How many of you guys are "bible thumpers"

Any religious folks out there who actually read the bible on a semi-regular basis?

I read it during church every Sunday, not much else, which I'm not proud of because I got a King James Bible, a NIV Bible and a Gideon Bible, probably courtesy of some motel room a long time ago, and I'm anxious to see how they all differ in their translations.

About the only time I look at my bible is when I want to win an argument with some bible thumper. I've kept it because it was a gift long ago.

Supernova wrote:I read it during church every Sunday, not much else, which I'm not proud of because I got a King James Bible, a NIV Bible and a Gideon Bible, probably courtesy of some motel room a long time ago, and I'm anxious to see how they all differ in their translations.

I can't speak on behalf of the Gideon bible, but as far as the KJV and the NIV goes, there are both "subtle" and "significant" differences woven in throughout, but the differences are so few and far between, that it would take reading large chunks of it, AND being familiar with how they should be interpreted (proper context) in order to find most of them. In other words, only biblical scholars, clergy and bible thumpers would be able to point out all of the differences. That's barring the obvious differences in dialect and syntax or course.

But the most significant difference that I can think of off hand is in 1 John 5:7-8. The KJV implies that there is a "Holy Trinity" while the NIV (along with most other modern translations) does not.

Another interesting difference is that in Exodus 6:3, in the King James Version and the English Revised Version God reveals his name to be "Jehovah". In the New Living Translation and the World English Bible, God reveals his name to be "Yahweh". And in the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, the translators chose not to reveal his name at all, and is simply call him Lord.

So, is everyone familiar with the Shakespeare mystery on the 46th Psalm?

It has been said that Shakespeare worked his name into the King James Version of the bible. At the time Psalm 46 was translated, Shakespeare was 46 years old. The forty-sixth word in the King James Version of Psalm 46 is "shake," while the word that is forty-sixth from the end is "spear." While this seems like too many appearances of 46 to be coincidential, it may very well be. At least three translations prior to the KJV use the words "shake" and "spear." The placement of the words, however, varies. It may be that someone translating the KJV doctored the translation to put each half of Shakespeare's name forty-six words from each end of the psalm, but the words themselves were probably not selected for that reason. It is noteworthy that the New King James retains the same phenomenon.

So, just a lot of coincidences or did Shakespeare play with the verse to put his name at the point of his age that year?

I never "thump" my bible... but for awhile I would read it once a year, from cover to cover--- which gets hard once you hit the "begots" and all the wars in Kings & Judges... the old testament can be hard a times.

I have almost every version printed, KJV, NIV, the New World Translation (what jehova's witnesses use), the book of mormon (not a bible but another 'testament" of it)...

one reason for the different translations is that the KJV was the first translated from Hebrew (old test) and Greek (new test) into English. From my understanding in a theology class, all other versions are then based on interpretations of KJV. Whether this is true or not, i am not sure. But it could explain some inconsistencies or different interpretations.

I do read the Bible. No need to go around thumping it.

Do you read the Bible on a semi regular basis?

wants2laugh wrote:one reason for the different translations is that the KJV was the first translated from Hebrew (old test) and Greek (new test) into English. From my understanding in a theology class, all other versions are then based on interpretations of KJV. Whether this is true or not, i am not sure. But it could explain some inconsistencies or different interpretations.

I'm not sure why they taught you that in theology class (unless the teacher was just biased or ignorant) but that is most certainly NOT TRUE.

The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The initial vision for the project was provided by a single individual – an engineer working with General Electric in Seattle by the name of Howard Long. Long was a lifelong devotee of the King James Version, but when he shared it with his friends he was distressed to find that it just didn’t connect. Long saw the need for a translation that captured the truths he loved in the language that his contemporaries spoke. For 10 years, Long and a growing group of like-minded supporters drove this idea. The passion of one man became the passion of a church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations. And finally, in 1965, after several years of preparatory study, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met in Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed to begin work on the project – determining to not simply adapt an existing English version of the Bible but to start from scratch with the best available manuscripts in the original languages. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/

The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text. The Old Testament translation was based on the Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) and was further compared to other sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Greek manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac Peshitta, and Latin Vulgate. The New Testament translation was based on the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament (the UBS 4th revised edition and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition).
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Living-Translation-NLT-Bible/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Living_Translation

The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is a translation of the Bible published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961; it is used and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses. Though it is not the first Bible to be published by the group, it is their first original translation of ancient Classical Hebrew, Koine Greek, and Old Aramaic biblical texts. As of early 2012, the Watch Tower Society has published 174 million copies of the New World Translation in 108 language editions. According to the Watch Tower Society, the New World Translation attempts to convey the intended sense of original-language words according to the context. The New World Translation employs nearly 16,000 English expressions to translate about 5,500 biblical Greek terms, and over 27,000 English expressions to translate about 8,500 Hebrew terms. Where possible in the target language, the New World Translation prefers literal renderings, and claims that it does not paraphrase the original text. The master text used for translating the Old Testament into English was Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Hebrew text, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), was used for updating the footnotes in the 1984 version of the New World Translation. Other works consulted in preparing the translation include Aramaic Targums, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Torah, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Masoretic Text, the Cairo Codex, the Codex Petropolitanus, the Aleppo Codex, Christian David Ginsburg's Hebrew Text, and the Leningrad Codex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

Nystyle709 wrote:Do you read the Bible on a semi regular basis?

Yes

I think "Bible thumpers" has a negative connotation. I don't define myself as that at all. But, yes, I do read the Bible.

Shale wrote:

I own a complete King James version and as said, I keep them as reference often when dealing with ill-informed christians.

So if you're a self-professed aethesist, and don't believe in God or anything the Bible says, and you encounter an "ill-informed Christian", and feel the need to set them straight, according to what the Bible says, how does that actually work without being an oxymoron? Do you twist the Scripture to make it say what you want it to say, or do you tell the "ill-informed" what the Bible truthfully means? Wasn't sure what your approach was--seems either way, it sets "the aetheist" up to come off as more ill-informed than the true ill-informed themselves. Sorta like the blind leading the blind, but a non-ill-informed Christian would pick up on that anyway, and being sound in their faith, wouldn't be adversely affected by it in any way.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:So if you're a self-professed aethesist, and don't believe in God or anything the Bible says, and you encounter an "ill-informed Christian", and feel the need to set them straight, according to what the Bible says, how does that actually work without being an oxymoron?

It works because many so-called Christians like to use the bible to judge other people, picking and choosing the verse that advance their own argument and ignoring other parts that cast them as hypocrites. The bible comes in very handy when it comes to invalidating a lot of their own points and using religious text that they claim to cherish against them.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:Do you twist the Scripture to make it say what you want it to say, or do you tell the "ill-informed" what the Bible truthfully means?

In my case, I try to do the ladder.

Hyacinth Girl wrote:Wasn't sure what your approach was--seems either way, it sets "the aetheist" up to come off as more ill-informed than the true ill-informed themselves. Sorta like the blind leading the blind, but a non-ill-informed Christian would pick up on that anyway, and being sound in their faith, wouldn't be adversely affected by it in any way.

The person who is familiar with the bible is "informed" and the person who is only familiar with verses that suit their own agenda is often "ill-informed". This applies whether the person is a Christian or an atheist. Most atheists don't feel that they have the need of being "informed" on the bible, however the ones that want to put ill-informed Christians in their place make it their business to educate themselves first. Christians on the other hand who are ill-informed in their own holy text come off as foolish.

^ Thanx for handling that Capt.

And, the part of my post not quoted:

Shale wrote:I have a Revised Standard Version New Testament, which I read the 4 gospels in the '70s while living a hermit life in the woods with no electricity or running water. Sorta living year-one technology while reading the book.

I did read the gospel at the time as I identified pretty much with Jesus, being an outcast of mainstream culture because I had experienced new and different spiritual insights. (Yes there is a parallel with Hippies and Jesus)

I may or may not be an Atheist, therefore it would be more correct to refer to me as an Agnostic.

I have a pocket Bible that I keep meaning to read, but never got around to it.

I have a 100 year old bible printed in German that belonged to my great grandfather. That is pretty cool!

The bible and its interpretations is just like anything else. you say you are right, someone combats your views. "It's just a story", "no its historical facts are fairly accurate"--- that is the same as any other topic we discuss here. "I'm right" then "no i'm right."

captainbryce wrote:It works because many so-called Christians like to use the bible to judge other people, picking and choosing the verse that advance their own argument and ignoring other parts that cast them as hypocrites. The bible comes in very handy when it comes to invalidating a lot of their own points and using religious text that they claim to cherish against them.

captainbryce wrote:In my case, I try to do the ladder.

captainbryce wrote:The person who is familiar with the bible is "informed" and the person who is only familiar with verses that suit their own agenda is often "ill-informed". This applies whether the person is a Christian or an atheist. Most atheists don't feel that they have the need of being "informed" on the bible, however the ones that want to put ill-informed Christians in their place make it their business to educate themselves first. Christians on the other hand who are ill-informed in their own holy text come off as foolish.

Very well said!

Sadly, No.