So why is it still there?
See, I actually don't believe you're that ignorant, and it's such a stupid question I'm not sure quite how to address it.
Historically speaking, though, the Christian bible with Old and New Testaments is a political usurpation; that's hardly a new point of mine, and you've been around threads when I've discussed it (
cf.,
post in re fundamentalist Christians↗).
More like narrative context. The story of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible makes the point (cf.,
post in re notorious political figure↗), but for as much as I might have recalled it over the years, it's also true the evangelical atheists I know never really pick up on it.
Whether it is cynical or simply uninformed, your question is nearly disqualifying.
For us masses can we obtain a Christian properly read printed version? And since a properly read version I'm thinking it should be followed 100%, not have any sort of expiry date, cover every conceivable situation
But this would be your own fallacy to deal with, and think of it this way: Are you going out of your way to disqualify for some obscure satisfaction, or shall we accept that you really are so ignorant and incompetent?
I prefer the RSV and NASB, but a lot is discussed with KJV; there are resources to help us understand how the words and sentences are translated; we should always be wary of NIV and other simplified translations.
But a "Christian properly read printed version", while it's hard to figure precisely what you meant, would seem the wrong question; if its meaning is covetously calculated, then it doesn't matter what translation or printed version one reads.
Of course you missed that part in order to ask about the "Christian properly read printed version".
? A do it yourself comparison religion ?
Sounds unique
That's a more modern temptation. I actually have a bit on that stowed away, and if I've never brought it here in detail, it's because it's a dynamic and usnettled thesis, and there isn't really much point to presenting in a room insisting on heroic cluelessness. Indeed, someone else stumbled into the DIY question, too, sort of. Maybe it's time.
The spoiler alert, of course, is that it will disappoint evangelical atheists, even if it doesn't shine up religious knobs any.
(Note: Unicode for the inverted question mark that goes at the front of the interrogative is u00bf, and the Alt code, apparently, is 0191.)
Again why not leave out those bits?
Well, given that the answer is to ask people from the fourth and fifth centuries, and virutally every major player on the prevailing side of settling that record was working political angles (
cf.,
post in re Jesus, James, and biblical canon↗), which also discussion of usurpation, as well as reading and interpreting the Bible). Your question, however, seems rootless, and in this way: Why leave them out, then?
And here is the key to understanding that question: Should you stop and consider the question, what is the Bible to you, part of the point is that pretty much everyone answers it differently, and, sure, there will be some bloc themes, but your question seems more based on your contemporary perspective, and part of the difficulty about answering it has to do with the old line, "Can you tell me where it hurts?" because the most obvious answers are apparently insufficient, and you are either unable or unwilling to explain why.
So, whether your retorts were arbitrary, self-satisfying contrarianism, or an actual display of ignorance, there isn't really much to tell you, at this point, but it's also true anyone can make the note in order to help them assess what you have to say in the future.
