Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nivreactna…
Apple Store - https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/niv-audio-bible-david-suchet/i…
Free offline audio bible. Read by David Suchet. App has some other features too.
Normally $37.99.
Free for 7 days, but I'm not sure when the 7 days started.
There are many free online/streaming options for audio bibles.
This should be useful for those who want an offline audio bible
Note: It's 80hrs of audio. You'll need 1.33GB.
Samuel L. Jackson version is best for a spoken Bible.
please tell me this exists!
may be but nothing is better than someone who actually believes and had experiences behind it
…but I'm not sure when the 7 days started
In the beginning…
The one book people should be reading especially in times like this.
Time to put lambs' blood on the door?
Glad you know a particular part of it, do you know the context of that situation? Or are you just "having a dig".
Passover could well be the first pseudo-historically documented case of a coronavirus-like illness if there were some in-utero explanation of why only the first born child was susceptible.
But in case you're curious of the ancient origins of such a pathogen, see this US paper:
I know all 66 books well, the latter 27 even more so. Exodus is particularly exciting.
Is there something useful you think this 3000 year old story can tell us at this point in time?
Fiction is always the best escape in times like this.
The only (contradictory as well I might add) fiction in times like this is the notion of saving lives at the cost of our economy and prosperity, which I am NOT challenging our measures taken, but the pro life intention behind these measures contradicts the multiple other ways we willingly cause death, take abortion for example. Already 9 million + lives lost.
At what time do you consider abortion acceptable? Only when a woman has committed adultery?
@defecat0r: According to God's word, it is not acceptable for a human being to take another innocent human being's life i.e. murder, especially for the sake of pleasure (pleasure of sex without the "hassle" of children).
Are you trying to bring in Old Testament laws ordained for the Ancient people of Israel to validate your point? If so you have taken the laws out of their context.
@m0usju1c3: Almost, but not quite. According to God's word, it is not acceptable for a human being to take another innocent human being's life, unless God himself decrees it, this by definition makes it a morally good action. Would you agree?
I find it bemusing that modern Christianity is so anti-abortion when instructions are given for it in the bible, this is what I was making reference to. Instructions for ritualized abortion is found in Numbers chapter 5, in which Jesus will cause the child of an unfaithful wife to miscarry (the fetus will be aborted).
@defecat0r: "unless God himself decrees it, this by definition makes it a morally good action. Would you agree?"
Absolutely, because he is God and has every right to carry out judgement how he sees fit, after all, he is the ultimate standard and judge, not you or any other man who sits there and "judges" God on what he has/hasn't decreed. I'll give you a better example of your point, God said you shall not murder, but actually ordained the crucifcition of his begotten Son (Acts 4), utilising multiple sinful desires, decisions and actions of multiple people from multiple backgrounds, all coming together for the ultimate good.
By what standard do you even sit there and judge God by what he has decreed? What is your objective, ultimate standard of truth/good that you judge right or wrong by?
@m0usju1c3: "By what standard do you even sit there and judge God by what he has decreed? What is your objective, ultimate standard of truth/good that you judge right or wrong by?"
I judge God and what he has decreed by my objective moral standard, a standard by which I can judge a moral action as either good or bad, a standard that ultimately, I believe you hold to as well - the standard of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary suffering.
This is an objective standard that I subjectively choose to follow, in the same way that you subjectively choose to follow what you consider to be your objective moral standard.
The problem with your standard, as i see it, is that you can't even demonstrate that exists.
Here's my question to you: If ScoMo were to put forth a piece of legislation mandating the stoning to death of adulterers and practicing homosexuals, would you as a Christian have any grounds to call this morally wrong?
@defecat0r: "I believe you hold to as well - the standard of maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary suffering."
We are in 2 different worldviews of belief, morality etc. In my worldview I have a beginning source of creation, morality, uniformity of nature and the laws of logic.
What I am asking you, which you have yet to answer coherently, is what is your objective standard of truth? You said "I judge God…by my objective moral standard", what is the source objective moral standard? If I had to guess, I would say given you are an atheist, you have no objective/ultimate moral truth/standards to refer to, just what is "good/right" in your own eyes or what the majority of people around you "believe". According to your worldview, we more or less came from a primordial soup or evolved from fish, we are more or less evolved living organisms, that's it. Joe Blow from down the road could have another "objective standard" that he "subjectively chose to follow", who's is correct? Do you see the pre-suppositional issue of your worldview?
Before the conversation can move forward, you need to establish the objectiveness or universal truth of you're own worldview, then we can perform critique's of each.
Regarding your final question, again you are taking out the laws of the holy code revealed to Israel thousands of years ago, in a completely different context and time and bringing them forward whilst completely ignoring the revelation from the New Testament. But to answer your question, yes as a Christian I would call this wrong because:
As mentioned a couple of times now, stoning for homosexuality or taking any other Old Testament laws out of their own context. So no as Christians who now have had the revelation of the NT given to us, we cannot stone breakers of the Old Testament laws.
The behaviours which are considered sinful are still sinful, including homosexuality. Christians are called to preach repentance to mankind, to turn from their sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from eternal judgement, which can only be done by the power of the Holy Spirit. We do NOT have any warrant to exercise punishments solely set apart for the Ancient people/nation of Israel. This is all clearly laid out and understandable from the NT scriptures.
Please consider the fate of your soul, what have you got to lose? If you want scriptural references for the things I'm saying please PM me I will gladly provide.
@m0usju1c3: The reason I say that you ultimately hold to the same standard I do, is that if I question you as to WHY I should obey God, it will eventually come down to avoiding hell and gaining eternal life. WHY should you or I avoid hell? Because we don't want to suffer. Choosing to set God's law as defined through his revelation (the Bible) as the standard to live by in your life is a subjective decision to maximise well-being and minimize unnecessary suffering.
I agree that in your worldview, you have an explanation for the existence of the cosmos, morality, uniformity of nature and the laws of logic. Morality can be explained sufficiently under a secular worldview. I would argue that the laws of logic are self-evident axioms and you can't justify them without confronting the exact issues I will presume you would accuse me of :)
Regarding existence and the uniformity of nature though, I might ask, does having an explanation make that explanation true, or most likely to be true? If you are the only person that claims to have the answer to one of the mysteries of the universe, does that make your explanation the most likely to be correct? When a person fell sick in the middle-ages and the best explanations were "they must have some secret sin in their life, God is punishing them", or "demons!", or "The old witch down the road cast a spell", which was most likely to be the truth? Before we had the knowledge of the germ theory of disease, "I don't know" was the correct answer and I think this is a lesson we can learn from here.
What is my objective standard for truth? I would define truth as that which conforms with reality. There is no subjectivity in this, truth is objective by default. I see no need for a source of truth. We might never be able to KNOW a truth to a 100% degree of certainty, but there are objective truths to be known.
I agree with your summation of my position on morality and I don't see any presuppositional issue? I agree that it is all ultimately subjective and that different people can choose different standards of ethics to live by. Who is correct? I think this might be the wrong question to ask, it is assuming that there is some ethereal essence of Truth floating out there by which moral actions can be judged, i see no reason to believe that there is some source of Truth or Morality floating in the cosmos somewhere. It is simply a fact that most humans DO value well-being and wish to avoid unnecessary suffering. Given this fact, it is not a hard sell to argue that this is a good standard to accept.
I suspect you are a presup and will disagree with much of this - my position as someone who values truth above all else comes down to this:
-the time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. The default position should be one of unbelief, moving to belief when a claim meets its burden of proof (It is unreasonable to begin by presupposing the proposition in question).
-through Occam's razor, we should aim to minimise our presuppositions to a level as close to zero as possible.
-no religion that I have examined meets its burden of proof to warrant belief.
-regarding Christianity specifically, not only are there no good reasons to believe it is true, there are many good reasons to believe it is not true, in my opinion.
Thank you for your concern re. my soul though, I understand the sentiment is coming from the right place. Peace :)
@defecat0r: You know it really is rare to meet someone on the web that can fathom these concepts and I do appreciate the back and forth, but I do have to say that the position of having presuppositions isn't necessary is begging the question of what your presuppositions are. Your explanation would quickly fail e.g. You say that for morality, it can depend on whoever you speak to. I don't know if you have children or not, but let's say you run into a tribe who views the raping and sacrificing of children proper in their religion/customs/worldview, I imagine you would give your own life for your daughter and that you would definitely assume you were in the RIGHT…but are you?
How can you be confident that you won't spontaneously float into the air in the next second? How can you know any of the laws of logic are uniform and unchanging? Are you not living "by faith" that the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature will be the same in the next 5 seconds/minutes? Going outside to drive, loading your kids in the car? Because you would definitely assume they do. If so, simply asserting that laws of logic and uniformity of nature are simply traits of our universe is begging the primary question. What is reason? Logic? What is their source? I am speaking of metaphysical.
"We might never be able to KNOW a truth to a 100% degree of certainty, but there are objective truths to be known."
Interesting statement, now is THAT statement true without a doubt??
Then, that means your statement just before is not 100% true then, right?
"What is my objective standard for truth? I would define truth as that which conforms with reality. There is no subjectivity in this, truth is objective by default."
Do you see the contradiction in your own paragraph? You've made an absolute truth claim followed by a another truth claim, whereby the second truth claim invalidates the first.
If truth is that which conforms to reality, I assume you are a materialist then? So then on what basis are you making immaterial claims to universal laws such as the laws of logic?
@m0usju1c3: The term "Right" can only be determined when assessed against a standard. When assessed against my standard, (wellbeing and minimising unnecessary suffering), yes, in your scenario I AM right. When assessed against THEIR standard for morality, they MAY very well be right to act horribly. Like it or not, there is no essence of "Rightness" floating in the universe, all I could do with the people in this scenario is attempt to determine if they value wellbeing also, if not we're at an impasse. However, if they do it is then just a matter of pointing out the flaws in their ethics where their standard of morals is objectively detrimental to what they value.
How can I have confidence in the uniformity of nature and the laws of logic? What is their source? Good question, I guess I can’t know they will remain consistent with absolute certainty. Through induction (acknowledging the problems that come with induction) we can conclude that the way the universe will operate tomorrow will be as it does today, and that the laws of logic will remain consistent. Does this fit with your definition of faith? As I understand it, the source of these are still open questions in philosophy. Can you know these things to any degree beyond me or anybody else?
"Interesting statement, now is THAT statement true without a doubt??"
When I claim to know something, I am not claiming to have absolute knowledge, merely a high degree of certainty, or, "as best as I understand it". Do you have access to absolute certainty in claims that you make?
"Do you see the contradiction in your own paragraph?"
No, I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at here. I'm not sure why we might need an objective standard for truth, we only need a definition for truth. My point is that truth has no avenue for subjectivity, was it this comment that you had an issue with?
"If truth is that which conforms to reality, I assume you are a materialist then? So then on what basis are you making immaterial claims to universal laws such as the laws of logic?"
An immaterial claim? Not sure I follow you here either. As I understand it, the logical absolutes are descriptive laws about basic characteristics of our existence. I don’t see how this doesn’t gel with materialism.
How do you justify the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature? How to you justify your reason?
@defecat0r: "Like it or not, there is no essence of "Rightness" floating in the universe, all I could do with the people in this scenario is attempt to determine if they value wellbeing also, if not we're at an impasse."
So you have made a 100% truth claim of there being no essence of rightness in the universe, therefore you're own statement can't be right either? There actually COULD be an essence of right…correct?
"As I understand it, the source of these are still open questions in philosophy."
I would contend that your Theology will always determine your Philosophy, because God is the beginning of all things, therefore, according to His word, he has created the universe along with it's attributes, physics, logic etc. That is why we can make sense of anything, such as maths or science, because creation has his intelligent signature.
"Do you have access to absolute certainty in claims that you make?"
Yes, God's word as found in the Bible. The most attested work of antiquity in existence, no other ancient document comes close to it's historical accuracy. I'm not saying it has exact, scenic specific instructions, but within it can be found standard for morality, reason which is the definition of his character. From which we can extrapolate to our daily lives/church ministry.
"I'm not sure why we might need an objective standard for truth, we only need a definition for truth. My point is that truth has no avenue for subjectivity"
Again, as per my first point, according to what standard are you making any understanding of a definition of truth? How do you even define what truth is? How can you define a truth, if you have no objective truth??
"As I understand it, the logical absolutes are descriptive laws about basic characteristics of our existence. I don’t see how this doesn’t gel with materialism."
Oh I believe it gels just fine..from my worldview, what I don't understand is how it gels with yours?? If all you have is material, how in the world are you proving anything immaterial such as the laws of logic? E.g. How or why can 1 + 1 = 2 make sense? Again, just claiming something 'is' doesn't prove where it came from or how it came into being/source. That defeats the entire discipline of science, which it's chief goal is to determine how things work and their source/origin. You are begging the question of the origin of logic and uniformity of nature.
"How do you justify the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature? How to you justify your reason?"
Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
I realised that God is the intelligent, creator being of this universe, by his word (the Bible) and the Holy Spirit's work of applying that knowledge and enabling me to see it.
So you have made a 100% truth claim of there being no essence of rightness in the universe, therefore you're own statement can't be right either? There actually COULD be an essence of right…correct?
No, as I said previously, I am not making 100% truth claims. When I claim something to be true, I am merely claiming to know it with a high degree of certainty, or as best as I can understand it. My definition of knowledge does not include absolute certainty, merely beliefs that I hold with high degrees of probability. You are right though, “I have seen no good evidence to think…” would have been a better way to word it. To answer your question though, yes, there could be a magical essence of rightness, and goodness, and truth floating in the cosmos somewhere, I have no way of knowing that it DOES NOT exist so I won’t rule the possibility out :)
Yes [I have access to absolute certainty in claims that I make], God's word as found in the Bible.
Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. – A claim to absolute certainty is to say that you could not possibly be wrong. Sorry, but I do not believe that you or any other mammal is infallible, irrespective of what books are on your bookshelves. For one to think that they could not possibly be wrong means that one is not open to belief revision. What would you say to the Muslim that claims access to absolute certainty?
Again, as per my first point, according to what standard are you making any understanding of a definition of truth? How do you even define what truth is? How can you define a truth, if you have no objective truth??
I am sorry that I am likely missing your point here, I’m pretty rough on my understanding of the basics of philosophy, but I still see no need for an objective standard for truth.
“Truth” is that which aligns with reality. “Truths” are the things we learn that have shown to be practically beneficial in their ability to make predictions. Pragmatically speaking, if something can be predicted in a reliable way, it is based on something true. I see an adequate definition of truth as all that is required.
If all you have is material, how in the world are you proving anything immaterial such as the laws of logic? ? E.g. How or why can 1 + 1 = 2 make sense? Again, just claiming something 'is' doesn't prove where it came from or how it came into being/source.
Yes, as I see it, all we have is material. I presuppose that the laws of logic reflect the properties of matter in the universe. I presuppose that numbers, maths, the uniformity of nature, identity over time etc are derivatives of the laws of logic. You are 100% absolutely correct (absolute truth claim right here)– just claiming something ‘is’ doesn’t prove where it came from or how it came into being. Are you doing this with God perhaps?
It seems entirely reasonable to me that there must be some undergirding foundational axioms that we necessarily must come to when examining these issues. We necessarily must hit bedrock, as without this we would face the problem of infinite regress. The circularity of justifying what many in philosophy consider to be the foundational axiom – the Laws of Logic with our reason is a problem we all face.
The problem with the presup argument that you are employing, is that you aim to solve this problem by asserting an entity as the source/foundation/justification for the laws of logic (and all the rest), then assert that this entity is “special” and requires no further explanation. This is the special pleading fallacy that is at the heart of the presuppositional apologetic. While this belief could be true and God exist, comfortably shifting the burden of understanding to the realm of impossibility with the phrase “God’s ways are higher than our ways”, there is no evidence or demonstration that it is actually true. As a wise man once said – “the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”. Claiming that something ‘is’ doesn’t prove where it came from. Claiming that God did it, does not prove anything until you can demonstrate a god.
The intellectually honest position is to recognize when we can’t, or cannot yet justify reasonably the origins, foundation or source for the laws of logic, or if it even makes sense that they have a foundation at all.
“"How do you justify the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature? How to you justify your reason?" - Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
So… on the endeavour to justify the source of your reason, you use your reason to interpret a book that tells you that God is the source of your reason. Do you not see the vicious circularity of this approach? This seems strangely similar to what you might accuse me of, only with an extra step.
Is it possible that this circular appeal to a God presupposition is something you are doing to quench your desire for absolute certainty in this world? If you were to examine yourself honestly, would you identify yourself as someone with an emotional need for answers? Are you uncomfortable with the phrase “I don’t know”?
Is the presup argument the reason you believe? I don’t think so, surely you must have better reasons. Do you find this apologetic effective in winning ANY souls for Christ? Does this tree bear good fruit? If it does not, I would encourage that you cut it down and throw it into the fire.
No, as I said previously, I am not making 100% truth claims. When I claim something to be true, I am merely claiming to know it with a high degree of certainty, or as best as I can understand it. My definition of knowledge does not include absolute certainty, merely beliefs that I hold with high degrees of probability. You are right though, “I have seen no good evidence to think…” would have been a better way to word it. To answer your question though, yes, there could be a magical essence of rightness, and goodness, and truth floating in the cosmos somewhere, I have no way of knowing that it DOES NOT exist so I won’t rule the possibility out :)
So in essence then you cannot prove anything is objective by your worldview then? Knowing something to a high degree of certainty is not certainty at all by it's definition. In your worldview you can never know anything 100%, period. You've made previous statements which I think are contradictory to this:
I judge God and what he has decreed by my objective moral standard
This is an objective standard that I subjectively choose to follow, in the same way that you subjectively choose to follow what you consider to be your objective moral standard.
By the way this statement makes no sense at all. How can one make an standard and claim it to be objective? Objective by definition is independent individual subjectivity, thought, ideas. It is something that exists outside, which the atheistic worldview does not have.
A claim to absolute certainty is to say that you could not possibly be wrong. Sorry, but I do not believe that you or any other mammal is infallible, irrespective of what books are on your bookshelves. For one to think that they could not possibly be wrong means that one is not open to belief revision. What would you say to the Muslim that claims access to absolute certainty?
I have not made any claims to infallibility for myself, only that God and his Word is infallible. When it comes to Muslims, obviously they claim to have a worldview that consists of a creator God also, so then we can perform critique's of each other's worldview mainly based upon the Quran vs the Bible.
but I still see no need for an objective standard for truth.
“Truth” is that which aligns with reality. “Truths” are the things we learn that have shown to be practically beneficial in their ability to make predictions.
Yet again, this conflicts with statements you've made above. Is the premise "Truth is that which conforms to reality" an objective standard of truth? Is it true itself? How do you know? By what standard do you know that anything from the past will be like the future? In the same paragraph you've yet again claimed there is no objective standard of truth, yet have asserted one. What is the source of your reasoning? There is no explanation of why these things are the way they are, just that they are and atheists expect people to just not bother digging deeper and ask the question but rather just assume that they are there and build off that. The typical atheistic epistemology is lacking in substance and consistency, as it has to rely on a theistic worldview of order in the universe, not chaos as it should be in their worldview.
I'm sorry I've lacked time recently because of Easter but I wish to continue replying to your post but have ran out of time. We could probably continue this convo via PM, would be a lot easier I would imagine.
not proved. The bible has never been disproved so there is that.Have a crack at it.
you missed the sarcasm tag
No, I meant every word.
Shame they'll have to cancel the last supper this year
Humans are under constant attack from (novel) viruses and bacteria. If science doesn’t help out, next year’s last supper might be also be cancelled.
I hear the jury is still out on.. Science
Can’t it be just taken it on faith, given the electric switch causes lamp to shine?
Here come all the anti Christian comments, when they’d dare not speak ill of any other religion.
So far, no one has spoken any ill of Christians
Should you not be expecting persecution for your faith? Is it not true that the message of the Cross is foolishness to those that are perishing? Is it not in fact a blessing to be persecuted for His sake? Why are you not excited to embrace the ridicule you see coming?
Yep, see my post above.
heard em all. People blah blah about stuff they do not have any context or knowledge of. At least 50 years ago people actually could have a decent debate because most had been to church.
Coronavirus defeated sporting events for every sport, everywhere. Wouldn’t common sense apply and lead people to abandon sporting practices? If not this, what would?
Your illogical comment can be applied to any illogical argument.
Religion is good for some people’s mental health. None of your business, get over yourself.
Like the religious zealots who keep hitting their heads against the wall, those on the opposite side do the same don’t they. Very glad to hit you up as requested….🤦♂️
How do you spot an atheist? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
Very glad to hit you up as requested….🤦♂️
My post isn't addressing zealots - agree, those are a waste of time. You're still rain dancing, just in case?
I think it had the opposite effect, as it this coincided with a practical demonstration of Easter / Passover.
**And also had the effect of migrating many Churches in to the cloud. ;)
disagree with the defeated bit. people are congregating online now.
there is historical documentation of persecution of christians (and christians' persecution of anyone else) since AD times. on the whole those events do not appear to have defeated religious congregation. so it seems either this "common sense" you refer to isn't very common within that segment of the population, or there's something about christianity you may have missed.
I realise you’re just playing straw man, but I’ll bite…
those events do not appear to have defeated religious congregation
don’t bother with trials and tribulations - passage of time, on its own, of relative peace, prosperity and progress of last 100 years, has withered the congregation. Nearby 100 year church is now a gym. Retreating online is panacea?
Straw man? Now sir, don't be silly and attempt to obfuscate. You made a clear assertion and I addressed that assertion. Please don't take it personally.
Panacea? Perhaps. Your nearby 100 year old sandstone building that once housed a church - yes that might be replaced by a gym or more realistically a 30 storey meriton apartment. Bet you didn't notice an empty warehouse nearby that was converted into a church building. Regardless, neither example in isolation (in my opinion) prove or disprove the defeating of religious congregation.
@inamberclad: The straw man is the diversion to religious persecution, where as my post is specifically related to non-discriminatory nature of the virus - "congregation[s] of every religion, everywhere".
As to evidence of decline - well, that's beyond dispute - start here: Decline of Christianity
@AlexF: Straw Man, did you back track from your initial assertion? From religious congregation being defeated, every religion and everywhere, to withering, and now to a mere decline in christianity?
Thanks OP!
Free for 7 days, but I'm not sure when the 7 days started
Says free for another five days
Funny how the “Holy Water” was removed from churches due to corona
But the wine is fine.
No, communion wine and handshakes were among the first things to go, as the wine is taken from a shared chalice.
(except where only the priest drinks the wine)
https://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/communion-wine-tipp…
Depends which church.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-14/church-religious-grou…
It is impossible to catch it because it is actually the blood of Christ.
Christians! Why are you of so little faith? Do not be like these churches, they are dead in their faith, but put your trust in the word of the Lord!
The message of the gospel is as true today as it was 2000 years ago, the instructions for now are clear:
Is any among you sick with Corona virus? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer offered in FAITH will make the sick person well. The Lord will raise them up!
I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it and it will be yours!
These signs will accompany those who believe, they will place their hands on sick people and they will get well!
Christians! Trust in the LORD!
I am no example but I have seen with my own eyes people recovering miraculously.
Absolutely! These are the signs of believers but believers are also called on to obey authority- the government in this case.
If you read up on Esther Goodshine who lives in UK, you may get an answer to some of your questions :-)
Didn’t the lord you believe in bring us this corona?
What a douchebag of a thing to do!
I think you keep your prayers and leave the getting us better to the Doctors and the Scientists.
They have a much better track record.
Have found JW library app another option. Has been free for years. Also has online Bible reading articles and videos.
Where can I find that one?
Just search JW library in the app store or Google Play.
Bad translation, and bad theology on the bad translation.
On the contrary. You can select multiple Bible translations such as King James in the application and have found the New World translation very easy to read and understand.👍
Are you a JW? You should be frank about it instead of recommending things surreptitiously.
This is exactly what is wrong with Christianity - too many translations taken to too many contexts, leading to too many sects.
Nothing seems right, unless your parents or your friends told you it is the right one.
Sorry, but you can't make that comment unqualiifed. THe same problem applies to any translated document, whether it be an ancient text, a poem, or anything like that. Take my favourite, the Odyssey. There are no less than 3 main english translations, each with pros and cons. Doesnt mean you can't understand the text!
ScoMoVid-19 prays the gay away every day
Funny that it's PEGI 3.. some of the stories are definitely not for children lol
Psalms 137:9 is a verse for children.
Questions the average Christian might have trouble answering:
Is it ever morally good to smash an infant against rocks?
Has it ever been ok to ethnically cleanse an entire race of people; butchering every man, woman, child, toddler, infant and newborn baby?
Is it, or has it ever been a morally good action to stone a person to death for adultery or homosexuality or blasphemy?
blah blah blah - you do not understand what you are asking. So I will not bother answering.
Spoiler alert - the four horsemen did it, mon ami.
$37.99 is definitely a steal…..
The KJV audio app was always free https://apps.apple.com/au/app/gideon-bible-app/id1000709020
But good to see NIV version. Good find OP.
![[Android, iOS] Free NIV Audio Bible App (Read by David Suchet) @ Google Play & Apple App Stores](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/25/528025.jpg?h=6abf6f19)
That some “British Actor Guy”, mon ami, is Poirot 😀