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 ...
==I pray He’s not too angry when He sees so many willfully squandering His gift.
God has already stated he is angry with those who choose to see—and dupe others to see—His creation through naturalistic lenses. As Mr. T would might say, I pity the fool that gives creation credit for that which has been accomplished by the Creator!
Romans 1:20-26
==Okay, gotcha. Evolution is a science stopper, except that it isn’t.
Let me clarify: It is only a science stopper for those who practice it, or for those who are forced to conform their science to Darwinistic assumptions.
What I think is funny about this particular thread is that it’s framed as revealing the “The Dirty Little Secret” that “Religious Faith and Evolution Are Incompatible,” as though Coyne is giving away something all evos know but won’t admit. And yet, when you go to Coyne’s original article, you find that it’s a review of two books by religious evolutionists, one a professor at a Christian school and the other a practicing Catholic (a fact the ICR summary leaves out, of course). One book is even subtitled “How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.” So in this little corner of the debate, the “little secret” is that Christian evolutionists outnumber anti-religious evolutionists two to one. But that reality wouldn’t suit ICR’s purposes, so they try to spin it away.
Name one. You have created a strawman that does not exist.
I work at an oil company where we employ thousands of scientists. I have yet to meet one who is a YEC, or does not accept evolution as fact. Yet the vast majority of them are active members of their church or synagogue.
So, the thread title is completely contrary to my experience of 30 years. The headline is a Dirty Little Lie.
In 1525, William Tyndale, an English contemporary of Luther, undertook a translation of the New Testament.[9] Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing Biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.[10] Despite some controversial translation choices, the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.[11] With these translations lightly edited and adapted by Myles Coverdale, in 1539, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the Great Bible. This was the first “authorized version” issued by the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII.[12] When Mary I succeeded to the throne in 1553, she sought to return the English Church to the Roman Catholic faith and many English religious reformers fled the country,[13] some establishing an English-speaking colony at Geneva. Under the leadership of John Calvin, Geneva became the chief international centre of Reformed Protestantism and Latin biblical scholarship.[14]
William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English in 1525.These English expatriates undertook a translation that became known as the Geneva Bible.[15] This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages.[16] Soon after Elizabeth I took the throne in 1558, the flaws of both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible became painfully apparent.[17] In 1568, the Church of England responded with the Bishops’ Bible - a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version.[18] While officially approved, this new version failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age - in part because the full Bible was only printed in lectern editions of prodigious size and at a cost of several pounds.[19] Accordingly, Elizabethan lay people overwhelmingly read the Bible in the Geneva Version - small editions were available at a relatively low cost. At the same time, there was a substantial clandestine importation of the rival Douay-Rheims New Testament of 1582, undertaken by exiled Roman Catholics. This translation, though still derived from Tyndale, claimed to represent the text of the Latin Vulgate.[20]
In May 1601, King James VI of Scotland attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at St Columba’s Church in Burntisland, Fife, at which proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English.[21] Two years later, he acceded to the throne of England as King James I of England.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
It is simply not logically possible that one can, today, look at the King James Bible, and quote Book, Chapter and Verse, and then go to a modern Catholic Bible, and look at the Catholic translation of EXACTLY THE SAME VERSE!
The Catholic Bible was never modified to meet the Protestant Bible -— Therefore, EVERY Protestant Bible used the Catholic Bible as the basis for organization and verse structure. Therefore, SOMEBODY in Protestant Authority HAD TO READ the Catholic Bible! Furthermore, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are the custodians of virtually ALL of the currently available ancient manuscripts. Any translation which claims to refer back to the original Aramaic or Hebrew or Greek would HAVE to use manuscripts under the ownership and control of the Catholic Church. Without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be NO Bible. It is also worth noting: The Catholic Church was worried about FALSE translations, as it should have been, in an era where few could even read or write. However, there were government BANS on the ownership or reproductions of CATHOLIC Bibles in the Protestant controlled areas, after the Reformation. You can not claim that Catholic were "against" the Bible, and then explain why the Catholic Bible was BANNED by the Protestant forces. If we had no Bible, what in the heck did you ban?
Revelations is mostly history, not the future.
It went down already.
What a sweepingly arrogant claim.
Jesus is the reason, FRiend for THE catholic church. The Roman Church is just part of it's history, and certainly not the center. The Holy Spirit indwelling us, is what empowers the church. Rome is just a city on God's earth.
I have yet to misuse the Scriptures. I have quoted them. I guess that is what you meant!
Acts 26: ...12 "On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. 14We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic,[a] 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
15"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'
" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 16'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'
19"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. 21That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23that the Christ[b] would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."
24At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."
25"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do."
28Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"
29Paul replied, "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."
NOT “Bible” !!
The Bible is the creation of the Catholic Church, inspired by God.
Until the various councils of the Catholic Church created the Bible, all we had was a few, scattered, separate manuscripts. It was rare to have all of those manuscripts in the same place, at the same time.
The barbarians and the Muslims and the Romans and others would have destroyed every remnant of the faith.
It is not at all arrogant to speak the truth.
You would have no Christian Faith if not for the fact that the Catholic Church preserved that faith, for you, over the ages.
bkmk
***
Paul apparently had different ideas about that. He is writing to a group of believers at Rome, not THE group of believers of His church.
Romans 1:ff
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. 6And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
The word bible is from Latin biblia, traced from the same word through Medieval Latin and Late Latin, as used in the phrase biblia sacra ("holy book" - "In the Latin of the Middle Ages, the neuter plural for Biblia (gen. bibliorum) gradually came to be regarded as a feminine singular noun (biblia, gen. bibliae, in which singular form the word has passed into the languages of the Western world."[5]). This stemmed from the Greek term τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια (ta biblia ta hagia), "the holy books", which derived from βιβλίον (biblion),[6] "paper" or "scroll," the ordinary word for "book", which was originally a diminutive of βύβλος (byblos, "Egyptian papyrus"), possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port Byblos from whence Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece.
Biblical scholar Mark Hamilton states that the Greek phrase Ta biblia ("the books") was "an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books several centuries before the time of Jesus,"[7] and would have referred to the Septuagint.[8] The Online Etymology Dictionary states, "The Christian scripture was referred to in Greek as Ta Biblia as early as c.223."
What worries me are the evangelical fundamental secularists.
They won’t be satisfied short of scalps.
There are ancient Christian churches whose histories do not pass through Rome, you know.
So to be a Conservative you have to believe in God? And since RINO means Republican In Name Only, does that also mean to be a “Real” Republican you also have to believe in God?
Your comment just points out the problem with the Republican Party as currently constituted. If you do not agree with the Social Conservative agenda of religious Republicans you are not a real Republican.
But unlike you however, I have no problem with people believing in God, I just don’t believe myself. I don’t think that people who believe in God are not true Conservatives or Republicans or whatever. Your religious faith is unimportant to me. It is someones political philosophy I am interested in.
Keeping up this attitude will drive away even more people from the Republican Party. If you want to be “pure” and losers that is fine with me. I would rather have half a loaf than none at all.
To be a conservative, as the term is understood in the United States, it’s nearly impossible to be so while also being hostile to those who believe in God. “Real” Republicans support the party “planks” that are socially conservative. They’re there for a reason, because a large number demand it.
If you spend as much time and exertion on demanding fiscal conservatism as we spend on demanding social conservatism, we’d be getting somewhere. Everyone has priorities.
I don’t like paying high taxes, and I don’t like government seeping into every facet of daily life. History shows that this will lead to religious persecution, and we’re beginning to get more than just an inkling that history is about to repeat itself. This is where our interests coincide. It’s the basis of our political coalition.
Spoken like a true expert, just not the Bible, especially not the book of Revelation.
While that may be true, it seems as if those who believe in God have no problem bashing each other and non-believers at this forum every day.
Even this thread is changing into a Protestant/Catholic foodfight for reasons totally unrelated to the original post. There's hostility in the conservative movement, but just think about where it is.
Call it a foodfight or whatever, it’s certainly not a new phenomenon. Shared values and common interests remain. The libertarian wing, of which I consider myself a part to some degree, believe it or not, has lost sway with the party. When free markets began to mean freeing us of employment for higher profits by sending manufacturing to some totalitarian hellhole, they lost me on that, philosophically. There are a lot of us in that boat.
When Christians began to be prevented from expressing their Constitutionally-protected religious beliefs, in schools and in the public square, libertarianism clearly was not effectively reaching all parties. So, here we are. The largest bloc of the conservative coalition is highly disturbed by events of the past several elections, and we’re screaming our heads off. The largest potential socially conservative voting bloc, however, is Catholic. But, the growth of this voting bloc is also a stumbling block ... illegal immigration. The economy is a shambles, and Republicans are not blameless themselves, no matter how badly the fatcat bureaucrats have also behaved.
It’s a crisis, perhaps just an identity crisis, but somebody’s going to fall by the wayside. Who is of least consequence, numerically? That’s who will go, if they have half a brain. Can’t say I have confidence that they do, though.
That’s behind much of the vitriol, between normal allies, imho. The playing field has shifted, in some ways radically.
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.