In Sept. 2005, the Church of England endorsed the release of this Bible. It is a condenced form of the Bible, but it leaves out, as one reviewer put it, all those "boring bits." But is it accurate? It completely omits God's name. Section one states that God created heaven and earth over a period of 6 days. Genesis 1:1 says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then it goes on to describe further acts of creation over a period of six days. It describes Satan as one of God's servants when the word Satan means Resister. It says that Rome is Babylon the Great, when the real Bible never says this. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, it says that Jesus favors those who help anyone. the real Bible said that he blesses those who do good to his footstep followers...his brothers. These are just a few indiscrepancies...if given the choice, would you choose it over the complete Bible?
2007-02-13 10:33:24 · 9 answers · asked by ♥Catherine♥ 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Well first of all how can anyone pick and choose from the Word of God? What has God revealed that we can say we don't need that. Second if one person or group can alter God's Word than the next will alter it more and so one till we have nothing left except what we want to keep.
Was God not serious that we live by EVERY Word?
2007-02-13 11:53:26 · answer #1 · answered by beek 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well; no real surprise for this day and age. The "experts" have repackaged everything else for us today, in our disposable society. Disposable diapers, coffee cups, disposable needles, babies (abortion) and now, a 100 minute Bible. This is called progress. Organized religion has backed it self into a corner in trying to explain certain passages in the Bible; therefore, it is much more convenient to lop off those hard to explain scriptures as a compromise to dysfunctional religion and very poor theology - isn't it ? This doesn't mean that the initial scriptures cannot be explained but the modern turn, to conveniently throw out what the churches cannot explain is a much, more favourable choice than changing incorrect, traditional dogma such as "hell" , going to "heaven", immortality of the "soul" to name a few. What we are all left with is a 100 minutes to salvation plan. Will that be cash or credit ?
2007-02-13 18:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by guraqt2me 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope........the complete bible is the only way to go. As you stated someone said it leaves out all the "boring bits".........
well, those "boring bits" are what make up the bible. They
are what make up the story of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. Anything else doesnt give all the detailed "boring bits".
2007-02-13 18:37:44 · answer #3 · answered by Trish 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like to read the 100 minute bible while working on my 8 minute abs.
2007-02-13 18:36:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'd rather read the whole Bible, but I wouldn't mind reading the condensed version.
2007-02-13 18:41:31 · answer #5 · answered by Jay 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is for people who "don't have the time."
They were lazy in writing it as well.
This is false doctrine. Good for the fireplace, though.
2007-02-13 18:39:35 · answer #6 · answered by n9wff 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I would choose the bible.
2007-02-13 18:38:00 · answer #7 · answered by pepsiolic 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is only one bible,no quicker versions,no substitutes,one bible.(THE HOLY BIBLE) KING JAMES VERSION.
2007-02-13 18:38:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
90 minutes too long.
2007-02-13 18:36:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋