Feralcat wrote:
“ok look at it another way Abra....Do you honestly think that the creator of the universe (well for me) Would let a book all about his rules, his guidance, his laws, be wrong.”

Or look at it this way – Even humans know enough to install adequate operating instructions in the operating system of a computer. I can’t imagine, with this amazingly intricate brain, how there wouldn’t be room for some simple belief mechanism design. For that matter, considering the amount of data each of us is capable of storing in our memory, how difficult would it have been to ‘program’ all the rules and morals and dictates that would make us, exactly what you think God wants us to be.

Instead we’re left to wonder, who am I, why am I here, what is my purpose. Free will, as a Christian “religious” concept is an oxymoron. It can’t be seen in any other light. Free means, no charge, no fee, and no requirements. So here we are, lacking the proper hardwired information to do what God wants us to do, but free to do as we please, but if we don’t do what God wants us to do, (insert your idea of hell) but even if we TRY to do what we THINK God wants us to do, we can never really know if it was enough or if it was right, or if it even mattered.

So in the mean time, being the creature of sociability that we are, it’s always good to have company. So a book is a good idea, at least it’s something tangible to hold, while listening to others interpretations of it’s contents.

Dianna! I LOVE your MIND!

You are so quick! And RIGHT on top of things!

Diana wrote:
“The anthropic principal is clearly a conception based purely on the idea that the only intelligent life form must be carbon based and a three dimensional being. It must be so, because there is currently no other comparison that can be made.”

This is PERFECTLY correct Dianna and I’m totally embarrassed for having been on the ball and caught this myself.

Manami, please consider the truth of Diana’s words here. The anthropic principle that Spider had referred to is based on the premise that carbon-based humanoids were somehow the end-goal of the universe. Like as if humans and carbon-based life-forms as we experience life is the ONLY possible was that consciousness can be attained. But we really absolutely no reason to jump to that conclusion. Carbon-based life as we know it could simply be one of an infinite ways for conscious beings to exist.

So once we get our head out of the narrow-minded premise of carbon-based life-forms as being the ONLY possible for of consciousness the anthropic principle falls flat on it’s face. It was nothing more than a form of reverse discrimination of sorts. That life we believe that somehow sentient life can only exist as humans. We have no reason to JUMP to that conclusion. So the anthropic principle is just as weak as anything else we know. It’s entirely depending on it’s own improvable premises.

Feralcat wrote:
“ok look at it another way Abra....Do you honestly think that the creator of the universe (well for me) Would let a book all about his rules, his guidance, his laws, be wrong.”

And yes, again I agree with Dianna. The Bible is NOT the only book that is supposedly inspired by God.

Obviously the Quran has roots in many of the same stories and characters. The Christians claim that the Quran is just a confused version of the Bible with some stuff missing. The Muslims believe that that Bible is just a confused version of the Quran with some stuff mission.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, ultimately have their roots in the same God that has simply fallen into various factions. Christianity went on to fall apart even more into Catholicism and Protestantism, and myriad of another sects.

Moreover, Greek Mythology was a very real religion for the Greeks they really believed in Zeus, etc. The Vikings believed in Thor, etc, etc, etc.,

You ask why the creator of the universe would allow books about his guidance, his laws, be wrong, yet he/she/it obviously allows humans to write whatever stories they care to write about.

This is going to sound harsh Feral but it has to be said,…. You are viewing the world from the very restricted narrow-minded view that only the Bible can be possibly be correct. Other people are viewing the world with a very open-minded abstraction that perhaps the real creator of the universe if far beyond the constraints of the limited views of men’s imaginations.

You might argue back that my pantheistic view is also a ‘restricted’ narrow-minded view of god. I would argue otherwise. There is no book that comes with my pantheistic view that pins god down in a box. She is whatever she is. Que Sara Sara.

To Manami:

Manami, I hope you are enjoying this thread and view these discussions as being genuinely constructive and not view them as “negative arguments”. You are viewing a lot of “food for thought” here from various points of view. I hope you find these views to be entertaining, and possibly helpful for your report.

The religious forums often take the form of “arguments”. Think of them as “logical arguments” as in courtroom proceedings, or scientific investigations, or simply as philosophical debates. Sometimes emotions do flair up and name-calling occurs, but we really do try to keep that to a minimum as best we possibly can in this personally sensitive area of religion.

"The anthropic principal is clearly a conception based purely on the idea that the only intelligent life form must be carbon based and a three dimensional being. It must be so, because there is currently no other comparison that can be made. "

This is what I'm trying to tell you guys. I know that I am wasting my time, but here goes.

The Anthropic principle is accepted science. It's based on physics, not imagination, faith, religion. It was developed by atheists. The anthropic principle has NOTHING to do with "intelligent life", "carbon based" or otherwise. Read the anthropic principle and see how fine tuned the universe is. Weaken this force by 1% and all matter is hydrogen. Weaken that force by 2% and you have no matter at all. Strengthen this force by 1% and you get superdense fast burning stars, which would make life almost impossible. etc etc etc. I have encouraged you guys to read about it for yourselves, but you refuse. Abra pretends to understand it, but clearly hasn't even read it. I'm not concerned about it, if you guys want go discuss the principle without ever reading it or understanding it, then more power to you.

ONCE AGAIN, THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE THEORY DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD AT THE TIME. THE UNIVERSE APPEARS TO BE FINELY TUNED AND THE PHYSICISTS WERE LOOKING FOR AN EXPLAINATION OUTSIDE OF GOD. THAT IS WHAT THE ANTROPHIC PRINCIPLE IS ALL ABOUT. caps for emphasis.

If God is omni everything else, why in the name of God can it not be omnisexed?

Omnisex!!!

I like it.

Well so maybe its not a word, but it should be

Not a word??? But its my new favorite word!

"Hey baby... have you ever tried... OmniSex?"

No, but I think it should be allowed with consenting adults.

Spider wrote:
“Abra pretends to understand it, but clearly hasn't even read it.”

I hadn’t read the specific links that you had provide. This is true. I briefly viewed them today. It’s not necessary to read them in detail because contrary to your statement above I am very familiar with the anthropic principle.

Dianna is 100% correct. And you are wrong.

Spider wrote:
“The anthropic principle has NOTHING to do with "intelligent life", "carbon based" or otherwise.”

That’s not true. The anthropic principle most certainly is based on the observation of OUR universe, which happens to contain carbon-based life. So even though the anthropic principle may not claim to be based on carbon based life, it is based on observations concerning OUR universe, and that’s really what Dianna is saying.

We have nothing to compare our universe with. We have no idea what might be possible.

You say that I pretend to understand the anthropic principle, but I have taken many courses in cosmology, and the anthropic principle was covered in all of them. So I have seen this idea presented from several differnet perspectives. I never found a need to investigate in great detail because I understand the jest of it and recognize its folly.

Not to imply that it’s totally without merit, but as Dianna points out, it is in fact, dependent on premises that I’m not prepared to accept. Once you recognize that a principle or theory has a weak premise there isn’t much sense in bothering to study the theory in great detail as it would be a waste of you time.

The anthropic principle assumes two major premises, the first of which is obviously absurd and the second one is highly questionable (neither have any scientific backing)

#1. If we change one little property of OUR universe then OUR universe will no longer exist as we know it.

Well no crap! Why is that so profound? The universe is the way it is because of the way that it is!

That may sound redundant and probably is, but that’s just the anthropic principle stated backwards. Let me state the anthropic principle using these terms and you’ll see how nonsensical it is.

The Anthropic principle:
If the universe wasn’t the way that it is, it wouldn’t be the way that it is!

That’s what the antrhopic principle is saying! Well duh? Who doesn’t know that?

#2 The anthropic principle makes completely unsubstantiated guesses about what might happen if something about OUR universe was changed AND nothing else about it were changed.

Let’s take what they claim,…

Spider wrote:
“Weaken this force by 1% and all matter is hydrogen. Weaken that force by 2% and you have no matter at all. Strengthen this force by 1% and you get superdense fast burning stars, which would make life almost impossible.”

The assumption here is that if ONE of the four known forces in OUR universe is changed just a little bit (AND NOTHING ELSE CHANGES), then based on the equations of physics (WHICH CAME FROM OBSERVING OUR UNIVERSE BY THE WAY), then OUR universe as we know it would no longer function as we know it.

Well again, DUH?
If the universe wasn’t the way that it is, it wouldn’t be the way that it is! That’s obvious!

First off, we have no way of knowing if it’s even possible to change only ONE thing in our universe without affecting other things. If we tried to change the strong nuclear force by 1% we might notice that gravity changes by 10%. Maybe the universe is ALL ONE THING and when we try to adjust something in one corner, another corner automatically pops up to be different to compensate for what was changed.

This may well CHANGE the universe, but maybe then not in the same way we naïvely thought it would if we could only change ONE thing at a time.

So the Antropic principle is dependent on this completely unsubstantiated premise. It’s a pure GUESS!

It’s a GUESS that I’m not prepared to agree with.

I believe that the universe is ONE contiguous thing. If you change a fundamental property about it, some other fundamental property may very well compensate for that. Sure it may produce a universe with differnet properties than what we currently observe, but there’s no reason to jump to the conclusion that it would necessarily produce what we might expect IF we could only change one thing about it AND nothing else.

The OTHER problem with the anthropic principle (and this has been brought up in the seminars that I have attended). The anthropic principle assumes that is we change one force by 1% AND keep the laws of physics the SAME then the universe would become “dead”. BUT the LAWS of physics that we have observed may very well be DEPENDENT on the values of the forces. If you change the values of the forces then the LAWS of physics may automatically change because it’s the VALUES of the forces that give RISE to the laws.

The antropic princple doesn’t take any of this into account. It’s a very shallow idea that just says that if we keep all other forces and laws the SAME and just change ONE thing about our universe then BASED on those previous unchanged forces and laws and the universe would become “dead”.

It’s an assumption that has no merit.

So there you go Spider. You finally forced me to type in a lengthy explanation to counter your PERSONAL attack claiming that I don’t understand the anthropic principle.

I understand both the anthropic principle and the laws of physics far more than you will ever know.

Dianna is perfectly correct. She saw the flaw in the premises and blew them out from underneath the theory with her double-barreled quick wit. The theory has weak premises! BOOM! Is has no legs to stand on.

Dianna is perfectly on target. The theory is NOT “scientific” contrary to the fact that many physicists support it. They should be ashamed of themselves. It cannot be scientifically verified because we can’t change just ONE fundamental property about our universe and SEE how it behaves. We can only GUESS, and those guesses are based on the idea that everything else will remain unchanged.

It’s a bogus theory. In fact, now that you’ve made me type this all in I think I’ll refine this and ship it off to some of these physicists who are backing the anthropic principle. They should know better. Dianna saw the flaws in it instantly, and I don’t believe that she’s even a scientist. But I could be wrong about that.

I just feel like summarizing for those who prefer a shorter post:

The anthropic principles SAYS that if we change one thing in our mathematical model of our universe then our mathematical model will break down.

That’s all it can really say.

But we have no reason to believe that if we could actually change one thing about the real universe that our existing mathematical model remain valid.

If one thing were changed about the universe we may need to start all over again and build a whole brand new mathematical model based on it’s ‘new behavior” and that new behavior might not be anything at all like what our old mathematical model would predict.

This is why the anthropic principle holds no water. It’s really just a statement about our mathematical model of the universe. It’s NOT a statement about how the actual universe. It has no scientific basis or support. In other words, it can’t be tested scientifically.

Dianna caught this right away. Good work Dianna!

Abracadabra,

You are missing the forest for the trees man. The Anthropic priciple is deeply flawed, that has been my point all along. You simply aren't keeping up. The anthropic principle is garbage, because none of the three anthropic principles can provide a valid reasoning of why the universe exists as it does.

"The anthropic principle makes completely unsubstantiated guesses about what might happen if something about OUR universe was changed AND nothing else about it were changed. "

Total BS. That is a completely wrong. There is NO DOUBT that they are correct. The authors are two of the most well qualified physicist in the world. They spent 10 years after their first announcement of developing the Anthropic principle until they published their book. They presented their work to a group of physicists and NONE of them found any flaws with their math.

You have an amazing ability to rattle on and on, even when you are completely wrong. Anyone who looks into the Anthropic principle will see that you are just blowing smoke.

people who quote the bible should also first and foremost understand what they are reading. God is never referred to in the Bible as anything but God.....He is in reference or him is in reference to Christ....And trust me on this there is in now way any reference to the Lord GOD almighty being a feminine anything.

What makes me scared about all the stuff the three of you write....is for the people really searching who might believe ANY of what you three say.......No where in the book of Genesis do they refer to God as anything but GOD......So maybe your looking at who knows what bible.

And the trinity means God, Son, and Holy Spirit.....so where you getting your info who knows....

Di wrote:

Or look at it this way – Even humans know enough to install adequate operating instructions in the operating system of a computer. I can’t imagine, with this amazingly intricate brain, how there wouldn’t be room for some simple belief mechanism design. For that matter, considering the amount of data each of us is capable of storing in our memory, how difficult would it have been to ‘program’ all the rules and morals and dictates that would make us, exactly what you think God wants us to be.

>>> Actually - He did. It is called a conscience. But one of the consequences of over-indulging in self centered actions (sin if you will) is the searing of that conscious - which is the intuitive sense of right and wrong. It's part of the "free-will" thing. Which leads me to.....

"Instead we’re left to wonder, who am I, why am I here, what is my purpose. Free will, as a Christian “religious” concept is an oxymoron. It can’t be seen in any other light.
>>> I tend to disagree with you on this

Free means, no charge, no fee, and no requirements. So here we are, lacking the proper hardwired information to do what God wants us to do,
>>> Only because you've not reconized the conscience as being that - which is what it was intended for.

but free to do as we please, but if we don’t do what God wants us to do, (insert your idea of hell) but even if we TRY to do what we THINK God wants us to do, we can never really know if it was enough or if it was right, or if it even mattered.
>>> Actually - the only way to NOT know if it was right or wrong, is to ignore the consequence. For we certainly do have free will, but if the choices we make because of it are wrong, there will be consequesnces. They are not always immediate, nor are they obvious. But they are there. And if one still has an active conscious - there will be an awareness of this.

The idea of "thinking" what God wants us to do is a misnomer. Given the fact that the God we are discussing here is the Christian one - He has a book called the bible which is essentially an instruction book that tells us exactly what God wants us to do.

But if the circumstance is that one has no faith in the bible - than they are not going to know if what they do is right with God - even if they "think" it is. That's my understanding of how the bible ties into God's will, and why it is illogical to think that God is not capable of assuring the bible says exactly what he wanted it to. However - he makes no guarentee's as to how people will interpret what is written - aside from recieving the Holy Spirit who leads all to the truth held within it.

Catlady wrote: "And the trinity means God, Son, and Holy Spirit"

Interesting that you mentioned trinity because Sigmund Freud made a similar explaination of the human psyche in Ego, Super Ego and Id. The sum of the three parts equal the human mind. Sigmund wasn't Christian but Jewish but he attended many of Christian masses while growning up and his theories reflexed those early beliefs.

Though Freud was brilliant in developing Psycho analyist therapy he had a flaw that many people religiosos here have in that they always think their right or better wording would be self-rightous.

feralcat - I've presented some arguments, DIRECT, quotes from the same scripture you read. Those that I have quoted give very impressive and logical reasons for their belief that God is sexless, but does encompass all the qualities of humans. That would mean that God CAN BE, IT, HE, SHE,SPIRIT. The fact that the scriptures have been written and handed down through a series of MEN (masculine) has had some affect on how God is viewed. Some have taken upon themselves to delve deeply into the roots of 'words' used in the oldest of scriptures and they have laid bare their discoveries for you.

You have literally abmonished some, who have attempted to give logical and insightful information,as being unsympathetic to the plight of those 'seeking' something to believe in.

Yet what have you to offer. You havn't even attempted to defend your theories against those I have posted. What you do, if a student you were mentoring in your faith, came to you with the information I have posted???????

(I know, you'd ask them to pray) - so what if they said to you, they hear no voice, but they felt satisfied with the descriptions of God as femined - would you reduce them the bottom of your mentor list, would you be a better teacher, and find logical ways to counter the information?

Being a teacher - requires that you continue to learn. Not only am I an atheist, I also don't believe any human ever existed who didn't have something to learn.

He who is afraid to own Christ has but little love to Him. as the sun expels fog and vapors, so divine love in a great measure expels fear. Does he love God who can hear His blessed truths spoken against and be silent? He who loves his friend will stand up for him and vindiate him when he is reproached. Love animates a Christian. It fires his heart with zeal and steels it with courage.

Many, being drunk with the wine of prosperity, when the honor of God is wounded and His truths lie bleeding, are not affeted by it. If we love God, our hearts ache for the dishonor done to God by wicked men. To see the banks of religion broken down and a flood of wikedness coming in, if there be any love to God in us, we shall lay these things to heart.


And the point of the above is that I won't sacrafice or dishonor my God to please a few ppl.....Or to be whatever you or others feel I should be. I have also said that you all can believe as you wish, as I believe what I believe. And I could go and counterpoint with my own knowledge everything above me that was said.....But honestly I feel their is no point......

So as I do with everything in my life I give it to God....to show clarity to open eyes that are blind, to open hearts that are shut, and to seek true knowledge.

And just as a lil side note no where in Genesis is GOD referred to anything other then GOD.......I honestly don't know what bibles you are referring to...But maybe get your hands on a NIV or even better a Open Bible New American Standard Study Bible and actual study what is written.

Eljay wrote:

>>> actually - He did. It is called a conscience. But one of the consequences of over-indulging in self centered actions (sin if you will) is the searing of that conscious - which is the intuitive sense of right and wrong. It's part of the "free-will" thing.<<<<<

When you speak on conscience, you are speaking with a ‘religious’ accent. Philosophically, it’s been questioned what, exactly the nature of conscience is. Example: what is right and what is wrong? Racial bigotry is taught. There is nothing in the conscience that tells a person it’s wrong discriminate.
The very scripture that, you say tell you what’s right and what’s wrong, teaches discrimination, and expects it to be enforced. So where is the conscience that tells us where to draw the line? If the word Racial means one thing in the Bible, but is currently defined by society to mean another, which conscience does one follow?

Eljay:
>>> Actually - the only way to NOT know if it was right or wrong, is to ignore the consequence. <<<

What are the consequences for marrying outside your race? What are the consequences for refusing LOVE, when it found to be outside your race? What are the consequences of being a soldier fighting in Iraq? How much innocent blood does it take before the consequences must be claimed? Yet consider the number of Christians who fight. Don’t they have a conscience; don’t they know what’s right and what’s wrong?

Eljay:

>>>>The idea of "thinking" what God wants us to do is a misnomer. Given the fact that the God we are discussing here is the Christian one - He has a book called the bible which is essentially an instruction book that tells us exactly what God wants us to do.<<<<

For instructions to be followed, they must leave little room for error. Consider that this ‘book’ was written long before the masses could even read. How did they know what to believe? If a believe was passed from generation to generation by word of mouth, until a communal conscience was a social norm, is it still free will to ‘interpret’ what can now be read in the same light of what has been ingrained, even if it was wrong?

Eljay:
>>>But if the circumstance is that one has no faith in the bible - than they are not going to know if what they do is right with God - even if they "think" it is.<<<

There are many who don’t consider the Bible a worthy teacher. Yet they declare a belief in God and Jesus as God. They believe they are guided by the Spirit that is God. Are you suggesting that because they don’t attempt to glean some doctrine from the Bible that they are being misled? Even those who believe the Bible has something to offer, by the way of doctrine, still believe one is led by the Spirit.
Why are they different?





Eljay:
>>>That's my understanding of how the bible ties into God's will, and why it is illogical to think that God is not capable of assuring the bible says exactly what he wanted it to. However - he makes no guarentee's as to how people will interpret what is written - aside from recieving the Holy Spirit who leads all to the truth held within it.<<<

As I said before, until fairly recently, the masses have been illiterate. Those who wrote, who read were the elite of society. Yet by word of mouth, alone, religion has succeeded for thousands of years. Why would it suddenly become so important for God to have a manual?

Here’s what all this comes down to:
Free will – allows us to make choices, often in accordance with our individual conscience. But what you seem to be saying is that our conscience “if we believe” will be guided by the “Spirit” that is God. But if that’s true, than there is absolutely no need for any written word. For that matter, if conscience is indeed ‘inspired’ to do right – than what purpose would there even be, for a God to make It’s presence known?

It seems to me, that creating a written word, AFTER the tower Babel was also an oxymoron. Apparently, creating a written format only succeeded in creating more choice, and in a world where conscience is ‘molded’ by social norms and values, it was frivolous venture to begin with.

Feralcat:
“”And the point of the above is that I won't sacrafice or dishonor my God to please a few ppl.....Or to be whatever you or others feel I should be.””

Don’t look now, but the God sacrifice was already done. (sorry, just lightning up) You’re a beautiful person, I adore your vivaciousness. I’ve read you, and I’ve seem me, many years ago. You don’t have to sacrifice your faith, not ever. While some, may attempt to diminish the value of your faith, others are only attempting to provide you with views outside your “belief structure”. Not attacking your faith.

Feralcat:
“”I have also said that you all can believe as you wish, as I believe what I believe. And I could go and counterpoint with my own knowledge everything above me that was said.....But honestly I feel their is no point...... “”

But there is a point, the point is this - There are many things to believe in, you have chosen among those things. If all the joy you get from communication with others is to declare what you have chosen to believe, and they declare your righteousness, then what’s the point of communication? It would seem that your declarations are meant only for sowing or for harvesting. But again, why bother, if in the end you’re just going to give up and leave it to God. Why not leave there in the first place.

You suggest particular Bibles – Why is any one better than another? Have you compared them all?
Have you looked into where/what scripture has been translated from? If you have, than you know that the word god, is a an English term, affiliated with lord. It was the Lords and Godheads that ruled that country. So you are actually subscribing to the King James Version when you refer to God. Actually, that is not originally how the creator introduced Itself. In fact many texts have given different translations, some poeple are actually offended when others refer to the creator as God. Some even refuse to speak the word that is the unspeakable.

So proclaim what you believe and close your mind to anything else – and like everyone, HOPE you have chosen correctly. Perhaps, we were never meant to stop searching. If you search but have a closed mind, you learn nothing. If you search with an open mind and great faith and find nothing, it doesn’t change your faith. If you search with an open mind and find a truth you didn’t know, will you stop searching? A single belief is faith, many beliefs are doctrine,there are many doctrines, maybe some are wrong, maybe there are more than you know.

Feralcat:
“”..But maybe get your hands on a NIV or even better a Open Bible New American Standard Study Bible and actual study what is written.””

I have already done that. Here something for your spare time.
THE FOLLOWIN IS COMPLETELY QUOTED FROM THE SITE GIVEN:

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/English_Translations.htm

Introduction: The Bible was not written in English -- not even "King James English"! Most of the books of the Old Testament were originally composed in Hebrew (with a few portions in Aramaic), while the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek (although some books may also incorporate Aramaic sources). Thus, what most people today read is not the original text, but other people's translations of the Bible.
But why are there so many different English translations of the Bible? And why can't churches or scholars agree on just one translation?
• No original manuscript of any biblical book has survived! All of the texts written by the biblical authors themselves have been lost or destroyed over the centuries. All we have are copies of copies of copies, most of them copied hundreds of years after the original texts were written.
• The extant manuscripts contain numerous textual variations! There are literally thousands of differences in the surviving biblical manuscripts, many of them minor (spelling variations, synonyms, different word orders), but some of them major (whole sections missing or added).
• Important old manuscripts were found in the last 200 years! Recent discoveries of older manuscripts (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus) have helped scholars get closer to the original text of the Bible, so that modern translations can be more accurate than medieval ones.
• The meanings of some biblical texts are unknown or uncertain! Some Hebrew or Greek words occur only once in the Bible, but nowhere else in ancient literature, so their exact meanings are unknown; and some biblical phrases are ambiguous, with more than one possible meaning.
• Ancient languages are very different from modern languages! Not only do Ancient Hebrew and Greek use completely different alphabets and vocabularies, but their grammatical rules and structures (word order, prepositions, conjugations of verbs, etc.) are very different from modern English.
• Every "translation" is already inevitably an "interpretation"! Anyone who knows more than one modern language realizes that "translations" often have meanings that are slightly different from the original, and that different people inevitably translate the same texts in slightly different ways.
• All living languages continually change and develop over time! Not only is "Modern English" very different from 16th century English, but the language used in Great Britain, America, Australia, and other countries are slightly different from each other (in spelling, grammar, idioms, word meanings, etc.).
• Cultural developments require new sensitivities in language! Recent awareness of the evils of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination have shown have certain language is slanted or biased, with corresponding efforts to develop more "inclusive" language alternatives.
Thus, no translation is "perfect" (none of them can be completely "literal" or 100% identical to the original texts) and there is no "best" translation (all of them have some advantages and some drawbacks). In general, however, the most recent translations (1980's or 1990's) are better than the older ones (esp. the KJV or the Douay-Rheims, both about 400 years old), not only since the English language has changed significantly over the centuries, but more importantly because of the ancient biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in the last 50 to 150 years which are much older (and thus closer to the originals) than the manuscripts that were available to the translators of previous centuries.

Additional Notes:
• the Authorized Version (AV) is another name for the KJV; the Good News Bible (GNB) is exactly the same as TEV.
• if you use other translations, try to find out when they were translated, by whom, and what translation philosophy was used.
• many other editions of the Bible are based on the above translations; the Oxford Annotated Bible uses the RSV, the Catholic Study Bible uses the NAB, and the HarperCollins Study Bible uses the NRSV; so these are not separate translations!
• for academic study of the Bible by anyone who does not know Hebrew or Greek, it is good to compare at least three or four different modern translations; use at least one "dynamic equivalence" and one "formal correspondence" translation.
• the following convenient editions containing multiple translations are available in LMU library reference:
o The Complete Parallel Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. - contains NRSV, REB, NAB, NJB
o The Precise Parallel New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. - contains the Greek NT, KJV, Douay-Rheims, AB, NIV, NRSV, NAB, NASB.

Spider wrote:
"They presented their work to a group of physicists and NONE of them found any flaws with their math"

Isn't that precisely what I said?

The anthropic principle is a decription of what our current mathematical model would do.

I just got done saying that our mathematical model would no longer be applicable if the unviverse were changed.

That was my whole point. Sheesh!