What is the best Study Bible APP for Android? :-)

@PaulVargas I'm partial to Cadre Bible

good set of resources available for it and solid functionality

@AJHenderson Is there any with interlinear or Strong's numbers?

yes, numerous have strongs

What about the Interlinear Greek Bible?

^^^ I didn't understand what base text is used by this application.

sorry about that, distracted by a flag/spam issue

I'm not sure about interlinear

it does support cross-linked commentaries though

as well as supporting note taking and highlighting

@Daи uses Logos. Well, I don't know if also the mobile version.

for PC I use e-sword, though honestly, I haven't used e-sword in a long, long time since I like Cadre bible so much and it is just easier to get to

Sometimes I'm in a service, the preacher asks the meaning of a word. And I only see the translated word - in my physical Bible. Someone mentioned a possible meaning. Finally, the preacher says the meaning of the word. However, I would like to see the word in the original language and its meaning.

@Daи @Daи I would argue against the Pentateuch falling under "clearly shows multiple stages of composition," beyond merely the fact that even in one person writing, obviously such writing is done in "stages."

But compositional redaction by later editors is by no means "clear." One has to force the idea on the text with unwarranted assumptions of Yahwist/Elohist/etc. redaction. That's my opinion. Obviously, these types of things will not be solved in a chat discussion, nor this side of eternity.

But we do each have a decision to make about believing the Bible's (and Christ's) testimony of Pentateuch (Torah) authorship going to Moses (Ex 24:2; Num 33:2; Dt 31:9, 24, Josh 8:31; Mk 12:26; Jn 1:45, 7:19, et. al.)

@PaulVargas strongs will do that

you tap the strongs number and get the exact word, pronunciation, definition, and number of times it is translated as each different word

@ScottS By then, there may be no need to discuss it. We could ask directly to Moses. ;-)

@ScottS starred for "Obviously, these types of things will not be solved in a chat discussion, nor this side of eternity."

@PaulVargas Indeed, though those believing the testimony of Moses now already have his answer. ;-)

@PaulVargas Logos is good for mobile, and I'm pretty sure the mobile app is free if you register for a free account

@PaulVargas I love the mobile version of Logos, also Vyrsos and Biblia which are related apps

@PaulVargas but Strong's is not a good tool for that, it's still only showing you how it has been translated

@ScottS you've admitted there are scribal glosses, which are necessarily added at a later stage of composition. I simply meant we can both agree on that. Now I would go much further of course....

@ScottS I think the documentary hypothesis is interesting, but I don't entirely run with it. But I do think it has some elements of truth in that different authors or perhaps later scribes had different emphases

@PaulVargas as @FrankLuke has (helpfully) said, "Strong is showing 'how the words ARE translated' but that doesn't mean that the words should or can be translated that way"

@PaulVargas gotta love that tool ;)

@Daи I think it needs a permanent Internet connection. It can be a problem!

@PaulVargas yes it does

@Daи That's a pity, really, as it is a very good tool.

@Daи I'm not sure just how far the JEDP hypothesis goes, but the more I study discrepancies in the text, the more plausible it seems. One of my friends was reading Numbers 22-25 for the first time (this guy), when he noticed a weird little issue in the Balaam narrative...

First, he had never heard about the talking donkey, so that threw him off. But then he noticed how God's attitude toward Balaam flip-flopped between verses 22.20-21 (God permits Balaam to go) and verse 22.22 (God is angry that Balaam is going).

So we did a lot of research, and decided the most sensible solution was that two completely different versions of the same story were spliced together.

@MarkEdward I'm with ya, it makes more sense the more I study it

@MarkEdward @Daи The "flip-flop" of attitude is because Balaam did not obey God. He arose first thing in the morning, prepared to go, and left with the men (v.21). But God had said not to even arise unless the "men come to call you" (v.20). Balaam's disobedient actions were "perverse" (v.32) to God, a sin (v.34). Nevertheless, the men likely would have come later in the day, as God ultimately wanted Balaam to go with them and speak what God tells him to (v.20, 35).

@ScottS that's one way of looking at it

@Daи I'm looking for an answer to a better analysis of the Greek text.

A new question?

I 'm looking for a neutral point of view. Calvinism uses this text to support their doctrines.

@PaulVargas yeah, that question needs some better answers

@PaulVargas I would put a bounty on the question and ask for a better answer

@Daи Yes!

@PaulVargas go for it, and choose the option you think best describes what you're looking for, use the comments for specifics

@Daи A way that keeps the text unified and God not some form of bipolar mind changer ;-)

@ScottS Well, I wasn't saying God changed his mind. I mentioned that we (my friend and I) researched the issue, and reached the conclusion that the text contains different versions of the same story, mixed together. The two versions follow the same general series of events, but when combined together the way they are they create an unfortunate confusion for readers.

I just think it's not realistic for us to assume a priori that discrepancies and contradictions don't exist in any biblical texts, because then we only allow for explanations that 'protect' that assumption.

@MarkEdward I had to star that

I believe in God and whatnot, but I believe he works through flawed human beings, including in the composition and transmission of his people's texts

and since we're not perfect, neither are those texts

in some ways, perhaps it was intention, to keep us from relying on 'the Book'

rather, we should focus on the One the book tells us about

but when I began studying textual criticism, I did believe in biblical inerrancy. After studying it for awhile (since 2002), I simply cannot subscribe to biblical inerrancy

@ScottS Your opinion is that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, and possibly Joshua. Right?

I look at guys who probably held to inerrancy stronger than me like Lee Martin McDonald who had to realize it just can't be after much study (although I believe he still holds to it, but in some convoluted way like 'it was inerrant in its original manuscripts that are no longer extant')

@MarkEdward If an explanation exists to protect it, why look further? Especially if one is going to hold that the text is divinely inspired (I don't know if you hold that or not, but I do). God cannot err, and either He is or is not the ultimate Author of His book (whether by a single author of Moses as Scripture testifies, or multiple redactors, as some scholars conjecture).

So without the book, there is no revelation of "the One the book tells us about."

@PaulVargas That's Christ's opinion, so yes, I stick with Him.

but then you get into issues like Tertius possibly making a copyist error in the original manuscript of the epistle to Romans and it gets all crazy

This may have been asked already, but How long as the hermeneutical approach of 'inerrancy' existed? I recall that even theological giants like still admitted biblical texts had mistakes or glosses. (e.g. Martin Luther saying the populace numbers in Hebrew texts were embellished)

@ScottS I don't look at a bunch of humans making changes to a book over time (when this seems to be acceptable practice throughout much of human history) as a 'failure' on God's part

@Daи What are you talking about? Are there errors in the original autograph? Errors in copying manuscripts?

@MarkEdward bingo, and even early Fathers like Jerome and Augustine recognized chronological discrepancies in the gospels and disparities between different manuscripts

@MarkEdward I think the historically recent (novel) approach to requiring an inerrant text is silly and discourages folks from taking an honest look at things. Plus it sets folks up for crises of faith when guys like Ehrman point out the more glaring issues

@Daи There is a difference between "disparities between different manuscripts" and authorship of the text. Don't conflate the two issues.

not that Ehrman is the most objective guy out there, but this stuff wouldn't be all that faith-shattering if evangelicals approached it more sensibly

@ScottS I'm a living example of this. I went to a pre-seminary program in 2002 to become a pastor. I learned the languages, Church history, textual criticism, etc. and became an agnostic

@Daи Actually, it was the very existence of manuscript variations that convinced me inerrancy wasn't a sustainable position to take. There are hundreds of thousands of variations. And even if we're told "the original copy, penned by the original author" is inerrant, that point doesn't help the situation since we don't have those original copies.

@MarkEdward bingo

Apostasy?

@Daи Agnosticism is not God's desire for any true believer (1 Jn 5:13). There are many "seminaries" that lead astray today, so your story does not surprise me in the least.

@ScottS well, I didn't stay there - but I vacillate back towards it - but much differently now. It's more a 'Christian agnosticism', heavily baptized in Eastern Orthodoxy ;)

@Daи @ScottS @MarkEdward In my personal experience, it is easier to study a text that have a life of devotion to God.

How long you pray every day?

@MarkEdward Yet even despite those "hundreds of thousands of variations" in the manuscripts, men believe there is still a text that was authored (or redacted :-) ) that is assumed to be "the text." The question is whether one believes that text is true or not.

@MarkEdward So a true text cannot be from God (redacted or otherwise) such that "when combined together the way they are they create an unfortunate confusion for readers" (cf. 1 Cor 15:33).

@ScottS I wouldn't spend as much time reading/studying the text and about it as I do if I didn't want to know what was true. I'm just not going to ignore evidence that doesn't line up with my preconceived ideas because it conflicts with some doctrinal understanding a church has about the text

@ScottS that's using that Corinthians text way out of context ;)

@Daи Not really, it is talking about prophecy (conflicting messages, v.32).

@ScottS in a specific context, where chaos was ensuing - but we'll have to agree to disagree

The general principle is that God's prophetic word is not going to conflict, and is given in order.

@ScottS again, since I look at the book largely as composed of works by humans, I do think they conflict quite a bit

for instance, I don't see Paul and James as being in agreement

@ScottS I don't agree with that conclusion. The root issue in our disagreement is that we define 'divinely inspiration' very differently. I don't think treating the bible as inerrant, infallible, etc. is a sustainable definition of that concept, in the face of textual evidence, not to mention the majority of history.

but that's OK - lots of folks throughout Church history haven't agreed. The Bible wasn't nailed to the cross nor did it rise from the dead. But Jesus did. And he is the basis of my faith.

Grace and Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ!

@Daи But what Jesus, if you don't have the written testimony of Him? Your whole belief in Him is based on what you get from the book.

@ScottS so clearly I believe enough of the book is intact to reveal him

I believe the apostolic tradition/message has been essentially preserved

@MarkEdward I agree, we have different views of inspiration, and thus different views of God. I would say believers in history believed what God says is true, which means what He says is without error. Whether one believes the Bible is what God says or man says is the issue.

I also don't think the Bible was ever meant to be the 'end all be all' sacred text like in Islam

it is a collection of historical and other literary texts covering a specific time period

and certain parts of it were designated for being read publicly in worship/liturgical gatherings

@ScottS Any recommendation for not to lose the way when I get more and more knowledge?

@Daи But is what it says "true"? Is the "apostolic tradition/message" true? If so, is it true because man just happened to get that enough right (and what is "right")? Or is it true because it is God's word?

@ScottS I don't know, that's where my agnosticism kicks in to some extent.

don't get me wrong, I have faith that Jesus was a real guy who was the Son of God incarnate, he died, rose from the dead, etc.

I don't base that on the text exclusively, however. There is an element of faith there and proving the text is inerrant makes no difference here (it could inerrantly report false events)

so I believe that by grace through faith

but I also believe God is unknowable (in his essence) by finite beings, and all our writings about him fall short and can't adequately describe him

@Daи But you don't "know" in part because you don't believe the testimony of Scripture on matters of authorship that it does state. There is probably more references to the Pentateuch being authored by Moses than any other section of Scripture has testimony of authorship. Why doubt it just because a few men in the last few hundred years came up with an idea that he didn't, and a BUNCH of others did (and ineptly at that in their view). The textual evidence can sustain single authorship.

And of course much of Scripture is recorded that "God said" or "Jesus said"

so I don't get caught up with trying to dogmatize hyperbole in the Psalms and whatnot. I let human be humans, flaws and all. And recognize that at times, biblical literature contains the emotions, thoughts, and sometimes even mistaken data held by authors

Essentially, why believe the parts you do, and disbelieve the parts you don't? That will cause confusion and agnosticism.

@ScottS I think there are plenty of examples where a convention like this was used to refer to the authorship of texts without being so painstakingly literal as to realize that there were emendations and other authors

the dictionary was written by Daniel Webster

yet I'm sure hundreds of hands have touched it and helped contribute

but people understand what I mean

@Daи Human wisdom?

@ScottS I think that's just being honest

we're trying to understand the self-revelation of an infinite being

I gotta go, but it has been interesting.

@ScottS I'm enjoying the discussion

@ScottS are you familiar with the essence-energies distinction in Eastern theology?

@Daи I could not say the same. :-/

Because, when God was glorified in this conversation?

much of my 'agnosticism' falls along these lines, as well as reflecting many great thoughts espoused by these folks

@PaulVargas I don't think he was dishonored in any way - we are disagreeing on quite a few things, presumably we would also disagree on what dishonors God or fails to honor him

I believe God is big enough to handle our questions and honest seeking

> So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31 NET)