|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Front section of the pew Bible"
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
It has been suggested that using the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" in the weekly printed Order of Service might be confusing and off-putting for those new to the church.
Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"
and
"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"
more accessible for those visiting a church for the first time? Are "Old Testament" and "New Testament" confusing terms for visitors?
How many churches use "front section" and "rear section" in preference to "Old Testament" and "New Testament"? Is it widespread?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I've heard it in evangelical churches. Mind, they're the only ones I've known have pew bibles.
You can solve the problem by using an edition that doesn't restart the page numbering at Matt 1.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
It's a Presbyterian church; they all have pew Bibles. I hadn't realised that other churches didn't.
Replacing 100+ Bibles would be expensive!
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Why would anyone be confused by the terms OT and NT? Surely everyone knows what they are? Even non-Christians.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Perhaps. But I well remember a boy in my Bible class, many years ago who, on being asked to read the first words in the Bible, began, "To the most high and mighty Prince James by the Grace of God ...".
So we mustn't make assumptions.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
What I've never understood is the idea that when you go to a new thing for the first time, you should understand absolutely everything that happens. Lots of popular activities are a little bit confusing the first time you go to them, despite actually being far simpler than Christian theology.
As others have said, non-Christians expect that the page numbers in books don't unexpectedly go back to 1 when you're most of the way through the book. That's the source of confusion, not what the 2 parts of the book are called. The question is whether the confusion is enough to justify the cost of fixing it.
Pew sheets with the week's readings are another option, but some people seem to like readings being literally 'from the bible', not 'from a piece of paper that we're assured contains words found in the bible'
Also, there seems to be an assumption that no-one actually listens to the reading at all, and hence it can't be understood unless you're also reading it yourself. There may be advantages to following along the reading, but it's not so essential that you need to worry if a couple of newbies can't find the page.
If there are pew bibles, I tend to always follow on my smartphone, as pew bibles tend to be translations I don't trust (NIV).
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
OP questions quote:
Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"
and
"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"
more accessible for those visiting a church for the first time?
Answer YES
quote:
Are "Old Testament" and "New Testament" confusing terms for visitors?
Answer Possibly
Leon writes:
quote:
If there are pew bibles, I tend to always follow on my smartphone, as pew bibles tend to be translations I don't trust (NIV)
Whole other thread here..What criteria for 'trust' do you use? I'm not asking for a debate on the 'best' translation, but wonder if your smartphone text is in the 'original' Hebrew or Greek texts, and if so which versions?
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Leon writes:
quote:
If there are pew bibles, I tend to always follow on my smartphone, as pew bibles tend to be translations I don't trust (NIV)
Whole other thread here..What criteria for 'trust' do you use? I'm not asking for a debate on the 'best' translation, but wonder if your smartphone text is in the 'original' Hebrew or Greek texts, and if so which versions?
Not the original I'm afraid; NRSV or ESV.
To be honest, my trust is somewhat misplaced; more often than not when I read something in the NIV and find myself checking it, all the translations I reach for agree.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
And I would add: the correct choice of bible to read would be a translation using modern scholarship that isn't favored by the wing of the church whose building you're in. That way if there is a debate about translating a passage, you're most likely to see it.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Most Anglican churches I've been to have pew Bibles, including A-C churches.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... being asked to read the first words in the Bible, began, "To the most high and mighty Prince James by the Grace of God ...".
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
At least it was the Correct Version™ ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Sorry - as you were. I'll get my coat.
[ 05. November 2014, 13:21: Message edited by: Piglet ]
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Our pew sheet has the bible reference and then "(p. ## OT/NT)" - which may be less than helpful for visitors. In announcing page numbers, though, I tend not to add anything for the Old Testament readings, on the assumption that people are starting to look from the front. For the NT readings I tend to give the page number and say it is at the back or rear of the pew bibles.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've heard it in evangelical churches. Mind, they're the only ones I've known have pew bibles.
You can solve the problem by using an edition that doesn't restart the page numbering at Matt 1.
I've never heard this, but then again I tend not to frequent evangelical outlets. However, I find pew bibles in about half of Anglican churches, as well as in the Presbyterian and UCC outlets I have attended in recent years; I can think of two local RC (Latins, not easterns) which feature pew bibles, as well as the local Ordinariate franchise. I always like the pew bibles with the apocrypha, as Bel and the Dragon have sustained me through many a sermon.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
And I would add: the correct choice of bible to read would be a translation using modern scholarship that isn't favored by the wing of the church whose building you're in. That way if there is a debate about translating a passage, you're most likely to see it.
My approach exactly which is why I always take my own Bible to church.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
What? Doesn't everybody?
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
What? Doesn't everybody?
My hearing is sufficiently good that I don't need to.
(The most gimlet-like look anyone ever got from me in church was when I was reading one of the Lessons at evening prayer, and I heard the squeeeeeeeeeee of a highlighter pen coming from the front row, courtesy of an earnest-looking bloke who was following every word in his floppy leatherette-covered NIV.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I've never heard the terms back and front sections of the Bible and would find it very childish to be presented with such a way of using the Bible in church. We always have the readings printed out in our pew sheets and the advantage of this is that people can take the readings home with them. There are many people who don't choose to look at a complete Bible at home and who maybe don't even possess one. We tend to find that the pew Bibles are rarely used on Sundays, wheras people are happy to follow the pew bulletin.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.
'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Our pew sheet has the bible reference and then "(p. ## OT/NT)" - which may be less than helpful for visitors.
That's what we do in our bulletin. As a result, very few readers actually announce the page numbers before the reading, just as the hymn numbers are never announced. We simply annouce the reading and then read it. For those who want to read along, the bulletin tells how.
I have thought many times that it certainly would be easier if they didn't start renumbering pages with Matthew. Seems pointless to me.
And fwiw, our pulpit Bible and pew Bibles are all NRSV. Readers are instructed not to use any other translation unless specifically asked to do so by the minister, in which case the reader will announce the translation being used.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
In our case, at least at Mass, the lessons are for the most part printed in the BCP in full. Most people who attend holy day services or the Office seem fine with just listening to the readings; I've never had a request for page references from anyone.
I know that some evangelical preachers conduct their sermons almost like a Bible study, but that's pretty far from our homiletic tradition. Occasionally we do get guests who will bring their Bibles along, but we're not the sort of place that asks people to open them up and follow references.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I know that some evangelical preachers conduct their sermons almost like a Bible study, but that's pretty far from our homiletic tradition.
This is a debate I am having with a recently-joined member of our church, who cannot understand why I do not make more specific references to the Bible during most of my sermons. But they are usually thematic rather than exegetical - and, I hope, thoroughly infused with the Bible!
BTW I like to simply listen to the Bible read in church; my wife prefers to follow along.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"
and
"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"
I'd agree with those who say that the issue isn't that people don't know what Old and New Testament mean, but that they don't expect a book to reset its page numbers halfway through. How about:
"1st reading: 2 Kings 2:23-25, page nnn of the Old Testament
"2nd reading: Luke 4:27, page mm of the New Testament.
"(Our Bibles contain the Old Testament before the New Testament, and reset their page numbers to 1 at the start of the New Testament)"
Less confusion, more education.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
An interesting sideline: Does your favorite edition start numbering pages afresh at the beginning of the New Testament? If the pages are all numbered consecutively, why not just say "Page X"?
The church I attend (United Methodist) does have pew bibles, but they do not include the Apocrypha.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
In the one of my churches which has bibles which re-number, we do what it says in the OP except that instead of saying "First reading" etc, we say "Old Testament" or "New Testament" so people get the hang of where these things are if they don't know. And most un-churched don't. And while you perhaps shouldn't expect to understand everything the first time you go anywhere, the more you do understand the more likely you are not to feel so alienated that you won't come back.
I don't like the idea of saying Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Scriptures because that implies that Christians do not look on the Old Testament as scripture.
[ 05. November 2014, 18:39: Message edited by: Cathscats ]
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Relying on Pew Bibles makes it a bit confusing when the reading is something like the Book of Whoever, Chapter 2 verses 1-3,6-7,12-16, Chapter 3 verses 1-2, and 16. I think that's a major advantage of having printed sheets.
For those who use Pew Bibles, don't most congregants know how to find the books of the Bible without relying on page numbers?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Relying on Pew Bibles makes it a bit confusing when the reading is something like the Book of Whoever, Chapter 2 verses 1-3,6-7,12-16, Chapter 3 verses 1-2, and 16. I think that's a major advantage of having printed sheets.
For those who use Pew Bibles, don't most congregants know how to find the books of the Bible without relying on page numbers?
Yes and they are more likely to bring their own. Visitors from off the street are a different matter altogether.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Is "First reading Genesis a b. This can be found on page c of the front section of the pew Bible"
and
"Second reading Matthew x y. This can be found on page z of the rear section of the pew Bible"
I'd agree with those who say that the issue isn't that people don't know what Old and New Testament mean, but that they don't expect a book to reset its page numbers halfway through. How about:
"1st reading: 2 Kings 2:23-25, page nnn of the Old Testament
"2nd reading: Luke 4:27, page mm of the New Testament.
"(Our Bibles contain the Old Testament before the New Testament, and reset their page numbers to 1 at the start of the New Testament)"
Less confusion, more education.
Wow! Is it really that difficult? Or is the world really full of helpless people who know how to do absolutely nothing? Oh well!
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
In our church here they say the Bible verse, and the first person who managed to look it up says the page number. It's always a bit of a race who this first person is ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
That's interesting. Episcopal churches in the US generally don't have pew Bibles. Too much space taken up by prayer books and hymnals.
Pew Bibles seem to be fairly common in Episcopal churches in these parts. May be a regional thing.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.
'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
Well not so sure about that. I think the term 'Old' is fairly loaded in this case and many Christians down the ages have taken it to mean 'superceded', with Jews no longer to be considered people of God.
This said, I don't think 'front section' and 'back section' are very useful terms. If a church has pew Bibles then continuous numbering would seem logical!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
Wow! Is it really that difficult? Or is the world really full of helpless people who know how to do absolutely nothing? Oh well!
Agreed, mostly.
quote:
What I've never understood is the idea that when you go to a new thing for the first time, you should understand absolutely everything that happens.
Agreed, entirely.
It really is okay if a newcomer doesn't entirely understand what is going on the first time they show up. Coming as I did from a nonliturgical tradition, I didn't understand the first half-dozen masses I attended, but I trusted that I would understand eventually and just went with it.
Incidentally, the number of people who grasp desperately for their pew bible to follow along with the readings, at least in my experience, is pretty small.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
It really is okay if a newcomer doesn't entirely understand what is going on the first time they show up. Coming as I did from a nonliturgical tradition, I didn't understand the first half-dozen masses I attended, but I trusted that I would understand eventually and just went with it.
I agree to a point. But I'd suggest there's a line between some lack of understanding and a feeling of being completely clueless. There's also a difference between those who come from a different Christian tradition who have some frame of reference and the increasing part of the population that is unchurched and has no frame of reference at all for what we do in church. I think, too, that there are considerations of hospitality.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
This mania for having the entirety of the Holy Scriptures bound up in one book is relatively recent. Perhaps since after the dawn of printing?
Otherwise, we have had a huge number of lectionaries, where the scriptures were divvied up according to when and who read them in the divine service. We've had Gospel Books and Apostoloi. Anciently the NT was divided and bound into Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the Apocalypse. The Hebrews scriptures were divide into Torah, Prophets, and the Writings.
It was all a function of what one wanted close to hand and how big and cumbersome a scroll or codex one was willing to put up with.
There is no reason one cannot be comfortable with just the pericopes printed in a bulletin for that particular Sunday or Holy Day. Or to do what the Roman Catholics do in the US, print a seasonal missalette that has everything one needs for that season.
Prest-o-change-o. No need for page numbers.
I realize this wouldn't work for all congregations, especially those whose preachers specialize in "flipper sermons," but its worth a thought.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... 'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
Not to me - doesn't it just refer to the chronological order, i.e. that the people and events described in the Old Testament were earlier than those in the New?
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[
(The most gimlet-like look anyone ever got from me in church was when I was reading one of the Lessons at evening prayer, and I heard the squeeeeeeeeeee of a highlighter pen coming from the front row, courtesy of an earnest-looking bloke who was following every word in his floppy leatherette-covered NIV.)
Was he highlighting the reading as you went along? Seems to me that he'd end up with a highlighted bible?
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
On further reflection, to me 'the front section of the bible' would be the bit that explains the approach taken by the translators and why they're cleverer translators than in rival translations. 'The back section' is the maps.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Was he highlighting the reading as you went along? Seems to me that he'd end up with a highlighted bible?
Maybe he was keeping track of which passages in the bible he'd heard sermons preached on. When he had a highlighted bible, he'd know he understood it all. When he has a nearly-highlighted bible, he knows to search out the church doing a sermon series on Numbers.
(This is a guess; I don't have any evidence that people do that)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
Was he highlighting the reading as you went along? Seems to me that he'd end up with a highlighted bible?
I don't know, but he came dangerously close to me finding him a new place to keep his pen.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In our church here they say the Bible verse, and the first person who managed to look it up says the page number. It's always a bit of a race who this first person is
I like this! It wouldn't fit in the A-C place I go to now, but in others it certainly would have.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
We just say "today's reading is taken from the Fifth Book of Derek, which can be found on page n of the church bibles", and then put it up on the Powerpoint screens which are sited on strategic pillars in the church, so there really is no excuse for not being able to follow along!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
... 'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
Not to me - doesn't it just refer to the chronological order, i.e. that the people and events described in the Old Testament were earlier than those in the New?
In which case, calling them 'the first/second testament' would be less supercessionist.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Oh for goodness sake.
The Old Testament is so-called because that's the title - just like the book about the orphan who weds Mr Rochester is called Jane Eyre.
If newcomers aren't familiar then they can learn, can't they? After all, you wouldn't expect to know everything, including chapter headings about a book you hadn't read so why should they?
I'd have thought there are more important things to worry about than this.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd prefer 'front' and 'back section.
'OLD Testament' suggests that Judaism is an out of date relic.
To you, perhaps. It suggests to me only that Judaism is the older of the two covenants, and not the one we're signed on to.
not 'signed up to' but grafted into.
Eh?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
