Posted on 10/18/2016 3:08:25 PM PDT by Brookhaven
Evangelicals Didn’t Even Study for This Test
...this year, LifeWay used more stringent criteria for evangelical faith, as defined by some group called the National Association of Evangelicals. Only participants who called the Bible their highest authority, said personal evangelism is important, and indicated that trusting in Jesus’ death on the cross is the only way of salvation, were labeled “evangelical.” They totaled 586 survey-takers.
Everyone expected them to perform better than most Americans. No one expected them to perform worse. Seven in ten evangelicals—more than the population at large—said that Jesus was the first being God created. Fifty-six percent agreed that “the Holy Spirit is a divine force but not a personal being.” They also saw a huge increase in evangelicals (28 percent, up from 9 percent) who indicated that the Third Person of the Trinity is not equal with God the Father or Jesus, a direct contradiction of orthodox Christianity.
As before, it’s really the contradictory answers, not the outright heresies, that should most concern us. By definition, the evangelicals in this survey believed that “only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.” Yet nearly half agreed that “God accepts the worship of all religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.”
Former Newsday religion reporter Kenneth Briggs recently told Religion News Service that the faith he finds in “mega-type churches” is a “Bible-less,” “alternative version of Christianity.” Scripture, he says, has become “a museum exhibit, hallowed as a treasure but enigmatic and untouched.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
I like that version! Thanks for the heads up.
“It’s a joke, son. The dagnabbit should have given it away.”
As a former gold medalist in the sarcasm Olympics , I am truly embarrassed! I beg your pardon.
P.S. When I think “dagnabbit” I always remember Walter Brennan...
? can you explain ?
HA! Now, I get it, and Have already sent apologies to sparklite2...
Have a delightful day!
I like the NKJV myself.
Touche! Well played!
The main thing is the main thing. . .Your Southern Baptist mother evidently “got it.” http://www.thereishopeinjesus.com/
Regarding the “lesbian NIV”. It would appear corrections have been made.
“The 1984 NIV rendering … did not make clear whether homosexual activity per se was being condemned or whether only certain kinds of ‘offensive’ homosexual activity was being condemned.,” said Moo.
“The updated NIV makes clear that the Greek words here indicate any kind of homosexual activity. The updated NIV also reflects the fact that the key Greek word here refers to males.”
According to Moo, other verses that were altered due to scholarship and to make the message clearer included Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22.
In Romans 1:26, the verse “even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones,” was changed to, “even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.” While in Leviticus 18:22, the verse “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman,” was changed to, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman.”
One verse that appears to have been changed dramatically was 1Timothy 1:10, where the word “perverts” from the 1984 NIV was changed to “those practicing homosexuality.”
“The same key Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 6:9 occurs here also, and so the reason for the change here was the same as the reason for the change in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” said Moo.
The NIV 2011 version debuted amid controversy, with some Christian groups and individuals criticizing the translation for allegedly having too much “gender inclusive” language, similar to the TNIV translation of the Bible.
Last year, members of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Committee on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood criticized the edition, saying the 2011 NIV “cannot be considered sufficiently trustworthy in its translation of gender language.”
According to the Committee on Bible Translation’s website, however, every example of gender inclusive language found in the TNIV was “reconsidered,” especially when compared to the 1984 NIV.
“Some changes were preserved, some were rescinded in favor of the 1984 rendering, and many were re-worded in a third, still different way,” reads an entry from the CBT website’s Frequently Asked Questions page.
“All gender decisions for the updated NIV were subjected to rigorous scrutiny in the light of this data to ensure that the words chosen maximize comprehension of the original meaning,” the committee maintains.
.99
For those of you who actually read a Bible, here is free Bible software. http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html
I like comparing the different translations and it is easy to do so. Different words have different flavors and comparing gives a broader context.
For example, some have “forgiveness of sins” and others have “remission of sins” I will let you do your own research as to which is which.
Remission is an older word, not used a lot excerpt for cancer reference today.
Read OUTLOUD the following:
YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN
VS
YOUR SINS ARE IN REMISSION.
It is not one is correct and the other is not, they both have unique flavors that get us closer to the truth.
If your cancer is cured, how does your life change? If your cancer is in remission, how does your life change?
If you think she ‘got it,’ then you assign Mary to the Trinity, too. Got it?
I must have misunderstood your post. I don’t know of any Southern Baptist Churches that puts Mary in the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. . .there is but ONE God.
That was my point. After years of involvement in the Southern Baptist denomination, it was a shock to me she got through all that with such a mistaken notion. When I think back on it, Baptist sermons were (and may still be, I don’t know) heavy on the guilt-tripping and emotionalism, rather than the relative intellectualism I found in the Lutheran church.
The main thing is the main thing
1Co 3:1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready,
I like meat in the diet, but I still drink milk. Even gristle has a lot of flavor if chewed on long enough. I have been chewing on some items in the Bible for multiple years, eventually they begin to taste good. Learning doctrine and who God is worth it. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Heb 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
Heb 5:13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
See post #88 above/
The first edition of the King James Bible did have the "Apocrypha" in it (better termed "Deuterocanonicals," as the two sets are not identical, and do not have a one-to-one correspondence) . It wasn’t until the 1660s that it was removed in some editions, and not uniformly until the 1769 edition.
The question remains: when there is a genuine difference of opinion or interpretation, who decides what books are to be included in or removed from the Bible?
Who decided in England in the 17th and 18th centuries?
Is the god of Catholicism able to inspire without turning to a respecter of persons? Is the work of the Holy Spirit not what comes from reading the Word of God? Catholic dogma is delegated from that religion. The Word of God is not limited to a denomination or sect, since The Holy Spirit speaks to the spirit and soul, not to the legalism found in denominations and sects. When the Holy Spirit is speaking through The Word of God, discernment is ALWAYS generated. I can site folks who went to the Bible (KJV IIRC) and began seeking Him diligently, and soon found they discerned the falseness of the Book of Mormon.
Makes sense. My opinion is that the uncommon ground are matters of scriptural interpretation. Every very important doctrine traces back to Scripture.
There are some prayer methods and helpers and devotions that trace back to post-Biblical events, like the Rosary and Fatima, but they are enhancers, not deal-breakers.
Maybe you’re thinking, for example, of how we honor (NOT worship) Mary, but that is Biblical in origin. The Assumption is hard for me to trace back, but experts can.
The key VERY important differences are the Eucharist and Reconciliation/Confession, but we do trace those back to the Bible.
The way I learned it is that Scripture has value if it conforms to the Apostolic teaching that was passed down, which we summarize nowadays in the Apostles’ Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds.
And if a book does not conform to the teaching of the Apostles (who were taught by Jesus, and which we can also see in their own words in the letters that were preserved), it’s not canonical.
But people just don’t seem to like having to think deeply about these kind of things...
I would personally say the Lord’s Supper, Confession/Absolution, and also Baptism too.
Traditions that are not commanded by God can be useful, but sometimes they can also get in the way of faith.
On moral values and many core theological beliefs, though according to some consecutive Catholics (who are more Catholic than the pope) this cannot be overall true due to the the supreme status given to Scripture by evangelicals.
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.