Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

And by the way, when Rahvin said "her authority" he didn't mean MY OWN authority, he meant the authority I trust, the Bible.

Sure you can back it all up, with all your original misinterpretations, misunderstandings and the usual craziness.

Paul, you don't know how to read the Bible. You have the usual unbeliever's bizarre ideas about what parts of it mean. Besides misreading me as well. You think I contradict myself when I don't, it's just your misreading of the Bible, or of me; you think the first verses of Luke contradict the idea of Bible inspiration, they don't, but you'll insist on it anyway. Sure you can "back it all up," but with your wrong ideas about what it means. You'll insist on them but they're wrong. You can't admit something if you don't see the problem. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He says you're wrong.

What Jack says is irrelevant, but thousands of theologians and millions of believers for thousands of years saying it is something else.And when we have personal experience of the fact that the book known as divine revelation holds together on everything that impinges on our lives, and holds together logically on all the main points concerning salvation, and produces witnesses galore to miraculous events, we have every reason to believe along with the millions before us who have also believed it, that it is the perfect truth of God's word on every subject it touches.So of course we know there was a worldwide Flood as God's word tells us there was, and it makes amazingly logical sense in the context of the entire revelation of sin and judgment and grace, so yes we may indeed look at the Earth for evidence of it, and it's pretty clear to me that we see it in the strata and the fossils. Oh in many other things too but those are the main things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It doesn't say that. You need to get your facts straight.

What I said was that they all believe "it," meaning God's word, that's what they are saying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you don't have the brain to recognize the extreme difference I won't bother trying to straighten you out.

Says the one who didn't debate anything but slung out an incredibly stupid comparison.

Consider your idiotic comparison debated: "recognize the extreme difference."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you for acknowledging where you misrepresented me. The KJV team were experts in their fields in a time when the standards were a lot higher than they are today: complete mastery of a number of languages including literary English, in which they were steeped from childhood; and they made expert choices based on their expertise. Besides their fluency in Greek and foreign languages they also had the finest grasp of the English language, its rhythms for instance, which are trashed to cacophony in the modern translations, and this was even the assessment of the Revised Version produced by the Westcott and Hort committee in 1881 by one of those on that committee. Like riding in a carriage without springs he wrote.Most of the "other candidates" you mention that are available today are those corrupt Greek manuscripts I mentioned in the other post which were imposed on the committee by Westcott and Hort who were closet Romanists who had connections with Romanists who were out to destroy the King James Bible which they hated. They have been palmed off on today's scholars as authentic though Vaticanus is certainly a forgery and Sinaiticus may be as well.The King James was a complete re-translation of the existing English versions which means they minutely compared every word with all the other material available and nevertheless ended up preserving 95% of Tyndale's and making changes only to 5%, based on their expert judgment of all the available translations plus all the available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No, I would never say it is "error-free," but it certainly is the most trustworthy English version we have. By far.Where you claim there are passages "well-known to be later additions to the original text completely absent from all older versions from multiple branches of copying history, and you'd either contest that or rationalize its continued presence in the authoritative Bible in some way despite the full knowledge that it's a known deviation from the original source material, and we'd both just walk away frustrated having gone nowhere" the thing is I'd be right and you wrong because that idea that they were later additions is completely based on Westcott and Hort's discredited idiotic theory which rationalizes their corrupted Greek texts as the authentic ones. The fact is that they were removed in those forged corrupted texts by people who hated the King James and want to destroy Protestantism.Regarding my Bible as the same as the one produced in the First Century doesn't mean the English is perfect although I should have been clearer about that. \You are right about where this debate would go. I've done a whole blog devoted to the issue of the corrupt Greek manuscripts, mostly based on the writing of Dean John Burgon who said they were already judged by the Church to be corrupt and that W & H had no authority to replace the TR with them.

This isn't just an "appeal to population." The whole history of Christianity is involved in this. The standard theology was taught and held by all those people -- I don't mean perfectly I just mean in its overall form and meaning -- and it was that standard theology that built up the laws and prosperity of western civilization. This is people adhering to a whole system of thought all based on the Bible, this isn't just people relying on their own feelings and impressions that the earth looks flat and the sun comes up in the east therefore it must go around the earth. Left to our own devices we come up with such things. But the Bible doesn't support that thinking, it's a whole new understanding of reality that people couldn't have had through their own senses. That's just primitive thinking untaught by revelation or the scientific knowledge that eventually came to the west. When you put all the facts together this is not just an argument from numbers of people.

You're a good guy, Rahvin, fair and decent. Too bad you gave up on Christianity. But your basic fairness may come from having been raised under Christian teaching. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

Of course I mean when I say you're fair that you are right in your assessment of my motives and how I arrive at my views. If that doesn't hold up, well...I'd enjoy seeing you do a thread on how you came to your atheism, sure. That's always interesting.