Uma~~ Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 The Moral Animal - a book about Charles Darwin and why we are the way we are. The authors name escapes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markuk Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I spend my time reading in the acar when stuck at traffic lights in the morning! u know Bangkok. I am currently just finishing Jeremy Clarkson - The world according to clarkson - interesting read !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Is he the one from Top Gear? >>>> Fiction vs. history. The Da Vinchi Code is pretty harmless even if it's true, what if The Historian is real? Watch your back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robitusson Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Collapse by Jared Diamond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markuk Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Is he the one from Top Gear?>>>> Fiction vs. history. The Da Vinchi Code is pretty harmless even if it's true, what if The Historian is real? Watch your back. Yes the guy from top gear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daleyboy Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I read a very good bit of toilet humour while relieveing myself. It went like this You who write upon this wall while answering your natures call, why waste your brilliant wit, for you can shine, where others shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rinrada Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Fiction vs. history. The Da Vinchi Code is pretty harmless even if it's true, what if The Historian is real? Watch your back. Just picked it up for a rail journey over the weekend up to East Yorkshire and seems like a nice easy read.Reminds me a bit like an earlier book on a similar theme that I rember reading about 20 years ago so must get my hands on a copy and find out who wins. THE HOLY BLOOD & THE HOLY GRAIL...bit of info...& believe theres a bit of controver...over the release of the film and copy(w)right..or summit?...should be good Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh & Henry Lincoln The first publication of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in 1982 sparked off a worldwide storm of controversy, reverberations of which are still resounding throughout the Western world. The authors began by investigating the tale of a nineteenth-century French priest, who discovered something in his mountain village at the foot of the Pyrenees which enabled him to amass and spend a fortune. What was his secret? The authors’ discoveries drew them onto a detective trail that became a modern Grail Quest. It led back through cryptically coded parchments, secret societies, the Knights Templar, the Cathar heretics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and a dynasty of obscure French kings deposed more than 1300 years ago. The core of the story turned out to be not about material riches but a secret – that Jesus may have been married to Mary Magdalene, and that they may have established a bloodline. In this new, updated edition, featuring a new introduction and many photographs and diagrams, the conclusions remain persuasive. Incid weather over "ere at the Mo is it seems minus -10.......OK nothing to do with it ..just a mention.... Brrrrrr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plus Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Jeremy Clarkson - The world according to clarkson - is it available in Bangkok's bookstores? Is there any webiste to check book availability here. I went to Asia Books five times over two months to buy The Historian. I'm actually in the beginning of a long term project of reading Ulysses. I got through introduction and thought that I don't know Odyssey well enough, so I got Odissey, and Iliad, too. Now I'm at the end of the first battle at the walls of Troy. It's a long term project, I read these books when I'm in the mood, certainly not everyday, sometimes I don't touch them for weeks. In the meantime I read easy stuff from Asia Books top ten list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markuk Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Jeremy Clarkson - The world according to clarkson - is it available in Bangkok's bookstores? Is there any webiste to check book availability here. I went to Asia Books five times over two months to buy The Historian. I think i brought it at heathrow on my last flight over - the only places i buy books in Thailand are Asia books, the book shop at central chidlom and the book shop upstairs in Emporium - sorry forget their names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 : Seriously, I always meant to read the bible, just never seem to do it. I'm not a particularly religious person so thats probably the reason but, there's a lot of stuff in there. I'll do it one day. redrus If one is religious, the bible might be worth looking at for some kind of - supposed - divine inspiration, but just to read, it's totally useless. Muddled and senseless, written thousands of years ago in a language that is impossible to translate correctly today, one has to rely on wackos like Pat Robertson to find out what it "really" means. If you like interpreting psychedelic poetry, the bible might be worth a read. If you want something religious, useful and inspirational that doesn't need a team of translators, I recommend Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. Sorry UG, I understand what you're saying but for me, a book is written to be read. Whether its religeous or not. I think its the person reading that counts. As I said prev, I'm reading F.Scott Fitzgerald at the mo. I don't really like it but, I'll finish it. I agree the Bible is A totally different bowl of porridge but, I want to read it because it was written. redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Turner Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 FHM its the Australian one I found it in a bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britmaveric Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Deep Fathom by James Rollins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 : Seriously, I always meant to read the bible, just never seem to do it. I'm not a particularly religious person so thats probably the reason but, there's a lot of stuff in there. I'll do it one day. redrus If one is religious, the bible might be worth looking at for some kind of - supposed - divine inspiration, but just to read, it's totally useless. Muddled and senseless, written thousands of years ago in a language that is impossible to translate correctly today, one has to rely on wackos like Pat Robertson to find out what it "really" means. If you like interpreting psychedelic poetry, the bible might be worth a read. If you want something religious, useful and inspirational that doesn't need a team of translators, I recommend Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. Sorry UG, I understand what you're saying but for me, a book is written to be read. Whether its religeous or not. I think its the person reading that counts. As I said prev, I'm reading F.Scott Fitzgerald at the mo. I don't really like it but, I'll finish it. I agree the Bible is A totally different bowl of porridge but, I want to read it because it was written. redrus That's OK, but religious isn't my point. In my opinion, without, somewhat questionable, inspiration from beyond, the bible is unreadable, if one is hoping to understand it. If you think that God will show you the answers or you just enjoy interpreting nonsensical, gobble-de-gook, go to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puwa Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 "zappa, a biography," barry miles "true history of the kelly gang," peter carey about a six-month backlog of "the new yorker" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suegha Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 : Seriously, I always meant to read the bible, just never seem to do it. I'm not a particularly religious person so thats probably the reason but, there's a lot of stuff in there. I'll do it one day. redrus If one is religious, the bible might be worth looking at for some kind of - supposed - divine inspiration, but just to read, it's totally useless. Muddled and senseless, written thousands of years ago in a language that is impossible to translate correctly today, one has to rely on wackos like Pat Robertson to find out what it "really" means. If you like interpreting psychedelic poetry, the bible might be worth a read. If you want something religious, useful and inspirational that doesn't need a team of translators, I recommend Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. Sorry UG, I understand what you're saying but for me, a book is written to be read. Whether its religeous or not. I think its the person reading that counts. As I said prev, I'm reading F.Scott Fitzgerald at the mo. I don't really like it but, I'll finish it. I agree the Bible is A totally different bowl of porridge but, I want to read it because it was written. redrus That's OK, but religious isn't my point. In my opinion, without, somewhat questionable, inspiration from beyond, the bible is unreadable, if one is hoping to understand it. If you think that God will show you the answers or you just enjoy interpreting nonsensical, gobble-de-gook, I have to add a comment here. Firstly, you are entitled to your opinion, secondly, have you tried to read the bible? And Lastly, the bible is not unreadable! It's perfectly readable! Even if you just read it as a 'story' you would find it easy to read. Please show me (or tell me) where does it contain 'nonsensical, gobble-de-gook,' because I have been reading it for 30ish years and have never found such a thing! It seems to me that some people like to bash the bible without having read or studied it, like I said you are entitled to your opinion, but your above comments are just plain incorrect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 : Seriously, I always meant to read the bible, just never seem to do it. I'm not a particularly religious person so thats probably the reason but, there's a lot of stuff in there. I'll do it one day. redrus If one is religious, the bible might be worth looking at for some kind of - supposed - divine inspiration, but just to read, it's totally useless. Muddled and senseless, written thousands of years ago in a language that is impossible to translate correctly today, one has to rely on wackos like Pat Robertson to find out what it "really" means. If you like interpreting psychedelic poetry, the bible might be worth a read. If you want something religious, useful and inspirational that doesn't need a team of translators, I recommend Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. Sorry UG, I understand what you're saying but for me, a book is written to be read. Whether its religeous or not. I think its the person reading that counts. As I said prev, I'm reading F.Scott Fitzgerald at the mo. I don't really like it but, I'll finish it. I agree the Bible is A totally different bowl of porridge but, I want to read it because it was written. redrus That's OK, but religious isn't my point. In my opinion, without, somewhat questionable, inspiration from beyond, the bible is unreadable, if one is hoping to understand it. If you think that God will show you the answers or you just enjoy interpreting nonsensical, gobble-de-gook, I have to add a comment here. Firstly, you are entitled to your opinion, secondly, have you tried to read the bible? And Lastly, the bible is not unreadable! It's perfectly readable! Even if you just read it as a 'story' you would find it easy to read. Please show me (or tell me) where does it contain 'nonsensical, gobble-de-gook,' because I have been reading it for 30ish years and have never found such a thing! It seems to me that some people like to bash the bible without having read or studied it, like I said you are entitled to your opinion, but your above comments are just plain incorrect... Got to go against you again there UG, I fully intend reading it as a book/story and, am in no way looking for God to come down from above and guide. Quote "If you think that God will show you the answers or you just enjoy interpreting nonsensical, gobble-de-gook" Un-quote I'm really non-plussed as to what you mean by the above fella. Plenty of non-religious people have read the Bible, I have no idea as to why you call it non-sensical. Each to thier own though, I'm sure one day I may come I come back on TV and remind you of a story in the Bible about that. redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suegha Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 : Seriously, I always meant to read the bible, just never seem to do it. I'm not a particularly religious person so thats probably the reason but, there's a lot of stuff in there. I'll do it one day. redrus If one is religious, the bible might be worth looking at for some kind of - supposed - divine inspiration, but just to read, it's totally useless. Muddled and senseless, written thousands of years ago in a language that is impossible to translate correctly today, one has to rely on wackos like Pat Robertson to find out what it "really" means. If you like interpreting psychedelic poetry, the bible might be worth a read. If you want something religious, useful and inspirational that doesn't need a team of translators, I recommend Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. Sorry UG, I understand what you're saying but for me, a book is written to be read. Whether its religeous or not. I think its the person reading that counts. As I said prev, I'm reading F.Scott Fitzgerald at the mo. I don't really like it but, I'll finish it. I agree the Bible is A totally different bowl of porridge but, I want to read it because it was written. redrus That's OK, but religious isn't my point. In my opinion, without, somewhat questionable, inspiration from beyond, the bible is unreadable, if one is hoping to understand it. If you think that God will show you the answers or you just enjoy interpreting nonsensical, gobble-de-gook, I have to add a comment here. Firstly, you are entitled to your opinion, secondly, have you tried to read the bible? And Lastly, the bible is not unreadable! It's perfectly readable! Even if you just read it as a 'story' you would find it easy to read. Please show me (or tell me) where does it contain 'nonsensical, gobble-de-gook,' because I have been reading it for 30ish years and have never found such a thing! It seems to me that some people like to bash the bible without having read or studied it, like I said you are entitled to your opinion, but your above comments are just plain incorrect... Got to go against you again there UG, I fully intend reading it as a book/story and, am in no way looking for God to come down from above and guide. Quote "If you think that God will show you the answers or you just enjoy interpreting nonsensical, gobble-de-gook" Un-quote I'm really non-plussed as to what you mean by the above fella. Plenty of non-religious people have read the Bible, I have no idea as to why you call it non-sensical. Each to thier own though, I'm sure one day I may come I come back on TV and remind you of a story in the Bible about that. redrus Well done redrus, a truely unbiased view, and one to be commended... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Bible, King James Version-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exodus -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exod.1 [1] Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob. [2] Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, [3] Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin, [4] Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher. [5] And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already. [6] And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. [7] And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. [8] Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. [9] And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: [10] Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. [11] Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. [12] But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. [13] And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: [14] And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour. [15] And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah: [16] And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. [17] But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. [18] And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? [19] And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. [20] Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. [21] And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. [22] And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive. [7] And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. What does "waxed exceedingly mighty" mean? [8] Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. Why do we care if the king "knew not Joseph"? [12] But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. Why were they "grieved" and what does it matter? [19] And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Huh? [20] Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. Huh? [21] And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. I would imagine that God gave the midwives houses for not killing the sons, but, I'm not really sure, and I have heard the story 100 times before so I can fill in some of the blanks. In fact, that is why I - and everyone else - understand much of what I didn't remark on here, otherwise it would be nonsensical, gobble de gook, and then we could print a passage from Revelations to REALLY prove my point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aughie Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Try reading Matthew Chapter 6. It only takes a few minutes. Google has it. I also like the verse where Jesus states that those who devour widows’ houses in exchange for long prayers shall receive greater damnation. Robbing blue-haired old ladies... things haven’t changed much. Funny someone mentioned Love in the Time of Chlorea. I just took it off the shelf to read again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Was reading two books at the same time: "The five people you meet in heaven" by Mitch Albom (highly recommended) and "The name of the rose" by Umberto Eco. Unfortunately the last one completely vanished during moving appartment before I could finish it. It must be somewhere, but till now it's untracable.... (Anyone got a spare copy?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suegha Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Ulysses G, Maybe you should read a more modern version, as the 1611 version that you quote is written in old fashioned English. However, as it's my favorite version, I'll explain the refs you mention. Exodus 1.7 but the Israelites were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them. v 8 8 Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power in Egypt. You obviously don't know the story as you say. The children of Israel went into the land and settled there when Joseph was alive many years before. He had won favour with the then king, and all this time later a new king arose - he did not hold them in favour, simple! v 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites So, grieved = dread VV 19,20,21 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive." 20 So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own. So UG, if you cant understand the KJ version, get yourself an NIV (which is what I quoted above) or some other version, because none of the above is 'gobble de gook'. And also as you allude you don't understand it. There is no point in pasting hugh sections of the bible for me to do what you could do yourself! Edited January 27, 2006 by suegha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... Well said Suegha. redrus Edited January 27, 2006 by redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. Of course there are lots of people who claim to love and understand Ulysses by James Joyce too, however, I am not one of them. Yes, I know that there are so-called "modern" versions of the bible that are easy to understand, but I was brought up to think that they are just storybooks, rather than the actual Bible. Someone trying to put words in the mouth of the Lord, rather than the - possible - words of God. By the way redrus, usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suegha Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. ...usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. You may not be able to understand the archaic language of the bible, but I can! I also study the Hebrew and Greek texts which helps enormously. I have, and consult, maybe ten other versions of the bible as I don't agree with anyone who says they put words in the Lord's mouth. Anything that helps me understand is useful. I also enjoy Shakespeare! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibebop Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... Well said Suegha. redrus Don't even go there! Shakespere is the greatest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. Of course there are lots of people who claim to love and understand Ulysses by James Joyce too, however, I am not one of them. Yes, I know that there are so-called "modern" versions of the bible that are easy to understand, but I was brought up to think that they are just storybooks, rather than the actual Bible. Someone trying to put words in the mouth of the Lord, rather than the - possible - words of God. By the way redrus, usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. ...usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. You may not be able to understand the archaic language of the bible, but I can! I also study the Hebrew and Greek texts which helps enormously. I have, and consult, maybe ten other versions of the bible as I don't agree with anyone who says they put words in the Lord's mouth. Anything that helps me understand is useful. I also enjoy Shakespeare! UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... Well said Suegha. redrus Don't even go there! Shakespere is the greatest. Exactly. Shakespere is, the Bible isn't, blah blah blah.....!!!!! ThaiBP, et al, this isn't about religieon. As I said before, a book is written to be read and, should be read as such....! redrus End of.....!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibebop Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. Of course there are lots of people who claim to love and understand Ulysses by James Joyce too, however, I am not one of them. Yes, I know that there are so-called "modern" versions of the bible that are easy to understand, but I was brought up to think that they are just storybooks, rather than the actual Bible. Someone trying to put words in the mouth of the Lord, rather than the - possible - words of God. By the way redrus, usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. ...usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. You may not be able to understand the archaic language of the bible, but I can! I also study the Hebrew and Greek texts which helps enormously. I have, and consult, maybe ten other versions of the bible as I don't agree with anyone who says they put words in the Lord's mouth. Anything that helps me understand is useful. I also enjoy Shakespeare! UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... Well said Suegha. redrus Don't even go there! Shakespere is the greatest. Exactly. Shakespere is, the Bible isn't, blah blah blah.....!!!!! ThaiBP, et al, this isn't about religieon. As I said before, a book is written to be read and, should be read as such....! redrus End of.....!!!!! Dude, take the cork outta yer a$$! I didn't bring up religion. I just said and jokingly( ) I might add don't mess with Shakespere, because I like Shakespere. You are the one beating the Bible here my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kayo Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 a GIRLGUIDE´S gUIDE TO GOOD FOOKIN´ hEHEHEHEHEHEH f(ck I WANNA DRINK. oh wait, got a whole bar full!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibebop Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 a GIRLGUIDE´S gUIDE TO GOOD FOOKIN´hEHEHEHEHEHEH f(ck I WANNA DRINK. oh wait, got a whole bar full!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sounds like you already have had a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrus Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. Of course there are lots of people who claim to love and understand Ulysses by James Joyce too, however, I am not one of them. Yes, I know that there are so-called "modern" versions of the bible that are easy to understand, but I was brought up to think that they are just storybooks, rather than the actual Bible. Someone trying to put words in the mouth of the Lord, rather than the - possible - words of God. By the way redrus, usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... redrus Actually, I'm not trying to cause controversy. I just don't see how anyone can claim to understand the archaic language of the Bible. ...usually I'm raving about Shakespeare not being understandable to the common man, so you might see where I'm coming from. You may not be able to understand the archaic language of the bible, but I can! I also study the Hebrew and Greek texts which helps enormously. I have, and consult, maybe ten other versions of the bible as I don't agree with anyone who says they put words in the Lord's mouth. Anything that helps me understand is useful. I also enjoy Shakespeare! UG put the bait away now....! I tried reading Shakespere the other day, non-sensical.... Well said Suegha. redrus Don't even go there! Shakespere is the greatest. Exactly. Shakespere is, the Bible isn't, blah blah blah.....!!!!! ThaiBP, et al, this isn't about religieon. As I said before, a book is written to be read and, should be read as such....! redrus End of.....!!!!! Dude, take the cork outta yer a$$! I didn't bring up religion. I just said and jokingly( ) I might add don't mess with Shakespere, because I like Shakespere. You are the one beating the Bible here my friend. Shi*te, TBP, we've proper missed each-others points there. 55555 I 've never had a cork in my arse and, as for religion..! I think I'm gonna stick to the Man United in Decline thread in the future. redrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now