Random memory

[pne]

I remember how someone in Greece claimed that the Bible we used was not a "real" Bible because it didn't have any cross-references.

Comments

[darth-spacey.livejournal.com]

I don't know about "not real", but a lack of decent indexing and cross-referencing does make for a "not efficient" learning tool.

Just yesterday, I found myself trying to Ctrl+F a paper book.

[pne.livejournal.com]

a lack of decent indexing and cross-referencing does make for a "not efficient" learning tool.

That's true, and I would have conceded that point -- but "not real" sounds merely laughable to me: supposing that any given system of cross-referencing is canonical, original, and indispensable to the very nature of the text is, for me, on a level with supposing that Jesus spoke English because that's the language his words are recorded in in the King James Version.

[darth-spacey.livejournal.com]

Hm. I know nothing of the Orthodox church, but if it's normal and expected for their Bibles to have cross-referencing, I could be convinced that the word "real" might be used, in the same way that I might be presented with a venti half-caf strawberry mocha soy latte with extra foam, and say "That's not "real" coffee, dammit".

Denying that it's valid at all, though, is probably not something I could agree with.

[elgrande.livejournal.com]

Can you explain that? I never heard of Bibles with cross-references (like would there be references from the Old to the New Testimony?) but then again I don't know much about the Bible.

[pne.livejournal.com]

Roughly, cross-references would point from one scripture to other scriptures on the same general topic.

Since the Bible is made of many books, each typically recording the words of a different prophet or apostle, many teachings are repeated, and seeing how different prophets approached a given subjects or which emphasis they gave may be useful for study.

[it0376.livejournal.com]

Cross-references? o.O

Meh, you know how people react about their religion here. Kinda reasonable for the old ones. At least we don't have many young ones doing the same.

I'm curious, have you ever managed to make any old ladies listen to you? I'd bet that most of them would come after you :/

[pne.livejournal.com]

I'm curious, have you ever managed to make any old ladies listen to you?

No, I don't think so!

Though I did meet an old woman who used to be a strong Jehovah's Witness and who had become a strong Latter-day Saint.

[fledchen.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what to make of that one...

[pne.livejournal.com]

I found her case interesting since, in my experience, active Jehovah's Witnesses can often be very strongly faithful to their faith, nearly fanatical, and I found it unusual that one would have given up her faith and taken on ours.

I also had the experience, during my mission, that it was difficult to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses since it seemed that they weren't interested in listening to what we had to say but more in convincing and converting us; discussions with them often seemed a bit pointless.

[elgrande.livejournal.com]

"I also had the experience, during my mission, that it was difficult to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses since it seemed that they weren't interested in listening to what we had to say but more in convincing and converting us; discussions with them often seemed a bit pointless."

But did you listen to them or were you just trying to convince them?

[pne.livejournal.com]

A fair question.

I like to think that we did, indeed, listen, even if we weren't considering changing our religion. However, I think we'd at least listen to what they had to say and possibly respond in some way to a given point, rather than merely waiting for our turn to continue speaking and ignoring what the other person had to say, which was how it seemed sometimes.