Posted on 12/09/2008 2:39:05 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.
"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."
"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
if it is indeed who Peter said the denials to, or who spoke to him saying “_You_ also are [one] of them! that you are referring to, then you need to read the bible passages very carefully. Peter said ‘to htem all’ and ‘to the maid’ (or servant girl), and one ‘man’ taking his cue fro mthe servant girl who asked the question, ALSO asked the same question of Peter at that time=- pressing him to make a confession. There are no contradictions in any of hte accounts in the gospels about htis. Again- pick yourself up a good bible with scholarly commentary- or download “E-Sword” from http://www.e-sword.net/bibles.html and get hte commentaries- they will help you a great deal when tryign to divide hte word of God CORRECTLY
OK. How about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" being used rather than the correct "Thou Shalt Not Murder".
1. My Bible says "murder. It's an NIV.
2. This is a very poor example to begin with because it ignores context. If a person reads even just the Torah books they will know God doesn't mean "You shall not end any life" because of the other parts of the book (especially the Law) where he endorses execution and animal sacrifice, as well as helping the Israelites win battles against human armies.
do your won research- this has been explained just fien many many times- The original word WAS ‘murder’, and not ‘kill’ as professed by bliblical scholars and language experts
Then why do so many Christians oppose war or execution of criminals if it is clear?
Look, you are not going to win this. Man has always been arrogant.....even when translating the Bible.
First, learn how to type a coherent sentence.
Second, I am not arguing the meaning, I am only pointing out that this is an example of how man, in his arrogance, twists the meaning of THE WORD, in the Bible.
[[First, learn how to type a coherent sentence.]]
First- No- Don;’t like it? Too bad- I could care less
Second- There is no twisting of that phrase- except by those that don’t read in context or understand the original word and intent-
Third- have a nice day
[[Then why do so many Christians oppose war or execution of criminals if it is clear?]]
I expalinec it to you above- ignorance of God’s word- plain and simple- But don’t you worry about htose who misinterprete God’s word- God deals with His own, and it is HIS Spirit that sanctifies and corrects- those that aren’t His, but claim to be- Again- God will deal with htem in the end- Just make sure you are askign God to help you correctly read His word and correct you when you’re wrong, and you’ll be all set- God will mature you in His word as He sees fit in His own time
Thank you for acknowleging my point!
“God sent His One and Only Son.”
God sent His only begotten son.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
There’s a difference between “one and only” and “only begotten”. That’s one of the many reasons the new translations shouldn’t be trusted.
That's an incorrect translation, not corruption, easily solved by reading an accurate translation from the Hebrew, or the Hebrew itself.
“Only God sees the Bible in its full meaning.”
Well if only God sees its full meaning that essentially means only He can see its full meaning. Which means its a useless book for me. Pity, I paid 60 dollars for my copy and have been giving a sizable portion of my income away because that book told me to. Man have I been arrogant, and stupid for thinking God actually put that book in my hand because He wanted me to know what to do!
And you are blind, yet you have eyes.
I agree. It is INTENTIONALLY an incorrect translation, hence, man has corrupted the Bible.
For the same reason that some people have read the Bible and thought it endorses homosexual behavior or chattel slavery. People often read what they want to see into the text, but that doesn't mean the text is corrupt anymore than the 2nd Amendment is corrupt because they passed a handgun ban in Chicago.
Look, you are not going to win this. Man has always been arrogant.....even when translating the Bible.
I'm not trying to "win" anything. God's word may have been twisted by individuals, and even mistranslated in a place or two (like using "kill" when "murder" is a better word) but He did not pass his Word down to man and then stand by whistling while people corrupted it into something other than what He meant. The Bible is trustworthy and authoritative. If it isn't, how do you know what He has said is right and what He has said is wrong?
The King James version also says "Thou shalt not kill." Is it your intention that King James I was a pacifist or wanted his people to be pacifists?
I’m not achknowledging anything- the majority of Born Again Christians don’t- What others do is of no concern to me except that they stain the whole of Christianity- but hteir points are irrelevent to hte truth. Go’ds word stands, Anythign can be ‘misinterpreted by hte lazy or vitriolic- but that doesn;’t dismantle the truth. You can find hte truth if you get past the vitriol of those bent on maligning God and His word, and you will find a whole segment of folks who don’t twist the word- Again- why does it concenr you what others think? Your only obligation is to God, and rightly dividing His word, and it’s He whom you shoudl rely on, not others opinions hwich are irrelevent- Are you making hte case that God’s word is dismantled because some don’t interperet it correctly? Are you suggestign hte word cqan’t be trusted becasue of htose folk?
If you say you saw a deer- and someoen inteprets your word to mean you slapped a hockey puck across the rink, does that invalidate your statement? Of course not- those that state that you indeed did see a deer are the only oens you should concern yourself because they have shown themselves trustworthy and integrally honest
I think he’s trying to state that King James ‘must have itnended’ only one meaning, and that apparently James didn’t know the full context and that God meant murder- apaprently he thinks King James was an idiot when it is generally understood that God meant murder IF you look at God’s word in full and understand hte original words and intent used in context, and therefore, ‘kill’ must hence be a ‘corruption’ I think he was a mind reader to know King Jame’s intent for wiritng kill- when hte hwole of society knew full well the kill wirtten in the correct ocntext meant murder.
The sun rose i n the east today,
and the neigghbor planned to kill his friend in cold blood
I don't know that it was intentional, it may be. There certainly are many offbeat translations of both the New and Old Testaments, many made with specific audiences in mind. However that's not an indication of corruption of the source, rather the readers choice. The original is out there for anyone who chooses to read it, as are translations from the Hebrew which don't have meaningful differences between them.
That he is afraid to speak the truth about Islam or he is ignorant about Islam.
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.