The post by counterbalance with the report that states Hell is exothermic got me thinking about this. Specifically this part: "Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell. "

There are today many religions in the world, and many of them have something that resembles hell. Each of these religions is claiming they are the one true religion, and that the others are all false. Also, each religion has equal credibility because none of them can be proven and none of them have any hard evidence to support them. Christians have the Bible, Muslims have the Quran, Jews have the Tora and so on.

You are then literally playing a game of chance, where you pick a religion and hope it's the "right" one. How do believers of any religion know theirs is the one true religion? Because their book or God(s) tells them so. It's a lot like The Price is Right, you hope you have matched up the prices in the right order and lose if you don't. Except this time, the prize is your "everlasting life" and the prices are the different religions in the world today.

The Religion is Right.... or is it?

Why start with religions...lets start with versions of the bible..

The Most Common English Translations

*Revised Standard Version (RSV).
*New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
*New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Psalms (NAB-RNT).
*Catholic Study Bible.
*New International Version (NIV).
*Today's English Version (TEV)/Good News Bible.
*Contemporary English Version (CEV).
*Revised English Bible (REB).
*New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).
*New King James Version (NKJV).
and......
*New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Language Version.
Condensations and paraphrases. Finally, mention should be made of the immensely popular The Way, the Living Bible, and The Reader's Digest Bible. The Way and the Living Bible are not a translations but are paraphrases of the biblical text. Paraphrases are not reliable for Bible study, but they can be nonetheless inspiring and easy to understand. A successor to the Living Bible is the New Living Translation. Though a real translation and not a paraphrase, it has tendencies to translate text along the lines of predetermined judgments.
The Reader's Digest Bible (1982), on the other hand, is truly a condensation of the Bible. It has clipped out all repetition in the Bible. Unfortunately, the result is a distortion of the text because repetition is a vital part of the message of some biblical stories or poetry. The purpose of this condensation is to entice people to pick up and read the Bible. But using such shortcuts can cheapen the Word of God. There are no Catholic editions of these condensations and paraphrases.


But if none are those are too your taste try this list in the link below..
one of these versions may have a better version of hell...
Uno a place for us Athiests to reside when we retire from giving curry to those supossedly more refined religious types.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Cheers
RazZ:D

How do believers of any religion know theirs is the one true religion?

I think the best thing to do is stick to the original and wait for the God to physically show up (if the original one says God can do that) if he wants to make changes to the original rules. Afterall, God is perfect (right?), so why he should tell you one thing and then keep changing it so that you will get more confused. Book I, Book II, Book III and so on....it will never end....

Stick to the original...

Yeah, it's the old battling hells argument.

It goes like this....
You're more of an infidel in my religion than I am in yours, so I win.
And to prove it, look at the horrible monsters I've got in my hell, and if you don't believe them, you're an infidel and they'll get you.

Oh yeah? Well look at the even more unbelievable monsters I've got in my hell, and if you don't believe in even more unbelievable stuff, they'll get YOU.

OHHH YEAHHHH, well look at the even more unbelievable crap I invented for my hell.

You think that's unbelievable??? We'll see about that, I'm going to invent such unbelievable crap for my hell, that I'm going to be an infidel in my own religion. TOP THAT!!!

That's pretty much how that goes.
Well, Christianity says when you die, you're dead.
Hell is the grave.

It's so easy to believe that most people invent really unbelievable "hells" for their religions, because it's too easy to believe that people actually die.

*originally posted by kmguru
Stick to the original...*

Let me guess...

YOU'VE got the original.
AND the most unbelievable hell of all, right?

The thing is we don't even know what the original was anymore.

I was watching History channel on who wrote the bible....very interesting. The best way to find original is to eliminate recent interpretations and keep going back until you can not go back anymore.

There is nothing wrong with interpretations as long as it can anchor to the original. Take it what they are. For example, without naming names, there is a book, one group uses that they claim is true book from God. If you complain, they try to anchor it to Book I and Book II (new testament) but followers are told not to use them (since their book is the true book).

This is the best that a "knowledge management" guru can do?

You must not need to manage much knowledge on a day-to-day basis.

Originally posted by razz
Why start with religions...lets start with versions of the bible..

The Most Common English Translations

*Revised Standard Version (RSV).
*New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).
*New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Psalms (NAB-RNT).
*Catholic Study Bible.
*New International Version (NIV).
*Today's English Version (TEV)/Good News Bible.
*Contemporary English Version (CEV).
*Revised English Bible (REB).
*New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).
*New King James Version (NKJV).
and......
*New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Language Version.
Condensations and paraphrases. Finally, mention should be made of the immensely popular The Way, the Living Bible, and The Reader's Digest Bible. The Way and the Living Bible are not a translations but are paraphrases of the biblical text. Paraphrases are not reliable for Bible study, but they can be nonetheless inspiring and easy to understand. A successor to the Living Bible is the New Living Translation. Though a real translation and not a paraphrase, it has tendencies to translate text along the lines of predetermined judgments.
The Reader's Digest Bible (1982), on the other hand, is truly a condensation of the Bible. It has clipped out all repetition in the Bible. Unfortunately, the result is a distortion of the text because repetition is a vital part of the message of some biblical stories or poetry. The purpose of this condensation is to entice people to pick up and read the Bible. But using such shortcuts can cheapen the Word of God. There are no Catholic editions of these condensations and paraphrases.


But if none are those are too your taste try this list in the link below..
one of these versions may have a better version of hell...
Uno a place for us Athiests to reside when we retire from giving curry to those supossedly more refined religious types.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Cheers
RazZ:D



Have you read any other religious book?? Read Quran when you get chance so far it has only one version. Claim to be the only version for 1400 years. It worth taking a look at it.

*Originally posted by Markx
Read Quran when you get chance so far it has only one version.*

You can read Arabic from 1400 years ago?
You are GOOD.

*Claim to be the only version for 1400 years. It worth taking a look at it. *

Who else on this forum do you figure can read Arabic from 1400 years ago?
What's that?
Oh, you're reading the English version.

Well, that would have to be the SECOND version, at least.

Originally posted by tony1
*Originally posted by Markx
Read Quran when you get chance so far it has only one version.*

You can read Arabic from 1400 years ago?
You are GOOD.

*Claim to be the only version for 1400 years. It worth taking a look at it. *

Who else on this forum do you figure can read Arabic from 1400 years ago?
What's that?
Oh, you're reading the English version.

Well, that would have to be the SECOND version, at least.


Tony1,

Hate to surprise you, But yes I can. If you do little homework you can find out that the text did not change. Amazing isn't it?. Because if it would have changed, then there would be multiple versions out there for Quran. And then there would be different meanings and storm of contradictions. There are some false claims, Yes I would call them false because i did spend quite a time in Christian schools as well as spend time in learning arabic so I can say this. How come all the Qurans in the world have same meaning and even if I read it in English it is the same.

Even if it was translated to english, a two versions is better than the 150 or so that the Bible has.

Originally posted by Xelios
Even if it was translated to english, a two versions is better than the 150 or so that the Bible has.

Xelios,
If it is translated to English then wouldn't it be called Translation rather then Version? Or we can call it Engllish Version? Not sure thou. Hope you can help me out here.

Yes, I suppose it would. But someone should let Tony1 in on that, we wouldn't want him to get lost.

*Originally posted by Markx
If you do little homework you can find out that the text did not change.*

The official position of Islamic leaders is that the only true language for the Koran is Arabic.
Why would they say that if English is exactly the same?
Besides, you're just flapping your gums, when you say that the meaning didn't change between Arabic and English.
English and Arabic aren't the same language with different letters, they are two different languages.

*Amazing isn't it?. Because if it would have changed, then there would be multiple versions out there for Quran.*

There are.
I have two different English translations.

*And then there would be different meanings and storm of contradictions.*

Arab Muslims claim that the Koran in any other language is not the pure Koran as Muhammad intended it.

*How come all the Qurans in the world have same meaning and even if I read it in English it is the same. *

The Book of Mormon is even more so.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Even if it was translated to english, a two versions is better than the 150 or so that the Bible has.*

What's the matter?
Can't handle more than two things at a time?

Maybe you should stick to reading comics.
They usually have only a single edition, and they have pictures, too.

Originally posted by tony1
*Originally posted by Markx
If you do little homework you can find out that the text did not change.*

The official position of Islamic leaders is that the only true language for the Koran is Arabic.
Why would they say that if English is exactly the same?
Besides, you're just flapping your gums, when you say that the meaning didn't change between Arabic and English.
English and Arabic aren't the same language with different letters, they are two different languages.

*Amazing isn't it?. Because if it would have changed, then there would be multiple versions out there for Quran.*

There are.
I have two different English translations.

*And then there would be different meanings and storm of contradictions.*

Arab Muslims claim that the Koran in any other language is not the pure Koran as Muhammad intended it.

*How come all the Qurans in the world have same meaning and even if I read it in English it is the same. *

The Book of Mormon is even more so.



You don't get it or do you?? Arabic or non Arabic meaning remains the same. IF God = Allah Then it didn't change or is it??. Now where did you get this weird Idea reagarding Arab muslims claim that if the Quran is not in Arabic it is not pure Quran??? I really do like to see some thing written interms of that.

Also I have 7 different kind of Quran in 3 different languages, again I like to say it is the same Quran. I don't see any revised and King james versions of it. I don't see any deletion or adding of words or pharases in there. There are lots of claims from Jews and Chrsitians and Hindus regarding Quran but majority of non muslims still calls it the most complete book.


Now you mention you have two different translations? In mid 60s Arab jews and Hindus try to translate and also even try to write the Quran with twist of meanings and translations and words. Didn't work out. Only people who still posses those copies are in here in USA or western world, Now if I was a muslim would I buy a Quran translated by a Jew or by a Muslims, Knowing that fact the Jews and Muslims do not have any good relations for last 1400 years?. People like sulman Rushide and Ramana who hate islam and would do any thing to degrate it bring their publications in time to time, Funny part is we listen to them rahter then listening to 1.25 billionpeople. Anyways still even thou they are two different languages I still like to say that meaning is same.

Now they didnot change any names in there, Like we did in Bible. They didn't call Mohammad as Mo or Gabriel as Gab. But we did it to "Yeheshua" ( not sure about spelling ) the real name of Jesus. He never heard this name Jesus christ in his life but we call him that since it is easy for us. Another one is Peter. Poor guy never heard the name Peter in his life, but we still call them from our English Versions of names. Exactly thats what we did to our Bible made it easy for us. I hope you get the Idea what I am trying to say here.

What's the matter?
Can't handle more than two things at a time?
There is less opertunity for mistakes and copy errors in two versions than there is in 150. And no tony, I'm not interested in your comic collection, you may keep them.

*Originally posted by Markx
Now where did you get this weird Idea reagarding Arab muslims claim that if the Quran is not in Arabic it is not pure Quran???*

From Arab Muslims.

*Also I have 7 different kind of Quran in 3 different languages, again I like to say it is the same Quran. I don't see any revised and King james versions of it. I don't see any deletion or adding of words or pharases in there. There are lots of claims from Jews and Chrsitians and Hindus regarding Quran but majority of non muslims still calls it the most complete book.*

Who would bother to counterfeit a counterfeit?

*Now they didnot change any names in there, Like we did in Bible. They didn't call Mohammad as Mo or Gabriel as Gab. But we did it to "Yeheshua" ( not sure about spelling ) the real name of Jesus. He never heard this name Jesus christ in his life but we call him that since it is easy for us. Another one is Peter. Poor guy never heard the name Peter in his life, but we still call them from our English Versions of names. Exactly thats what we did to our Bible made it easy for us. I hope you get the Idea what I am trying to say here. *

Stuff changed?

Speaking of changing stuff, what's the deal here with Mary being the daughter of Imran?

And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of his Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants).
Koran

Imran supposedly lived around the time of Abraham...

Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of Imran above all people, --
Koran

Mary was one ooooooooooooooooooold chick according to the Koran.

*Originally posted by Xelios
There is less opertunity for mistakes and copy errors in two versions than there is in 150.*

That's right.
So, if you have 150 and they pretty much agree, then not much got changed, did it?