Do we (Muslims, Christians and Jews) believe in the same God or not?

[Jeannot]

It seems to me that it's the various cultures that seem to produce different ideas of God. Kind of like a prism, which breaks light up into a spectrum of colors--but there's only one light.

 

[Saltmeister]

This is a false statement. The Jewish conception of God is also universal. The Jewish people just claim a particular relationship with Him.

This makes Him not universal at all, unless one can similarly say that my dog is everyone else's dog even though he only answers to me.

How can it not be universal? If you claim a particular relationship with God it is only one approach to God. That implies that there are numerous ways of approaching and connecting with God. Dauer did not say that this particular relationship with God was universal, he simply said it was a particular relationship, implying that it was a particular approach to interacting with God. A relationship with God and a concept of God are not the same thing. The relationship itself is not universal; it does not need to be universal.

That allows for a diverse range of approaches within a religion that claims to have a particular relationship with God.

I actually would have thought that it was the other way round -- if Jews claim a particular relationship with God -- then their concept of God can be universal. By implying diversity, it also implies that their concept of God is compatible with a diverse range of relationships with Him, which allows it to be a universal concept of God.

 

[Quahom1]

It seems to me that it's the various cultures that seem to produce different ideas of God. Kind of like a prism, which breaks light up into a spectrum of colors--but there's only one light.

Oooh, I'm gonna get kicked for this. There is actually a spectrum of light frequencies...only when combined do they become one "white light"...

 

[The Lord]

How can it not be universal? If you claim a particular relationship with God it is only one approach to God. That implies that there are numerous ways of approaching and connecting with God. Dauer did not say that this particular relationship with God was universal, he simply said it was a particular relationship, implying that it was a particular approach to interacting with God. A relationship with God and a concept of God are not the same thing. The relationship itself is not universal; it does not need to be universal.

That allows for a diverse range of approaches within a religion that claims to have a particular relationship with God.

I actually would have thought that it was the other way round -- if Jews claim a particular relationship with God -- then their concept of God can be universal. By implying diversity, it also implies that their concept of God is compatible with a diverse range of relationships with Him, which allows it to be a universal concept of God.

The idea of this "particular relationship" is one that is common to many tribal belief systems. In claim, the deity is put forward as the deity over a large group but it has formed a particular relationship with a certain subgroup, a covenant by which it gives this subgroup rights and privileges over others. In reality, this claim developed when the "subgroup" conquered and subdued a larger population, among which they enforced their belief system but without undermining their "chosen" status to rule over them. History is full of such examples, even in modern times. A recent example, close to home in Europe, was the "Divine Right" of Kings when the Christian kings established their realms, subdued the masses and converted them to Christianity (without of course giving up their divine relationship).

Now, Judaism is an old and vibrant religion which has evolved greatly over time. In its current state, after the debates of the middle ages, it is claimed that the Jewish God is a universal God in line with the Gods of Islam and Christianity. This could be true as an isolated view of a deity in a book about Gods. However, Judaism as a religion was never able to divest itself of that special relationship with God because it would negate the very basis of Judaism. If you truly assert a universal God, One that has the same relationship to all creations, then what was all this that Judaism asserts about? Was it because they looked for God and he answered? Of course not. History (and not legend) is full of people who looked for God individually and communally and according to Judaism God did not answer. He did not even care about them. God has made his choice and He is sticking with it, for better or for worse. And He made his choice not based on merit and good deeds, but on them being what they are: Jews. For His chosen ones, like a child with his pet, God could do anything: give them other people's lands, their women and cattle; kill the first born or send plagues and disasters against their enemies; destroy cities; flood the world; or whatever. The point is that this God was not the God of everyone equally. He had favorites and He played dice. This is why Jesus is said to have universalized the Jewish God, to have claimed that God and His message applied to all humanity equally. The only criterion is for one, anyone, to follow in God's path and one is saved (and of course accepts Jesus according to the Church, and albeit that these seem to be Paul's ideas). And in traditional Judaism that was not acceptable (hence the rejection of Jesus' ideas).

This is getting long and boring, and I have to leave. I'll await your response.

 

[dauer]

This makes Him not universal at all, unless one can similarly say that my dog is everyone else's dog even though he only answers to me.

According to the Jewish conception, God can be in relationship with anyone, not just the Jewish people, and that's in the Talmud.

but surely he/she does not believe in the God of Islam because if he/she did hold such a belief then he/she would be a Muslim, and not a Jew. And the opposite is true.

Maybe not, at least according to who is a prophet. But according to Judaism there isn't really any question. Muslims pray to the same God as Jews do.

I would like you to elaborate and explain the varying views more, if you can. Are you saying that some Jews have a different deity? And how would that make them Jews?

Judaism's a religion of interpretation, and so there are multiple views of God that are acceptable. Some people go with the more traditional monotheist view of God. Others go with the traditional kabbalist view of God. Others go with a panentheist view of God. More modern views of God are pantheist as well as naturalist. I think the real questions are: do our beliefs change God? How much can we know about God? What is the purpose of our beliefs about God? Perhaps the best answer is the Buddhist term "upaya", when the term is taken loosely.

Please. The same is true of all religions.

I was simply responding to your post, which stated the same about Islam, without indicating that the same was true for any other religion.

By implying diversity, it also implies that their concept of God is compatible with a diverse range of relationships with Him, which allows it to be a universal concept of God.

You got it.

n claim, the deity is put forward as the deity over a large group but it has formed a particular relationship with a certain subgroup, a covenant by which it gives this subgroup rights and privileges over others. In reality, this claim developed when the "subgroup" conquered and subdued a larger population, among which they enforced their belief system but without undermining their "chosen" status to rule over them.

In Judaism the brit is linked to the mitzvot specifically, not to rights and priveledges over others. You can see the full list of the mitzvot here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Although they are explained further in the Talmud and forward.

. In its current state, after the debates of the middle ages, it is claimed that the Jewish God is a universal God in line with the Gods of Islam and Christianity

That's an incorrect chronology. Universalism is found in the Talmud, even in the mishnah and in midrashic collections. See here:

http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/gentiles.html

The Noahide Laws, which are a covenant for all mankind, appear first in Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:4 and then in Sanhedrin 56 a/b. This article is pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws

If you truly assert a universal God, One that has the same relationship to all creations, then what was all this that Judaism asserts about? Was it because they looked for God and he answered?

According to midrash, God went to the other nations, and they turned Him away. The Jewish people only accepted with a mountain held over their heads. It is also said that Judaism was chosen because it was the lowliest of the nations, and so nobody would say that we were chosen for exemplary qualities, or attribute any greatness that might come to us, but only to God. It is important to know the history, but that's not going to tell you how the religion understands itself, which is really what matters in a dialogue like this.

History (and not legend) is full of people who looked for God individually and communally and according to Judaism God did not answer. He did not even care about them.

Actually, according to Judaism God did answer. We did leave Egypt in the ahistory after all.

For His chosen ones, like a child with his pet, God could do anything: give them other people's lands, their women and cattle; kill the first born or send plagues and disasters against their enemies; destroy cities; flood the world; or whatever.

You forgot to mention the times that according to the Tanach the Jewish people themselves are punished, through exile for example, by God. It's not just a one-way street. The Tanach is the sacred texts of the Jewish people. There's no reason to expect it to be addressed much to other people.

The point is that this God was not the God of everyone equally. He had favorites and He played dice.

He is the God of everyone equally. But Jewish texts are addressed to Jewish concerns.

This is why Jesus is said to have universalized the Jewish God, to have claimed that God and His message applied to all humanity equally. The only criterion is for one, anyone, to follow in God's path and one is saved (and of course accepts Jesus according to the Church, and albeit that these seem to be Paul's ideas). And in traditional Judaism that was not acceptable (hence the rejection of Jesus' ideas).

The problem with this is that we do find universalism in Judaism. See Laws of Noah and what else I've said on that. Also see the book of Ruth. What Jesus did is expand a particularist covenant into a universalist one, but in doing so he was throwing away an existing system for non-Jews. There's actually a gospel that contains laws for the most part identical to the noahide laws, so I think it's fair to say that Jesus, if we're going under the assumption that he did some particular things attributed to him, was simply going in a different direction entirely. Anyway, I don't think we can accurately parse the historical Jesus. From another reading, he may have actually been much less universal than rabbinic judaism, based on the ways in which he is recorded addressing gentiles, and the universalism may have been Paul, who may have, according to one reading, been a spurned proselyte to Judaism for some reason. Not so familiar with that one.

Dauer

 

[wethirst]

I thought I would put my two cents in.
This is a big thread, and I haven't read the whole thing...so I don't know what you guys have covered...but I had a couple thoughts.

From my understanding of theology, the greatest difference between the God of Islam and the God of Christianity (and Judaism, but Christianity more specifically) is the idea of the trinity. On the surface, this doesn't sound too amazing of a difference, but it is very fundamental. Both Islam and Christianity believe in a loving God (some would say that God is love, but it's more important that we make the distinction between that and lovING). They also believe that God is unchanging. Now, love requires some form of expression...at the very least, some object of love. How does both Allah and the Christian God portray love? Through creation, by loving us. However...what if we didn't exist? That means that God would not be able to be loving. If however, we include the idea of the trinity, that God is three personalities...there is now an eternal form of love expression. So the God of Islam is either not loving, or is contradictory in that he is only loving in relation to us. Muhammad rejected the idea of the trinity for 2 main reasons (as I understand through studying history): 1st, the only Christians in the area he lived were the ones cast out of the Church for being heretics. Meaning that he only heard THEIR understanding of Christianity. They likely held bizzare, unconventional understandings of Church doctrine/theologies (it should be noted that Muhammad taught that Christians see Mary as part of the trinity instead of the Holy Spirit...which is not true as far as generally held theology goes). 2nd, where Muhammad lived it was EXTREMELY polytheistic. A characteristic of polythestic religions is for certain gods also being other gods by having different personalitites. It's understandable why he would be wary of the Christian idea of the trinity. However, the doctrine of the trinity is not that God is 3 separate deities-but one deity with 3 different expressions, having to do with the 3 main ways he reveals himself to the world. I feel my description is a bit lacking...this is something that the greatest theological minds wrestle to understand.

While I have some questions on the above idea on the differences between Allah and the Christian God (such as, is 'loving' just a name that we give to God? So beyond his relationship to us would he be loving? That's a possibility, but I also realize that we as people were created, according to I think all three Abrahamic religions, in the image of God...the things we feel, think, understand... aren't necessarily foreign from the things God does. So...love isn't just a human thing that we make into a God thing...it was already a God thing that is a part of this human thing), the above is what I currently believe to be the strongest theological differences between the God of Islam and of Christianity. Not to mention the more practical point that the God of Islam says things contradictory to what Jesus taught, or what the Jewish/Christian God revealed.

---

 

[Amica]

Peace to all.

I think that the original message of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is: ONLY ONE GOD.
To go along with my much earlier post: while Christian theachings of today maintain the belief in One God, I think that the persecution suffered under Roman emperors allowed polytheistic concept to peak through Christianty. Stating that God is One with 'three godheads' somehow seems like a try to play it safe among the pagans surrounding the Christian community at the time. And this is not the only polytheistic attack that Christianity has suffered. Despite claiming its basis in Judaism/OT teachings, and believing that NT fullfills OT, Christianity of today allows statue worship (a graven image). There is no church out there that does not allow prayers towards a statue representative of Jesus. Christian Orthodox and Catholics, for instance, go even further and worship the statues of the Virgin, pray at the icons, collect skeleton relics that are believed to have healing powers, etc. This contradicts Judaism and the whole concept of Christianity's claim that Jesus' message (NT) fullfilled the OT (Jesus said that he came not to change the laws of OT but to fullfill them).

The polytheism did not rest on Christianity alone. I think Islam has been under its attack for some while too with the rise of various sects. However, majority of Muslims out there still worship Allah/God as Qur'an teaches.

 

[OzAndy]

Mmmm, Hi Amica, I'm not sure if this is really the right place/topic to reply to some of you points but, hopefully I can suggest some different perspectives on some of your points

I think that the persecution suffered under Roman emperors allowed polytheistic concept to peak through Christianty.

In fact nearly all schollars agree that the majority, if not all of the New Testament was written before serious Roman persecution began. In the New Testament we have Jesus saying things such as "I and the Father are one... If you have seen me you have seen the Father" this is just one of many many examples where Christ and God are very closely identified.

Despite claiming its basis in Judaism/OT teachings, and believing that NT fullfills OT, Christianity of today allows statue worship (a graven image). There is no church out there that does not allow prayers towards a statue representative of Jesus.

I am the leader/minister of a protestant church. Most protestant churches do not have statues or icons. Some do not even hava a cross (though that is rare). In most protestant churches, the cross does not have an image of Christ on it. Further more to be fair to Catholic and Orthodox believers, I believe they would argue that they do not pray to the icon or statue, but that it inspires or prompts their prayer direct to God. (Apologies to any Catholics or Othodox if I am misrepresenting you.)

Christian Orthodox and Catholics, for instance, go even further and worship the statues of the Virgin, pray at the icons

Protestants do not pray to the Mary (the virgin) or the Saints. But to be fair to those Christians who do, I believe they would say that that their prayer, even to Mary is not worship. They would say that it is like me asking a fellow believer to pray for me. (Perhaps, you or other Muslems could tell me if you have intercessory prayer. That is:-Do you pray for or on behalf of others, if they ask you?)

This prayer to Mary and the saints may have more to do with the Roman pagan faith than the Trinity does. After Consantine made Christianity the offical State religion of the Roman empire, some schollars argue, that some of the pagan gods were turned into Christian Saints. I believe that most Catholics would reject such an understanding.

(Jesus said that he came not to change the laws of OT but to fullfill them).

True but there are at least two possible understandings of this. There is the interpretation you give. On the other hand, given the rest of the New Testament's teaching as a whole, most Christians would say thet Jesus' saying means that he perfected the law or completed the demands of the law on our behalf.

majority of Muslims out there still worship Allah/God as Qur'an teaches.

All Monotheistic faiths are always in danger of being seduced by the the world around us. In the circles I move in, sometimes it is suggested that people who spend so much time on their cars, or their sport, or their work, or even their family that they neglect the worship of God, are just as much idol worshippers as the pagans.

I believe that for all Christians God is One.

For my understanding and comments on the trinity see my post : Re: Do we (Muslims, Christians and Jews) believe in the same God or not?


Blessings
Andrew

 

[Amica]

Hello.
Statements such as 'I and the Father are one...' may not mean that they are one and the same being. In many cultures in the world statements such as these are used to signify a partnership in believes, protecting one another, etc. But not one and the same being/person.

I am sure there was a Bible written before the Roman persecution, because my religion teaches this as well. However, even many christian scholars are saying that the Bible has evolved (some things have been changed in it). That is why different sects have different biblical books that they study and believe in.

Perhaps I will never be able to understand icon/statue use in prayers and I won't try to convince anyone to not believe in them if they do. I simply stated in my previous post what is clear about Judaic teachings: that no grave images should be used in worship/be worshiped. When I, personally, see a person adoringly kiss and look at a statue I assume that they believe it is a diety.

There are Muslim sects who promote praying to dead people asking them to interceed for them even though there is NO Qur'anic teaching or the teaching from Hadith about it. I personally do not believe in doing this. If I ever did it in the past it was due to my lack of knowledge about Islam.

Peace be to all of you.

 

[pfw]

I'm joining this a bit late, hope it's still an active thread...I was brought up as a Christion but, years ago and after looking into exactly this subject, and Judaism and Islam, rejected all organised religion. The following is just my point of view- I'm new to this site so if I say anything unsuitable let me know and I'll edit my entry. It is important to realise I'm critisising all religion here, not any individual or their faith/ belief. I respect anyones right to believe what they want, I just want to know why people are so willing to (blindly) follow what their religion tells them.The biggest stumbeling block I have is, ignoring details like the divinity of Christ etc, all three Abrahamic Religions (and their sub-sects) all claim God to be unknowable to the human mind, fair enough I can accept that. They all claim God can only be understood in symbol and metaphor. again, fair enough, I can also accept that. So far so good.Yet all three choose to 'explain' God with different metaphores, then they choose to reject the other two's metaphores... God's unknowable to the human mind yet all three claim their metaphores and symbols are the only true ones and any one who believes different is a fool and going to burn in Hell etc.I'll leave you to work out why I'm having such a hard time understanding why God has anything to do with any of these three religions when humans allow these differences to escalate to bloodshed and violence.The Christian version of the Old Testament is possibly one of the most badly translated documents from that era. It started as a Hebrew text, was translated into Greek, then Latin and then English and from English into almost every other language. (I believe that the only recognised 'official' translations of the Qua'an have to be translated from the original Arabic directly into the language of publication- a system that minimises translation errors and also means the text, to a degree, retains a lot of it's original poetic beauty). Is it any wonder that the Christian view of God, esp the OT God, is a little muddled? Isn't it also a little arrogent of Christians to hold any claim of holding/knowing the 'truth' about God when their foundation for this claim (the OT) is so shaky?The Christian New Testement isn't much better- all four Gospels contradict each other all over the place (check Christ's family trees as a glaring example and follow that up with the list of his brothers and sisters- something Roman Catholics claim he never had, yet they also claim everything in the Bible is true.(?). It's in the Bible, they are even named...)And then, to make matters worse the whole Christian movement gets taken over by a Roman convert, who was sent out to destroy the 'little Jewish sect of trouble makers', and merrily goes off and follows HIS teachings- a man who'd never met Christ and (please, read your New Testement from cover to cover and CRITICALLY before responding to this bit) he turns Jesus teachings on their head- almost nothing he says or teaches has any basis from the four Gospels that make up the Cannon of the Bible. Neither Judaism or Islam have such an obvious or violent rending from their roots.I'd suggest that a big part of the problem between the three religions is actually down to the Christians- most of them are lazy and don't actually bother to read their Holy Book from cover to cover, something I believe is a big part of Judasim and Islam.Just as an aside here, aimed soley at Christians. The Trinity. Here's a news flash for you, ever wondered were it came from, this Idea of '3 in 1'? It comes from the Nicean Creed and was deliberatly designed by the theologians of the time as a device to express the unknowable and unguessable nature of God tot he human mind- it was ment as a way of expressing the wonder and mystery of God to the 'common man'. It's a deliberate and impossible (for the human mind to grasp) paradox- that's the whole point. It was never intended to be a point of doctrine or to become dogma. Don't believe me? Check out 'A History Of God' by Karen Armstrong (isbn 0-09-927367-5) and do as I did- further reading on the subject.I think Christians need to take a long hard look at what they believe and were they get that belief/idea from before the 'big three' can get together in any real and meaningful way. (for example;Why do Christians 'blame the Jews' for Christs crucifiction? Surely if the whole and only point of Christs life was to die for our sins, if the Jews hadn't 'insisted' on his crucificion his mission would have failed?- Same goes for Judas as well...)Maybe I'm in the wrong discussion group here? But I'd love to know the answer to the question I asked at the beginning.

 

[Silas]

Islam, historical orthodox Judism, and Christanity, do not worship the same God. Jesus said, "if you dont honor the Son, you dont honor the Father that sent Him." And, "if you dont have the Son, you dont have the Father." Jesus is the litmus test for all claims of knowing God. He is the only way to God. According to Jesus, if you dont have the Son you dont have the Father either.

 

[pfw]

I like to thank Silas for proving one of my points. If you'd bothered to check what you believe instead of just believing what you are told to by you church leaders, you'd have found out that Islam does 'have Jesus...'

 

[Silas]

Who Isa? Islam's Jesus (Isa) didnt die on the cross for people's sins. He's coming back with Al Madhi to say that He is not the Son of God. Sorry, thats not the Biblical Jesus!

 

[pfw]

Even the Biblical Jesus is open to interpritation and the Christian version isn't the only one with merit. As a quick example there have been some interesting works recently that would suggest he was more of a political actavist who played on Jewish expectations of a messiah-he wouldn't have been the first if that's true and was by no-means the last. The example that sticks in my mind is the Parable Of The Good Samaritan- I'm going to assume every one knows at least the basics? One interpritation is the commonly held 'good deads'. Another, just as valid, is that it was a thinly veiled attack on the High Priests at the time- one aspect of the story that wouldn't need explaining to the Jews then (or now I'd guess) is that if a High Priest of the Temple had contact with a dead body or blood he'd have to go through lengthy 'cleaning rituals' to become 'clean' again and so carry out his duties in Temple-that's the reason why the High priest walked on by wereas the Samaritan-not encumbered with such concerns- was free to stop and help. Was Christ actualy saying that the High Priests of that time had become so obsessed with The Law that they'd forgotten the reasons behind it? And lets not forget that, at that time (putting it mildly) Jews and Samaritans didn't exactly get along so using a Samaritan as the 'good guy' in the story would have been highly insulting to the High Priests. If I believe that theory or not it has merit- If I believe your version or not it has merit- Perhaps it's realy a moot point as to wether Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in the same God or not, maybe the question should be 'can Jews, Christians and Muslims ever find enough common ground to stop hating each other, fighting each other and generaly being nasty to each other?'.(I don't mean that on an individual, personal level-I mean on the organised, Religion/Political level)Or, maybe, instead of trying for the common ground- it might be an idea to actually realy look at and CELEBRATE the differences-in my personal experiance I find more interest and enjoyment with people who have differing opinions and views to me rather than people who share all my views and opinions (but then I might just be strange), just an idea.

 

[Silas]

Even the Biblical Jesus is open to interpritation and the Christian version isn't the only one with merit.

I'm going to safely assume that you have yet to study or even read the Bible through.

 

[pfw]

I'm going to safely assume that you have yet to study or even read the Bible through.

Because I disagree with you I'm obviously ignorant? (Ignorant meaning unaware of any relevent infomation or unknowlegable rather than stupid). Yes I have read the Bible, thankyou, yes I was brought up a Christian too. I was mearly pointing out that the Christian viewpoint (which is only ever backed up with Christian scripture, never a single scrap of evidence from 'outside'-as in all religion) isn't the only possible interpritation of the Gospels. And, because you may be ignorant (same meaning as above) of this point, just because something (in this case an interpritation of the Gospels) is 'with merrit' doesn't mean it is 'true'. Taking an example from science the theory of 'the universe as static' model was a theory with 'merrit' and fit the observable data at the time. It was later replaced with the 'big bang' theory when better observation equipment was available and new data became available. As for your statement that the only way to God is through the Son (Jesus), just on a quick look through the Gospel of Matthew (using the 'Authorised King James version), here's Christs words on the subject of being worthy or unworthy of gaining Heaven; Chpt5:6-9. Chpt 6:19-21. Chpt 7:1-2 (something we all need to remind ourselves of). Chpt 7:21-23. Chpt 12:31-32 (to blasphem against the Son Of Man is forgivable in this world and the next...). Chpt 12:50. Chpt 15:17-18 (that which is in mens hearts is what corrupts man). Chpt 19:16-19. Chpt 19:25-26. Chpt 21:28-31. Chpt 22:35-40. Chpt 25:33-40.

 

[Silas]

Because I disagree with you I'm obviously ignorant? (Ignorant meaning unaware of any relevent infomation or unknowlegable rather than stupid). Yes I have read the Bible, thankyou, yes I was brought up a Christian too. I was mearly pointing out that the Christian viewpoint (which is only ever backed up with Christian scripture, never a single scrap of evidence from 'outside'-as in all religion) isn't the only possible interpritation of the Gospels. And, because you may be ignorant (same meaning as above) of this point, just because something (in this case an interpritation of the Gospels) is 'with merrit' doesn't mean it is 'true'. Taking an example from science the theory of 'the universe as static' model was a theory with 'merrit' and fit the observable data at the time. It was later replaced with the 'big bang' theory when better observation equipment was available and new data became available. As for your statement that the only way to God is through the Son (Jesus), just on a quick look through the Gospel of Matthew (using the 'Authorised King James version), here's Christs words on the subject of being worthy or unworthy of gaining Heaven; Chpt5:6-9. Chpt 6:19-21. Chpt 7:1-2 (something we all need to remind ourselves of). Chpt 7:21-23. Chpt 12:31-32 (to blasphem against the Son Of Man is forgivable in this world and the next...). Chpt 12:50. Chpt 15:17-18 (that which is in mens hearts is what corrupts man). Chpt 19:16-19. Chpt 19:25-26. Chpt 21:28-31. Chpt 22:35-40. Chpt 25:33-40.

OK. Lets take all of this stuff a little at a time. You want to talk about proof of scripture outside of scripture, thats cool. What is your question? As for you reading the Bible. I didnt say you didnt, I just said you have not read it all the way through and have not studied it. I can tell by the questions you asked before and the ones at the bottom of what you said above. Again, we can discuss them if you like...a little at a time. K?

 

[pfw]

I have no objection to people pointing out were I've made an error, I've no objections to an exchange of views, information or opinions-I've had a few (friendly) run-ins with Thomas already. But that's not what you do so; no, not in open forum any way- private message me and I'll discuss this subject with you. To end this post on a positive note-your posting on my thread 'Question about The Christian Bible' was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, so thanks for that- are these versions of the Bible available to buy or online?

 

[Silas]

Hey, I really respect your willingness to speak in PM! As for the different versions, yep...you can get them online.

 

[wil]

are these versions of the Bible available to buy or online?

I like biblegateway.com to look at various versions of the bible...I'd love to find a source where you can look at them side by side like parallel bibles...

When I want to look at a larger variety of info nothing beats bahai ocean!