Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Fervent]

My experience is that most Christian seminaries build faith. Even those of other denominations seem to do this.

Even if I don't agree with absolutely everything they teach.

It would depend on how we define "faith." To a certain segment, anyone who doesn't slavishly adhere to the absolutely most literal reading of their pet passages of the Bible(and to some there is only one translation that qualifies as the Bible) doesn't have faith. Seminary often destroys that kind of "faith" because it exposes the adherents to the reality of the world outside of their sheltered upbringing and that many of the things their respected leaders have told them to reinforce their beliefs are lies. Though often those people's faith is in a book, rather than in the God who inspired that book.

 

[truthpls]

Most of the seminarians who lose their faith cite being confronted with the manuscript history as the largest reason for their loss of faith. BUt what would they know about why they lost faith, huh?

What about the manuscript history would anyone find problematic? Jesus didn't seem to worry about that ans still gave Scripture the stamp of authenticity

 

[truthpls]

My experience is that most Christian seminaries build faith. Even those of other denominations seem to do this.

Even if I don't agree with absolutely everything they teach.

Guess a little bird told us different stories. You admitted not believing in Adam or Eve (as Jesus did and the apostles also did). Not sure how you would recognize faith in the bible?

 

[Fervent]

What about the manuscript history would anyone find problematic? Jesus didn't seem to worry about that ans still gave Scripture the stamp of authenticity

There are lots of things that become problematic for a fundamentalist view of Scripture. The canonical disputes(in particular, when a lot of fundamentalists find out that the protestant canon was more or less a product of Luther and the other reformers throwing out books that had long been established within the canon rather than Catholics and Orthodox adding books they struggle with it), questions over which manuscript reading is accurate(which usually involves a good deal of theoretical reconstruction and correcting the various Greek and Hebrew constructions), textual evidence regarding single authorship(of both Old and New Testament books), obvious signs of redaction and development of the various books of the Bible over the course of Biblical history. There are all kinds of well documented issues with the Biblical text as we have them for simplistic fundamentalist beliefs about it. regardless of what one thinks of the pre-Christian Scriptures.

 

[truthpls]

There are lots of things that become problematic for a fundamentalist view of Scripture. The canonical disputes(in particular, when a lot of fundamentalists find out that the protestant canon was more or less a product of Luther and the other reformers throwing out books that had long been established within the canon rather than Catholics and Orthodox adding books they struggle with it), questions over which manuscript reading is accurate(which usually involves a good deal of theoretical reconstruction and correcting the various Greek and Hebrew constructions),

Jesus quoted the old testament. Do you think He was inaccurate? Look at the books Jesus quoted or referred to. Isa, Dan, Genesis, etc. He also fulfilled prophesies from many books.

textual evidence regarding single authorship(of both Old and New Testament books),

Who cares? God oversaw it. A single Spirit was behind it all.

obvious signs of redaction and development of the various books of the Bible over the course of Biblical history.

If true, did you ever consider God allowed or even steered a clear understanding over time?

There are all kinds of well documented issues with the Biblical text as we have them for simplistic fundamentalist beliefs about it. regardless of what one thinks of the pre-Christian Scriptures.

Jesus had no issue. Nor the apostles. Nor do I. You do realize His Spirit is required to understand what you read? The 'issues' fade quickly.

 

[Fervent]

Jesus quoted the old testament. Do you think He was inaccurate? Look at the books Jesus quoted or referred to. Isa, Dan, Genesis, etc. He also fulfilled prophesies from many books.

I'm not sure what point you believe you're making(or arguing against) here.

Who cares? God oversaw it. A single Spirit was behind it all.

Ok? The problem is that complex theories of inspiration don't sit well with fundamentalists who have been told a fantasy about immaculate autographs. If the books weren't written by single authors, there were no autographs. So we're left with the question of "which Bible?" when told there is an error free Bible, since even the most hard core fundamentalist tends to accept that there are scribal errors and interpolations in even the best manuscripts we have.

If true, did you ever consider God allowed or even steered a clear understanding over time?

What, exactly, do you think I am talking about?

Jesus had no issue. Nor the apostles. Nor do I. You do realize His Spirit is required to understand what you read? The 'issues' fade quickly.

The question isn't whether we understand what we read, because that comes long after dealing with text critical questions. You may believe the issues fade quickly, but a lot of people who have their eyes opened to the reality that the Bibles we read today are products of a long chain of editorial decisions have their faith shaken by that revelation. Being dismissive of the issues with it doesn't make them go away.

 

[trophy33]

Jesus quoted the old testament. Do you think He was inaccurate? Look at the books Jesus quoted or referred to. Isa, Dan, Genesis, etc. He also fulfilled prophesies from many books.

Actually, do it more systematically and compare the NT quotes of the OT to the OT itself. You will find many differences. I remember that in the letter of Romans, the differences were several on almost any page, between the Paul's quotations and the Old Testament in the same Bible print.

Because they frequently quoted from the Septuagint, while most people have the Masoretic text in their current Bible. In some cases the New Testament authors quoted from some other form of the text that is neither in the LXX nor in the Masoretic text. And, of course, in some cases they also quoted the text loosely, just from their memory.

Does this easily provable fact destroy your faith? Do you need to forget it, deny it or ignore it to continue in your beliefs? In such a case your beliefs are built on sand and need correction.

 

[truthpls]

I'm not sure what point you believe you're making(or arguing against) here.

The point is that if Jesus gave His stamp of approval it must be OK

Ok? The problem is that complex theories of inspiration don't sit well with fundamentalists who have been told a fantasy about immaculate autographs.

Never heard that fantasy. Did you invent it?

If the books weren't written by single authors, there were no autographs.

God is the Author. The folks He used are not the big issue

So we're left with the question of "which Bible?" when told there is an error free Bible, since even the most hard core fundamentalist tends to accept that there are scribal errors and interpolations in even the best manuscripts we have.

Every error I have ever heard about has turned out to be false.

What, exactly, do you think I am talking about?

That would be for you to articulate.

The question isn't whether we understand what we read, because that comes long after dealing with text critical questions.

To understand the bible we need God. That is the only critical issue.

You may believe the issues fade quickly, but a lot of people who have their eyes opened to the reality that the Bibles we read today are products of a long chain of editorial decisions have their faith shaken by that revelation. Being dismissive of the issues with it doesn't make them go away.

The same bible Jesus read in large part exists today. You seem to be straining at nats.

 

[truthpls]

Actually, do it more systematically and compare the NT quotes of the OT to the OT itself. You will find many differences. I remember that in the letter of Romans, the differences were several on almost any page, between the Paul's quotations and the Old Testament in the same Bible print.

You thought the book was about quoting whole passages of the old testament? I thought it was about teaching using parts of it.

Because they frequently quoted from the Septuagint, while most people have the Masoretic text in their current Bible.

So what? Maybe there is merit to both. Only God can help understand that.

In some cases the New Testament authors quoted from some other form of the text that is neither in the LXX nor in the Masoretic text.

That might best be called inspiration as well as having possibly access to things we no longer have access to.

And, of course, in some cases they also quoted the text loosely, just from their memory.

Or maybe as inspired to bring about the point God wanted.

Does this easily provable fact destroy your faith?

? The same old testament exists today that Jesus read, no? How would Isa or Genesis or Daniel or Hosea etc destroy faith?

Do you need to forget it, deny it or ignore it to continue in your beliefs? In such a case your beliefs are built on sand and need correction.

Forget 'it'? What exactly is 'it'?

 

[The Barbarian]

Guess a little bird told us different stories. You admitted not believing in Adam or Eve (as Jesus did and the apostles also did).

I don't think it was a little bird that told you those falsehoods. Try to do better.

 

[The Barbarian]

The point is that if Jesus gave His stamp of approval it must be OK

You are not Jesus.

Every error I have ever heard about has turned out to be false.

No Bible scholar would say that.

The same bible Jesus read in large part exists today. You seem to be straining at nats.

There was no New Testament when He had His ministry on Earth. Half the Bible, roughly.

 

[trophy33]

You thought the book was about quoting whole passages of the old testament? I thought it was about teaching using parts of it.

I was not talking about incomplete quotes, I was talking about quotes from the Old Testament that differ from the Old testament actual texts

So what? Maybe there is merit to both. Only God can help understand that.

What do you mean by "so what"? So the Bible is not a perfect, infallible fetish. The human authorship and human process of composing the Bible together is obvious in it.

That might best be called inspiration as well as having possibly access to things we no longer have access to.

Neither. When you quote somebody and it does not correspond to what he said, its not inspiration or having a special access. Its simply error - either in the quoted text or in the one quoting it.

Or maybe as inspired to bring about the point God wanted.

You do not need to quote, if you do not want to quote.

? The same old testament exists today that Jesus read, no?

No.

Forget 'it'? What exactly is 'it'?

That Bible is imperfect.

 

[truthpls]

I don't think it was a little bird that told you those falsehoods. Try to do better.

Such a literalist

 

[truthpls]

You are not Jesus.

What has that got to do with Jesus saying that Scripture is from God, must be fulfilled, quoting it, etc?

No Bible scholar would say that.

Funny none post here so we could check their claim

There was no New Testament when He had His ministry on Earth. Half the Bible, roughly.

Great and He sealed all that as from God as well as promised to send His words from heaven to us, so we know the rest is right. All that was left was to inspire some men to get the right books into the bible and leave a few out that were not quite up to speed. Wham, bam, thank you God for the package deal

 

[truthpls]

I was not talking about incomplete quotes, I was talking about quotes from the Old Testament that differ from the Old testament actual texts

Example?

What do you mean by "so what"? So the Bible is not a perfect, infallible fetish. The human authorship and human process of composing the Bible together is obvious in it.

I mean so flipping what. God made humans and used humans to get His word to the world. He allowed for all possibilities and guided the process. Sometimes having another translation adds to the full dimension and depth of what was being said!

Neither. When you quote somebody and it does not correspond to what he said, its not inspiration or having a special access. Its simply error - either in the quoted text or in the one quoting it.

Example?

You do not need to quote, if you do not want to quote.

Yes, we can paraphrase or refer to what was said or part of what was said, or what God really meant by what someone was inspired to say, or part of what someone was inspired to say...etc. No reason to be a doubting Thomas or Debbie Downer

No.


That Bible is imperfect.

God is perfect. His word was stamped with approval by Jesus and Jesus promised to send His words to us from heaven, even if people did not remember the details themselves..etc. He promised to bring all things to remembrance.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are not Jesus.

What has that got to do with Jesus saying that Scripture is from God, must be fulfilled, quoting it, etc?

It means you should be willing to accept it as He said it, not as you would like it to be. And no Bible scholar would say that there have been no errors in the Bible.

Funny none post here so we could check their claim

So, you honestly believe that a mustard seed is the smallest seed? Really?

There was no New Testament when He had His ministry on Earth. Half the Bible, roughly.

Great and He sealed all that as from God as well as promised to send His words from heaven to us, so we know the rest is right.

Christians can't even agree how many books are in the Bible. C'mon.

All that was left was to inspire some men to get the right books into the bible and leave a few out that were not quite up to speed.

Martin Luther, for example, wanted to remove the Book of James, pointing out that it contradicted his new doctrine of sola scriptura. He failed at that one, but got some others removed.

 

[The Barbarian]

You admitted not believing in Adam or Eve (as Jesus did and the apostles also did). Not sure how you would recognize faith in the bible?

If you think you need to write false accusations to make your point, that's a pretty good clue that you're not on the side of truth. The problem, it seems, is that you don't believe in Adam and Eve as they are in Genesis. And Jesus mentioned them, but never said that everything in Genesis was a literal account.

 

[truthpls]

You are not Jesus.

It means you should be willing to accept it as He said it, not as you would like it to be. And no Bible scholar would say that there have been no errors in the Bible.

They might be able to post one of these errors God made. Or should we just pretend there are some without any evidence?

So, you honestly believe that a mustard seed is the smallest seed? Really?

Yes. Not at the present time one earth in this present natural world. A lot has changed since the garden. But the point of the parable was not a classification of seed sizes. It was about how a small seed gets real big.

There was no New Testament when He had His ministry on Earth. Half the Bible, roughly.

He promised to send that after He got Home. He did.

Christians can't even agree how many books are in the Bible. C'mon.

Easy to settle the issue. Just grab a bible and count them

Martin Luther, for example, wanted to remove the Book of James, pointing out that it contradicted his new doctrine of sola scriptura. He failed at that one, but got some others removed.

So God used Luther on that one. So? We need to trust that God got the right books in there. That's what it's all about

 

[truthpls]

If you think you need to write false accusations to make your point, that's a pretty good clue that you're not on the side of truth. The problem, it seems, is that you don't believe in Adam and Eve as they are in Genesis. And Jesus mentioned them, but never said that everything in Genesis was a literal account.

One way to clear that up. Do you believe in Adam and Eve being created by God one day or not? Do you believe God formed a man from the ground and breathed life into him or not? Do you believe He walked and talked in a garden with him after that or not? Do you believe that at one time before God made the woman from a rib or bone from the man, that there were no women on earth at all? In other words Adam was not born, but formed and created? Be honest. It is no use pretending that you have not made your opinion on this clear.

 

[trophy33]

Example?

As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
R 9:33

So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic.
Is 28:16

And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope.
R 15:12

In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.
Is 11:10

What do these examples tell you about the precision/perfection of the text?