Seems funny, since the NT Scriptures were usually written in Greek! The RC version makes numerous errors in it's translations of the original extant texts. But, who cares about facts, when the Pope decrees it...
Posted on 03/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In a recent book review, Jerry Coyne, professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, admitted that the secular worldview of macroevolution (the development of complex life from “simpler” forms) is at odds with Christian faith...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Opinions are one thing, but you are completely wrong on this point:
” agree...FAITH comes from Jesus Christ...Faith comes from ‘hearing’ (or reading) the word of God...And just as God didn’t expect the OT Jews to remember what He said and pass it along, God had the NT apostles write the words down so we would know what we are hearing is actually the word of God...”
The vast majority of Biblical scholars agree that the authors of the New Testament were NOT the original apostles.
Instead, these were written by the followers of the original apostles, independently of each other, when early Christians realized that a written record might be helpful.
I'm surprised that Dog Gone doesn't remember the thread in question. He (?) persisted in conflating the hybrid human descendants of these Biblical fallen ones with dinosaurs, as far as my attempted explanation of antediluvian accounts from Enoch 1. It was frustrating, but in the end quite amusing. I do still strongly suspect that so-called dinosaurs were the result of their genetic tinkering with the rest of creation, though.
To my understanding, this was the great sin behind the destruction of creation by flood, at the hand of God. We see no dinosaurs apres le deluge; we see their remains buried in mud. No coincidence, imho. Of course, this is just my attempt at understanding what has been written, interpreted in light of current understanding. I won't claim it's the truth. The truth is written in the Bible. There have been many well meaning, but ultimately incorrect, even comical, attempts to rectify science with Biblical accounts. Of course, there have been incorrect, even comical, attempts by scientists to support their beliefs as well. Perhaps I'm being too charitable, they were outright frauds. Piltdown Man springs to mind, but there have been several.
Except that is more utter nonsense. To assert that would be to say that no scientists existed before Darwin, and I have to believe that even you know better. And of course there are many creationist scientist who work in fields such as chemistry, biology, etc.
So nice try, except it fell horribly short.
“For the Early Church, the BIBLE did not exist
That's the early Catholic church...They had no need for the scriptures...They still don't...”
Nearly every thing said, in a Catholic Mass, comes directly from the Bible.
Every reading said, can be traced directly to the Bible.
Also, the Catholic Church is the MOTHER of the Bible.
God never commanded that a New Testament be written. The entire idea to combine the various NT books with the OT books was a CATHOLIC idea, inspired by God but not Commanded by God.
The Bible did not exist until the Catholic Church decided to create the Bible.
This is FACT!
Furthermore, to say that one book of the Bible references other APOSTLES is weak, weak, weak as an argument.
You will notice that no book of the New Testament references chapter and verse of a New Testament book, by name. SINCE NO NAMES EXISTED SINCE THE VARIOUS BOOKS HAD NOT BEEN EDITED, COLATED, PUBLISHED AND CANNONIZED YET!
You are an anti Catholic bigot.
I think that you are wrong on facts and doctrine, but I do not think that your error endangers your soul UNLESS you have reached the point where you condemn those who disagree.
You do not have that power, or that right, or that privilege.
You are simply wrong, and when YOU get to Heaven, God will gently correct your hubris.
It did sound familiar, didn't it. It made as much sense as your drivel!
Bravo! That right there disproves evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. If only biologists applied this obvious common sense to their so-called "scientific" conclusions, they'd save themselves a lot of work and the taxpayers lots of money.
This is an historical fact.
Yes, you made some minor changes, but it was the CATHOLIC CHURCH that put all of the original BOOKS together.
Protestants simply took some of the original works out, and added a few lines that did not belong.
You are an anti Catholic bigot.
All Christians are not (Roman) Catholic. All (Roman) Catholics are not Christian. They just assume their membership in good standing applies, because the RC church says so.
Romans 3:19ff: 19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Eww. Highly evolved, flying pigs would produce prodigious quantities of guano. Maybe they'll evolve enough consideration to poop while on the ground.
There were plenty of good scientists before Darwin. Acceptance of Darwin ruined science. It's no coincidence that the last great scientists (like Pasteur, Faraday and Maxwell) published only shortly after Darwin. Once Darwin's stupid ideas took dogmatic hold of mainstream science, all progress in science ground to a halt.
Everything benefit we've gotten from science since the start of the 20th century has been from engineers applying pre-Darwinian science, i.e. "intelligent design".
Eww. Highly evolved, flying pigs would produce prodigious quantities of guano. Maybe they'll evolve enough consideration to poop while on the ground.
Seems funny, since the NT Scriptures were usually written in Greek! The RC version makes numerous errors in it's translations of the original extant texts. But, who cares about facts, when the Pope decrees it...
All excellent points, Metmom. God is giving His eye-witness historical account of what He did during creation week. If we employ the assumptions of the naturalistic historical sciences to reinterpret scripture, we are placing naturalistic science in a magisterial role over scripture. That’s a big no-no. I thought you might find the following interesting in this regard. All the best—GGG
http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation-journal-of-creation-tj
I openly admit that various Catholic leaders made huge mistakes.
(So did the Jews in the Old Testament, if memory serves. This did not change the fact that they were the “chosen people” did it?)
Tell me your denomination, and I can, in short order, find a terrible thing done, by someone in your denomination, in the name of your faith.
Done under false pretenses, but done just the same.
The Roman Catholic version was the FIRST version.
Also, those who translated the King James version referenced the Vulgate and Greek and Hebrew versions as well.
History, if you study true history, will lead you to respect the work of the Catholic Church, as NONE of the translations which YOU “worship” would be possible without the Catholic Church.
It is the Catholic Church which preserved the original texts that the King James Bible claims to use.
We, as Christians, should be grateful for the good that the Catholic Church has done for Christianity. That such a huge, rigid, authoritarian, manmade organization became corrupt was a foregone conclusion after the fall, though. The freedom to contradict bad doctrine is something for which many fought and died. But, some fought for less than honorable reasons. It is what it is. We’re dealing with human beings, after all. I’ve known many Catholics who I believe to have found salvation, so I’m certain it is possible to negotiate that maze and come out the other side. Several recent popes have been genuine men of God, in my estimation, particularly Pope John Paul. I disagree profoundly with that church on many things, and have been somewhat outspoken about it here on FR, but won’t stoop to completely condemn it.
Thanks for the ping!
Amen to that! Thank God for Creation Science (capital "S"), which rectifies the mistakes of science (lowercase "s") to conform with a Scripture-based worldview.
God gave us His flawless Word to use as a guide for interpreting our world; only a fool would insist on reinventing the wheel when the wheel has been given to us by the Lord!
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." -Psalm 14:1-3
Darwinism is crumbling at its foundations - it's only a short matter of time before Creation Science gets the recognition it deserves as the foremost frontier of Scientific discovery, and the Darwinist priesthood is reduced to the role of the beggar. (That's what they currently are, anyway, feeding at the trough of gubmint funding.)
...The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope.
This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization.
One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110])...
****
... But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists...
****
From Wiki inquiry on "catholic":
Ignatius of Antioch
A letter written by Ignatius to Christians in Smyrna[4] around 106 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term catholic church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8). By catholic church Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, as "catholic" still meant no more than "universal", since it was only later that the word "catholic" took on the ecclesiastical meaning of "orthodox and apostolic".*[5] Ignatius considered that certain heretics of his time, who disavowed that Jesus was a material being who actually suffered and died, saying instead that "he only seemed to suffer" (Smyrnaeans, 2), were not really Christians.[6] The term is also used in the Martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 and in the Muratorian fragment, about 177. *(emphasis mine!)
The Roman church excels in re-writing history...
Joe Smith founded the True Church. Just ask a Mormon... /sarcasm
****
...and finally, Paul had a lot to say to the Roman Church. He wrote a letter specifically to address their apparent inability to agree on the basics. Read the whole book and get back to me...
from the NIV, Romans 1:8ff:
8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
11I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. 13I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. 16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[c] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."...[d]
I'm not going to assign motives, but I will say that the article is not very competent and only creates divisiveness.
For example, I can prove that Christianity is a racist religion by writing an article quoting a racist Christian racist. I can prove that Jews kill little German children and user their blood to make matzos by writing an article quoting Hitler. I can prove that God doesn't exist by writing an article that quotes an atheist.
The article is a good example of the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Note the criteria and how the article violates numbers 3 and 4.
I've known many sincere, Bible-believing devout Christians who were also scientists and had no problems with evolution to one degree or another. I am one of them. Why does the article ignore Christians who do believe in evolution to some extent?
I'm sorry, my brother, but this just was not a very good article.
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.