"Which Bible" is the "right" one?

Post Reply New Topic

I know this. I was putting that verse in context for anyone wondering...

Ah, okay.

Monastic lineage? Did Jeroboam come from a family of monks?

As a side note to the side note--the Jeroboam family was no more evil and corrupt than anyone else.

No, I meant to write monarchic.

Perhaps so, but only because everyone is evil.

Clearly, there are bibles that are way wronger than others.

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/rea ... ook-online

I would think it is a good idea to compromise between having everyone learning 3 languages to read 1 holy text in the original and translating it into every language on Earth: Why not write the Bible ideogrammically, somewhat like Blissymbols: Have every meaning in any and all of the 3 original biblical languages have 1 and only 1 glyph and have a new, single grammar for all 3 languages' vocabularies, then have everyone read this transliteration of the Bible.

No one has mentioned Holman. HSCB gets my vote.

I'm sorry, but when I read the title I presumed you meant which holy book of all religions.
Then the wonderful simpsons episdoe popped up. 'CHRISMUJEWS!'

Seriously, I think having one standard Bible for general purposes in a unified, ideogrammic passigraphy, a purely semantically-based writings system with no direct relation to any single language's pronunciation, would make a lot of sense: Scholars of the Ancient Near East could still learn Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew but a lot of effort would be saved for the general populace. Plus, Christian missionaries would not feel the need to translate the Bible into every single living language on Earth: Just teach people to read the "Biblical Ideogrammy."

The idea actually is not that bizarre if you think about it: The Avesta, the Zoroastrian sacred text collection, is the only known literature written in Avestan; as a matter of fact, the Zoroastrian clergy even created a special script, the Avestan Alphabet, solely for the purposes of accurately transcribing the Avestan Language. Muslims still pray in Classical Arabic and consider the Qurɂān, also in Classical Arabic, untranslatable; by the way, Classical Arabic is about as divergent from Modern Standard Arabic as Early Modern English is from Contemporary General American English. And the Spanish used an improvised pictogrammy to preach to the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas in colonial days: See here for an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piktograf1.png .

Well, I gave my serious, helpful answer in this thread, so now its time for some irreverence:

The "right" Bible? Try this one:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

That appears to be the best one so far.

Only if quote-mining is fair game. Otherwise, the annotations are easily debunked. The only part I can't answer for is the references to "human rights" etc., though there are many instances in the Bible of "observe and report" kind of writing without passing judgment on what happened. Things like that are misquoted or misinterpreted to imply that the Bible advocates those sorts of things when it does no such thing. Other blatantly cruel acts (wrath of God kinda stuff) are only cruel from a present-day subjective point of view and make unnecessary assumptions about why God would do/not do certain things. I would think a skeptic would want to avoid projecting his own biases onto something, but I've been wrong before...

There is only one true gospel:

Behold!


http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spa ... 812976568/

That's so last year...in 2008!

DC is Two Thousand...LATE.

Gotta get that...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m48GqaOz90&ob=av3n[/youtube]

Huh? What are you getting at?


Is that so? Well, let's see you debunk the annotations with Matthew 1

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/1.html



Yes....