How Many Bibles Did You Have?

[sparklingphoenix]

I got an NIV bible at the age of 10 when I was baptized, then in high school I bought myself a huge study bible with tons of footnotes. I still have both. The study bible is collecting dust on the bookshelf and I'm still kind of sentimental about the NIV. Too many notes and underlinings in there. Despite my small number of bibles, I do have probably 30 devotional books. I should burn those. 

[Cousin Ricky]

Bishop Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong) is very influential in the Episcopal Church. I don't know a thing about Spong or what he believes, but he is probably an example of a liberal Christian apologist.

 

I wrote this about him in the blog, and I don't think it needs rewording: John Shelby Spong is a study in well-intentioned theological desperation. He has effectively whittled away all of the Christian god’s contradictions until there is barely anything left. But for the flowery god-label he sticks on everything good and wonderful, he’d be an atheist.

[Blood]

 

Bishop Spong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong) is very influential in the Episcopal Church. I don't know a thing about Spong or what he believes, but he is probably an example of a liberal Christian apologist.

 

I wrote this about him in the blog, and I don't think it needs rewording: John Shelby Spong is a study in well-intentioned theological desperation. He has effectively whittled away all of the Christian god’s contradictions until there is barely anything left. But for the flowery god-label he sticks on everything good and wonderful, he’d be an atheist.

 

 

I don't know who is worse ... the "literalist" who insists everything in the Bible, especially the miracles, are all true; or the "rationalist," who insists that none of the miracles really happened, but we should believe in Jesus anyway, because ... ? Oh, he was a cool guy who was just misunderstood. 

[TrueFreedom]

Spong is a strong voice of rationality for cultural Christians and liberals who refuse to let go of belief.  I like him.

[Cousin Ricky]

Spong is a strong voice of rationality for cultural Christians and liberals who refuse to let go of belief.  I like him.

 

I'm not complaining. I'm glad there are Christians like Spong, Jimmy Carter, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Desmond Tutu around. While I agree with Dawkins and P.Z. that supernaturalism is a root problem, I don't think attacking it directly is the best route.

[Leo]

Well, I'm beyond belief at this point anyhow. But I think what the cultural Christians couldn't do for me was be convincing enough to convince Christians around me. In other words, what they had as a framework never caused someone to change their mind about anything. A born-in evangelical is never challenged, and someone like my Wife who adopted evangelical Christianity later in life often did so because the liberal churches were unconvincing and didn't have anything for them.

That doesn't mean I mind them as people. I've never feared them the way evangelical lemmings do, pounding away at any human child or object nearby, and shrieking semicoherently. I simply found the liberal ones I knew to be unconvincing. Sor of, why not just go atheist? But I think they find some comfort in the god concept.

I believe Francis Collins is actually evangelical, in the Lutheran style of evangelicalism, perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of D. James Kennedy, at least RE: the Saved and the Not. And I'm not sure of his political affiliations, but his Case for Belief makes it sound like he's trying (albeit very unsuccessfully) to convince evangelicals to accept evolution. And from his writing, he is trying, as one of them.

I know, it's odd. You have some odd memetic mutations, like Rob Bell, the evangelical universalist. Doesn't just believe in a higher power, believes the whole Jesus mythology, but is a universalist and trying to convince fellow evangelicals of it. Trying, again, very very unsuccessfully. The economic, political and power investment is so strong among evangelicals, it would take quite a feat to convince one to leave it for a gentler version. Power is intoxicating, and their meme is specifically power-centric, war-centric, and bladk-and-white thinking. I believe most of them find Rob Bell a heretic, because he thwarts the manipulative power they have. And the multi-billion-dollar creationist apologetics industry can't be happy to have a Francis Collins around. If only he didn't purport to abide by orthodox Christian teachings. But he does, in all ways, save Creationism.

Memetic mutation, as far as I'm concerned. And I'd say I'm wrong if I read a liberal Christian who was once evangelical, but was convinced to go liberal. I don't mean on the path to out, just straight up liberal Christian.

And wouldn't it be fascinating to have one turn up here? I mean one who's still committed, and as committed to liberal Christianity as many are to Christian reconstructionism or Sharia Islamic law.

You know, here's a fine idea for the Arena: Let's put in there a Fundagelical RepubliChristian Truly Saved ™ and a Liberal Christian, get them started, and see who wins the debate.

Perhaps they don't exclude unorthodox from their group. So, you'll get bootef from most evangelica churches for not supporting eternal torture for most of humanity. But if you support said torture, but go to a liberal church, I'm guessing they might not boot you. Might think you're one of 'those', but the peer pressure to create an elite, which exists in Al Qaeda and the American Fundamentalist churches, might not exist in the liberal ones.

Anyway, interesting diversion. I just find it funny now to see Christians who beforehand thought I was verging on heretical 'liberal' thought are now, that I am an atheist, asking if I would at least consider a leftist belief system. No point in explaining once you actually don't buy it anymore, you don't buy it anymore.

Who knows what will become of Christianity in fifty years. Perhaps John Loftus is right that it will either eat itself from the inside out, or continue to mutate to such a degree it will be unrecognizable. I know the latter is the fear of evangelicals for their brand, just as it is the fear of Sharia muslims for theirs.

I would actually quite enjoy seeing one from each camp go at it in a debate, see who wins. Even better, see an example of a liberal convince an evangelical, even one, for all the systemic convincing that evangelicals do. But, I'm just sick like that.

[directionless]

I was just googling to see if there were any debates online between evangelicals and liberals. I stumbled onto an article with the following test questions to determine if you are a liberal Christian. Supposedly if you agree with any of these statements then you are a liberal Christian. The surprising thing to me is that any Christian would disagree with these statements. Furthermore, evangelicals and fundamentalists are the majority, so most Christians disagree with these statements. This explains why I have always received such a negative reaction from online Christians when I have sought their stamp of approval for the things I thought I learned about Christianity through mystical experiences. The Christians were not at all inclusive or encouraging which surprised me. Obviously I didn't know much about the mainstream thinking in Christianity. (BTW there are links in the article to some debates if anybody cares.)

“Atheists and fundamentalists each tend to read the Bible in the same wooden, overly literalistic manner. The difference is that atheists reject what they read in that manner, while fundamentalists believe it.”

 

“We take the Bible too seriously, to read it all literally.”

 

“We don’t think that God wrote the Bible. We think it was written by fallible human beings who were inspired by (not dictated to by) the Holy Spirit. Hence, we don’t consider it to be infallible or inerrant.”

 

We employ a hermeneutic of compassion, love, and justice . . . A hermeneutic is “an interpretive lens” and intentional filter.

 

We also tend to employ a “canon within the canon” lens whereby we give greater weight and priority to certain texts over others.

 

[We are] willing to reject certain passages & theologies in the Bible and to affirm other ones

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2014/05/how-to-tell-if-you-are-an-evangelical-or-a-progressive-christian/

[zeldarocks]

1 pocket NKJV Bible

1 Message/NKJV parallel Bible

1 ESV Study Bible

1 Dake's Annotated Bible

 

I was very much a minister-in-training, about to go to Southwestern Assemblies of God University (SAGU), knee-deep in Bible Study, daily prayer.

[Leo]

Directionless:

Thanks for the site and links. And yes, the statements there, I don't know any Christian who supports those, maybe my mother-in-law but she doesn't discuss these matters openly. I've heard the term "keep my own council" re: liberal Christians. They simply aren't the threat evangelicals would have you believe. If they were, they might have sought to keep people like my Wife among them.

I can explain very simply why the Christians would not rubber stamp experiences that fall outside the meme. They fear dilution at least as much, or more, than they fear loss of membership. They would rather someone not call themselves a Christian than that they "pervert the truth." Muslim extremists do the same thing: claiming moderate muslims are not true muslims. If you take a look at gang history, groups like the Bloods and the Crips, you'll note that trouble comes from within, not so much by someone fighting to be top dog, but someone changing the mission. The ganglords start ordering executions when they get what could be called "gang heretics", people starting to sell a drug the gang didn't sell before, people starting to use suppliers the gang didn't use before, people ceding territory that the gang had won. The liberal Christians are not a gang. The Evangelical Christians are, though. They want their seats of power everywhere, and their doctrine pure. Anything that threatens either of those two things is poison and to be eradicated. Sure, cash flow is extremely important. But keeping the unit as a unit requires strict doctrinal adherence. Otherwise, there's no way to know who is and who isn't. And knowing that is of paramount importance to a gang, a band of invaders, a warlord, or an evangelical Christian organization. The liberal Christians don't seem to be outing each other as heretics, expelling each other for doctrinal errors, or other behaviors you can find on skid row or in the evangelical churches.

[Orbit]

Directionless:

Thanks for the site and links. And yes, the statements there, I don't know any Christian who supports those, maybe my mother-in-law but she doesn't discuss these matters openly. I've heard the term "keep my own council" re: liberal Christians. They simply aren't the threat evangelicals would have you believe. If they were, they might have sought to keep people like my Wife among them.

I can explain very simply why the Christians would not rubber stamp experiences that fall outside the meme. They fear dilution at least as much, or more, than they fear loss of membership. They would rather someone not call themselves a Christian than that they "pervert the truth." Muslim extremists do the same thing: claiming moderate muslims are not true muslims. If you take a look at gang history, groups like the Bloods and the Crips, you'll note that trouble comes from within, not so much by someone fighting to be top dog, but someone changing the mission. The ganglords start ordering executions when they get what could be called "gang heretics", people starting to sell a drug the gang didn't sell before, people starting to use suppliers the gang didn't use before, people ceding territory that the gang had won. The liberal Christians are not a gang. The Evangelical Christians are, though. They want their seats of power everywhere, and their doctrine pure. Anything that threatens either of those two things is poison and to be eradicated. Sure, cash flow is extremely important. But keeping the unit as a unit requires strict doctrinal adherence. Otherwise, there's no way to know who is and who isn't. And knowing that is of paramount importance to a gang, a band of invaders, a warlord, or an evangelical Christian organization. The liberal Christians don't seem to be outing each other as heretics, expelling each other for doctrinal errors, or other behaviors you can find on skid row or in the evangelical churches.

I was a liberal Christian (Presbyterian) and you've got it right. There was acceptance for evolution, women ministers, and a general tolerance you don't find with fundies.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

I finally inventoried my Bibles, so here's the list:

• Comparative Study Bible (parallel Bible with King James Version, Amplified Bible, New International Version and New American Standard Bible)
• New Revised Standard Version
• English Standard Version
• New American Standard Bible
• The Living Bible
• New Living Translation (it's not with my Bibles, but my wife's used it some, so I'm not sure where she has it squirreled away)
• New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness Bible)
• The NIV Study Bible
• The Defender's Study Bible (KJV)
• The Believer's Study Bible (NKJV)
• New Open Bible - Study Edition (NASB)
• The Youth Bible (New Century Version)
• Hendrickson's Interlinear Bible (Hebrew, Greek and English)

 

Partial Bibles:

• The Jefferson Bible (KJV excerpts)
• Who Is This Man Jesus? (texts from The Living Bible's Gospels woven into one account)

 

Other related texts:

• The Apocrypha (KJV)
• The Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books (NRSV)
• The Dead Sea Scrolls - A New Translation (Wise, Abegg & Cook)
• The Gospel Of Judas (Karen King translation in "Reading Judas")
• The Koran (from Ivy Books)
• The Book Of Mormon

 

In addition to all of that, I have a bunch of commentaries and study books.

 

 

I initially misread the title to this thread as "How many Bibles DO you own?" Now that I see that it's asking how many we DID own, I can name a few more from the past:

 

• King James Bible - Leather bound (probably fake leather; it was my first Bible)
• Gideon's KJV New Testament (had a couple of these)
• The NIV Study Bible (my first non-KJV Bible; I used it so much that it fell apart and I bought another one, which is why it's also mentioned in my previous list)
• A Spanish Bible (not sure what version)
• The Serendipity Bible (NIV)
• The Message - New Testament

There may have been a few more, but those are the ones I remember offhand.

[Autumn2909]

I can't bring myself to get rid of my bibles, as some of them are sentimental. I have however unceremoniously getting rid of christian books, study guides, my old sermon notes notebooks etc etc. 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

I've only owned three. One of them was a children's Bible and I have no idea what happened to it. I also, at one time, had something called an Adventure Bible. That was for kids too, but for an age-group above that which my children's Bible was for. No idea what happened to that either. I imagine that they were sold at a yard sale at some point.

 

Currently, I have an NIV Revolution Bible stuck in a drawer. This one was made for teens and it comes with commentary. I don't even use it, since I mostly use the internet to quickly reference Bible verses for use in the Lion's Den.