What Bible Version Should I Use?

The one you will read. Maybe that seems like an oversimplification of a complex topic, but it doesn't matter if you have the most perfect translation ever if every verse feels like a chore to read and understand. Find a version that feels readable to you, get an audio version, a video version, have someone tell you the stories, whatever it takes to be able to personally get the stories so you can learn from them (and from now on, when I say read the Bible, this is what I mean.)

The best advice I ever got about reading literature in translation (and generally speaking we read the Bible in translation) was from the student assigned to show us around for Freshman orientation who took us on a brisk tour and then got us on a bus to the big used bookstore downtown and helped us shop for the many source texts required for graduation. He told us not to worry about getting the exact translations that the professors called for, but instead to look for a translation that we found readable and understandable so we would actually do the reading. He also pointed out that if we read different versions from others in our discussion sections, we might have different insights and that would give us something to talk about. This applies well to Bible versions. Translation is almost always a compromise between accuracy to the original text and readability in the target language and accuracy has a couple of different aspects, sometimes a translator has to choose between using words that best fit the the style of writing (particularly with things like poetry or a pun, but it could also be formal versus informal language) and words that best fit the meaning.

That said, the Italian proverb "Traduttori, traditori" (Translators are traitors) applies to Bible translation as well. Even the most well meaning translators bring their own assumptions to the table. It is useful to be aware of those assumptions and most translations have notes, either in the published Bible, or online, where the translators explain their process and what they used as their base text. At this point, you are probably thinking, wait, a minute, isn't there just an original text, don't we just translate from the oldest version? Not always, and the King James Version in particular did not. And while that sounds bad, it can sometimes be justified - for example, at the time of Christ, many Jews and thus the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures called LXX or the Septuagint for the 70 (or 72 depending on which history you believe) rabbis and scholars involved in the translation, so if we want to know how Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians saw these texts, we might want to start from that translation ourselves. However, Jews went back to using Hebrew scriptures and translating from them due to inconsistencies in the translation of the Septuagint, including the fact that some books were more retellings than translations. If you don't ever use the Septuagint for translation, you will miss some places in the New Testament where the Old Testament is quoted and possibly some important information about how Jesus, the Apostles and early Christians saw the scriptures. If you do use the Septegent, you will risk getting further from the original meaning by using a translation of a translation. Again, how this issue is handled is usually included in the translators notes. If your Bible version doesn't have translators notes and you can't find them on the internet, looking up the translation on Wikipedia often will provide at least some of the same information. 

Why you are reading the Bible may also impact which version you use. You might want a different version for daily reading than for study. You might want a different version for reading the poetic parts like the Psalms. 

Here are a couple notes on some English Bible versions and why you may or may not want to read that one:

New Revised Standard Version

This is the version used in a lot of seminaries as well as the basis for many study Bibles that are well regarded in academic circles. It is in modern English and reasonably readable, but it always chooses accuracy over readability.

Common English Bible

This is a very readable Bible and aims at a middle school reading level. My personal experience is that almost every word in it is in my active vocabulary - words that I would use every day and that that really causes me to focus on the text.  It's a good version to use in worship situations because children and English language learners are likely to find it understandable. Despite using simpler language, it also usually gets good marks for accuracy.

The Brick Bible

This is more of a novelty Bible, but it does an excellent job of presenting the stories of the Bible in an accurate and engaging format. If  you are a highly visual person, this is an excellent addition to your understanding.

The Message

 A single author translation intended to focus on presenting the story in conversational English. It's great for reading (or listening too), the poetic parts are excellent, but it's probably not great as a study Bible.

King James Version - KJV (also known as the Authorized Version)

Some people believe this is the only version to use, don't listen to them or anyone who says to only use one translation. Because it was translated in 1611, it uses an older version of English that is harder to read and understand and I don't recommend it as a main reading and study Bible particularly for this reason. Some of the poetry in particular is translated in a beautiful and poetic way, so it can be worth reading, particularly in excerpt version. Because it is out of copyright, you can freely quote from it without worrying about copyright (although most translations have generous quoting policies), and it is sometimes used for this reason alone and KJV Bibles are cheap - the dollar store usually has a full shelf of them. (By the way, the reason copyright  became a thing for Bible translations was not an effort to recoup the cost of translation, although that is an issue, but because people were writing in their own changes to prove their point and passing them off as original.)

 

A Rest Retreat

 I'm declaring this week a rest retreat. I'm not sure what that's going to look like, but I'm at the next step in my lymphadema treatment and it's tiring and I need extra rest.  I figure my options are to be upset about it or accept it and make it holy. (Is not rest always holy?)

I'm not entirely sure what that will look like but I have some ideas:

• acknowledge and drop thoughts rooted in the heresies of the the prosperity gospel, hustle culture, the Protestant work ethic, capitalism, and using productivity as a measure of value or worthiness.
• lower my expectations for doing anything.
• get plenty of rest.
• stop or skip unnecessary things that are feeling like too much.
• read more of Rest Is Resistance as long as it feels enjoyable and not like a chore.
• fun reading.
• knitting (always!)
• naps
• possibly get food or grocery delivery (this is complicated by the fact that most of the places I like don't deliver here.)
• breathing exercises
• written commentary and reflection if it feels right.

Note that this does not include obligations, check offs, or requirements. There is no failure, only progress toward rest.

Also, I'd like to include some lectio devina type reading (not necessarily of scripture) but I find it stressful to manage the time keeping parts and keep track of what I am supposed to be doing when I do it on my own. I might look for some apps or ways to use Alexa routines to manage this.

What are you giving up for Easter? A Lenten Reflection

Years ago I was very much struck by the idea that anything we give up for Lent should be something we will take back up with joy when our period of sorrow ends at Easter. I find a lot of value in that, particularly since the idea of "giving something up for Lent" has expanded into mainstream culture and often gotten mixed up with mainstream ideas that don't embrace loving ourselves as part of God's good creation. For instance, I regularly hear "giving up" suggestions that seem more rooted in diet culture than faith. And then intertwined with ideas about our not being acceptable human beings at our current weight or "good" and "bad" foods. I don't want to debate whether weight loss is helpful or possible, that's a question for doctors and researchers, but I absolutely stand on the fact that God loves us flaws and all and that God made the sugar cane just as much as the spinach leaf. That said, if we want to give up something for Lent, it needs to fall in the category of 'nice to have' not necessity and if we choose a food, for many of us that is treats like candy, soda, and alcohol. And, if it's a struggle for us to give those things up, there's usually at least minimal social support for the struggle to stick to what you gave up for Lent. Or at least less social pressure to take it up again - "I gave it up for Lent" is often a conversation ender for why you aren't having a drink or dessert in a way "I don't feel like it" should be but often isn't.

But I don't think Lent is actually the ideal time, liturgically, if we want to give up something bad for us or take up something good for us (individually or communally) permanently for our faith. Of course, if you feel ready now or feel called now, whenever now is, now is the right time. But, I think there is a value in providing communal support for long-term changes (or trying on changes to see if they improve our lives and help us better care for God's creation) and encouraging us to consider long term changes. We have two celebrations of new life annually in the liturgical calendar, Christmas when we celebrate the birth of Jesus and Easter when we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and the continuation of the world-changing movement he started despite his death at the hands of the authorities. Easter seems like a good fit for encouraging long-term changes both on the secular and liturgical calendar. It allows those who find it helpful to use Lent for that purpose to get continued support, extra support for those who find that their life improved when they gave up some extra for Lent and want to do it permanently, and a reminder and encouragement for all of us to look at how we can better live our faith (and ACT on it) whether by making a change for our collective good or to treat ourselves with the care we deserve as a child of God.

So what are you giving up for Easter?

Staying in My Lane

One thing I strongly believe but have struggled to fully express is my belief that while other faiths likely have just as important and valuable lessons about God and the nature of the holy as Christianity, we should stay in one lane amd not mix and match. We can learn from other people of faith but piecemeal attempting to determine where those holy lessons are is likely to result in losing more than we gain. Today, I was reading a blog post from Bob Rossi where he expressed this very well. From his post Some cautious notes about my universalism:

On the other hand, a test for my universalism is in believing that other religions---most notably Islam in this case---have something good to say about the attributes or qualities of God. ... The main difficulties that we have here are that grafting religions or divergent expressions of faith on to one another rarely works well, many cultural and religious appropriations can and should be offensive

2 Wonderful Prayers for "Inward Peace"

Prayers for Inward Peace

26. Grant us grace to rest from sinful deeds and thoughts, to surrender ourselves wholly unto thee, and to keep our souls still before thee like a still lake, so that the beams of thy grace may be mirrored therein, and may kindle in our hearts the glow of faith, and love, and prayer. May we, through such stillness and hope, find strength and gladness in thee, O God, now and forevermore. Amen.

27. O God, who art the source of all true peace and joy, grant us so perfectly to do thy will that we may find both that inward peace which the world can neither give nor take away, and that pure joy which shall make radiant all our duty and our toil. Amen.

These are from the UU "Red Hymnal" Additional Prayers and Collects section p. 140. The "Red Hymnal" is also known as Hymns of the Spirit With Services and has 2 title pages, Services of Religion for use in the Churches of The Free Spirit and Hymns of the Spirit for use in the Free Churches of America. It is copyright 1937 by The Beacon Press and was a combined hymnal for the pre-consolidation Unitarian and Universalist churches in the US. It remained in print until sometime in the last 10 years when the 1981 press run sold out.

Climate Change

This is the first of two week six discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Making Sense of Theology through Pathways Theological Education. (The second discussion doesn't fit this format well.)

Apply the elements of critical thinking from Chapter 8: description, analysis, framing a view, judgment, and response, to propose a denominational policy for addressing the tension between climate change science and the needs of people from traditional coal producing areas.

This example is really about two seperate, but related issues. One issue is that human activities are producing climate change and if we want to keep the earth livable, we need to make changes, particularly in how we produce and consume energy. The other issue is about how we as a country treat the people in traditional coal producing areas. I lived on the edge of coal country when I was a kid and even in the 1970's the supply of high quality, reasonably accessible coal to mine in the US was running out. The industry was having to switch to mining in more dangerous mines (and mining has never been anything but very dangerous), mining lower quality coal that didn't work for some things (particularly industrial use), and mining in ways that are more expensive and more destructive to the environment. All of these factors were already leading to a reduction in coal mining and a search for alternatives. The news about climate change has only sped up something that was already happening. The concern Don Perdue expresses in the New York Times - "There is widespread bitterness about the country taking our coal for all these years when it needed us, and then simply saying goodbye." - is not just about climate change. We asked generations of Americans to sacrifice their bodies and lives in coal mines to run the industry and utilities of this country so others could profit and now are leaving those people and those areas with less than they started with. We need to be realistic that the era of King Coal is over, while also treating the people left behind with equity and compassion. 

As far as a denominational policy, since there are two issues, there are two paths that need to be taken, but they can be related. We as a denomination can determine that we will prioritize using renewable energy - whether that means putting in our own solar panels, buying renewable, encouraging our municipal systems to invest in solar, wind, and water power, or providing loans for community members to put in solar. We should also focus on reducing our energy needs, and helping our communities reduce energy needs. As far as supporting people in coal producing areas, we can provide scholarships and particularly practical assistance to people from those areas to train to do other work. Practical assistance is an area where even the poorest congregations can help - for example, helping people who are first generation college students know what to do to apply and thrive in college (this could be done remotely) and welcoming and supporting individuals and families who may be in the area to study or complete internships. We can also prioritize purchasing needed items from new industries in coal producing areas - this might include things like solar panels, meeting both goals at once. 

Church

This is the first of two week five discussion questions from my Spring 2022 courseMaking Sense of Theology through Pathways Theological Education.

What role has the church played in your life? How would you respond to the young person who asks, “Do I have to belong to a church to be a Christian?”

One of my early memories is my dedication. It was Christmas Eve and I was 5 or 6. In our church at the time, part of dedication is the adult members of the church pledging to be there for the child growing up and I remember being impressed that all these adults cared for me. My family weren't always regular church goers, but whenever we went, I still felt part of the community. As an adult, I worked weekends and started attending my denominations church by mail and joined a then 'experimental' mailing list, which became a very active small group for almost 20 years, and several of us are still in contact. Even when I started getting weekends off, I found such satisfaction in my small group that I continued with that church. More recently I joined an online church start and we have an amazing community via Discord, with an almost daily . I am also part of my mom's regional small group from the denomination I grew up in, at 52, I'm the baby. They meet once a month and that's the weekend I usually visit her. I love hearing from my elders and I'm trying to get one of my mom's friends to write her autobiography, because she has had some amazing experiences, particularly around the UU denomination, her father was a groundbreaking minister and as a result she got to meet all sorts of people who came to visit him, she also went to Europe after World War 2 with the Universalist Service Committee to work in a refugee camp. I love my church families and they have helped me and my family through a lot of rough times.

However, as valuable as my church community has been to me, if asked whether you have to belong to a church to be a Christian, my response would be no. While my church experience has been almost uniformly good, I know not everyone is that lucky. In fact, I know many people for whom church has been a source of pain or even spiritual abuse. It's easy to say, well, those are just bad churches, but I think it's important that we as Christians take more responsibility for such things and acknowledge that church is not always a healthy experience and that every church has the possibility of being a bad experience for someone. All it takes is one leader behaving badly or even looking away when members treat others badly to do damage. As I said, my church experiences have been good, but I refused to attend youth group in high school and if I went to church, went to the regular services after being bullied in Sunday School as a middle schooler and not feeling like I had any other options to avoid it. In the UUA, youth group is actually older than our denomination, because the two main denominations that consolidated had a combined youth group for decades. While attending church as a teen and college student opened opportunities for me (I was co-director of social concerns for our church and teaching adult Religious Education at 19 or 20), not attending youth group also closed some. If I had just quit participating at all, it would have closed more. (Ironically, I'm the only person from my middle-school Sunday School class who still has ties to the UU church.) For people whose experiences are mostly bad, finding a better church may be too painful or they may need to heal first. However, Brown is right, the community that we participate in does influence who we are. I think it is necessary to have a spiritual community to be a Christian, but what that community is can vary. It might be a church, it might be a small group, it might be a Bible study. It may be in person, by phone, on Zoom or Google Meet or in some sort of social media. It might be extremely interactive or only slightly (in her later years, my grandmother's main spiritual community was being part, with some of her in-person friends of a large group of listeners to a radio Bible study.) What the community is is unimportant, that it is community is what matters.