SBL Study Bible on e-sword?

[Semer]

Well, that's it. Do you know if the SBL Study Bible is available for e-Sword?

[daydream]

5 hours ago, Semer said:

SBL Study Bible

A thoroughly revised edition of The HarperCollins Study Bible, one of the leading study bibles used in undergraduate and graduate courses, the first study bible offering the full text of the New Revised Standard Version—Updated Edition.

 

Supported by the largest and most respected academic association of Bible scholars, The Society of Biblical Literature, The SBL Study Bible is the landmark general reference Bible that offers the full text of the New Revised Standard Version.

 

Now, this completely revised edition reflects the changes in the updated NRSV, incorporating:

• The latest scholarship and findings
• New diagrams, charts, and maps covering all the key time periods and regions of biblical events
• Comprehensive, accessible introductions to every book of the Bible with commentary and notes on each page
• Hundreds of new articles, charts, and images explaining key words, concepts, people, historical events, and historical context.

[Percy]

Not sure if this is a help to you, but I found SBL Study Bible here: https://annas-archive.org/md5/011d7f89ac0cbc703cb0c8755dd6b73b

I generally go to the link at the bottom of the list as it avoids needing to become a partner, as I rarely use the service. It does have a vast collection though.

 

I did download the file and loaded it into Calibre (epub) and poked around a bit. I am interested in references about the 70 years and this bible had this to say: 

36.12 Chronicles condemns Zedekiah by citing his disobedience to the prophet Jeremiah (compare Jer 37.2). 36.13 Zedekiah breaks an oath by rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar. 36.15–16 Exile results from persistent despising of the prophets (see Jer 26.5; 29.19). No remedy. Compare 2 Chr 7.14, where God promises to heal the people. 36.17 Chaldeans, the peoples who ruled Mesopotamia during the Neo-Babylonian period. 36.21 Jeremiah. Compare Jer 25.11–12; 29.10. The Chronicler views the land as empty during the exilic period but free to enjoy the Sabbaths it had missed (perhaps since the beginning of the monarchy) and to get ready for the exiles who would return (Lev 26.34–35). Seventy years. The actual length of the exile was about fifty years. 36.22–23 Compare Ezra 1.1–3a.

Hmmm? The author doesn't say why he favours 50 over the 70 years that Jeremiah mentioned, as that is at the heart of whether you believe the bible or not. 

 

I then looked at Daniel's book and the authors seem to favour multiple authors of Daniel rather than Daniel himself being the author.

They also have the common misunderstanding of Dan 1:1 not being the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but the end of it. It is one of the compromises to try to make 70 years work for Daniel himself.

 

This bible makes comments about Hezekiah's reign, but start it after Samaria fell, instead of before it fell that the bible mentions. It misses the point about Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem about 8 years after Samaria fell and instead go with the 21 years after Samaria fell. It is hidden from the reader though.

 

Should I go on?

Here is a statement about Jesus using "I am" at John 8:58: In speaking this way, Jesus applies the sacred name of God to himself (see Exod 3.14). Out of reverence, Jewish people traditionally avoid uttering the name of God, since identifying oneself with God is blasphemy, punishable by stoning. His opponents charge Jesus with making himself equal to God (John 5.19) and even are moved to “pick up stones” against him on several occasions.

 

How useful will this bible be to you?

 

 

 

[Semer]

Thanks Daydream and Percy for the information. I'll have to choose what is useful and what is not.

[jwhess]

One of the big problems with the Revised version is their purposeful removal of God's Name.  The American Standard Version was of benefit to our organization because they put the name Jehovah in most of the 7000 places it belonged.  When revised, the translators went back to the King James rendering of Lord or God.

 

A citation explains that this is one of the 4 main changes:

 

There are four key differences between the RSV and its three direct predecessors (the KJV, RV and ASV):

1.  The translators reverted to the KJV and RV's practice of translating the Tetragrammaton, or the Divine Name, YHWH. In accordance with the 1611 and 1885 versions, the RSV translated it as "LORD" or "GOD" (depending on whether the Hebrew of the particular verse was read "Adonai" or "Elohim" in Jewish practice), whereas the ASV had translated it "Jehovah".

 

The 'New' Revised version added to that list by using 'gender neutral' terms (to replace words like ..son).  This effort helps obscure some Messianic prophecies.

 

EDIT:  note that we still publish (digitally) the American Standard Version and it is available on the JW Library.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by jwhess

[scholar JW]

I recently purchased the SBL Study Bible because it represents the best in current biblical scholarship and is ecumenical, appealing to a broad audience within Christendom. In short, it represents the 'cream ' of international biblical scholarship and is widely used in academia. However, compared with the illustrious NWT, the NRSVue is clearly deficient. When a reader or critic wishes to compare Bible translations in order to assess which is superior, one is best served by using both of these translations and can readily see the difference.

 

scholar JW

[Percy]

7 hours ago, Semer said:

Thanks Daydream and Percy for the information. I'll have to choose what is useful and what is not.

I also found this statement questioning the veracity of the story of the Flood:

Literary Genre and Context

Genesis contains stories that were sacred to its writers and their audience. These stories come from different genres. One genre is mythical material, defined in its simplest form as a traditional story explaining phenomena relating to the divine. One example of myth is the story in Gen 6.1–4 recounting marriages between “the sons of God” and the daughters of humankind.

Hmmm?

 

 

Chronology considerations are in one of the charts about the kings of Israel and Judah. It follows the Edwin Thiele (SDA Church) approach of accepting Assyrian and Babylonian dating first, and trying to fit the Bible to it. This led to complete mayhem and fudging to try to make things work in the bible:

Dates following the kings’ names are approximate years of their rule. The chronological data given in the books of 1 and 2 Kings pose insurmountable problems, however, for the construction of a firm chronology of Judah and Israel. The system adopted here is one of several approximations used by scholars.

In my Calibre session of the epub, there are 3 panels: index on the left, commentary in the middle and Google on the right. The top entry of Google has "The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org › wiki › The_Mysterious_Numbers_of_the_Hebrew_Kings" which is the Edwin Thiele book. That book destroyed the clear chronology of the Bible. At the heart of it all, is the 'Assyrian Eclipse', if you are familiar with that. A little research will tell you that there is no word for 'eclipse' in the Assyrian language. The word used is equivalent to 'obscured' or 'bent'. What obscures the sun? Dust, locusts, clouds and yes, the rare occurrence of an eclipse. Take your pick. The one who chose 'eclipse' caused the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah to be shifted and overlapped in the strangest ways, causing great confusion among scholars. His name was Henry Rawlinson of the 1800s. Its a long story.

[Percy]

8 hours ago, Semer said:

Thanks Daydream and Percy for the information. I'll have to choose what is useful and what is not.

I will use it for how to interpret the bible to make it appear confusing.