Books of the Catholic Bible Quiz

I saw a Catholic bible with full Esdras's (as well as 3 and 4 Esdras not included here), Apocalypse and naming Joshua as "Jesus Nave". It seems this was a very exceptional bible to have gone full Greek in this way, and not like normal Catholic bibles read in churches or people's homes.

How about I saw your reply to my comment of a year ago (my god, a year!) which was posted only today! What are the chances? (Except the quiz popped up on the frequent list).

Never go full Greek...

In Chile we call it "apocalipsis"

Sad.

Which Protestants??

As Protestant I’ve never called it Songs of Solomon 🤔

I see Kalbahamut is still on his campaign to leave a nasty comment on any quiz containing anything remotely Christian.

Just for the benefit of other readers of this site... I know of at least two books written by atheists trying to disprove the reliability of the Bible who, in the course of their research, found the evidence for the reliability of the Bible was overwhelming to the extent that they converted. "The Case for Christ" is perhaps the best-known example.

Just to make it clear that there is rational grounds for not taking the view given above...

The Bible is not 'reliable'. Christianity, like all religions, is based on faith.

And faith is so very unreliable...

Theodore: no campaign... and nothing nasty... just responding to a comment with relevant facts. You see it as something else because this factual information I shared provoked some defensive and emotional overreaction in yourself. Might want to reflect on why that is for a while.

Jon: if only you could see how absurd that book is in the eyes of actual non-believers. The "evidence" laid out in it is so absurdly flimsy it is impossible to believe that Strobel's story is genuine. Just... laughable. There are, however, many millions of much more believable cases of the opposite thing happening: people who studied the Bible or history looking for evidence to support their faith, or went to seminary, and became atheists. I imagine that these stories are *so* common that a handful of people, like Strobel, felt it necessary to try and offer up some counter-point for personal reasons.

QuizzerBros: exactly. realizing this (along with the realization that there is value in figuring out what is or is not a reliable path to knowledge) doesn't make you any smarter, but it does give you the tools necessary to start separating fact from fiction that most people lack, without getting defensive when your faith is called into question since your beliefs are based on a more solid foundation and not emotion or ego.

In my experience atheism (like a lot of our beliefs) is often based on emotion. Certainly most of the atheists I've known are just as emotional about their beliefs as anyone else, and many get very defensive in response to any challenge to them. Which is fine really, I'm sure that's just being human. I just get slightly narked off at the assertion that atheism is somehow more evidence-based and factual - it's just not a, er, factual idea.

I'm sure there are a lot more examples of people losing their faith after examining Biblical history or whatever (though I'm not sure how you know there are millions) but that's naturally going to be the case because most atheists naturally have never studied the faiths they reject. I've only ever met one person who understood Christianity and rejected it, although I don't doubt that there are more. But they seem to be a tiny minority.

(I've deleted my other thing which was, as you say, rubbish! I can't remember where I heard it.)

Atheism is simply a position on a single question... and usually one people are not emotional about at all. I mean... ask any of the billion or so atheists in China how emotional they get thinking about the god that they've never really heard about and I'm sure it's not very.

But... a lot of other unrelated things often get roped in together with atheism (usually by theists, but sometimes even by atheists)... such as... opposition to various organized religions... beliefs about science, skepticism, and rationality... ideas about or values connected to politics, humanism, sexuality, social justice, etc... and so on... and these are things that people do often feel very passionate or emotional about.

But I don't really think anyone is passionate about not believing in something. That would be odd and I've never seen it that I can recall.

But anyway... (cont'd)

though you have mangled what I actually said a bit... (I didn't say "atheism" was fact-based," or even mention atheism for that matter) ... I still stand by my original comment. Every version of this book is demonstrably full of the things that I listed. And this is, indeed, factual and well-documented.

.... If... this fact leads you toward atheism... well... fine.

But there are actually quite a few people who recognize the truth of the above and are still theists. Some of them even claim to believe in the same Christian or Hebrew god described in various parts of the book.

and... do you not see the irony in how many responses my comment is getting when iRDM's comment (that I'm responding to) got fewer than half as many? When you are trying to assert those who believe differently are emotional?

Is it really your well-thought out and researched position that the books that the fallible and ignorant men who collated the Protestant Bible decided to include as part of their canon are perfect and inerrant, perhaps divinely chosen... while the books that the similarly fallible and ignorant men who put together the Catholic Bible, or any other holy book, are fake and just put in to suit the beliefs of those choosing them?

Or do you have some emotional reason for wanting to believe the above (which is implied by your disagreement with what I said)?

Can you not take a step back and realize that the way you see the books of Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Mormons... is exactly how everyone else sees your books?