Which Bible version does he use on his biblical lectures?

Which Bible version does he use on his biblical lectures?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FAgDXZfOfx0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

kjv

He's many things, but a bible scholar is not one of them.

butthurt Christfag detected

I saw on twitter that he is doing biblical lectures and I wondered which one he references from.

I love the bible, and I love Jordan, but he's no bible scholar, is all.

Very strange that a pro would try to teach something outside of his field.

So is he an atheist or what? He discusses myths from an psychological perspective and I admit it's fascinating and it has given me a completely new perspective in the bible, but I can't really figure out what he actually believes. I wouldn't be surprised either way, christian or atheist.

I think he would be classified as a deist, at most.

his bible analysis is retarded desu, his understanding of the bible is very low, i doubt he has even read the bible from cover to cover even once

youtube.com/watch?v=FAgDXZfOfx0

I know, I watched it but Peterson's take on Bible is different, he isn't fundamentalist like Anderson.

You do realize he approaches the bible from an psychological perspective, right? As a document that gives insight into the thinking and wisdom of the times. Sometimes I do get the feeling he reads more into it than was meant by the actual authors though.

Well that's kind of the problem. The things in the bible require spiritual discernment to understand, and to have that spiritual discernment, you must be a born again Christian. Otherwise you just try to brute force it as a beast, and never come to the proper conclusions.

And Jordan doesn't even start out right; his first lecture is predicated on saying that the bible is not historically accurate. That's a nonsensical statement.

Are you a fundamentalist christian? Could you tell me how you became one if so?

Who cares the bible is retarded either way. *tips*
You can literally twist every single word in that book and make any action seem right and just and holy.

God created earth in 7 days? Whose days? Ours? His? What if the flood that comes at x year is in god years and the flood is actually about to happen, seeing as scientists predict sea levels rising, its proof!
Its all nonsense when you try to take it literal. Only value from it is philosophical value and your enjoyment of reading mythology. But id prefer other religions in such case, as they are more grandiose.

>Sometimes I do get the feeling he reads more into it than was meant by the actual authors though.
That's exactly my point, it's like someone who goes to an art gallery and makes up a bunch of reasons why the artist designed his art that way, or what he felt when he painted a painting. Things that more often than not is just absolute bullshit and absolutely wrong.

Anyways, he's obviously not a christian, not in the sense that he actually believes what the bible says anyways.

Martin Luther gave you the freedom to interpret the bible as to whatever the fuck you want

I think he said he prefers this one

>You can literally twist every single word in that book and make any action seem right and just and holy.
Not at all.

>God created earth in 7 days? Whose days? Ours? His? What if the flood that comes at x year is in god years and the flood is actually about to happen, seeing as scientists predict sea levels rising, its proof!
That's stupidity and you know it. It doesn't matter to us at what exact time the flood happen, and no literally nobody will say that current rising sea levels is the flood in the bible happening again, holy shit lmao youre being disingenious as fuck.

>Its all nonsense when you try to take it literal. Only value from it is philosophical value and your enjoyment of reading mythology.
you're either a child or you havent done much bible reading

Petersen is a Jew loving fag. Just look at the people he attracts

>Not at all
Not an argument

>Thats stupidity
Everything about bible is stupidity

>Youre a child
Not an argument.

It does matter when what happend because you are arguing here that the book is literal. IF its literal than the dates times and happenings are incredibly important.
For history dates are incredibly important because its literal. For poetry it is not because it isnt.

And my example of the flood is quite spot on id say. Because day in and day out i talk to about 10 christians and all of them believe in a different word of god yet they all read the same book? Everyone interprets whatever the fuck they want in any way they want.

You might think his interpretation is stupid, i might think yours is stupid. We are arguing over which shade of blue is more appealing at this point. You will never find 2 christians that follow the same word of god, NEVER. 10 comms maybe but is that what your whole book is being reduced to? 10 statements?

This is why i argue for a more philosophical than a literal approach, because the first is already in place. Nobody follows the book literally and nobody takes anything in it literally. Hell most even skip parts of the book and dont read it what so ever and refuse the content without even knowing it.

>Things that more often than not is just absolute bullshit and absolutely wrong.
Meh, even if he reads more into it than there actually is it has given the bible more meaning than any church service or other interpretation ever has for me personally.

He says quite often that, in spite of his interpretation coming from evolutionairy psychology, he doesn't want to dismiss the authenticity of the stories in the bible. Makes me think he is kinda on the fence about christianity.

Its simply not his to judge. And id say that someone looking more into something could actually help you learn something you can apply elsewhere.

>autism

>And my example of the flood is quite spot on id say. Because day in and day out i talk to about 10 christians and all of them believe in a different word of god yet they all read the same book? Everyone interprets whatever the fuck they want in any way they want.
You're fucking retarded. Just because people interpret it differently doesn't mean there isn't one correct interpretation. You could post a news article on this board and 10 different anons would interpret it differently. That doesn't mean that the article is bullshit, or that there is no intended correct interpretation that the author had in mind. Most christians don't even read the bible so of course they will have a bad understanding of it.

>Meh, even if he reads more into it than there actually is it has given the bible more meaning than any church service or other interpretation ever has for me personally.
*tips fedora*

>This is why i argue for a more philosophical than a literal approach, because the first is already in place. Nobody follows the book literally and nobody takes anything in it literally. Hell most even skip parts of the book and dont read it what so ever and refuse the content without even knowing it.
That's bullshit, there are plenty of people who take it literally. Most christians don't take it literally, most don't even pretend to take it literally, that doesn't mean that nobody does, or that there is no literal interpretation.

Are there many fundamentalist christians in Sweden? I feel sorry for you dude, fundamentlism has been disproved.

>fundamentlism has been disproved
It's a religion you fucking retard, of course you cannot prove it.

Calm down simpleton, I said it had been disproved, age of the earth, evolution and dinosaurs etc.

Who says that the intended way to interpret the article is the right one? The person writing the article might be a complete idiot. Just because it is intended doesnt mean its good.
And sure, lets entertain the idea, lets say there is a proper way to interpret the bible, which one is it? How will you prove it?

Id say that the biggest proof to a religions value are its people and for that you dont have to read a book. Im sure youd be a bigger fan of islam if people that dont believe in quran werent goat raping sand niggers who do nothing but violence.
Okay one in a million interpret it literally and follow both the old and the new testament and they often stone women for being unfaithful, never spill their seed and yada yada.
I am not going to base my opinion on a group based on 1% of it, rather than the 99% of it, or what seems to be the 99% ( vocal majority ).

Him use da Jesus book. Them numba one version of that specio guy, god.

If you compare most (all?) other versions to the KJV, it's as if they've been VERY SUBTLY reworded by SJWs.

As far as I'm aware he hasn't specified which version, but he does often read multiple versions and multiple translations of the same verse when he finds it interesting and/or is confused or is unsure about it's meaning.

>Anyways, he's obviously not a christian, not in the sense that he actually believes what the bible says anyways.
Anyone who actually believes what the bible says is delusional and needs to be euthanized.

sendemi kitlendin? Adam müslümanlığa tekrar şans vermemi sağladı lan, ve ailem ve arkadaşlarımla daha iyi geçiniyorum, işime bi açlıkla gidiyorum bisüredir bu herif yüzünden.

Odanı toparla, bucko

Okay Thor, now go be proud about your ancestors being pagan, and get raped by a tusken raider.

lmao retard

>Who says that the intended way to interpret the article is the right one? The person writing the article might be a complete idiot. Just because it is intended doesnt mean its good.
I didn't say good, I said correct. Holy shit you're retarded. Now you're just acting like a dumb little kid, with this really fucking dumb moral relativist-tier garbage.

>And sure, lets entertain the idea, lets say there is a proper way to interpret the bible, which one is it? How will you prove it?
Most of the time it's extremely easy to prove, most doctrinal verses are very very clear. In 95% of cases you have to voluntarily make the choice to disregard direct commandments or disregard the bible as the authority of your beliefs if you decide to have a different interpretation.

>Id say that the biggest proof to a religions value are its people and for that you dont have to read a book. Im sure youd be a bigger fan of islam if people that dont believe in quran werent goat raping sand niggers who do nothing but violence.
You don't have to read anything to be a Christian, but if you want to be a devout "good" christian you should read the bible. I hate Islam in either case, for many reasons, amongst them that it's a death cult that preaches constant agressive violence

>Okay one in a million interpret it literally and follow both the old and the new testament and they often stone women for being unfaithful, never spill their seed and yada yada.
>I am not going to base my opinion on a group based on 1% of it, rather than the 99% of it, or what seems to be the 99% ( vocal majority ).
Both men and women are to be stoned for unfaithfullness, youre just regurgitating stupid feminist memes you heard in the popular culture, once again proving that you have done zero actual research on this subject, youre just repeating whatever bullshit it is you have accepted. There are churches in america preaching that right now, however the bible commands us to follow the law of the land. That stoning law is not the law, but it is the optimal christian law, but as long as it's not the law of the land it's not to be enforced, the bible does not encourage vigilantism

also most people of any group are utter retards, just ask the average trump supporter, that doesn't mean trump is a bad president

Fuck off subhuman.

>read it literally or metaphorically?

read it plainly and yes the world was made in 7 days. yes the flood happened as the Bible says. People these days reject this because they are given a different narrative and they reject it and tip their fedoras everywhere. The truth is much easier to understand than it looks if you just gave it a chance. But its much easier trying to refute it by throwing it's langauge into question asserting that it is impossible to understand.

Hereticial it asserts that the Torah was written after the Exile into Babylon. Peterson is not even a real Christian. No surprise there

great book, using it in my thesis

Yeah I really enjoy it alot.

>he approaches the bible from an psychological perspective
>he reads more into it than was meant by the actual authors though.
aka a continuation of 4000 years of theology

too much questioning of language. we all know language games are pomo trash.

the satanic version