What English Bible do you use?

Do you have a Bible at home? Do you read it regularly?

Have you more then one Bible version in the house? Which translation do you prefer?

Though the major religions of the world are founded upon the writings of men, we as Christians do believe that we have the Word of God brought to us by worldly man, but those writers say it are not their words, but the Holy Words of the Creator of this universe.

The Bible exists among us as one book and maintains one view of human nature from beginning to end. Yet it is in fact composed of more than 60 books, written by over 40 different authors, and its compilation extended from the days of Moses (1400 BC) to the days of the apostle John (end of 1st Century AD), a period of 1,500 years. Its writings are not just philosophical predictions. They are rooted in human history, dealing with actual nations and real people.

Consistently we do find in it the exposure of the natural tendencies of man, national pride, corrupt kings, self-indulgent desire for power and possessions, readiness to adopt other nations' idolatries, allied with a persistent rejection of the enlightened commandments of their God, the good but also the bad things they did, even of the writers. Everything was written down to educate the people of this world.

Those writings became translated in many languages so that everybody could read it in a tongue they could understand. But as men we have our preferences. So "what is your favourite?", is the question of this month.

Free Bible study, online or by mail. 
For more information, Click here! 

---

This month's survey question on This is your Bible.com:

What English Bible do you use?

KJV / AV The 1611 Authorised King James Version
NIV New International Version
ESV English Standard Bible
RSV / NRSV Revised Standard Bible
NLT - New Living Translation
Other
No preference

x  close

To find out why and how Christianity is different from all other religious belief systems in the world, click here to read: "The Divine Origin of the Bible"

Judaisme & Katholicisme Universele 'kerken'

Spoedig zult u hier een aantekening kunnen vinden over de nieuwe publicaties over het gebruik van "Kerk" en "ecclesia". Kijkend naar de geschiedenis van het woord 'ecclesia" merkten wij op hoe een zekere groep van gelovigen het aandurvde alleenzeggenschap te hebben over het universeel kerk zijn.
De Rooms-katholieke beschouwen zichzelf als De Enige Universele Kerk. Maar was Judaïsme niet altijd bedoeld om universeel te zijn. Het hele idee over Abram en de echt grote familie (als de sterren, als de zanden) was dat niet dat Israël een test was, die betekent "opengespreid te worden" in de hele wijde wereld als een grote familie –, maar niet gebaseerd op ras (de overeenkomst met Abram was er reeds voor de beëindigen van het neerschrijven van de Thora en Genesis 1 zinspeelde  ook op alle mensen die één onder de Schepper zijn).
In het Christendom zouden wij dit begrip zelfs beter kunnen begrijpen – en christendom is essentieel Joods, al was het Paulinian Joodsheid. 64 van de 66 bijbelboeken werden door  Joodse mensen geschreven, dat veel zegt. 

Judaism & Catholicism Universal 'churches'

Soon you will find a note here on the new publications about the use of "ecclesia". Looking at the history of the word we have to face the sayings of a certain group of believers. The Roman Catholics consider them The Only Universal Church. But was Judaism not always meant to be universal. The whole idea about Abram and the really big family (like the stars, like the sands) was about Israel being a test, meaning to be “rolled out” into the whole wide world as one big family – but not based on race (the covenant with Abram was before the finishing of the writing down of the Torah, and also, Genesis 1 hinted at all people being one under the Creator).
In Christianity we could understand this concept even better – and Christianity is essentially Jewish, be it Paulinian Jewishness. 64 out of 66 bible books were written by the Jewish people that’s clear enough.

Kosmos, Schepper en Menselijk Lot

"Kosmos, Schepper en Menselijk Lot," door Dave Hunt daagt de leerstellingen van Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins en de nieuwe atheïsten uit.

"Wat de gemiddelde persoon gelooft dat haar innerlijke motieven, verlangens of de diepste gedachten te zijn, zeggen Dawkins en andere nieuwe atheïsten, is echt het product van evolutie die elke persoon tot een marionet van de onpersoonlijke machten van natuurlijke selectie maakt"! schrijft Hunt "U denkt dat u denkt, maar u doet dat echt niet. Het zijn uw zelfzuchtige genen die  denken voor u en u bent een nietszeggende brok van eiwitmoleculen".

In essentie wijst Hunt steeds weer de absurde speculaties en pogingen aan logica die de stempel is vandaag van agressieve atheïsten, die de geestelijke kinderen van Huxley en Spencer zijn.

>

Hunt's meticulous research, which is legendary, is on display here as well. Writing about the first steps toward faith taken by former atheist Anthony Flew in 2004, Hunt describes the tactics employed by Flew's former bedfellows:

"Unwilling to lose one of their most famous stars, the atheists have tried to discredit this book by Flew," Hunt writes. "There have been suggestions that he is elderly and senile, unable to write the book himself." Flew, however, and his publisher, HarperCollins, vigorously denied this. It is another example of the petulance of what the Bible calls fools – those who deny the Creator who gave them the breath in their bodies.

Author challenges 'new atheists' on man's origins 
Apologetics 'icon' takes on Darwin, Dawkins and others

Cosmos creator and human destiny

Author challenges 'new atheists' on man's origins 
Apologetics 'icon' takes on Darwin, Dawkins and others"Cosmos, Creator and Human Destiny," by Dave Hunt offers a devastating critique of the breathtaking speculation that the new atheists employ:

"What the average person believes to be his or her inner motives, desires or deepest thoughts, says Dawkins and other new atheists, are really the product of evolution turning each person into a puppet of the impersonal forces of natural selection!"

 Hunt writes.

 "You think you think, but you really don't. It's your selfish genes doing the thinking for you, and you are a meaningless lump of protein molecules."

In essence, Hunt points out time and again the absurd speculations and attempts at logic that are the hallmark of aggressive atheists today, who are the spiritual children of Huxley and Spencer.

Hunt's meticulous research, which is legendary, is on display here as well. Writing about the first steps toward faith taken by former atheist Anthony Flew in 2004, Hunt describes the tactics employed by Flew's former bedfellows:

"Unwilling to lose one of their most famous stars, the atheists have tried to discredit this book by Flew,"

Hunt writes.

 "There have been suggestions that he is elderly and senile, unable to write the book himself."

 Flew, however, and his publisher, HarperCollins, vigorously denied this. It is another example of the petulance of what the Bible calls fools – those who deny the Creator who gave them the breath in their bodies.

Read more: Author challenges 'new atheists' on man's origins http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275481#ixzz1Gk1SPrYO

+++

2014 January update:

Related articles

• Pigliucci to all New Atheists: we're doing it wrong
• 15 Ways Atheists Can Be Even More Assertive
• 15 ways atheists can stand up for rationality
• Evolutionary argument for Christianity or, why Atheists should convert
• The Undergraduate Atheists, Unamuno, and Johnson
• The Perils of 'Pop' Philosophy
• Is it Time to Move on from the New Atheism?
• The 'Best Arguments For God's Existence' Are Actually Terrible
• An atheist explains the real consequences of adopting an atheistic worldview
• What are the "best" arguments for God? More kudos (and raspberries) for David Bentley Hart's new book.