Your comments on the 100 min. Bible reminded me of the E.B. White essay entitled "Irtnog" http://www.i-love-english.com/No...TML/ 000001.html

It criticizes "condensed books" and literary digests, to the effect that their real purpose is to reassure people that they're not missing anything, rather than providing them with knowledge.
Nathan Straub | 10.08.05 - 1:56 pm | #

I might start an off-topic debate by saying this, but one cannot be too surprised by the "100 minute Bible" when we already have other condensed or edited versions of the Bible, such as The Message.
If people are alright with taking out little bits of the Bible, or changing it in small ways (The Message), the "100 min." is just the next logical step.
Hannah | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 2:30 pm | #

Concerning condensed books Ray Bradbury writes in the Coda of Fahrenheit 451, "How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupassant and Bierce into one book?
Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every metaphor that weighed more than a mosquito--out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron's mouth twitch--gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer--lost!
Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Dostoevsky read like--in the finale--Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been razored. Every image that demanded so much as one instant's attention--shot dead.
...The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches."

Let's not "burn" the Bible.
HannaH | Homepage | 10.08.05 - 6:32 pm | #

Hmm. I definitely agree with you guys that replacing the Bible with a 100-minute pamphlet is outrageous. On the other hand, I actually think something like this might be a good complement to the Bible. I haven't read it, and I would obviously have to reserve judgment on this question until I did read it, but it seems like it might be a helpful introduction to assist beginners in getting oriented. (You have to admit, after all, that the Bible can be a difficult book to just launch into if you have no background of biblical training.)

What do you think?
J | Homepage | 10.09.05 - 6:53 am | #

Nathan: Thanks for the link. I'll have to check that out when I get a minute.

Hannah: Hmmmm . . . I don't know if I agree with you on the Message translation. It is one thing to translate Biblical language into its modern day equivalent (MESSAGE) and it's another to abridge the Bible into a Biblical digest. Granted, I don't know if people should only read the Message translation, but it can be helpful. At least, I've found it to be.

HannaH: Excellent connection! I love that book.

J: I agree. It is a good complement. But not a replacement. I wouldn't mind people using alongside their Bible reading. But for people to replace their Bible reading with the 100-Minute-Bible would be shameful.
Brett Harris | Homepage | 10.09.05 - 8:25 am | #

Before the Reformation, parish priests across Europe delivered sermons largely based not so much on Scripture but on stories found within Scripture, such as David and Goliath or the changing of water to wine at Cana. There was little reference to matters of doctrine or theology. The priests did this because they thought that it would make things much more "accessible" to the largely uneducated population. Of course, we all know what problems existed in the Church pre-Reformation. So should making things "accessible" really be the goal of our faith?
Chad | 10.09.05 - 9:56 am | #

Brett,

I'm not trying to be over critical about translations of the Bible, but I do believe that when people take the liberty of ommitting and adding to the Bible, that we are in danger of the meaning being lost.
I used to hold the same opinion as you about the Message, until I began comparing passages of the Message with passages from NIV. The meanings of several verses in the Bible were changed in the Message translation. For example, The Message's translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 omit references to homosexuality and adultery as sins, and also provide loopholes through which homosexuals can justify their sin, making the verse less accurate but more politically correct. There is a side by side comparison of certain verses from the Message on this website, if you are interested: http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_st...es/ Message.html

The point I tried to make in my original post, is that when we try to change the meaning of the Bible in little ways, that it leads to changing it in bigger, more pronounced ways. Hence, the "100 minute Bible."
Hannah | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 11:14 am | #

Hannah,

I'm of the opinion that anything except for the Greek and Hebrew isn't going to be perfect - you'll always loose something in the translation. That's why you should look up words in them when you can when you're reading any Bible. Of course, with the Message you can often loose a lot in the translation, as it depends more and more on the translator understanding what the passage says. And since they're humans, they won't always get it right. I personally wouldn't stop reading for that reason alone though, when many of the verses are put in today's language so wonderfully. But I would never use it for study.
Alex King | Homepage | 10.10.05 - 6:18 pm | #

Alex,

I do not really have any problems with the other translations (NIV, NASB, NKJV, KJV), because they were translated from the Greek by several people. The Message was translated by one man, and I do not think it is as accurate because of the political correctness that was inserted into some verses.

You made a good point regarding the Greek, and it got me to begin looking up the accuracy of the NIV and NASB. Thanks for being thought provoking. :-)

BTW:
Here's another example of the Bible being "toned down." http://galofgraygables.blogspot....ular- bible.html
Hannah | Homepage | 10.11.05 - 6:24 am | #

Ok, that's just sick, in fact, it's blasphemy. What is "christianity" coming to...or actually, where has it gone?

I think I'm going to be sick...
Veronika W. | Homepage | 03.07.06 - 1:17 pm | #