Do you have a Bible at home and What version is it?

I have the Bible and the Quran, however I also have Dawkins "the God Delusion" and Hitchens "God is not Good" and I've read all four more than once, I've also written several Essays on Mormonism and Neo Paganism for the Humanist Society.
I'm fascinated by Theology and New Age sprituality and the Human's need to reconcile death.
 
I have a bible, it's a paper version. After all, you can't criticise something unless you've read it first can you?
 
I've got several translations at home:

Good News Bible (small white leather bound one with silver edged pages, as a Christening present)
English Standard Version (confirmation present)
New International Version - my main bible has various study notes in it, protected (kinda) by a travel case as it's been out with me on outreach to various countries.
The Message - Good for general reading, the switch away from verse structure to a more natural English prose is a boon.
The Amplified - Not a good one for reading, it's a standard bible text with added 'alternative' translations of various words (added in brackets) so you can try and apply a bit more context to them. It exists more as a study aid, particularly when trying to work out nuances of various odd phrases, that's about the only thing I use it for.
Douay - Catholic bible translation.
 
Guzzidom said:
Dawkins "the God Delusion"
Click to expand...

Interesting book. For his sake it's a shame that Dawkins has gone from being someone trying to make evolutionary biology accessible and understandable to the common man and has instead become an atheist possessed with an almost religions zeal to preach his view. The book could have been so much better than it was, but seems all too often to suffer from over-hasty arguments where he seems to go half way and then fails to follow through completely. Mind you, the same can be said about a fair number of pro-Christianity books, like Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", it's a good book nearly does a great job but approaching it as dispassionately as I can a fair number of the arguments work great for someone possessing faith (if not Christianity) but miss something for atheists.
 
Id love to get a Bible and the Quran and just sit through them and read them up, im totally non religious just would like to one day actually get round and read them. But the amount of books already unread on my bookshelf collecting dust is already enough to add another two... one day! :)
 
Pottsey said:
No I meant the bible has been modified over the years and bits added and made up. The oldest bibles with the New Testament don't have the new stories. Take the Gospel of Mark is ends after Jesus' disciples discover his empty tomb. "It cuts out the post-resurrection stories," said Juan Garces who was looking at some 1000+ year old bibles.

Bibles from 1000+ years ago are not the same as bibles from today.
Click to expand...

That is incorrect some of them are and some of them aren't, they've found 1600 year old manuscripts which do have post reserection stories.
 
platinum87 said:
day 6, god created all the land animals, men and women?

the bit about 5000 year about im not sure i think people just assume this.. through going back to oldest records or whatever


either way there is a museum where they show tell this as FACT.. was in the documentary http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/

i dont find it funny though, i find it really really annoying, so much so that i would 100% agree with killing those people..

but i must say the guys in the vatican who he talked to were very cool, they agreed with science completely, but still bellieve in god, which is, but the idiots who come up with random stuff are to be killed without warning
Click to expand...

Nothing can be rpoved as fact, and just because some stuopipd creatist says it is doesnt mena it is.

Firstly the bible clearly states that men and women were created seperatle from the rest of the animals.

And the bibles mentions nothing about the age of the earth that is entirely fabricated anyone who tells you that.
 
Garp said:
Missions stuff, I've been out to Czech Republic, Ukraine, and Albania getting involved in various church organised projects, helping at orphanages, and all sorts of stuff.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to hear you are getting stuck into that kind of thing - I was hoping you weren't on bible-forcing mission! Keep up the good work
 
yantorsen said:
Nothing can be rpoved as fact, and just because some stuopipd creatist says it is doesnt mena it is.

Firstly the bible clearly states that men and women were created seperatle from the rest of the animals.

And the bibles mentions nothing about the age of the earth that is entirely fabricated anyone who tells you that.
Click to expand...

Had a few boxing day drinks have we?
 
Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it.

He give's man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift and what does he do - I swear, for his own amusement, his own private cosmic gag reel. He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time:

Look but don't touch.

Touch but don't taste.

Taste but don't swallow.

...and while you're jumping from one foot to the next, what's he doing? He's laughing his sick ******* ass off! He's a tight ass, he's a sadist, he's an absentee landlord. Worship that? Never!
Click to expand...

Not my belief but a fantastic bit of scripting.
 
Garp said:
Interesting book. For his sake it's a shame that Dawkins has gone from being someone trying to make evolutionary biology accessible and understandable to the common man and has instead become an atheist possessed with an almost religions zeal to preach his view. The book could have been so much better than it was, but seems all too often to suffer from over-hasty arguments where he seems to go half way and then fails to follow through completely. Mind you, the same can be said about a fair number of pro-Christianity books, like Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ", it's a good book nearly does a great job but approaching it as dispassionately as I can a fair number of the arguments work great for someone possessing faith (if not Christianity) but miss something for atheists.
Click to expand...


I am a committed atheist ( a Catholic upbringing will do that for you lol), however I couldn't agree more, Dawkins can be a little shrill especially to someone with faith, interestingly he can fail even in face to face arguments with people with very bizarre views because he gets all huffy puffy and ends up looking like Elmer Fudd having a heart attack.
On the other hand, he was the first "establishment" figure to actually put his hand up and say, hang on, why should we give total respect to a bronze age story that people are dying for, so he deserves some respect for that alone.
I enjoyed the Hitchens book more, though it leads to less conclusion and is ultimately more conjectural, the fatal flaw in Hitchens arguments are when he references the Judaic holy books as most likely inaccurate (to say the least IMO) but then references historical text from shortly afterwards to bolster the evidence for religious atrocities, somewhat hoisting himself on his own petard as it were.
The problem with Strobel is that he tends to come in from the "God does exist and here's why" end of things and most pro creationist arguments start with this outlook.
Most people think that a Darwinian vs a Creationist argument would go "there is a god, there isn't a god. there is a god" etc etc. When in fact it would go "There is a God. Oh good, show me"
The only difference between an Atheist and the Pope is out of the 396 registered religions on the UN site the pope disbelieves 395 of them whilst the atheist disbelieves 396 of them, that's a difference of about a quarter of one percent, doesn't sound so insurmountable when you put it like that does it?.
 
Last edited:
Guzzidom said:
The only difference between an Atheist and the Pope is out of the 396 registered religions on the UN site the pope disbelieves 395 of them whilst the atheist disbelieves 396 of them, that's a difference of about a quarter of one percent, doesn't sound so insurmountable when you put it like that does it?.
Click to expand...

Well, except that most of those 395 don't contradict directly with catholicism and therefore do not require (and hence should not assume) disbelief.

If an Atheist actively disbelieves every religion, then they are making at least the same leap of faith as anyone who actively believes in a religion. The only position that can truely be made on logic is that of the agnostic, where you don't know, and don't claim to know, the answer. This applies even if the basis for disbelief is the idea that absence of evidence is equivilent to evidence of absence, as at such a level, that's a faith based assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom