Posted on 03/23/2009 11:56:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...
On the last evening, a young ministerial student approached the ICR booth and listened to our description of ICR’s mission and ministry.
"Oh, I really don't see it that way," he stated. "My church teaches that the Bible may be inspired, but it's not inerrant. It's all about man's description of God."
I couldn't keep my jaw from dropping at this very matter-of-fact admission. This was supposed to be an "evangelical" pastors conference, sponsored by one of the largest Christian publishers in the world--a Bible publisher, no less...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Thanks for the ping!
ROFLOL!
In the last days...
If Mr. Ford is incredulous that many Americans actually feel this way, his head would probably explode if he ever read Thomas Jefferson's The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, aka The Jefferson Bible.
I find it ironic that less than a month ago, you posted an article entitled “Motive Mongering: Does It Belong in Science?” complaining with some justification about a New Scientist’s blog post about creationists’ “hidden agenda”; and yet here you are posting (and presumably approving of) an article that states, “evolution...is the most acceptable explanation of the origin of life for those who are running as far from God (and moral responsibility) as they can.”
Maybe you should try following your own advice.
INTREP
Be careful not to paint all non-Catholics with the same broad brush. You’ll find plenty of eveangelicals that believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
After all, a significant number of Catholics voted for Obama say his policies were more “pro-life”. Should I paint all Catholics with that broad brush because of the belief of SOME Catholics? No.
Christianity has become a “roll your own” affair. The real Christ is a bit too much for the “live and let live” crowd.
I have that Mac Arthur sermon he references where MacArthur talks about how believers are “slaves” to Christ.
This is what happens when we start using multiple translations, which many are actually, admittedly interpretations an not translations. I don’t see why it should be any different. If the NIV is true the KJV isn’t and if the NASB is true the others are not. If none are true, we have what that young student described. If that is true we shouldn’t tithe, witness, live holy, go to church, read our bibles, pray, etc.
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.