Ok. I just read the oddest statement on Quora to answer the question on the most popular translation of the Bible.
It said that most atheists read the King James version of the Bible and that is why you are atheists.
I could see that as they are likely display gifts that are not read. Unless you are are expert in Elizabethan English. (deliberately translated to older English than Jacobean) it is close to incomprehensible.
Out of morbid curiosity, which versions of the Bible is the membership here familiar with?
I'll reply back to Quora if I can find the question again.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Mrs Paul
I was brought up in the Catholic tradition, so have only read the Jerusalem bible . -- we were discouraged from reading the Bible at the catholic Boys school I attended "lest we become confused" (truly) . So naturally I read the whole thing immediately. (at about age 16)
My priest says that prior to WWII most PRIESTS were discouraged from reading the Bible for that reason. (Make total nonsense - Represent Christ and blow off everything he ever said. )
I was brought up with adult Bible study in college at the Campus Catholic Church. The Church published the guides that provided more insight into the weekly readings.
I don't suppose you would want to give a time frame?
@Mrs Paul
If you mean me, I started my education (if you'll forgive the expression ) with Irish Dominican nuns in 1952, I think. De La Salle brothers from 1957 to 1964. ---
Had not finished high school when I left and started working .My education actually began then; finished high school at night, later a Diploma course and still later , went to university part time . Finished my degree in 1985, at age 38.
I'm aware that Catholic education has mercifully moved on since 1950's-60's . EG I understand Catholic schools now actually have qualified teachers and children are no longer brutalised, as was I AND my father by Marist Brothers.
Cranky: I'd say you have reason to be angry and I am sorry that happened to you. All I can offer is a hug and the promise that I will continue giving them hell. I've got a sex abuse meeting coming up Wednesday. I will keep the fight going.
You can't be any more confused reading the Bible than the vatican. The -show them no mercy prayer- had the criminal on the cross as a thief instead of a murder and insurrectionist. - Advocated husbands murdering their wives on false adultery charges, and reinforced the fallacy of Gregory the incompetent that Jesus was Mary Magdalene's pimp.
My atheist has nothing to do with which Bible version I read.
My atheism is based on the simple fact that theists continue to meet their burden of proof to support their claim that a god exists.
But I have read the NIV, the King James, and major parts of other translations.
I'd say that puts you ahead of 90% of Christians.
I grew up with the King James Version. We had readings from it every day in morning assembly at state schools in the UK and New Zealand. The great advantage of the KJV it was mostly incomprehensible to kids. Who knows what a tare is? So all the bullshit went streaming over our heads into oblivion.
These days I understand the KJV well enough. I studied English language and literature all the way back to Beowulf at university. It always amuses me that Xtians seem to think that you can get closer to Jesus by using pronouns from 16th century English. "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for the children of Texas!"
Bullshit is bullshit, whether it's written in 16th century English or 21st century Strine (Australian English--"Australian" sounds like "Strine" when pronounced in that dialect.)
In my work as a translator, on the rare occasions that the Bible is quoted in a Japanese text, I try to track down the corresponding English verse in the KJV. I really admire the system of books, chapters, and verses.
Nope, never read a bible prior to a few months back...
Whilst on here I decided to at least make an attempt and it was too ridiculous to continue a short way in.
Other than that, I just know there is no God.
It is no different to santa, unicorns and the bogeyman... as Hitchens once said, "don't waste my time, it's bullshit!".
That would is the part that makes the least sense. The most sense is the 'red letters' the words of Jesus in the New Testament.
None of it makes sense, letters from jesus?! We don't know the authors of said paper, cannot even determine if jesus was real with any undeniable proof and it's all underpinned on some all loving, all caring and all knowing mystical deity that again, cannot be proven.
You cannot even make a deductive logical argument for a god(s), it is that ridiculous.
Jesus didn't write any letters.
Roman historians note that he was killed and his follower are still around. That at least can be backed up.
So you mean Tactius? Who referenced someone called Christus suffering punishment under pontius pilate.
Hardly evidence, is it?!
Especially given that it was written in 116AD, Tacitus lived from 56AD - 120AD and 'Jesus' died somewhere between 30AD - 33AD.
The man wasn't even born when 'Jesus' is considered (rougly) to have died.
And the people who back this claim as evidence are unsurprisingly theologians.
@ Mrs. Paul Owczarek
"Roman historians note that he was killed and his follower are still around. That at least can be backed up."
There are no first-hand accounts of his resurrection.
One individual killed in a state-sanctioned activity is no sign of anything unusual or miraculous, neither that anyone had followers. King Charles I was publicly executed, and definitely had followers in the crowd. Does that make him divine?
What separates jesus from any other executed criminal was the resurrection story. And that resurrection story is the base foundation of christianity.
@Owzarek: "Roman historians note that he was killed and his follower are still around. That at least can be backed up."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... you can't be that fucking stupid!!
Please name ONE Roman Historian who "notes" anything at all about Jesus that is not a report of what the Christians happened to be saying at the time. Do you know what hearsay is?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA A RLC! (Red Letter Christian) Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha no wonder your posts are so full of shit! RLC is a movement in the USA, initiated by Tony Campolo with the support of Jim Wallis, and Shane Claiborne, a leader in the New Monasticism movement. Why don't we all just become Marcionites? You don't need the stinking bible...... Just create your own religion. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....
And while you are at it, completely ignore the fact that there are 5 distinct and different versions of Jesus in the bible. "5"
I was given a used copy of the NIV by an Army chaplain; so that is the copy I read. But like many others have said: I was an atheist long before I read any of the bible.
@Nyarlathotep: Excellent point. I read nothing of the bible when I was a Christia, beyond memorizing a few passages. I went to church, listened to the preacher, knew where to look and what passage to read to prove a point. God loves you,. John 3:16, Homosexuality is bad, Corinthians 9-10, Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. and on and on.
It was only that I decided to be a preacher that I began learning about religion and reading the Bible. That was about the same time I began dropping religion, realizing it was all a bunch of made up bullshit, and found myself an atheist. Knowledge is the path to atheism. The more you know, the less faith you need.
My first bible was an illustrated bowdlerised on when I was about 7. I didn't think it made much sense. KJV was read at school every day.
By the time I was 15 I had read two or three versions and rejected all of them as vicious nonsense.
My latest read is the codex Sinaiticus, a fascinating read but still a fucked up anthology.
Grew up as a English language word nerd and picked up the history of the language on the way. Always had a KJV when from age 10 took myself to the many protestant churches in my area. I baulked at the revised modern versions when I discovered them.
Still refer to KJV but it wasnt the language that made me a non believer. It was the content.
King James, NIV, and the "Living Bible" It does not matter, any more, which version of the bible a person (Atheists specifically) because all of the bibles are online and they can all be searched, along with concordances, with the stroke of a couple of keys on the keyboard. Of all the people researching biblical passages, Atheists are certainly more likely to look at alternative interpretations than are the believers.;
Bible Gateway is a good source.
“It said that most atheists read the King James version of the Bible and that is why you are atheists”
That is xtian-centric. The world has many different religions and gods. The assume that most folks who identify as atheist have their roots in xtianity is, in my estimation, rather narrow-minded.
That is rather statistically probable. I believe Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, especially among the English speakers.
It is rather statistically IMprobable. The combined total of non-xtian religions memberships far outweigh the total of xtians.
A more accurate statement is that approximately 30% (+ or - 5%) of all theists are christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
@ Mrs. Paul Owczarek
"That is rather statistically probable. I believe Christianity is still the largest religion in the world, especially among the English speakers."
That is an appeal to popularity. At one time the great majority of people believed tobacco smoke was not harmful. Just because it is popular and/or accepted, that does not make it true.
@CyberLN: The assume that most folks who identify as atheist have their roots in xtianity is, in my estimation, rather narrow-minded.
Very true. Remember the old joke about the atheist stopped at an IRA checkpoint in Ireland and being asked if he was a Protestant atheist or Catholic atheist? I'm a Christian atheist, but I'm sure there are plenty of Muslim atheists and Hindu atheists.
Christians assume that all atheists are ex-Christians, presumably because they think Christianity sells the purest and most aromatic bullshit. But that ain't necessarily so.
ACyberLN
"It said that most atheists read the King James version of the Bible and that is why you are atheists”
MOST atheists? Love to see the basis for THAT claim . A published, peer reviewed paper perhaps?
Whenever I see 'most atheists', followed by a claim , the claim is usually nonsense. So far have never seen any evidence for any such claim.
I read the Jerusalem bible over 30 years before becoming an atheist. There was no single cause of which I'm aware. The process was long and at times painful ,leading to an inevitable conclusion . Atheism was never a choice for me.
It''s a pretty arrogant assumption to think 'most atheists 'were Christians before becoming atheist. Be willing to bet there are as many (proportionately) ex Hindu and ex Buddhist atheists as ex christian atheist, although I'm unable to make a claim
Explain how Christianity is the largest religion in the world when on any given day, any 1/3 of Christians will tell you that the other 2/3s are going to burn in hell for following false teachings?
How the secularists define Christianity has nothing to do with how the Christians define themselves. The only way to claim Christianity as a large religion is to include all those Christians, you would swear to on any other day, that are going to burn in hell for their false teachings.
AFAIK all religions are split up, even Shia and Sunni don't say the others weren't Muslims e.g. - and Christians normally are less militant than these. I'd think the encylopedias are correct...
Pages