Why? Its just gonna all get refuted. I've looked in that Bible and instantly found errors. He has no knowledge of Scripture at all. You waste your money.
@@conniefessenden8097 lol, you’re lying to yourself if you think he has no knowledge of scripture. I know you need to discredit him in order to protect your faith but what exactly are your credentials? You presented no evidence to refute any of what he said.
I would like to read my Finnish Bible in a fundamentalist American church and make people think I'm speaking in tongues. Of course I would be, it just wouldn't be a miracle.
I work as a translator, Japanese to English. There's an an old , sexist, joke: Translation is like a wife, beautiful is not faith and faithful is not beautiful. Translation is not easy, hence the term lost in translation.
Many years ago, the question came up about whether it's okay to take the Gideons bibles from hotel rooms, how they get there, who actually owns them when they're in the hotel. I wrote to Gideons International to find out. Gideon bibles remain the property of Gideons International. Hotels (and other organizations, like hospitals) invite Gideons to come and drop their books. It is Gideon's staff that does this, and not the hotel staff, although I think there are some situations where some books are left on site for replenishment, in case a guest requests one. With regard to whether it's okay to take the Gideons bible for yourself, the bibles are intended to stay in the rooms for guests, "however, if someone is in need of a Bible we are happy for them to take the one from the room." Other urban legends: Not true: That Gideons International started as a response to John Lennon's "more popular than Jesus" comment in 1966. Not true: That Gideons surrepetitiously places Bibles in hotels and other facilities without permission. Not true: That Christopher Hitchens has a "Gideons Qur'an" taken from a hotel in Pakistan, because Gideons International distributes Qur'ans there. On that last point, I managed to get hold of Mr. Hitchens' email address, and mailed him in Feb 2010. He responded: "must have been joking...I sometimes do that." In fact, Gideons International distributes bibles in Pakistan printed in Urdu.
I prefer to judge my bible/quran/book of Mormon etc by it's weight... That way when I finally lose my cool with the believer the book has a secondary purpose... 😈
I'm an atheist but I still took the bible placed by the Gideons in a hotel. It was the first time I saw a bible in English, previously reading only in Hebrew or Russian. It's an NKJV translation which is rather modern. It was interesting to see how it had been deviated, even when only slightly, from the original Hebrew text (Talking only about the Old Testament). It was convincing enough for me to know that none of the versions matter more than the other but rather how well one would interpret the translation. The bible is simply a collection of old ideas and stories told by ancient people, they themselves couldn't really know to explain it more elaborately than people today so I'd say just choose the one you read with the most ease.
NRSV has been my choice for a while now, i'm reading through the oxford annotated version (4th ed) right now which has been SUPER educational on the secular history and historical context of the writings of the bible. NRSV seems to be the most neutral version I've tried, taking in account all the different translations and available sources today including the dead sea scrolls, and it gives little notes when sources diverge so you can practically read all versions with this one.
I have a very simple rule of thumb: have a look at the very first verse in Genesis. In all versions of the original hebrew we know of they call "the God" Elohim, which is in fact explicitly plural and not singular. If the given translation doesn't at very least acknowledge this in a footnote (let alone provide brief explanation), then that's a pretty solid reason to ask why shouldn't I dismiss that version as deliberately misleading. This instantly shifts the conversation from "You haven't read the true bible!" to "how can we tell which version/interpretation is the true one, if any?"
@AspiringOO So it's even more important to at least aknowledge the plural, isn't it? If the OG Biblie already had trinity then why English translations use singular?
More than a bit cheesey, but surely the LOLCat Bible is the 'right' and most honest translation. ;) From Genesis: "Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs 1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem. 2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz."
I've found myself in a Facebook debate recently where most of the people I know (Christians) have ganged up on me over an offensive video they posted bashing atheists. The preacher who created it lied so many timed to demonize nones that I had to set them straight with facts. So far I've been called all sorts of dirty names and been accused of not reading the whole book (one person's version), in the light he chooses for me to read it. I've asked everyone to actually ask an atheist and have a civil discussion. I am 48 years old and never knew my friend of 25 years thinks it's okay to kill me or have Jesus do it for him because I'm a wicked and evil atheist. I have been struggling with my family pulling shit and demonizing me while preaching all the live long day, and admitting to crimes against human rights, which I am defending...Their rights. Yet somehow I'm not reading their version of the Bible, as if an atheist needs to as a source of authority. Also, I'm not putting on the god goggles and ignoring what each bible actually says and apologizing for it like they suggest I do. they also are praying for me because the default position is that I'm wrong somehow and need to come back to those beliefs. I keep telling them to remember that for two-thirds of my life, like Matt here, I was a believer too. I believed so damn hard and studied even harder. My mother wanted me to become a preacher and was saving up to send me to one of those schools to become one. All of these things keep getting ignored and the goal post keeps moving so they can all get a win at the dirty atheist in town. Yet none of then can demonstrate a god, if it is truly good, and if it/he deserves my servitude and praise. Not one can answer to me why I, the one who abhors immoral behavior and is not doing it, gets blamed for it and is under constant attack. Both online and in personal conversation with slander and character assassination. I keep pointing out that killing, rape, slavery and child sacrifice are all bad things and not okay. Yet it's a good idea as long as the other guy (innocent atheist) refuses to fall for the god google approach. It's okay to tell him he needs to be killed either now or with the rest of the global genocide which is the ultimate goal in this death cult. I need to move and get rid of social media, meet other friends and tell the family to quit fooling themselves about me and see me for who I am, if I want to talk to them at all. It's lonely at the top.
Good luck with your life. I too have found Christians to be very full of hate. When faced with anger and ridicule you should ask them, in their position, facing an unbeliever "what would Jesus do?" That should, at, least show them the hypocrisy in their hateful attitude.
I had someone refuse to talk to me until after I've read the KJV. I kept telling him that I have read it several times over but according to him I couldn't have because if I had read it I would be a Christian.
That ending remark legitimately made me titter, because that befuddled expression is priceless. Maybe not terribly useful in most conversations, but indeed quite entertaining.
Allow me to complicate matters by tossing in my experience with that book. I was taught to keep many different versions.This was explained by the differences may lead to quicker understanding. What isn't easily understood in one may be stated differently in another. By alternating translations, paraphrasings, or other materials such as commentaries or discussions to further it. Depending on how one thinks, this can also lead to confusion.
I keep an earlier version of the KJV for reference. It's by Samuel Collingwood and Co. printed by Oxford University Press in 1811. It's a first edition from Collingwood and somewhat rare. I find it easy to read even if the language is admittedly slightly archaic and rather flowery. :0)
There also seem to have been traditions of how to translate certain bible verses when there are appearent contradictions. When they worked with the manuscripts they wanted their specific translation to appear consistent and in linement with their doctrins.
I think its important to note that the KJV is a particularly bad bible to use. The text its based on, the Textus Receptus, was written by Erasmus in the 1500's and he used some very late manuscripts. The earliest Greek manuscript he used was from the 9th or 10th century. So pretty late in textual history. He included verse which we know were not original. Like the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, the longer ending of mark, 1John 5:6-7 (The Johannine Comma), and more. So when I talk to someone using the KJV, I make sure they're aware that the bible they're using is flawed (not even mentioning that its all fiction)
You mean like what is in a name Romeo? That translates to I don't care about your last name even though our families are feuding. That sort of metaphorical jargon?
While I agree with the facts of your point, Milwaukee, it remains true that KJV only zealots will insist that part of the reason it is the only true English version is precisely because it contains those stories omitted from other Bibles. Ie they say KJV gets it right and that those stories were actually part of the lost autographa.
Alexander Williams - in which case they should then be challenged to justify that position. I've never heard of that defence for the KJVs "inserted" additions but that seems to me a very weak argument. If a 9th C manuscript has a few verses in that a 4th C one does not the logical position is that the older manuscript is probably more likely to be correct. Before one comes to a conclusion though one should examine as many different versions as one can - but when one does this we find as you assert - that these verses ONLY ever appear much later than the earliest versions we have making the suggestion they were added by later scribes extremely likely. I personally find this subject especially interesting because one can use it as one of the proofs that God is false and man made. If God is perfect and let his word be written down by men through whom he breathed his intended scriptures then the very very earliest we have will be the most accurate and all alterations after that must be heretical since God would never have omitted anything that was true and necessary in the first place. Every scribe who later added or changed ANYTHING was proving, by his actions, God to be false and a man-made construct. I recall an especially amusing exchange with a fanatical creationist under another YT video in which he claimed the KJV 1610 version was the ONLY true and accurate Bible and all others were false. He even suggested that the NIV was "evil" and should be burned. Book-burning is never a wise thing to advocate - one associates it with fascists and communists and similar extremists but for a Christian to argue that a particular translation of the Bible should be burned because it was "evil" is especially comical.
ShizukuSeiji - I agree that it is an extremely weak argument. Truth be told, just about every argument claimed to support the divine nature of any version of the Bible is weak. That has never stopped adherents from making the claims. Like I said, I agree with Milwaukee's evidence backed points which indicate that KJV contains interpolations and other forms of alterations which makes it almost certainly deviate from the autographa but... you will still find some people who nevertheless _insist_ that the KJV is the only true English version. You can point out how irrational that is but, as Matt was trying to get across, it is a waste of time to spend too much time on that. Indicate how irrational it is and then move on to the demonstrable fact that even _if_ the KJV is the most accurate English version of the Bible, it is still full of garbage. :)
Translations from where, exactly? What are the source documents from where all these different versions come from. How can things get mis-translated if they come from the same source. Or are there different sources?
Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a good jumping off point like you say. Mine is signed ;) The NIV is good for the foot notes, but I prefer to study and quote from the NASB. Though I prefer to read the LOLCat Bible.
There are versions of the bible that change important things. I live in Norway, a largely atheist country - but there are still a lot of believers around, and of course we do have our versions of the bible. One English version of a verse I'd rather use when debating christians, is Isaiah 45:7 In English it says "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." The important word for me here is "evil". - In Norwegian these words have been changed to happiness and unhappiness, or fortune and misfortune. It doesn't translate directly, but one of those. That is pretty far from Evil, so naturally I use the English version. Also - in Numbers 31 vers 18 "But all the women children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." In Norwegian they have simply removed the words "for yourselves" and it reads that all the female children shall be left to live. A much nicer version. In fact, when you pull out the Norwegian version of the bible from the 1930s (which is on the biblegateway site), it Does include the text, but in new verrsions the words are removed. So .. meaning gets taken away, and is directly lost, and that is just now. Furthermore - since 2012 (I believe it was), new versions of the Norwegian Bible no longer refers to the mother of jesus as the virgin mary. Only Mary, a young woman. From what I understand, this relates to a dispute over the correct translation from Hebrew.
Translate the actual texts. Getting the Kabbalah Zohar explanations are fun ways to blow a Christian's mind for Old Testament stuff. Or use the stuff preachers use to study cuz that has the good stuff as was mentioned in the video. I wouldn't recommend to engage in a debate unless I was well versed, to begin with. It's also great to know history, philosophy and other religions to compare to other psychology about whatever issue is being talked about, that there is more to a limited ideology.
Why on earth would I care which is the "one true version" of Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales or Huckleberry Finn? Fiction is fiction. Tweaks are irrelevant to the entertainment value, which is all there is between the covers.
Evirth, incomplete. Yes, a lot of people want to push their narrative. Please don't forget, tons of great writing, movies, and culture use referents from such sources. I also recommend reading Homers Aenead, Shakespeare, Kipling, and, well, the list is long. An easy start is the Harvard Classics collection. Ed, remember the difference between a version and a translation and the century's long confusion of the two, and, if you're like me in this, you might look into when and what various "buble" books had, didn't have, whuch are included, not included, when some were included and then weren't included later. Its just another study of a thing that lets us know what a billionish people are talking about.
There's a big difference between the Brothers Grimm version and the Disney version of a fairy tale. Different versions have different intentions and are aimed at different audiences. How it is told affects your experience. One translation may be very accurate to the source material, but harder to read because the grammar of one language doesn't flow well in the other. A freer translation may be easier to read, but sacrifice accuracy. P.S. There is one true version of Huckleberry Finn, since he was created by a single writer.
To whom are you speaking? Matt does not claim that "one true version" of the bible exists. On the contrary, he obviously thinks there is no definitive unproblematic version.
Ed Carter, you clearly don't know any foreign language. Ever heard the expression "lost in translation"? You have no idea how difficult and sometimes impossible it is to translate jokes, especially when they play with words.
As someone who went to VBS thanks to my parents until I was to old, the teen Bibles are just as late 90's early 2000s and they give me one every time I went, they are all identical. From the first VBS I went to in 2005 at the age of 3 to the last one I was sent to in 2017. I've got 13 identical bibles, I've donated all but 1 to used stores, im an atheist his wire interested in Christian culture since it's assumed as the norm in our society.
So if we can't find the best translation, we should put them all on audio at the same time and listen to them all at once. Hopefully we can find the message and not get an aneurysm.
The question I like to ask is Which canon? There are many Canons in sue in the world today with a differnt amount of books in them. Why does God not let us know what Bible canon is the correct one if it is so important. How can we argue for any translation when we don't know which canon to use?
Scott Plumer the new versions claim to go by the originals, but seen to take cues from douay-rheims or Latin vulgate. As for if they take from kjv, don't think so or kjvo's would not have such a beef with them.
I find BibleHub's interlinear option to be useful for looking at the original Greek and Hebrew words. Through this I was able to discover that the King James version has some bad choices of words and disprove theistic claims about what the Bible says.
When a minion begins with the argument about one "right" version of a religious book about one of the many "one true gods" out there, I like to ask: _How negligent do you think a god should be?_ I like to imagine better gods than they can. Religion is the only field where the principle of charity (considering the best and strongest possible interpretation of a premise), turns against the conclusion of the proponent.
Why do we only have 4 gospels in the book called bible ? When there r many many gospels not included in the church's book "bible" Should we not be using the gospels rather than what the church prints ?
I recommended one go to Textus receptus bibles . com. It let me find out what the older bibles say. It's why I've made the bibles from the 1530s my bibles as the ones I go by. And it let me find out which pre kjv bibles the kjv either parallels with or it took from. They do re-make some of the older bibles in modern spelling.
I gave an English translation of the Codex Sinaiticus and Gospel of Thomas to some visiting Jehovah Witness. They stopped coming to our weekly chats for some reason.
I did something that I do not suggest others do. I was staying in a hotel in South Carolina- and I admit that I had had a few beers. Eleven to be exact (that was what the police report stated anyway). As I was leaving my room to checkout, I set fire to the Bible that was in the room. I put it in a metal trash can under the desk, and left. I thought it would just burn down to the unholy core. Now I’m not going to exaggerate, and say the room and entire hotel was turned into a structure fire....but the smoke caused the sprinklers and fire alarm to go off, just as I was checking out at the front desk. I fled. It took two days for the cops to track me down, and I did what any Christian would have done- I lied. The hotel was pretty cool about it- I only had to pay the fine that is imposed for smoking in a none smoking room- 376 dollars.
If you know more than one language I strongly suggest reading the Bible in both. When listening to English -speaking atheists I heard some claims regarding unicorns in the Bible which sounded weird, so I checked the verses in my Bible and it made no reference to unicorns...turns out that this was because my Bible is in Polish and it translated the original Hebrew word as 'wół', which means 'an ox'. Most English Bibles talk about unicorns instead... The infamous verse about women being forced to marry their rapist also differs. In the Polish translation there is no reference to rape, just consensual, pretramarital sex...
If there's an all powerful god which is trying to communicate with us and wants us to know it exists, why are bibles in different translations even required for such a being? Why is a conversation like this even possible if this god really exists? If this god existed, I would expect some kind of extraordinary universal language that wouldn't require translations, or some other method that a god should be able to produce to make itself clear.
As an atheist, what if I ask them which Bible translation they use and they say that they use the TLB which is more like an interpretation than a translation? For example, the TLB says in Leviticus 18:6 "None of you shall marry a near relative, for I am the Lord." while the same verse says in the KJV "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord." and in the NIV "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.". Marrying someone is not the same as having sexual relations with someone. Other examples: Leviticus 18:22 - TLB: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."; KJV: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."; NIV: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 - TLB: "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."; KJV: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."; NIV: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Saying that Leviticus 18:22 refers to every form of homosexuality and that "they have brought it upon themselves" is absolutely detestable, especially because Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 talk about a very special form of homosexuality that was common in the time in that these verses were written: shrine prostitution. This can be seen when you read Leviticus 18:6-20, realize that these verses talk about forbidden sexual relations, read Leviticus 18:21 that talks about the sacrifice of children to the pagan god Molech, read Leviticus 18:22, realize that this verse seems to talk about forbidden sexual relations again, ask yourself "Why would the author of Leviticus 18 talk about forbidden sexual relations, then talk about child sacrifice and then talk about forbidden sexual relations again after just one verse?" and realize that the answer is that Leviticus 18:21 and 18:22 are connected and talk about shrine prostition. Leviticus 20:13 talks about the punishment for the crime from Leviticus 18:21-22. Also, the Hebrew word "toevah" that was translated into "abomination" in the KJV is just a cultural or ritual taboo while the word "abomination" implies that it is something that is awful and unnatural, something that shouldn't exist on the face of the Earth. shma.com/2012/04/abomination-is-hate-speech/ . If you read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 alone, you'll come to the conclusion that they talk about homosexuality in general but if you read it in textual and historical context with Leviticus 18:21, you'll hopefully come to the same conclusion as I. My comment is not meant as an apologetic for the Bible in general. I just want everyone to realize that the TLB and similar interpretations of the Bible are dangerous and that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 only refer to shrine prostitution so that no homophobes can say "Well, it's not I who hates gays. God is the one who hates them. I just follow his commandments." as an excuse for their hateful mental disorder called homophobia. When you read all Bible verses that are thought to talk about homosexuality in general in context and understand what the words originally meant, you'll hopefully realize that the Bible isn't against homosexuality in general but against (tried) gangrape (Genesis 19:5-9, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Judges 19:22-25), shrine prostitution (Leviticus 18:21-22, 20:13), idolatry (Romans 1:21-27), morally weak/soft people (malakoi - 1 Corinthians 6:9, www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html , www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Malakoi.html ) and people who are called arsenokoites (this word was invented by Paul but he never defined it - 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html , www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html , www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html ).
Wouldn't it be better to talk about the meaning that they derive from specific verses/chapters instead of quibbling over the translation? Obviously that's contingent on the person you're talking to actually caring about the discussion, as opposed to simply looking for a way to deflect and evade.
s bushido I wouldn't put words in his mouth, but I would suggest he may intend the actual words they quote and study often shows poor morality and ethics they can't escape by arguing we're quoting a false bible. No need to become an expert on all of them, just a little better at pointing out failed morality and ethics specifically in theirs.
You cannot make well a sick mind overnight. You will be denied of gaining any ground or being good. Irrational mind sets are the hardest to come to rational discussions and they don't care about the truth. The lie is more comfortable to them so they prfer to stick with it.
all approaches are valid and useful. the only key is to understand that your discussion with a person is one PIECE in a puzzle to get them to change, and that it can take a decade or more for that to happen.
Matt has said he wants to believe as many true things as possible. If he wants to have an "atheist debate", shouldn't it go something like; Can strong atheists call themselves Pyrrhonian skeptics?
If I have to look up anything in a bible I may as well have more of a laugh than usual. I only read the LOLCatbible www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
I remember one day at work (I managed a mexican restaurant), there was this crazy lady who would come in. And one day she was talking about the bible, and she was saying how the NIV of the bible is "garbage" and basically made it sound like it isn't "the true word". I'm not sure why, maybe someone can tell me? I mean, maybe she is just crazy, but i'm curious just in case there is a difference.
If you can't discern if a book should be taken literally or symbolically, then don't worry about reading the bible at all. If one didn't study what people were practicing back in the bible days or even the pollitics back then. Then one doesn't need to be reading the bible. This is for the atheist. If you can't discern what is omnipotent and omnipresent being the cosmic universe, and you think it should save, be all knowing and care. Then you don't need to be reading the bible either. The atheist will surely not know when to take scripture literally or symbolically.
Thanks for the video, but you really didn't offer much help, aside from, 'Use the one that your sparring partner believes in.' I, for one, have no interest in such discourse. I am interested in reading the Bible for the purpose of understanding what ancient people believed in. I don't care about making the OT comport to the NT, or understanding modern Christians. I want to understand the Bible historically, and learn about ancient beliefs. Any advice? NRSV, perhaps?
What I never understood about KJV purists is...what about bibles in other languages? Do non-English speakers have to learn English first before becoming 'true' christians? Are French, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Russian, Polish (etc.) bibles already wrong cuz they're not KJV? Why would god want his word to only be validly recorded in a language that wouldn't fully develop until centuries after the events that they record took place?
Most translations are pretty good,due to the plethora of manuscripts,Thete all good I don't read the KJV just cause we don't speak in that vernacular any more.
I used to follow you a lot on college... this religious vs atheism debate is dead... I've since made the connection to animal rights and human rights after watching The Yourofsky Speech and Earthlings. Non violence is the height of evolution... 75% of the animals on the planet are herbivores like us. It's time to evolve our mind. Get on board.
The best bible to read is the one which is most prominent in your area. I grew up in a catholic house and area, so it would not mamke much sense to read KJ-Bible, because there are significant differances. So I resolved to the catholic sanctioned version of the bible. There are even people who would argue tthe catholic sanctioned is the only acceptable because its the single biggest denomination around the world within christianity (about 48%). However that doesn't say aything if you're living in the UK then you should go to the KJ-Bible - whereas most people would argue that its the most dissorted version as it has countless sinificant differances to the others. Same if you're living in greece or russia you should resolve to the one in use - which might even differ between Greece and Russia. If you're a protestant you might want to read the lutheranian version. So my guess there is no "best" version you should read, read the one which is most prominent in your family or homecountry. Because what ever version you'll take and you argue from that version, people will pick on that becuase that is the dissorted version EVERYTIME. Even catholics called me out on useing the catholic bible which the priest gave me for my confirmation - so on argumentation grounds, its better to have your smartphone and ask them for "their version". If its only to get a good overview on what is written just take any - they all are horrible to read and horrible in topic. The version mostly differ in wording which change the interpretation of the "leading church" but not the overall outcome you'll get once you read it.
Every translation from the Hebrew Masoretic has corrupted timelines missing about 650 years of genealogy before Abraham. The Septuagint (LXX) predates Christ but probably wasn't what Christ read from. But the Septuagint show that the Jews corrupted some timelines in the Masoretic for an outcome that doesn't concern non believers !
King James imo if you want to engage. I was raised baptist and the king James 1611 is the only version many people accept. If your just reading for personal knowledge I wouldn't recommend it, the old English can be a bit harder to follow.
reading and understand is a real challenge and give real insight on how difficult it is to understand anything written down, and the reason of all the different translations? SATAN! No really, this was a very good talk. Thanks
Yep, the Bible translation is pretty much just a different as the denomination. The same people who tell you that you studied the wrong Bible will tell you that you were raised with the wrong Christianity and that if you try their version, you're sure to believe. I get that way more than "studying the wrong Bible."
Thank God I'm an atheist.
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for god
@Viktor Tandofsky Atheism just means no belief in a God. You may as well try grouping up all mass murderers as all having hair.
I see what you did thar
The Skeptics Annotated is my choice. It saves time.
*Which version of the Bible should I read?*
_The Skeptic's Annotated Bible_
So do you agree or disagree when Matt suggests (among other things) using _The Skeptic's Annotated Bible_ as a supplemental reference?
@@yinYangMountain I can hardly wait until atheists try that crap on me. You're gonna find out it was all a waste of money.
Christians keep translating the bible again and again in a vain hope that if they get it just right the book will finally start making sense.
Only a select few can read originals in hebrew and greek. And those who do - can't agree on the first thing those originals mean. So meh.
NO U, on both accounts.
Spoken like a true Christian.
I can't wait for the Matt Dillahunty version of the bible
God read it, and saw that it was good.
Why? Its just gonna all get refuted. I've looked in that Bible and instantly found errors. He has no knowledge of Scripture at all. You waste your money.
@@conniefessenden8097 Get a life.
@@rc7625 I got a life in Christ.
@@conniefessenden8097 lol, you’re lying to yourself if you think he has no knowledge of scripture. I know you need to discredit him in order to protect your faith but what exactly are your credentials? You presented no evidence to refute any of what he said.
I would like to read my Finnish Bible in a fundamentalist American church and make people think I'm speaking in tongues. Of course I would be, it just wouldn't be a miracle.
I'm trying to learn Finnish.
If you can speak Finnish, I think it counts!
I work as a translator, Japanese to English. There's an an old , sexist, joke:
Translation is like a wife, beautiful is not faith and faithful is not beautiful. Translation is not easy, hence the term lost in translation.
The joke is kind of true, but doesn’t take into account the beautiful who think they aren’t and vice versa
@Amanda Hugankiss did you learn something about translation?
I just left my UBER, and the driver was a true example of childhood indoctrination....and I felt sorry for him- until he became condescending.
Be sure to leave a scathing review.
RichardR1950 : haha, nice one. (:
Many years ago, the question came up about whether it's okay to take the Gideons bibles from hotel rooms, how they get there, who actually owns them when they're in the hotel.
I wrote to Gideons International to find out.
Gideon bibles remain the property of Gideons International. Hotels (and other organizations, like hospitals) invite Gideons to come and drop their books. It is Gideon's staff that does this, and not the hotel staff, although I think there are some situations where some books are left on site for replenishment, in case a guest requests one.
With regard to whether it's okay to take the Gideons bible for yourself, the bibles are intended to stay in the rooms for guests, "however, if someone is in need of a Bible we are happy for them to take the one from the room."
Other urban legends:
Not true: That Gideons International started as a response to John Lennon's "more popular than Jesus" comment in 1966.
Not true: That Gideons surrepetitiously places Bibles in hotels and other facilities without permission.
Not true: That Christopher Hitchens has a "Gideons Qur'an" taken from a hotel in Pakistan, because Gideons International distributes Qur'ans there.
On that last point, I managed to get hold of Mr. Hitchens' email address, and mailed him in Feb 2010. He responded: "must have been joking...I sometimes do that."
In fact, Gideons International distributes bibles in Pakistan printed in Urdu.
This was awesome Matt! I didn't realize there were so many versions. I am really enjoying The Atheist Debates! Keep them coming!
I prefer to judge my bible/quran/book of Mormon etc by it's weight... That way when I finally lose my cool with the believer the book has a secondary purpose... 😈
Lol I know im late but damn it you made my day I had to hit the like button
I'm an atheist but I still took the bible placed by the Gideons in a hotel.
It was the first time I saw a bible in English, previously reading only in Hebrew or Russian.
It's an NKJV translation which is rather modern. It was interesting to see how it had been deviated, even when only slightly, from the original Hebrew text (Talking only about the Old Testament). It was convincing enough for me to know that none of the versions matter more than the other but rather how well one would interpret the translation. The bible is simply a collection of old ideas and stories told by ancient people, they themselves couldn't really know to explain it more elaborately than people today so I'd say just choose the one you read with the most ease.
NRSV has been my choice for a while now, i'm reading through the oxford annotated version (4th ed) right now which has been SUPER educational on the secular history and historical context of the writings of the bible.
NRSV seems to be the most neutral version I've tried, taking in account all the different translations and available sources today including the dead sea scrolls, and it gives little notes when sources diverge so you can practically read all versions with this one.
@Kyrby My understanding is that most academics use the NRSV.
I have a very simple rule of thumb: have a look at the very first verse in Genesis. In all versions of the original hebrew we know of they call "the God" Elohim, which is in fact explicitly plural and not singular. If the given translation doesn't at very least acknowledge this in a footnote (let alone provide brief explanation), then that's a pretty solid reason to ask why shouldn't I dismiss that version as deliberately misleading. This instantly shifts the conversation from "You haven't read the true bible!" to "how can we tell which version/interpretation is the true one, if any?"
Father, Son , Holy Spirit.
Trinity
Three in one. Therefore , plural.
Everything has an explanation in the holy bible.
@AspiringOO
So it's even more important to at least aknowledge the plural, isn't it? If the OG Biblie already had trinity then why English translations use singular?
More than a bit cheesey, but surely the LOLCat Bible is the 'right' and most honest translation. ;)
From Genesis:
"Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs
1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz."
Wow, I actually laughed out loud at the invisible bike
I've found myself in a Facebook debate recently where most of the people I know (Christians) have ganged up on me over an offensive video they posted bashing atheists. The preacher who created it lied so many timed to demonize nones that I had to set them straight with facts. So far I've been called all sorts of dirty names and been accused of not reading the whole book (one person's version), in the light he chooses for me to read it. I've asked everyone to actually ask an atheist and have a civil discussion. I am 48 years old and never knew my friend of 25 years thinks it's okay to kill me or have Jesus do it for him because I'm a wicked and evil atheist. I have been struggling with my family pulling shit and demonizing me while preaching all the live long day, and admitting to crimes against human rights, which I am defending...Their rights. Yet somehow I'm not reading their version of the Bible, as if an atheist needs to as a source of authority. Also, I'm not putting on the god goggles and ignoring what each bible actually says and apologizing for it like they suggest I do. they also are praying for me because the default position is that I'm wrong somehow and need to come back to those beliefs.
I keep telling them to remember that for two-thirds of my life, like Matt here, I was a believer too. I believed so damn hard and studied even harder. My mother wanted me to become a preacher and was saving up to send me to one of those schools to become one.
All of these things keep getting ignored and the goal post keeps moving so they can all get a win at the dirty atheist in town. Yet none of then can demonstrate a god, if it is truly good, and if it/he deserves my servitude and praise. Not one can answer to me why I, the one who abhors immoral behavior and is not doing it, gets blamed for it and is under constant attack. Both online and in personal conversation with slander and character assassination.
I keep pointing out that killing, rape, slavery and child sacrifice are all bad things and not okay. Yet it's a good idea as long as the other guy (innocent atheist) refuses to fall for the god google approach. It's okay to tell him he needs to be killed either now or with the rest of the global genocide which is the ultimate goal in this death cult.
I need to move and get rid of social media, meet other friends and tell the family to quit fooling themselves about me and see me for who I am, if I want to talk to them at all.
It's lonely at the top.
Good luck with your life. I too have found Christians to be very full of hate. When faced with anger and ridicule you should ask them, in their position, facing an unbeliever "what would Jesus do?"
That should, at, least show them the hypocrisy in their hateful attitude.
Your story is extremely important. So many self-righteous believers ask "what's the harm?"
I had someone refuse to talk to me until after I've read the KJV. I kept telling him that I have read it several times over but according to him I couldn't have because if I had read it I would be a Christian.
Matt you are the best, keep it up.
That ending remark legitimately made me titter, because that befuddled expression is priceless. Maybe not terribly useful in most conversations, but indeed quite entertaining.
All Versions are Equally Garbage
Thanks, Matt!
Gr8 show Matt!!!!
you rock, Matt :)
Allow me to complicate matters by tossing in my experience with that book.
I was taught to keep many different versions.This was explained by the differences may lead to quicker understanding. What isn't easily understood in one may be stated differently in another. By alternating translations, paraphrasings, or other materials such as commentaries or discussions to further it.
Depending on how one thinks, this can also lead to confusion.
I keep an earlier version of the KJV for reference. It's by Samuel Collingwood and Co. printed by Oxford University Press in 1811. It's a first edition from Collingwood and somewhat rare. I find it easy to read even if the language is admittedly slightly archaic and rather flowery. :0)
There also seem to have been traditions of how to translate certain bible verses when there are appearent contradictions. When they worked with the manuscripts they wanted their specific translation to appear consistent and in linement with their doctrins.
“The Message” has to be the most watered down version that I’ve come across
Read the free version...from the hotel. Then toss it in the trash.
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is the one I currently are using because I have never been able to get past the 1st to pages.
I think its important to note that the KJV is a particularly bad bible to use. The text its based on, the Textus Receptus, was written by Erasmus in the 1500's and he used some very late manuscripts. The earliest Greek manuscript he used was from the 9th or 10th century. So pretty late in textual history. He included verse which we know were not original. Like the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, the longer ending of mark, 1John 5:6-7 (The Johannine Comma), and more. So when I talk to someone using the KJV, I make sure they're aware that the bible they're using is flawed (not even mentioning that its all fiction)
You mean like what is in a name Romeo? That translates to I don't care about your last name even though our families are feuding. That sort of metaphorical jargon?
While I agree with the facts of your point, Milwaukee, it remains true that KJV only zealots will insist that part of the reason it is the only true English version is precisely because it contains those stories omitted from other Bibles. Ie they say KJV gets it right and that those stories were actually part of the lost autographa.
Alexander Williams - in which case they should then be challenged to justify that position. I've never heard of that defence for the KJVs "inserted" additions but that seems to me a very weak argument. If a 9th C manuscript has a few verses in that a 4th C one does not the logical position is that the older manuscript is probably more likely to be correct. Before one comes to a conclusion though one should examine as many different versions as one can - but when one does this we find as you assert - that these verses ONLY ever appear much later than the earliest versions we have making the suggestion they were added by later scribes extremely likely.
I personally find this subject especially interesting because one can use it as one of the proofs that God is false and man made. If God is perfect and let his word be written down by men through whom he breathed his intended scriptures then the very very earliest we have will be the most accurate and all alterations after that must be heretical since God would never have omitted anything that was true and necessary in the first place.
Every scribe who later added or changed ANYTHING was proving, by his actions, God to be false and a man-made construct.
I recall an especially amusing exchange with a fanatical creationist under another YT video in which he claimed the KJV 1610 version was the ONLY true and accurate Bible and all others were false. He even suggested that the NIV was "evil" and should be burned.
Book-burning is never a wise thing to advocate - one associates it with fascists and communists and similar extremists but for a Christian to argue that a particular translation of the Bible should be burned because it was "evil" is especially comical.
in my grandmother's KJV Bible Exodus 21 is removed.
ShizukuSeiji - I agree that it is an extremely weak argument. Truth be told, just about every argument claimed to support the divine nature of any version of the Bible is weak. That has never stopped adherents from making the claims.
Like I said, I agree with Milwaukee's evidence backed points which indicate that KJV contains interpolations and other forms of alterations which makes it almost certainly deviate from the autographa but... you will still find some people who nevertheless _insist_ that the KJV is the only true English version. You can point out how irrational that is but, as Matt was trying to get across, it is a waste of time to spend too much time on that. Indicate how irrational it is and then move on to the demonstrable fact that even _if_ the KJV is the most accurate English version of the Bible, it is still full of garbage.
:)
This guy's videos help me have a better understanding of atheists and helps me become a smarter person as well as a better christian
Translations from where, exactly? What are the source documents from where all these different versions come from. How can things get mis-translated if they come from the same source. Or are there different sources?
Yes, E-Sword is still there. And it was updated as recently as August 2017.
Skeptic's Annotated Bible is a good jumping off point like you say. Mine is signed ;)
The NIV is good for the foot notes, but I prefer to study and quote from the NASB. Though I prefer to read the LOLCat Bible.
Translations of public domain texts can be copyrighted? Or are just the side notes copyrighted?
"May you come to worship an active god." - Braxin Curse
There are versions of the bible that change important things. I live in Norway, a largely atheist country - but there are still a lot of believers around, and of course we do have our versions of the bible.
One English version of a verse I'd rather use when debating christians, is Isaiah 45:7
In English it says
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things."
The important word for me here is "evil". - In Norwegian these words have been changed to happiness and unhappiness, or fortune and misfortune. It doesn't translate directly, but one of those.
That is pretty far from Evil, so naturally I use the English version.
Also - in Numbers 31 vers 18
"But all the women children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
In Norwegian they have simply removed the words "for yourselves" and it reads that all the female children shall be left to live. A much nicer version.
In fact, when you pull out the Norwegian version of the bible from the 1930s (which is on the biblegateway site), it Does include the text, but in new verrsions the words are removed.
So .. meaning gets taken away, and is directly lost, and that is just now.
Furthermore - since 2012 (I believe it was), new versions of the Norwegian Bible no longer refers to the mother of jesus as the virgin mary. Only Mary, a young woman. From what I understand, this relates to a dispute over the correct translation from Hebrew.
Translate the actual texts. Getting the Kabbalah Zohar explanations are fun ways to blow a Christian's mind for Old Testament stuff. Or use the stuff preachers use to study cuz that has the good stuff as was mentioned in the video. I wouldn't recommend to engage in a debate unless I was well versed, to begin with. It's also great to know history, philosophy and other religions to compare to other psychology about whatever issue is being talked about, that there is more to a limited ideology.
So Matt, how many different versions of the Bible have you read?
Why on earth would I care which is the "one true version" of Aesop's Fables, Grimm's Fairy Tales or Huckleberry Finn? Fiction is fiction. Tweaks are irrelevant to the entertainment value, which is all there is between the covers.
People are trying to find excuses to justify their belief and how they are superior to others.
Evirth, incomplete. Yes, a lot of people want to push their narrative. Please don't forget, tons of great writing, movies, and culture use referents from such sources. I also recommend reading Homers Aenead, Shakespeare, Kipling, and, well, the list is long. An easy start is the Harvard Classics collection.
Ed, remember the difference between a version and a translation and the century's long confusion of the two, and, if you're like me in this, you might look into when and what various "buble" books had, didn't have, whuch are included, not included, when some were included and then weren't included later. Its just another study of a thing that lets us know what a billionish people are talking about.
There's a big difference between the Brothers Grimm version and the Disney version of a fairy tale. Different versions have different intentions and are aimed at different audiences. How it is told affects your experience. One translation may be very accurate to the source material, but harder to read because the grammar of one language doesn't flow well in the other. A freer translation may be easier to read, but sacrifice accuracy.
P.S. There is one true version of Huckleberry Finn, since he was created by a single writer.
To whom are you speaking? Matt does not claim that "one true version" of the bible exists. On the contrary, he obviously thinks there is no definitive unproblematic version.
Ed Carter, you clearly don't know any foreign language. Ever heard the expression "lost in translation"? You have no idea how difficult and sometimes impossible it is to translate jokes, especially when they play with words.
As someone who went to VBS thanks to my parents until I was to old, the teen Bibles are just as late 90's early 2000s and they give me one every time I went, they are all identical. From the first VBS I went to in 2005 at the age of 3 to the last one I was sent to in 2017. I've got 13 identical bibles, I've donated all but 1 to used stores, im an atheist his wire interested in Christian culture since it's assumed as the norm in our society.
So if we can't find the best translation, we should put them all on audio at the same time and listen to them all at once. Hopefully we can find the message and not get an aneurysm.
The question I like to ask is Which canon? There are many Canons in sue in the world today with a differnt amount of books in them. Why does God not let us know what Bible canon is the correct one if it is so important. How can we argue for any translation when we don't know which canon to use?
The NRSV is the version most commonly used by biblical scholars, as far as i know, although I'm not sure why.
Can you please talk about the "criterion of embarrassment"?
There are tons of bibles at used book stores and charity shops like goodwill and st. vinnys
For the newer versions of the Bible, were they translated from the original texts, or did they go by earlier editions, like the KJV?
Scott Plumer the new versions claim to go by the originals, but seen to take cues from douay-rheims or Latin vulgate. As for if they take from kjv, don't think so or kjvo's would not have such a beef with them.
Thanks Matt. Wanted to read the bible as an anti-theist myself and gives me great contextual advice in where to start.
I find BibleHub's interlinear option to be useful for looking at the original Greek and Hebrew words. Through this I was able to discover that the King James version has some bad choices of words and disprove theistic claims about what the Bible says.
Please tell more! I am yet to learn Greek properly
When a minion begins with the argument about one "right" version of a religious book about one of the many "one true gods" out there, I like to ask:
_How negligent do you think a god should be?_
I like to imagine better gods than they can.
Religion is the only field where the principle of charity (considering the best and strongest possible interpretation of a premise), turns against the conclusion of the proponent.
none
The New Revised Standard Version is my preferred translation, but certainly not perfect. The English Standard Version is pretty good, too.
Get the interlinear texts of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek with English translations.
I have the KJV since I was little and the NIV since I was a teen. Probably will get the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible next.
What about the New English Translation?
Why do we only have 4 gospels in the book called bible ? When there r many many gospels not included in the church's book "bible"
Should we not be using the gospels rather than what the church prints ?
What about the New World translation Matt?
Roman T It's been dumbed down and had some very objectionable things toned down. I know.
Kamtuxutl yeah fee sure
I recommended one go to Textus receptus bibles . com. It let me find out what the older bibles say. It's why I've made the bibles from the 1530s my bibles as the ones I go by. And it let me find out which pre kjv bibles the kjv either parallels with or it took from. They do re-make some of the older bibles in modern spelling.
There's an app called "Blue Letter Bible". I find it helpful.
I gave an English translation of the Codex Sinaiticus and Gospel of Thomas to some visiting Jehovah Witness. They stopped coming to our weekly chats for some reason.
I did something that I do not suggest others do. I was staying in a hotel in South Carolina- and I admit that I had had a few beers. Eleven to be exact (that was what the police report stated anyway). As I was leaving my room to checkout, I set fire to the Bible that was in the room. I put it in a metal trash can under the desk, and left. I thought it would just burn down to the unholy core. Now I’m not going to exaggerate, and say the room and entire hotel was turned into a structure fire....but the smoke caused the sprinklers and fire alarm to go off, just as I was checking out at the front desk. I fled. It took two days for the cops to track me down, and I did what any Christian would have done- I lied. The hotel was pretty cool about it- I only had to pay the fine that is imposed for smoking in a none smoking room- 376 dollars.
Matt, looks like you've lost a lot of weight. Keep it up, good job!
Was Anne Richards the first female governor of Texas?
If you know more than one language I strongly suggest reading the Bible in both.
When listening to English -speaking atheists I heard some claims regarding unicorns in the Bible which sounded weird, so I checked the verses in my Bible and it made no reference to unicorns...turns out that this was because my Bible is in Polish and it translated the original Hebrew word as 'wół', which means 'an ox'. Most English Bibles talk about unicorns instead...
The infamous verse about women being forced to marry their rapist also differs. In the Polish translation there is no reference to rape, just consensual, pretramarital sex...
If there's an all powerful god which is trying to communicate with us and wants us to know it exists, why are bibles in different translations even required for such a being? Why is a conversation like this even possible if this god really exists? If this god existed, I would expect some kind of extraordinary universal language that wouldn't require translations, or some other method that a god should be able to produce to make itself clear.
It's a great source of wisdom and should be mandatory reading,
I've lived my life by it for nearly 50 years .. L. Frank Baum was an epic story teller.
As an atheist, what if I ask them which Bible translation they use and they say that they use the TLB which is more like an interpretation than a translation?
For example, the TLB says in Leviticus 18:6 "None of you shall marry a near relative, for I am the Lord." while the same verse says in the KJV "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord." and in the NIV "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.". Marrying someone is not the same as having sexual relations with someone.
Other examples:
Leviticus 18:22 - TLB: "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin."; KJV: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."; NIV: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 - TLB: "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."; KJV: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."; NIV: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Saying that Leviticus 18:22 refers to every form of homosexuality and that "they have brought it upon themselves" is absolutely detestable, especially because Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 talk about a very special form of homosexuality that was common in the time in that these verses were written: shrine prostitution. This can be seen when you read Leviticus 18:6-20, realize that these verses talk about forbidden sexual relations, read Leviticus 18:21 that talks about the sacrifice of children to the pagan god Molech, read Leviticus 18:22, realize that this verse seems to talk about forbidden sexual relations again, ask yourself "Why would the author of Leviticus 18 talk about forbidden sexual relations, then talk about child sacrifice and then talk about forbidden sexual relations again after just one verse?" and realize that the answer is that Leviticus 18:21 and 18:22 are connected and talk about shrine prostition. Leviticus 20:13 talks about the punishment for the crime from Leviticus 18:21-22.
Also, the Hebrew word "toevah" that was translated into "abomination" in the KJV is just a cultural or ritual taboo while the word "abomination" implies that it is something that is awful and unnatural, something that shouldn't exist on the face of the Earth. shma.com/2012/04/abomination-is-hate-speech/ . If you read Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 alone, you'll come to the conclusion that they talk about homosexuality in general but if you read it in textual and historical context with Leviticus 18:21, you'll hopefully come to the same conclusion as I.
My comment is not meant as an apologetic for the Bible in general. I just want everyone to realize that the TLB and similar interpretations of the Bible are dangerous and that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 only refer to shrine prostitution so that no homophobes can say "Well, it's not I who hates gays. God is the one who hates them. I just follow his commandments." as an excuse for their hateful mental disorder called homophobia.
When you read all Bible verses that are thought to talk about homosexuality in general in context and understand what the words originally meant, you'll hopefully realize that the Bible isn't against homosexuality in general but against (tried) gangrape (Genesis 19:5-9, Ezekiel 16:49-50, Judges 19:22-25), shrine prostitution (Leviticus 18:21-22, 20:13), idolatry (Romans 1:21-27), morally weak/soft people (malakoi - 1 Corinthians 6:9, www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html , www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Malakoi.html ) and people who are called arsenokoites (this word was invented by Paul but he never defined it - 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, www.gaychristian101.com/Arsenokoites.html , www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html , www.gaychristian101.com/what-words-could-paul-have-used-if-he-intended-to-condemn-homosexuality.html ).
The Matthew Henry Commentary. I’ve read many but this helps elaborate better but it’s still all BS. Thank goodness I’m an Atheist.
New Testament please
Wouldn't it be better to talk about the meaning that they derive from specific verses/chapters instead of quibbling over the translation? Obviously that's contingent on the person you're talking to actually caring about the discussion, as opposed to simply looking for a way to deflect and evade.
s bushido I wouldn't put words in his mouth, but I would suggest he may intend the actual words they quote and study often shows poor morality and ethics they can't escape by arguing we're quoting a false bible. No need to become an expert on all of them, just a little better at pointing out failed morality and ethics specifically in theirs.
Great information. But personally, I do my best to avoid discussing the Bible. I really don't care what some old the book says.
You cannot make well a sick mind overnight. You will be denied of gaining any ground or being good. Irrational mind sets are the hardest to come to rational discussions and they don't care about the truth. The lie is more comfortable to them so they prfer to stick with it.
Tragic and true. We can but try though, no?
all approaches are valid and useful. the only key is to understand that your discussion with a person is one PIECE in a puzzle to get them to change, and that it can take a decade or more for that to happen.
None....
Go start a fight with the Gideons - Matt, that is fucking genius!
I wouldn't be surprised if some people have actually done that.
It doesn't matter which version of the bible you read. Read them all.
Matt has said he wants to believe as many true things as possible. If he wants to have an "atheist debate", shouldn't it go something like; Can strong atheists call themselves Pyrrhonian skeptics?
Life is empty without the creator, you atheists prove that again and again.
Move on people, if you are truthful
If I have to look up anything in a bible I may as well have more of a laugh than usual.
I only read the LOLCatbible www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Trying to read that makes my eyes bleed.
some people have too much time on their hands
YY4Me133+
My exact sentiment when reading all versions of the bible or any religious fantasy and fables.
:D
Gideon is only there to help with the revival of Rocky Racoon
I remember one day at work (I managed a mexican restaurant), there was this crazy lady who would come in. And one day she was talking about the bible, and she was saying how the NIV of the bible is "garbage" and basically made it sound like it isn't "the true word". I'm not sure why, maybe someone can tell me? I mean, maybe she is just crazy, but i'm curious just in case there is a difference.
If you can't discern if a book should be taken literally or symbolically, then don't worry about reading the bible at all. If one didn't study what people were practicing back in the bible days or even the pollitics back then. Then one doesn't need to be reading the bible. This is for the atheist. If you can't discern what is omnipotent and omnipresent being the cosmic universe, and you think it should save, be all knowing and care. Then you don't need to be reading the bible either. The atheist will surely not know when to take scripture literally or symbolically.
Thanks for the video, but you really didn't offer much help, aside from, 'Use the one that your sparring partner believes in.' I, for one, have no interest in such discourse. I am interested in reading the Bible for the purpose of understanding what ancient people believed in. I don't care about making the OT comport to the NT, or understanding modern Christians. I want to understand the Bible historically, and learn about ancient beliefs. Any advice? NRSV, perhaps?
Then you're not looking for any bible version... you're looking for meta-analysis.
@@SansDeity --Thanks for the reply. Are there any noob books/authors you would recommend to get started? Thanks.
i live in a world, where people think finding truth means readin it's book till it gets boring, which could be less than once.
What I never understood about KJV purists is...what about bibles in other languages? Do non-English speakers have to learn English first before becoming 'true' christians? Are French, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Russian, Polish (etc.) bibles already wrong cuz they're not KJV? Why would god want his word to only be validly recorded in a language that wouldn't fully develop until centuries after the events that they record took place?
Most translations are pretty good,due to the plethora of manuscripts,Thete all good I don't read the KJV just cause we don't speak in that vernacular any more.
I used to follow you a lot on college... this religious vs atheism debate is dead... I've since made the connection to animal rights and human rights after watching The Yourofsky Speech and Earthlings. Non violence is the height of evolution... 75% of the animals on the planet are herbivores like us. It's time to evolve our mind. Get on board.
i would say don't read the bible itself, but read how the bible came into being, especially all the historical events that edited the texts.
The best bible to read is the one which is most prominent in your area.
I grew up in a catholic house and area, so it would not mamke much sense to read KJ-Bible, because there are significant differances. So I resolved to the catholic sanctioned version of the bible. There are even people who would argue tthe catholic sanctioned is the only acceptable because its the single biggest denomination around the world within christianity (about 48%).
However that doesn't say aything if you're living in the UK then you should go to the KJ-Bible - whereas most people would argue that its the most dissorted version as it has countless sinificant differances to the others.
Same if you're living in greece or russia you should resolve to the one in use - which might even differ between Greece and Russia.
If you're a protestant you might want to read the lutheranian version.
So my guess there is no "best" version you should read, read the one which is most prominent in your family or homecountry.
Because what ever version you'll take and you argue from that version, people will pick on that becuase that is the dissorted version EVERYTIME. Even catholics called me out on useing the catholic bible which the priest gave me for my confirmation - so on argumentation grounds, its better to have your smartphone and ask them for "their version".
If its only to get a good overview on what is written just take any - they all are horrible to read and horrible in topic. The version mostly differ in wording which change the interpretation of the "leading church" but not the overall outcome you'll get once you read it.
Every translation from the Hebrew Masoretic has corrupted timelines missing about 650 years of genealogy before Abraham. The Septuagint (LXX) predates Christ but probably wasn't what Christ read from. But the Septuagint show that the Jews corrupted some timelines in the Masoretic for an outcome that doesn't concern non believers !
Readers Digest Condensed Version is da best.
"In the beginning, Amen"
Hello Mr. Dillahunty, I have an even better question. Should I read the bible?
Matt is Godsent
King James imo if you want to engage. I was raised baptist and the king James 1611 is the only version many people accept. If your just reading for personal knowledge I wouldn't recommend it, the old English can be a bit harder to follow.
reading and understand is a real challenge and give real insight on how difficult it is to understand anything written down, and the reason of all the different translations? SATAN! No really, this was a very good talk. Thanks
Yep, the Bible translation is pretty much just a different as the denomination. The same people who tell you that you studied the wrong Bible will tell you that you were raised with the wrong Christianity and that if you try their version, you're sure to believe. I get that way more than "studying the wrong Bible."
And what do you want to discover there?
The same everywhere.
a man is spiritually-animal.
With such a start, he begins his journey to God
You forgot the most important translation: The holy bible... but gayer
The Bible. It's everything you want it to be.
I read the entirety of the KJV - and the inconsistencies in that are glaring.
Just don't. Your life will be better if you don't.
'you can make a word salad out of a verse'... as if some of them aren't word salads to begin with.
Jan Verschueren ...chopped salads...?...