Law, Barbara Parson, two months before she died. (I am departing from my normal practice of only listing books as "read" which I've read all the way through, because despite reading from this book regularly, I use another volume for my regular reading and study.)
The large text was a concession to my age, and my need for a Bible I could read comfortably in public.
I bought a Good News Bible in the late 1970s, searching for a more readable text than the RSV or KJV. The version I had emphasized the newspaper styleI bought a Good News Bible in the late 1970s, searching for a more readable text than the RSV or KJV. The version I had emphasized the newspaper style of the text. (Obviously, not the version illustrated)I loved its stick figure illustrations.
I read this version through while living in Parker, Florida attending the Parker United Methodist Church. That was the time and place where I learned--from a Methodist pastor--that "there's much more" to being a Christian than having my name on a church's role and attending regularly, even teach Sunday school or singing in the choir. Much more. Have a version of the Bible I could read easiely supported that idea....more
I received this NIV Study Bible as a gift from Harley and Barbara Parsons (my parents-in-law) in 1986. I have read it in its entirety twice. I have prI received this NIV Study Bible as a gift from Harley and Barbara Parsons (my parents-in-law) in 1986. I have read it in its entirety twice. I have probably read the New Testament dozens of times. This is the Bible I use for every day reading and reference. After almost thrity years it's pretty worn.
I like the language of the NIV. While other versions may make better claims to literal accuracy, the NIV is readable. The not footnotes of this version identify and discuss the Hebrew and Greek behind the text.
Read the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (yes, the whole thing) when I was about thirteen. Had read parts of the New Testament previously and, lRead the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (yes, the whole thing) when I was about thirteen. Had read parts of the New Testament previously and, like many of my generation, grew up hearing Bible stories everywhere. Remember being impressed by the huge flow of history found in the first half of the Old Testament. Didn't realize that Genesis to Esther was one continuous narrative.
Loading...
