When a worldview competes with religion (Darwinsim is a 'secular religion')

Yeah, conversations always get further and further from the original argument. Oh well... You might be interested to know that I actually have no problem at all with ID being taught along with evolution in schools. What would happen? Some kids who aren't exposed to religious belief might learn a little bit about God and Jesus and become better for it. To take this even further, I'd be okay with the teaching of the Book of Genesis along with evolution. This is America, a Western and English country, and the bible is our collective cultural cornerstone. I personally believe God created everything differently than the book says, I adhere to the idea of humans having written the bible and that it was translated so many times that I don't literally believe it means days. But, I respect people who do take that word literally. See, this is why conservatives are smarter than liberals. I don't see two liberals who disagree so much on an issue being this civil to each other in a discussion. :)

I remember very vividly in my high school science class, the teacher saying he believed in God and did not accept evolution. He still taught it as he had to, but he made sure we knew where his true loyalties lay.

I would not go so far to say that kids should be taught about Jesus in public school. That's for the family to decide. I don't think teaching the creation story is religous, though. Even in the Declaration of Independence, our forefathers said they held the truths as "self-evident" that we were created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. They did not even think there would come a day that we would actually question the existence of God it was so obvious to them.

As far as the Bible being the true word of God, I have to say I am totally convinced it is. I have a BA in Biblical Education and I learned plenty about its origins. That information is readily available if you want to research it further. Just a few tidbits to tempt your curiosity, though:

Scholars that participate in the translations that are made today can still use manuscript copies from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages. Look in the first section of your Bible, it should tell you who worked on the version you have. Granted, some versions are better than others but there are concordances you can use that show you the exact words used and their meanings.

There are so many prophetic and scientific parts within the Bible, that mere men could not possibly have written it.

Hope this gets you thinking.

It's an interesting subject at the least. I need to read the entire bible again, and take notes as I go along. What I was trying to say about the translation, and didn't really articulate is that even if the words didn't get changed, they still might have had a different meaning according to the writer. A day could have had symbological meaning perhaps. Maybe a day meant a much longer time period. Just a theory I have. I don't know. If I knew for sure, I wouldn't be here talking about it on FR anyway.

Like I said, nothing wrong with being skeptical. I think going back and rereading is good, but it's helpful to have a modern day version, like the New International Version (NIV) when you do. Not all the Thee's and Thou's, you know.

I would also recommend "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" 1 and 2 by Josh McDowell. Brillliant writing.

Another thing concerning words that have different meanings, that is true in some cases, that's why a good concordance comes in handy. I have found for the most part, though, that words in context mean what they say.

Good talking to you!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.