Keep the Faith, Brother.

Steve

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jbz45QRgA8Q

“Matt, that is so cool that you will be doing a long term sub. Best way to get into a real job!! It is hard to leave the kids isn’t it? Wait til they are actually yours - then it gets even harder!!
Hugs to you!!”

I’m not really sure why it posted to the wrong post, I think it was an issue with the theme I was trying out…

Your analysis at your post is something that I definitely resonate with and I, like you, hope that it will succeed despite their marketing. I also tend to agree with your notes on book arrangement. The rearrangement of the OT I think I can follow. Their reworking of the NT is a little more amorphous. I can understand some of the groupings (Luke-Acts for instance), but others are a bit tenuous.

Even the issue of grouping isn’t that big of an issue: they have all the books, the translation is solid (not my preference, but decent none the less), and they can be read in their entirety without commentary. So I can dig that.

http://jeffreimer.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/the-books-of-the-bible/

In response to your post and the gist of the comments here, I would say (1) that the BotB succeeds despite–and almost in spite of–its marketing claims and (2) that I don’t think the IBS’s intent was for people to use this in public worship settings but in individual reading ans study. It seems a little tangential to critique it based on how cumbersome it would be to use it in church when it wasn’t created for that purpose (unless I missed something in their publicity).

Thanks for your thoughts!

Paul said:

The interaction with the Bible publishing vet is where much of our ‘marketing speak’ comes in. How do you describe something so different in just a couple of sentences, or even just a couple of words? How do you reference about a complex, nuanced idea in a simple way that people will understand? In our attempts to do so, it’s come across shallow for some. This was not intentional on our part, but that is hardly of consequence. It’s a bit like offending my wife. Whether or not I’ve intended to offend her, she’s still offended and it’s a reality I must deal with. In this case, calling it a Bible without additives is less meaningful for some than describing it in it’s fullness.

I was thinking of how to respond… I wrote a bunch that I thought was fitting, and I really do think it was, but I think it comes down to this: you asked “How do you describe something so different in just a couple of sentences.” I will just be blunt: it could be said “The Bible with verse and chapter notations removed.” It is simple and to the point.

Obviously it is a more complex issue than just that. But my fear is that using “marketing speak” just puts us in the realm of being worldly. Of course we have to to live in the world and reach those that know the language of the world… which includes marketing language. Does that mean things should be broken down into a catch phrase or trendy slogan? I suppose that could be possible, but is it necessary?

Going the “trendy” route might be more flashy and get more people to pay attention (which is a good thing), but at what cost? It isn’t exactly a completely truthful statement (of course things have been added) nor does it actually describe how this version is different than other versions.

I don’t think I would go so far as to say it is bad that particular slogan was chosen, but personally I don’t know if it was necessary.

As far as the original topic goes (Organic Referencing), it seems that the crux of your argument is this:

The reality is that it’s much quicker and (at least in the short run) clearer to people where the passage is in the pages of their whole Bible when you put a couple numbers after a book name. But it’s almost always less meaningful. Attaching a numbered reference to the end merely tells you how to find it. But referencing by context tells you what it is as well.

On this point I completely agree. BUT does that mean we throw out the baby with the bath water? I suppose my argument would be that during a church service it is not going to always be appropriate to use TBotB. YES, context should ALWAYS be provided, but why not show people where they can find the context so they can read it themselves?

Let me ask this: are you folks recommending that TBotB is the only version used? Or would you say it is more of a companion version?

I see it as something that can (and should) be used as a study and/or devotional tool, but not as a primary, church going Bible. It is up to the pastor/preacher/speaker/whatever to provide the context, it should not be up to the receiver of the message to figure out where they are pulling the message from (obviously that is somewhat simplified because in many ways, they definitely are responsible for that).

Tell people where the can find the context, tell people the context, have people read the context. All of it is great, but why remove something that is obviously a helpful tool? Why should we be sold on one way of reading Scripture?

As far as my experiences go, to be perfectly honest, they have been somewhat limited as of yet. I don’t own a copy yet (poor grad student!) so my experience has been limited to what you have available on your website and my usage of the ESV’s online version that can remove chapter and verse notations.

That confession said, I love it. I think it is a wonderful way to experience scripture. I love the NASB, but its versing (is that a word?) is horrible! It is definitely very worth while to actually read what the original structure was, to see how the actual paragraphs ans sentences flowed. Definitely a great read!

I hope I don’t sound like I am being overly harsh, I really do love the project, these are just concerns that I have had in thinking about this approach to Bible reading.