[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles

Title: Most Evangelical Christians Say Science and Religion Can Coexist
Source: Yahoo!
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/most-evangeli ... eligion-coexist-124417864.html
Published: Mar 18, 2015
Author: Megan Gannon
Post Date: 2015-03-18 10:26:58 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 3147
Comments: 19

Never mind the outspoken Christian leaders who reject the Big Bang and human evolution; nearly 70 percent of rank-and-file evangelicals in the United States say they don't see religion and science as being totally at odds, a new survey found.

"Although many politicians and the media at large portray evangelicals as distrustful of science, we found that this is more myth than reality," Elaine Howard Ecklund, a sociologist at Rice University who orchestrated the survey, said in a statement.

Among evangelical Christians, about 48 percent said they see science and religion as complementary to one another, while 21 percent think science and religion refer to different aspects of reality and see them as entirely independent of one another, the survey found. [Creationism vs. Evolution: 6 Big Battles]

Still, the share of evangelical Christians who think religion and science are in conflict (and see themselves on the side of religion) is 29 percent — more than double the figure in the general population (14 percent), the study found. Overall, 38 percent of adults in the United States view religion and science as complementary, while 35 percent view science and religion as separate.

Though a majority of evangelicals don't see science and religion in conflict, many of them still believe in ideas that science doesn't support. For example, about 43 percent of evangelical Christians (compared with about 22 percent of the general population) believe that God created the universe and all life inside it within the last 10,000 years, according to the survey. (By studying the oldest light in the cosmos, scientists, meanwhile, have determined that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.) And 42 percent of evangelical Americans support teaching creationism in schools instead of evolution, compared with about 18 percent of the general population who said the same.

Ecklund and her colleagues think the perception that evangelical Christians are unfriendly to science might hinge on just a few of these hot-button issues, like creationism. The evangelicals who saw science and religion as incompatible often fixated on human origins, the study found. One survey participant who was part of a largely white evangelical congregation in Houston, Texas, explained this point of view to the interviewers:

"As a Christian, creation — really it's all or nothing. Either the entire Bible's right or it's all wrong. Either everything inside of it is 100 percent accurate, or none of it is. So if creation could be disproven … So just completely take that away, that just devastates my entire way of life, my entire being. … Nobody wants to change. Christians don't want to change, and atheists don't want to change."

Focusing on evolution/creation has also narrowed the conversation about the relationship that religious people have with science, according to Ecklund and colleagues. The perception that evangelical Christians are hostile toward science might only be propagated with events like last year's televised debate between science popularizer Bill Nye and creationist Ken Ham, who believes the Bible's Book of Genesis is a literal description of the creation of Earth, the researchers said. But these heated debates don't necessarily reflect the way average evangelicals think.

Ecklund and colleagues surveyed more than 10,000 adults from across the country about their views on religion and science. They also conducted 315 in-depth interviews with Americans of different faiths. Ecklund presented the findings last week in Washington, D.C., during an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference on religion and science.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Willie Green (#0)

Never mind the outspoken Christian leaders who reject the Big Bang

Do you really believe in the "big bang"? A theory for morons.

What about all the scientists of all stripes who say the big bang is bullshit.

You can't even explain the big bang in your own words.

Science and Creation aren't enemies. Evolution, the big bang, global bullshit warming. Those aren't science.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-18   10:36:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Willie Green (#0)

Never mind the outspoken Christian leaders who reject the Big Bang and human evolution; nearly 70 percent of rank-and-file evangelicals in the United States say

And the majority, probably about 70% said "And they, the majority, cried out again, “Crucify Him.” Then Pilate said unto them, “Why, what evil hath He done?” And they, the 70%, cried out the more exceedingly, “Crucify him.”

I, for one, am not the least bit interested in what the majority has to say, look at what the majority has done to our country and our Constitutional Republic, I am interested in what the word of God has to say, and it says "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth."

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-03-18   11:07:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Science and Creation aren't enemies. Evolution, the big bang, global bullshit warming. Those aren't science.

AK, you are right.

I believe in a big bang yet to come, it is no theory, it is cold hard Biblical fact.

2Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Now that is going to cause a really big bang.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-03-18   11:22:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Willie Green (#0)

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”

God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”

The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.

“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”

“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.(Daniel Webster)

tomder55  posted on  2015-03-18   12:02:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Willie Green, tomder55, BobCeleste, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Don, liberator (#0)

Though a majority of evangelicals don't see science and religion in conflict, many of them still believe in ideas that science doesn't support. For example, about 43 percent of evangelical Christians (compared with about 22 percent of the general population) believe that God created the universe and all life inside it within the last 10,000 years, according to the survey. (By studying the oldest light in the cosmos, scientists, meanwhile, have determined that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.) And 42 percent of evangelical Americans support teaching creationism in schools instead of evolution, compared with about 18 percent of the general population who said the same.

Evangelicals have no problem with REAL observable science.

When someone can present evidence using observation of Big Bang, evolution and global warming/climate change please post it up.

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-18   12:54:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tomder55, redleghunter (#4)

God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”

The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.

“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”

“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

HA!

("Make your own Primordial Ooze...then GET OFF OF MY LAWN!!")

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-18   13:08:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: redleghunter (#5)

Evangelicals have no problem with REAL observable science.

When someone can present evidence using observation of Big Bang, evolution and global warming/climate change please post it up.

But...but...Didn't Darwin, Fossil records, Carbon Dating, the "proven" 13.8 billion year old universe, and "Climatologists" resolve all these minor issues?

Just shut up, fall in line, and guzzle the Kool-ade!

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-18   13:22:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Willie Green (#0)

(By studying the oldest light in the cosmos, scientists, meanwhile, have determined that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.)

So...The Science Communitah of atheists are pretty sure that as a result of "studying the oldest light in the cosmos" that the Universe is ONLY "13.8 billion years old"?? WHO or WHAT created that so-called "light," and...how can they be sure that whatever formula, equation or physical law that they've used to ascertain such a conclusion has been in effect?

Junk Science is NOT "science" -- it's pure theory.

Liberator  posted on  2015-03-18   13:30:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited)

"Either the entire Bible's right or it's all wrong. Either everything inside of it is 100 percent accurate, or none of it is."

This is an emotional position, not a logical one.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-18   14:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: redleghunter (#5)

Evangelicals have no problem with REAL observable science.

When someone can present evidence using observation of Big Bang, evolution and global warming/climate change please post it up.

I agree. Look at the health rules Leviticus list, now science has confirmed that washing kills germs and means a longer healthy life.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-03-18   14:43:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Liberator (#6)

("Make your own Primordial Ooze...then GET OFF OF MY LAWN!!")

Witty.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-18   17:28:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#9)

This is an emotional position, not a logical one.

Jesus consistently treats Old Testament historical narratives as straightforward records of fact. He refers to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27), Abraham (John 8:56), the institution of circumcision (John 7:22; cf. Gen. 17:10-12; Lev. 12:3), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 10:12), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28), manna (John 6:31, 49, 58), the snake in the desert (John 3: 14), David eating the consecrated bread (Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4), David as a psalm writer (Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42), Solomon (Matt. 6:29; 12:42; Luke 11:31; 12:27), Elijah (Luke 4:25, 26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt. 12:39-41; Luke 11:29, 30, 32), and Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The last passage brings out Jesus' sense of the unity of history and His grasp of its wide sweep. His eye surveys the whole course of history from "the creation of the world" to "this generation." He repeatedly refers to Moses as the giver of the Law (Matt. 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:5; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He frequently mentions the sufferings of the true prophets (Matt. 5:12; 13:57; 21:34-36; 23:29-37; Mark 6:4 [cf. Luke 4:24; John 4:44]; 12:2-5; Luke 6:23; 11:47-51; 13:34; 20:10-12) and comments on the popularity of the false prophets (Luke 6:26). He sets the stamp of His approval on such significant passages as Genesis 1 and 2 (Matt. 19:4, 5; Mark 10:6-8).

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-20   2:23:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: GarySpFC (#12)

Yes, Jesus does. And so do I. What does not work, however, is the position that every single word of Scripture that we have is exactly right or its all wrong.

No two manuscripts of Scripture are identical. If we take the emotional position that Scripture is letter perfect, then we invalidate it, because Scripture is entirely letter imperfect. God did not protect and preserve for us letter-perfect texts. Rather he got his message across, the essential, in texts that vary between every one.

It is no help to say that there is no doctrinal difference in the variants if one's very doctrine is that it's all letter perfect. Because it isn't letter perfect. The correct doctrine is that God didn't give letter-perfect inspiration, he painted more broadly, in themes, analog, not digital.

If one takes the "every word is exactly right or it's all 100% wrong, then one has embraced an emotional, exaggerated false doctrine that destroys Christian belief, because God did not in fact let us have 100% perfect, uncorrupted texts. He protected the essence of his message, and that is what we have to accept: the essence. If we go farther and insist that it is all perfect, we are not telling the truth, and we are indulging in bibliolatry.

Further, there are parts of the text that are clearly historical, and there are other parts that are clearly poetic. And there are parts that are figures of speech and not literally true, but that are figuratively true.

Example: Jesus says that the smallest seed is the mustard seed. No it isn't. There are much smaller seeds. So, does that vitiate the Bible? If one takes the position that everything in the Bible is 100% true then yes, Jesus' botanical inaccuracy destroys the whole Bible. God is wrong on a detail, and therefore the whole Bible is crap. That's the emotional and ridiculous position that the pastor took and that I am forcibly rejecting as foolish, because it IS foolish.

Jesus was not "incorrect". The smallest seed that a Palestinian Jewish farmer was likely to deal with was a mustard seed. People planted mustard, and mustard was the smallest seed in the agricultural arsenal. Within that bounded world - whose bounds Jesus did not spell out because perfect accuracy of speech is an obsession of 20th Century lawyers, not people listening to a religious parable, and not God either, apparently,

Further, our translations are themselves not perfectly accurate. We've been over the ground of olam meaning "to the unknown" or "to the horizon", and not "forever". It makes major doctrinal differences in understanding if one mistranslates or misinterprets words like that.

Is "light" photon emissions, is it energy, or is it order? The word is "or", and it is the root of "order". For someone to assert that "or" in Hebrew means photonic visible light is just that, an assertion, an assertion based on emotional preference. It is not "true" in the sense of provable. God may be speaking of periods of order and disorder, because or and Hhosekh have those meanings. Just because English people traditionally translated concepts as visible light and visible darkness and built doctrines on it that are very old means nothing.

Genesis 1 is accurate, as far as God gave it, but what it precisely says is hard, not easy. And the accuracy of all of it is "good enough for God" accuracy, but not good enough accuracy for a modern computer, which must have precise, delineated ones and zeroes in order to be able to compute. The limits of binary modern logic let machines run, but do not embrace the nuances of Scripture.

And at any rate, the emotional "It's all 100% right or it's 100% wrong" position of the pastor means that HE has forced the answer: then it's 100% wrong, because the mustard seed is not even close to being the smallest seed. It's a bad doctrine that is destined to fail, and rather than try to support it, I'm going to torpedo it and return to reality: God did not speak in binary code. He spoke in broad, colorful analog. Reduce the Bible to binary, and you end up with false gibberish.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-20   6:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

Example: Jesus says that the smallest seed is the mustard seed. No it isn't. There are much smaller seeds. So, does that vitiate the Bible? If one takes the position that everything in the Bible is 100% true then yes, Jesus' botanical inaccuracy destroys the whole Bible. God is wrong on a detail, and therefore the whole Bible is crap. That's the emotional and ridiculous position that the pastor took and that I am forcibly rejecting as foolish, because it IS foolish.

Jesus was not "incorrect". The smallest seed that a Palestinian Jewish farmer was likely to deal with was a mustard seed. People planted mustard, and mustard was the smallest seed in the agricultural arsenal. Within that bounded world - whose bounds Jesus did not spell out because perfect accuracy of speech is an obsession of 20th Century lawyers, not people listening to a religious parable, and not God either, apparently,

31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

The Holy Bible: New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), Mt 13:31–32.

If we read critically we see it was the smallest agricultural seed that farmer sowed.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-21   20:48:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

It is no help to say that there is no doctrinal difference in the variants if one's very doctrine is that it's all letter perfect. Because it isn't letter perfect. The correct doctrine is that God didn't give letter-perfect inspiration, he painted more broadly, in themes, analog, not digital.

If one takes the "every word is exactly right or it's all 100% wrong, then one has embraced an emotional, exaggerated false doctrine that destroys Christian belief, because God did not in fact let us have 100% perfect, uncorrupted texts. He protected the essence of his message, and that is what we have to accept: the essence. If we go farther and insist that it is all perfect, we are not telling the truth, and we are indulging in bibliolatry. ,p> Further, there are parts of the text that are clearly historical, and there are other parts that are clearly poetic. And there are parts that are figures of speech and not literally true, but that are figuratively true.

 

TYPES OF VARIANTS

1. The greatest number of variants are differences or errors in spelling. For example, the author of Codex Vaticanus spells “John” with only one “n” instead of the more common two (¼™É¬½½·Â [IManns]). This type of variant makes no difference in the meaning of the text.
2. The second largest group of variants arises from differences between Greek and English. For example, in Greek a person’s name may or may not be preceded by an article (the); or the phrase “the good man” could also be written in Greek as “the man, the good one,” whereas in English both phrases are translated as “the good man.” This type of variant also makes no difference in the meaning of the text.
3. Sometimes a scribe accidentally made nonsense out of a word or phrase when copying. One scribe accidentally wrote the Greek letter À (pi) instead of Æ (phi) in Luke 6:41, rendering the text, “Let me take the fruit (º¬ÁÀ¿Â [karpos]) out of your eye” instead of “Let me take the speck (º¬ÀÆ¿Â [karphos]) out of your eye.” These types of errors are rare and easy to spot.

Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 231.

If we only had a single manuscript of the New Testament, how many variants would we have? Well, none, of course! That sounds more like it. Or does it? If we only had one manuscript, we would have very little confidence that it accurately represents the original. A single manuscript could have been changed, and how would we know? We would have nothing with which to compare it. While the idea of having no variants may sound great, variants actually are a natural byproduct of having lots and lots of handwritten manuscripts. And the more manuscripts you have, the better, as far as making sure what you have today accurately reflects what was originally written.
Next, let’s put that huge “four hundred thousand” number in a meaningful context. If we have more than fifty-seven hundred Greek manuscripts, and these average two hundred pages each, we have nearly 1.2 million pages of text—a very substantial amount of handwritten material. The four hundred thousand number includes every single possible variation over the course of fifteen hundred years prior to the printing press.
Next, we must emphasize that 99 percent of the four hundred thousand variations are irrelevant to the proper translation and understanding of the Greek text. Even the most liberal textual critic agrees here. Unlike in the English language, differences in word order, especially in Greek, often are completely irrelevant. If fact, in Greek, one can say the same thing in more than a dozen different ways, using differences in word order, cases, etc. Combine this with differences in spelling and other minor variations, and the number of meaningful New Testament variants drops to a more realistic number of four thousand. This represents about 2.9 percent of the text, or one meaningful variant every three pages or so of the New Testament.

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), 64.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-21   21:09:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#13) (Edited)

modern computer, which must have precise, delineated ones and zeroes in order to be able to compute.

Depends what the definition of compute is.

These days Information Services are festooned with bullshyte artists wobbling their way up the ladder ala the Peter principle.

Sometimes their workproduct even compiles - but that's far short of producing a functional solution.

Nature, meanwhile - Is what it is and has always been. Seems to me that's a self-evident observation which led America's founders into their Deism, and away from the technocratic religious farces that historically propped up kings and sun-princes over the subjugated.

VxH  posted on  2015-03-21   21:28:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: GarySpFC (#15)

I agree that spelling variants usually make no difference in the meaning of a text - but note Paul's argument from "seed" versus "seeds". Spelling variants CAN make a difference in meaning.

More to the broader point, one cannot take the position that the Bible is "letter-perfect transmission". It is not. Or if it is, we have no way of discerning which is the letter-perfect.

There are differences that have theological importance, and we don't have a way to definitely determine which, if any, is "more authoritative".

Can we read God's will in the Scripture? Of course. It is written broadly, and does not depend on these details. Can we, however, hunker down and claim perfect translation of the Scriptures, that if the SLIGHTEST DETAIL is wrong, then it's all wrong - which is what the theologian I was making fun of did - then the whole exercise falls to ashes, because there are no two manuscripts that are exactly alike, and because the assertion that differences are "not theologically significant" is in the eye of the beholder.

Example: we say, from tradition, that John wrote the Gospels and letters ascribed to him. The text doesn't tell us that. Some letters claim to be written by Paul, and a Ioannes says that he wrote the Revelation. But beyond that, the New Testament Scriptures were all written by unknown people. We only SAY that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, etc., wrote these texts because tradition says it, and we've accepted the tradition as true.

Similarly the order of the text. Was Revelation the LAST book written? Or was the Gospel of John? Or was something else entirely? There is no way to know, other than to trust tradition.

Does the order of the New Testamtn texts have any significance? When one reads the admonition not to add or subtract a word in Revelation, does that mean to just that book, or does that mean the entire book that preceded it - the whole Bible. If Revelation isn't the last book written, does it only apply to that which preceded it?

Other than the authority of tradition, we do not have any canon at all, for it is tradition that determined what the Bible IS. The Bible ITSELF doesn't contain any key to tell us what belongs in the Bible.

"All Scripture is God-breathed" Paul said. Was the choice of the canon also God breathed? If so, then it is a later revelation, from God, that came hundreds of years after the last book was written, and the age of revelation did not in fact end wiith the death of the Apostles, as some claims, but ended hundreds of years later in the Church of the 5th Century.

These things don't matter a fig to ME, because my theology does not assert letter perfection of the text. In fact, it is perfectly obvious that the text is NOT letter perfect, because every single manuscript is different. The claim of letter perfection is a false doctrine, and the claim that if one detail is wrong, the whole Bible is wrong, is idolatry, idolatry destined to destroy the authority of the Bible (BECAUSE MANY MANY letters are "wrong" between any two manuscripts).

I point to the lack of any two identical manuscripts as proof that the doctrine that the Scriptures are PERFECTLY TRANSMITTED is a false doctrine that must be discarded. The best we can do is to say that God's intent and message was transmitted, that THAT is what God transmitted. But letter-perfection down to the tiniest detail? No. That wasn't preserved. So if one claims letter perfection, then one destroys the authority of Scripture. It's a false doctrine and it needs to be called out as a false doctrine. If you hold to the letter perfection of Scripture, you destroy the authority of Scripture.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-22   13:56:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

Can we read God's will in the Scripture? Of course.

Yeah, the intent is intercepted by a pile of self-declared authourities that are known as idiots that intend some form of power-like play before the rest of us. They are charlatans, just like politicians.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-03-22   14:03:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#17)

What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

“Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-26   23:17:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com