Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Education|Fri, May. 23 2008 05:38 PM EDT

Louisiana 'Academic Freedom' Bill Advances to House Floor

By Aaron Leichman|Christian Post Reporter

The Louisiana House Education Committee unanimously agreed on Wednesday to submit a bill for review in the legislature that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.

The “Science Education Act” is the latest measure in a series of “Academic Freedom” bills that have swept across Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan. A similar measure was also under review in Florida before stalling in the state’s legislature.

Lawmakers say that the efforts to pass the bills are a response to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.

Although legislators emphasize that the bill would "create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories,” detractors claim the bill is part of an agenda to install religion in schools.

“This bill isn’t about improving education in Louisiana; it’s about sneaking religion into the science classroom,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United (AU) in a statement.

“If this passes, Louisiana legislators will be harming children’s education, undercutting the Constitution and holding the state up to national ridicule. People will be asking whether Flintstones cartoons are going to be introduced as documentaries in Louisiana science classes,” he added.

Democratic Sen. Ben Nevers, a sponsor of the bill, however, denied the allegation.

"There is no language in here submitted by some secret agent trying to teach religion in public schools,” he said according to The Times Picayune.

The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based pro-intelligent design think-tank which has monitored the bill’s progress, said that the bill’s opponents were wrongly trying to silence discussion on the merits of the bill’s protection of freedoms.

The group pointed out that numerous chemists and biologists had testified at the bill’s hearing that they were denied tenure, fired, or subject to “academic bullying” because they had submitted evidence that contradicted aspects of Darwinism.

“It was clear from the hearing that Louisiana Darwinists are growing more and more desperate,” the group said in statement. “Like their dogmatic compatriots in Florida who still proudly proclaim that academic freedom is ‘smelly cr**’ Darwinists are making absurd claims in their desperation to keep anyone from questioning Darwinian evolution as taught in public schools.”

In order for the bill to become law, the bill will have to be voted on by the Louisiana House before being confirmed by the Senate.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:03 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    The Apostle Paul had visions and revelations of the Lord. He was taken in the spirit to paradise and heard unspeakable words (2 Corinthians 12:1-5). He did not have a dream. Because he did not have a dream does that invalidate his experience? Is the Apostle Paul a false prophet?

    Bill Weise and others on that website were chosen by God to receive visions and revelations of Hell and/or Heaven. They went in the spirit to either or both places and saw first hand what was there. Just like the Apostle Paul went to paradise in the spirit and experienced first hand what was there.

    Just because Bill Weise, Mary Baxter, and others did not have a dream it does not invalidate their experiences any more than the Apostle Paul's experience was invalidated because he didn't have a dream.

    Your accusations of Bill Weise to be a liar and a false prophet because his experiences were not in a dream are unfounded. You need a better reason than Numbers 12:6 to reject his testimony as not being of God.

    (I flagged myself to reword my thoughts to you.)

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    star2, I was on my way out the door when I wrote my last blog and I want to add that this knowledge of a real hell should motivate and challenge each and every Christian to be even more intense and passionate in sharing both the Gospel of Christ and Love of Christ in both word and deed to those around them who are without Christ so that as few people as possible will have to face this tragedy.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star2, I can see that hell and the existence of hell are very important to you and rightfully so as this issue should be of concern to every Christian since we know that Christ talked more about hell than heaven when He lived on this earth. But I would be really careful about these near death experiences since the jury is still out as to whether these are actual experiences or only based on a very real dream. There is still much disagreement among Evangelicals as to the authenticity of these encounters and well thought of Evangelical leaders appear on both sides of the discussion. But in all honesty we don't need to rely on anything else but the Word of God and the words of Christ to affirm that there is a literal place called Hell, a place of eternal damnation that is reserved for Satan and his devils and for those who reject Christ as Savior. Know that I deeply share your burden and concern about this serious matter.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    When I was 8 yrs old God gave me a revelation that hell was real one Sunday morning in a Baptist Church. I went forward during invitation time and asked Jesus to save me. I knew hell to be so real that I didn't want two of my friends to go there. I told them as best as I could about it and encouraged them to ask Jesus to save them.

    I never lost that knowledge that hell was real and the need to have Jesus save you so you wouldn't go there. Many times God has reinforced to me the truth that hell is real.

    There are other testimonies about people who have actually died, gone to hell, and came back to life and how they became born-again by the Spirit of God. Their testimonies are on that site I gave you as well. If after listening to their testimonies you still can't hear in your spirit that hell is real then I guess you have no spiritual discernment at all or the devil has so deceived you that you are totally blind to the truth.

    That website gives testimonies of people who did not die but went with Jesus in the spirit to hell and heaven to know what it is likle but it also includes people who have actually died and experienced first hand hell and then heaven as God dealt with them, and then came back to life.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20

    I did not base my conclusion on one comment (2 Sam 12:23). Read my Sat May 31, 2008 9:13pm post to viking and you will see why I say that deceased babies go to heaven when they die. Also, I would encourage you to read my Sat, 9:41 pm post concerning toddlers, and believer's post on the same say at 10:05 pm.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, I appreciate your honesty with regards to where you stand on the issue of inerrancy and I truly do respect your right to your opinion and as I said earlier I cannot nor will I try to force you to accept my belief in inerrancy, have a great Lord's Day, believer

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer, I also thank you for your clarification that you do not claim inerrancy of modern english translations. I admit freely that through this conversation I had gained the opposite impression. Bud I do not cast blame on you for this misunderstanding I take responsibility for failing to understand you clearly. I accept your clarification as sincere and true.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer thank you for your clarification of Inerrancy. I admit freely that I had a misunderstanding of precisely what you meant when you use the term. I thank you again for the clarification. Further let me say that I believe in inerrancy when defined as you have as follows
    "Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm,whether this has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.
    Where I believe we most likely disagree is around the qualifiers in this definition those being "when all the facts are known", and "properly interpreted" . I admit freely that I do not know all facts that bear on the scriptures and all matters both spiritual and natural. Further I admit freely that as an imperfect human being my most sincere interpretations of the scriptures are by definition flawed and imperfect. I do not state my interpretations as absolutes or unquestionable truths. I only insist that others not require me to accept theirs as such.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Star2, thank you for your posts. There is so much to respond to let me begin with the post that raised my most instant and immediate concern. Again let me say that I believe you are sincere and are not acting or speaking out of a spirit of malice or enmity. I hope you know that the same is true of my posts including this one.

    I went to the site you suggested and reviewed the information on Bill Wiese. I did not go further to look at other persons statements because of my immediate and deep concern (even fear) for you. I beg you not to accept this persons testimony. Even a cursory review of Wiese’s claims show them to be unbiblical. I know that my urging may be suspect because of our possible disagreements over scriptural interpretation but this is so much more dangerous than any disagreement we may have. I set aside all debate between us regarding the concepts of inerrancy and literalism. Please do not rely on my statement or any urging of mine. I refer you to biblical authority and warnings regarding this type of testimony.

    Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
    Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
    Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    2 Pet 2:3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

    Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

    Yet Weise claims repeatedly and explicitly that his experience was not a dream. Instead he states in his book
    “This was not a dream—I was actually in this strange place. Fully awake and cognizant”

    So the Biblical teachings say straight out in plain language that Bill Weise is a liar and a false prophet. Despite his purported biblical support for his description of hell the foundation of his testimony is shown by Numbers 12:6 to be false.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    On my last blog threts should be treats and the last sentence is mine and not Norman Geisler's.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Norman Geisler says, the scholarly procedure of textual criticism threts this problem by showing the accuracy of the copies of the originals, the copies are known to be accurate and sufficient in all matters except possibly minor details. Although no one in modern times has ever seen an infallible original, it is also true no one has seen a fallible one. In closing the majority of the modern translations are not inerrant nor do a majority of evangelicals claim they are, but they are both reliable and affirm 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their ORIGINAL autographs, properly interpreted, will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether this has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences. This definition can be found in the book The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. I do not nor have I ever believed that the modern english translations are inerrant but that they are reliable and that all the archeological findings that discover portions of the Bible to this point have confirmed their accuracy to include the KJV.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mahetes, thank you for your post of 5/31/08 9:10
    I appreciate your first hand information on the process on the NRSV. The very fact that they went to these lengths with treble review and majority determination shows that these biblical scholars themselves must agree that translating the earliest available Hebrew and Greek is not a plain and straight forward act. Even they were unable to come to unanimous agreement on a term that changes the meaning of the passage substantively if read from a literalist point of veiw. And this occurred with a group of scholars who joined together without animus not a case of two translations comming from competing denominations with deep conflicting interpretations of Christianity and of the scriptures. The very process you describe shows that an uncritical acceptance of translations as inerrant combined with a literalist view of the man translated writings can not be relied on to understand the holy scriptures. While I do not have the advantage you have of knowing the translaters personally one would presume that in addition to their consideration of linguistic issues they also brought to bear all of their combined knowledge and research on other texts that while not included in the current Christian Bible are part of the much larger body of recognized holy scripture in Christianity. Further one would hope they also considered the best non scriptural but well established historical texts and rabbinical commentaries on the Scriptures. Such a process is far from the process that for instance was used in the development of the multiple translations that are commonly known as the KJV. In pointing this out I am not saying there is no truth contained in the KJV or other significantly imperfect translations only that they can not be accepted at face value with an inerrant/literalist view point. I am far from your level of studies of the scripture and so I do not claim authority of the texts I only claim the right which I thank you for respecting and responding helpfully to of seeking to change my ignorance to enlightenment through reverent but critical examination of the texts. I do not demand that other Christians join in this process if they have no spiritual need to do so. I just ask that they not chastise those who do nor become stumbling blocks for unbelievers who might come to Christ.

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Star

    Thanks, I re read the story of David and Bathsheba I always think it a very good wake up call to how in ones life wrong turns can be taken and the ramifications that can occur. The verse I think you are really homing in on is 23, diificult to know thaough if David is talking about simply dying which we all will or he is refering to being with God afterwards. My main point though is that I always thought that it was dodgey ground to base thinking only on one verse?

    Regards

    Steve

  • Sun Jun 01, 2008 1:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    I want to encourage you to go to this website http://spiritlessons.com/ to listen online various testimonies of people who have gone to heaven and hell.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 11:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, I took the question I answered from the other night to be a general question about what happens to a person who dies without accepting Christ and so I gave a general answer, if I had been asked about children who did not know the difference between good and evil I would have given the answer I gave tonight. But since this question was addressed to you in the first place I wonder what your thoughts are?

  • Sat May 31, 2008 11:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes unto the Father but through me. In Acts 4:12, we read "There is salvation in none else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved." That said there is only one way a person can be saved and that is by putting their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Word of God presents no other options. As for babies and children who are not capable of grasping the truths of salvation, star 2 gave you one example in the Bible that seems to show that even though they are born with a sin nature they will not be held accountable for the sins of their fathers, many Bible scholars also refer to Deuteronomy 1:35 and 1:39 to support this view as well. This talks about who will enter the Promised Land but many believe God will use this same criteria with regards to children who don't know evil from good. As for the person who has never heard the Gospel but who knows good from evil the Bible in Lamentations 3:25 says, "The Lord is good to those who wait for Him, to the person who seeks Him." but at the same time we read in Romans 3:11, "there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God." Based on those passages of Scripture if a person truly seeks God He will reveal Himself to Him, but at the same time very few are seeking God. So based on that since they are not seeking God they are destined to an eternity in Hell and if they are truly seeking Him God will reveal Himself to them through the person of Jesus Christ be it through missionaries, media, tracts, and/or the Word of God and they will have the opportunity to be saved and spend eternity with God in heaven.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    Re:Toddler going to heaven if they die

    I believe toddlers go to heaven if they die before they know the difference between right and wrong.

    Here is why I say that:

    There is a time in a young child's life where they do not know the difference between right and wrong. This is indicated in a prophecy about Jesus in Isaiah 7:14-16

    Is 7:14-16

    14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

    16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

    OK, there was a time in Jesus' young life when he did not know the difference between good and evil. During that time I don't know if He always choose to do what was right or not but the potential not to do right I believe was there. However, scripture says that Jesus was without sin (Heb 4:15). Therefore, if Jesus chose to do evil when He didn't know what was right and what was wrong then it was not held accountable to Him for He always chose to do right when He did know thus rendering Him sinless.

    Thus, a toddler, who does not know the difference between right and wrong, is not held accountable for what he does. Thus, if he dies he will go to heaven. But once a young child does know the difference between right and wrong then he his held accountable for his choices. The young child is also capable of knowing through the conviction of the Holy Ghost that God is real, that Jesus died for his sins, and by choosing to accept Jesus' sacrifice for him, he can be forgiven and have eternal life.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This context dependence helps resolve Gen 1-2. Many take 2:19 as "the Lord God formed every beast" but because of the entire context which includes what precedes it (ch. 1), a better translation would be "had formed."
    Heb grammar also helps with the word "yom" = day. Each time it's used in the OT with either "evening" or "morning" it always means a literal day. Same when used with a number (cardinal or ordinal). So the author did all he could to make us understand the days of creation week were normal days.

    As for some not so well done versions, be careful with the paraphrases; they are okay for devotional reading (i like the NCV) but for digging deep, stay as close to the original languages as you can. I know God will bless as you follow Him.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 10:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking.

    God said that King David was a man after God's own heart. He kept God's commandments, he followed God with all his heart, did that what was right in God's eyes (1King 14:8). From Ps 23 we can see that King David placed his faith and trust in the living God to meet his nedds, to protect him from his enemies, to be with him in the shadows of death, and etc.. King David ends the Psalm with "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I WILL DWELL IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD FOREVER." (Ps 23:6)

    King David knew that when he died he would go to heaven.

    Now King David said about his dead son who was conceived in an aduletrous affair, in 2 Sam 12:23, " But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I SHALL GO TO HIM, but he shall not return to me."

    King David knew he would go to heaven when he died, so if King David said he would go where his son was, then his son had to be in heaven also.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 10:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, only because I met the gen. editor of the NRSV, Dr Bruce Metzger, do I know how it happened. 7 biblical scholar (3 OT specialists, 3 NT, + Metzger) did the translating this way: the 3 OT guys divided up the OT books. Each translation was reviewed by the other 2, then ewviewed by all 7. Where no concensus was found, they voted. In Gen 1:2 "wind from God" won 4 to 3 over "spirit of God." Metzger preferred the latter because the construct relationship between the 2 word is usually taken as "of" but that was the procedure they agreed to follow.

    You are indeed correct: Heb words MAY have a range of meanings + it is context which decides it. Thus an imperfect verb (normally translated as future tense) in the midst of a narrative of past events is translated as a past tense.

    I'll send the rest in a minute.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 9:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Star2 hello thank you for the reference. I read this in several translations and am confused by your reference. I can not see that David states that the child has gone to heaven. Could you tell me in what translation that might be. Thank you

  • Sat May 31, 2008 9:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steveh20

    Scripture indicates that they go to heaven. See 2 Sam 12:15-23.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 8:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I aplogise in advance for butting into this conversation, what do you think happens to the souls of the millions of miscarriages that occur every year ( this includes the souls of those whom their mothers did not even know they where even with child,) they did not hear the gospel , are they cast into the lake of fire?

  • Sat May 31, 2008 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer thank you for your response,
    First let me respond to your last statement. Have no fear I am not looking for an excuse. Secondly I notice you didn't actually answer the question. Do you stand by your statement in your earlier post which presumably is consistent with your stated belief in both inerrancy of Biblical translations and a literalist reading of scriptures.
    " viking, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity"
    Which of course would condemn to eternal punishment and torment those infants and toddlers you mention as well as all those billions who have never recieved the gospel of Christ either because they lived prior to Christ's ministry or because the Gospel did not reach them prior to their death.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 6:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, I wanted to keep these two issues seperate, many times when I have shared God's plan of salvation with someone, that question comes up, can I prove with all certainty what God will do with regards to those who have not heard the Gospel no, because God's Word does not specifically speak to that scenario, but I would rather error on the side of yes rather than no because of what I shared in the first blog and join God in ensuring that as many people as possible have the opportunity to come to Christ, once again if I'm wrong they have nothing to lose in fact they win, but if I'm right they have every thing to lose for the rest of eternity. Lastly, many of those whom I witnessed to were trying to use it as a defense to reject God's truth and I would simply say that those who have never heard maybe be able to use that excuse, but you will have no excuse because you have heard God's plan of salvation.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 6:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking, God's Word in Luke 10:20 says, Jesus talking to His disciples said: "but rejoice that your names are written in Heaven, in Revelation 20:15, "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was thrown into the Lake of Fire, and Mark 16:15-16, Jesus say to His disciples, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." and finally 2 Peter "The Lord does not delay His promise, but is patient with you, not wanting any to persih, but all come to repentance." Plus there are other Scriptures that state that those without Christ are condemned, there is much debate with regards to babies and toddlers who are not able to understand their need to be saved or how to be saved, personally I believe God will save them, but there is no biblical teaching to support that. God's Word also says that if a person truly seeks after Him that He will reveal Himself to Him and finally that is one of the major reasons I am a Southern Baptist because we're totally committed to reaching the world, every man, woman, and child with the Gospel of Christ and we're seeing many come to Christ. Some say if what I say is true then God isn't very fair, well frankly I'm glad He isn't fair because if He was fair and gave us what we truly deserved we would all be spending eternity in hell seperated from Him.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 4:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer
    In response to your post of 5/31 8:24
    In and earlier post Star asked me
    What happens to a person when they die without Christ? What scriptural evidence do you have to back up your belief?

    You answered thinking the question was from me.
    viking, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity

    So let me ask you a clarifying question based on the words of your answer.

    Star asks “What happens to a person when they die without Christ?” These persons would of course include all those billions of souls who have never heard the gospel or had the opportunity this side of the grave to accept Christ. You answer “, I've already shared that they are eternally seperated from God and will be cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity” By the plain meaning of your words this would include those billions mentioned before. But I assume nothing rather I ask you to answer do you indeed believe that God who so loved the world (mankind) that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins and bring us to salvation would condemn all those who did not have the chance at salvation to suffer in eternal torment.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 4:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    5/28/08 3:17 “And yet your view of evolution says our existence is simply a matter of chance and for what ever reason God decides that when this process produces man that we appeal to Him and so He starts to become involved with our affairs”
    5/28/08 3:31 but according to your view of evolution death, destruction, and violence had been present for hundreds if not billions of years already and when God looked out at all that He had created through evolution and saw it was all very good He must have been lying to Himself
    5/28/08 3:44 because your view is based on chance and circumstance and mainly leaves God out of the equation
    5/29/08 9:03 you accept evolution sight unseen
    5/29/08 9:29 So your saying that Luke had the genealogy of Christ all wrong
    5/29/08 6:35 so God's indwelling Holy Spirit gave you the ability to discern truth but to the disciples in the upper room on Pentecost Sunday He didn't and that's why they preached a message based on faulty teaching from the Old Testament as well as the life of Christ
    5/30/08 8:08 many of your responses to erv and agentorangex included apologies for those ignorant Christians who hold to the view of inerrancy

    I can not in conscience as you say move on and stop chasing this rabbit though I can understand your desire to avoid facing this issue.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 4:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer thank you for your response, (long post 2 parts)
    You state “so asking you to clarify a statement you made is a putting words in your mouth?” No I do not object to any sincere request to clarify any statement I make nor do I object to any challenge to what I actually say. What I object to is when my words are (seemingly purposefully) taken out of context and misrepresented as something other than what I have said.
    In your post of 5/31 12:20 you excerpt my words
    it is because in fact I trust God not man that I cannot accept the two doctrines...."
    You follow this excerpt with
    Does that mean that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not
    trust God because if it does that is a pretty arrogant statement.”
    You will note I have included your full sentence. It seems clear to me that the interrogative phrase in this sentence is not actually seeking clarification but rather is rhetorical. This is made clear by 1. the absence of a question mark or any pause before the accusatory phrase of the sentence 2.the fact that you leave out of the excerpted quote my words that already answer the question.
    It is because in fact I trust God not man that I can not accept the two doctrines of
    Inerrancy and of Literalism. I agree and do not let man replace God in my life. This is
    indeed why I reject those two (as I believe) false doctrines. This is what the spirit of
    God has shown me. Again let me say that I do not question your faith or presume
    to instruct you.”
    Clearly the my parenthetical insert, and the last two sentences of my post made it abundantly clear in explicit terms that I was not stating, implying or in any way suggesting that “those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not trust God”. It seems clear to me that your main purpose in your prompt was to misrepresent my comment in a way that would allow you to challenge them on grounds of “arrogance” moving the discussion from one of the merits to one of personal attack. I am sorry that for whatever reason you felt the need to do that. But given how often you have seemingly willfully chosen to misrepresent my statements over the past few days….

  • Sat May 31, 2008 3:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Mathetes, thank you for your post 5/30/08 9:12
    Thank you for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that some modern translations “are not very good”. Also thank you for identifying at least one text you feel is pretty good and indicating that there are spots even within this text where you feel they “could have done better” From your example I take it you are referring to the fact (as I understand it) that Hebrew is often at best an ambiguous written language where the precise meaning of a word often can not be determined in isolation but can only be understood in the context of the surrounding text and an understanding of the culture, etc. of the peoples and times of the laying down of the text. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you or over generalizing your point.
    Taking your example in particular (by the way thanks for taking the time to do the research on this and almah It points me in a fruitful direction) I note that you point out that the NRSV translated ruach as wind instead of spirit at Genesis 1:2.
    It seems to me that to an unbeliever such a difference would seem significant. Also I might be in error but it would seem this should be significant to a person who believes in both the inerrancy of the text and the literalism of the text. The literalist doctrine it would seem would not allow one to resolve the difference by saying that wind is a metaphor for Spirit. At the same time the inerrancy doctrine would seem not to allow one to resolve the difference by (as you seem to) preferring one translation as more true and accurate (in this case that being spirit, which I personally agree with). If this logic is not correct then perhaps inerrancy and literalism are not what I have been led to understand.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 9:24 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking, you said that you came to your conclusion with regards to the inerrancy of the Scriptures by listening to God and not man and yet every thing you cite to support your view was written by men and none of those men were either writers of any of the books of the Bible, nor do you use any texts from the Bible that would share the Scriptures and specifically those found in the Old Testament are unreliable, nor do you cite anything that Christ or Paul or any other Church leader in the Bible said that would lead us to believe that we are wrong to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and yet there are several key passages that lead us to be;lieve the Scriptures are inerrant and I cited the key one 2 Timothy 3:16. And yes I do believe that inerrancy holds true to only the original manuscripts of which none have been found, but yet at the same time to this point no manuscripts have been found that show major discrepancies in reliable english translations of the Bible and to this date all of the teachings and truths and the historical accuracy from a biblical perspective as presented in the reliable english translations of the Bible remain solidly intact based of these recently found manuscripts from the Bible.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 9:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, so asking you to clarify a statement you made is a putting words in your mouth? As I said my failure was not to address those comments from you and the other theistic evolution proponent immediately that I felt were very demeaning to those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, you can either accept or reject my apology, but at the same time I would prefer we move on and stop chasing this rabbit and get back to the more pertinent issue that being the discussion of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 6:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    A quick note about the NRSV translation post:
    ruach can mean wind, breath, or spirit. Last night I meant to say they translated it as wind instead of spirit in Gen 1:2.

    Oh, the dangers of typing when one is too tired....

    PS: Steve, I have leaned to love true "football" even more now that I'm at a university with many interationals on our teams. Tis truly a beautiful sport.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 6:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Must go now bye all

  • Sat May 31, 2008 6:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steveh20 ,
    thank you for your humor and for your gentle message. I will try to keep your daughters advise in mind.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 6:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Believer,
    While I forgive you your failure I am sorry that your apology is seemingly given in a spirit of insincerity. You apologize for responding harshly but then you excuse your act by in essence admitting that you took your anger at someone else out on me.
    You then compound and continue your acts of unfounded accusation by at first admitting that you can not support your accusation with evidence out of my mouth and then renewing the accusation nevertheless.
    You state "I can only say that some of your references towards those of us who hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures inferred that we are ignorant to hold that view". In fact it is the hearer who "infers" something from a statement, the speaker "implies". That aside the inference you draw is of your own creation and springs from your mind not mine. If you actually read my words you will find that while I openly state that I disagree with you on these matters I neither state nor imply that you are ignorant. I have not put that burden on you and I refuse to take responsibility for your failure to surrender that seeming feeling of inferiority to Christ.
    I note that shortly after making your purported apology you once again renew your conduct of putting words in my mouth that I did not say, ignoring the words that I did and from that implying that I am arrogant.
    “Does that mean that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not trust God because if it does that is a pretty arrogant statement"
    Not only have I never made such an accusation or implied it I have explicitly, specifically and repeatedly stated the opposite i.e. in the post you responded to I say to Star "Again let me say that I do not question your faith or presume to instruct you"

    Star asks if I had never gone to God in prayerful reflection of his word seeking the guidance of the spirit and I explained that I had. Let me expand on that here are a few of the passages I have spent time with and recommend to any Christian for reverent reflection.

    You must change your hearts - for the kingdom of Heaven has arrived."
    "How happy are the humble-minded, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs
    Treat other people exactly as you would like to be treated by them - this is the essence of all true religion."
    "It is not everyone who keeps saying to me 'Lord, Lord' who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father's will.

    Let me be clear, in sharing these passages I do not accuse you nor imply lack of faith on your part, nor ignorance. I only share a small part of my own journey in hopeful illustration to others.

  • Sat May 31, 2008 1:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, let me keep both my word and promise, your blog to star2, "it is because in fact I trust God not man that I cannot accept the two doctrines....". Does that mean that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures do not trust God because if it does that is a pretty arrogant statement. As one who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures its not a matter of God or man it is because God declares it in His Word and therefore we are responsible to not only believe it but to teach it and proclaim it. 2 Timothy 3:16 is one example of this truth.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mathetes

    Portsmouth or Cardiff, did'nt mind I thought it was just a great end to a great tornament, no Man U, chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, brill !! How I LOVE the beautiful game. Shold drop in here England 2 America 0 at Wembley on Weds night...

    viking

    I did not cross a bridge to get to me cat but my daughter is always telling me to build one and get over it.

    Steve

  • Fri May 30, 2008 11:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking, as I said already I should have dealt with the belittling issue when I first saw it so for me to specifically quote you word for word I can't and I can only say that some of your references towards those of us who hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures inferred that we are ignorant to hold that view. So once again my apology for not dealing with it sooner.
    Your view on inerrancy does not concern me, but the website you sent me to does because I feel that the views held by Christian Universalists totally contradict the Word of God and as a result promotes a false gospel. I am not sure your relationship with this group and that is why I'm concerned because I would not want to see anyone get caught up in a group that promotes a false gospel.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    good night all

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Star thank you for your post

    If you review the answers I have given to the quesions that have been put to me by yourself and believer you will note that this is what I have already indicated I do. You may also note when I opened my heart and shared freely my beliefs I was ridiculed with sarcasm in response "Fri May 30, 2008 6:35 am" . Yet I rejoice when men ridicule me for Christ's sake and am happy to recieve this treatment if it will help to bring one lost unbeliever closer to communion with God.
    It is because in fact I trust God not man that I can not accept the two doctrines of Inerrancy and of Literalism. I agree and do not let man replace God in my life. This is indeed why I reject those two (as I believe) false doctrines. This is what the spirit of God has shown me.
    Again let me say that I do not question your faith or presume to instruct you.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Believer, I thank you for your post

    I am surprised by your statement.
    “viking, my desire has never been to have you believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God”
    This seems out of keeping with the tone of many of your posts and in particular your statement
    “my concern is that I believe you are inadvertently presenting a view that contradicts God's Word and may cause serious spiritual issues in your life. My concern whether you believe it or not is for you.”

    How can you believe in Inerrancy, be concerned that my lack of such, causes me to contradict God’s Word thus possibly causing me spiritual harm, be concerned for me and yet not have a desire that I believe in Inerrancy.

    Also I can not recall belittling or ridiculing those who believe in inerrancy. I have stated that that is not my belief and why in RESPONSE to being put to the question of my faith. Notice I have not questioned yours.

    In addition you state “, many of your responses to erv and agentorangex included apologies for those ignorant Christians who hold to the view of inerrancy ”
    Please point out to me where I refer to those who hold the view of inerrancy as “ignorant Christians”.

    Again I must gently request that you refrain from putting words in my mouth that I have not uttered.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mathetes, I was also very fortunate to have a Pastor in Italy who taught us and equipped us to study the Bible and specifically how to do word studies. He said all you need is a reliable translation of the Word, an english dictionary, a Strong's Concordance w/ Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, two good single volume commentaries, a strong desire to truly know and apply the Word of God to your life, and allow the Holy Spirit the freedom to put it all together.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mathetes, have you had a chance to look at the Holman version (HCSB) my pastor jokingly calls it the Hard Core Southern Baptist Version. But to date for me I agree the NASB is the most solid and easy to understand version I have found. It was my first study Bible after becoming a Christian in 1971. Have a great and blessed night, believer

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Though I have great respect for Josh McDowell (last week I was re-reading "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"), I have not seen that video. I'll check it out. Thanks.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking, I want to apologize for coming down so hard on you in my last blog, I probably should have shared my upset earlier instead of letting it fester, plus there was another person who was a theistic evolution proponent who I felt belittled those of us who hold to the inerrancy view as well, so please accept my apology for my harshness. believer

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You're right - they were so very careful. The Heb word we translate scribe is literally "counter" - they knew the exact # of letters in every book of the OT. When I saw the DSS in Mobile, AL, I was in awe when I thought of their labor of love.

    While I agree with you that some modern are not very good, I believe there are some that are accurate translations of the best manuscripts. I teach from one that's pretty close to the Heb + Grk -the New Revised Standard Version- but I know the spots where I think they could have done better (e.g., translating "ruach" as "wind" instead od "breath" in Gen 1:2). Perhaps more accurate + better for a lay person is the New American Standard. Its textual notes tell you the literal Heb or Grk, or other possible word meanings or sentence punctuation.

    I don't mean to sound like a lecture; I just want people to have the best tools in their hands, to assist them in following God.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    mathetes, have you ever seen Josh McDowell's video "The Reliability of The Scriptures" he to does an outstanding job of explaining the meticulous process that the scribes used in making copies of the Scriptures, plus he explains so that believers like myself who don't have a real extensive scientific or educational background in that area can understand it.

  • Fri May 30, 2008 10:02 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking

    Do you ever allow God to use the Word of God to speak to your heart? Do you ever just read what He says and mediate upon it? You seem so preoccupied with what a word says that you miss what Jesus is saying.

    You seem to spend a lot of your time seeking out what man says about God's Word. Have you ever consider going to God and asking Him to teach you what His Word says and to lead you into the truth? Teaching you what scripture means and leading you into its truth are two functions of the Holy Ghost (John 14:26, John 16:13).

    If you really want to know what God means by what He says in His Word, then go to Him, ask, and allow Him to teach you. That to me seems to be the only wise thing to do. Don't let man replace God in your life.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links