acemona

Do you have one single piece of evidence to back that up? The CPE (council on post secondary education) does a report every year - you can look it up pretty easily, that touts how students from all of the KY high schools - who attend in state colleges - fare. It also gives an overall average on their ACT scores. Public schools perform better than private schools. The other thing is can you tell me about the "obscene" amount of money the public schools get - 'cause I sure ain't seein' it.

you mean like the roads and the safety vehicles that patrol those roads. I forgot that those were purchased with private funds.

Historically it is has been that they had smaller classes - last year the high school was capped at 25 per class - and they had open lunch. Both of these are probably coming to an end for at least a year. BTW - Frankfort was the only school in central kentucky that met all of its AYP goals last year for NCLB. I would say they are doing pretty dang good academically. As long as the county and city have reciprocity agreements, the new rule will not affect them. I am sure that those student who attend GSS and live in the Frankfort district will make a strong case not to be denied the right to go to their "home" school and continue to participate. Travelling 30+ miles to school at their own expense will be considered a hardship.

John Calvin - not inerrantist The Scriptures are thus self-authenticating, and the attempt by a number of Reformed scholars to show that rational arguments for Calvin work inseparably along with the Holy Spirit to authenticate Scripture as God's Word to the reader simply finds inadequate support in the primary sources.95 Calvin is unconcerned with normal, human inaccuracies in minor matters. He says: We know that, in quoting Scripture the apostles used freer language than the original, since they were content if what they quoted applied to their subject, and they were not over-careful in their use of words.96 God's communication is accommodated to man's limited capacity and He often "lisps" in speaking to us as nurses do with infants.97 God has chosen to use human means of communication to meet human beings at their point of need. His purpose is to persuade persons to be saved, and Scripture is quite adequate to accomplish that purpose when the Word and the Spirit are not separated.98

Finally, although some insist that Augustine bases the authority of Scripture on its inerrancy, such a basis is problematic. In a response to Jerome, he declares, "For I confess to your charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error

Martin Luther was not a literalist - just so we are clear. When discrepancies occur in the Holy Scripture, and we cannot harmonize them, let them pass. It does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith. --Martin Luther

Can you name one historical theologian who agrees with you? St. Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Martin Luther? Huldrich Zwingli? Billy Graham? (not historical) John Calvin? Adam Smith? Any Pope? anybody born before 1900? Why do the great pillars of our faith not agree that the Bible should be literal, yet you do and call the argument otherwise hogwash. It is easy to dismiss out of hand, but you cannot answer the question that is posed? Whose interpretation of the inerrant word do we believe. FTR - The reference in Revelation is to the book of Revelation itself. The Bible did not exist as a book when John was writing his prophecy. And Paul was referring to the Jewish Holy book when he said that Scripture was "God Breathed". Neither of them claim to be inerrent/infallible/or dictated.

I can believe it is true without believing it is inerrant. As I have said in another thread - The stories that Aesop gave us were all true, but none of them actually happened. Native Americans used to begin their oral history stories in this way . . . "It may not have happened exactly like this, but this story is true . . ." Did you read the article? especially this paragraph . . . Of course the Bible is true. Of course it is the inspired word of God, but inerrancy is a red herring. Even if one grants inerrancy, it solves nothing. We still must rely on study and prayer, informed by the Spirit, to know the truth. Who's interpretation of the inerrant Word should we accept. For example, there are multiple views of the position of women in the church. One interpreter, (well known author and lecturer Mardi Keyes), who believes in inerrancy, reads the gospels and sees Jesus willingness to discuss matters of theology with women (John 4:5-32), and his encouragement of women to sit and learn with the men (Luke 10:38-42), as elevating women to be equal to men. In the context of a first century middle eastern culture these and other seemingly small incidents certainly do represent a radical change in the role of women, given the view that women were mere chattel (property), which was the norm in Jesus day. Other interpreters, who also believe in inerrancy, see only the passage where Paul says women should be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12). Who's interpretation should we believe?

NO, NO, NO - God is the final authority - that statement comes very close to idolatry. We are not to worship the Bible we are to worship God, and if we make IT infallible we fall into the trap of Bibliolatry. (From the newreformation.org website) Bibliolatry -- Bible Worship One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff. Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today. It is frequently argued that we must hold on to inerrancy because if we permit anyone to question any part of the Bible, the whole thing is lost. We will have no solid foundation to return to for answers in matters of faith. It is argued that unless we have an indisputable source of truth to return to, Christianity will be reduced to a matter of opinion. But I always thought that Christians came to an understanding of the truth through much prayer, study, and by being informed of the Spirit. I didn't know we could just look up the answers to all the hard questions. In fact there are numerous examples of Biblical passages which simply must be reinterpreted to apply to modern times (see examples in the section on Moral Legalism) Of course the Bible is true. Of course it is the inspired word of God, but inerrancy is a red herring. Even if one grants inerrancy, it solves nothing. We still must rely on study and prayer, informed by the Spirit, to know the truth. Who's interpretation of the inerrant Word should we accept. For example, there are multiple views of the position of women in the church. One interpreter, (well known author and lecturer Mardi Keyes), who believes in inerrancy, reads the gospels and sees Jesus willingness to discuss matters of theology with women (John 4:5-32), and his encouragement of women to sit and learn with the men (Luke 10:38-42), as elevating women to be equal to men. In the context of a first century middle eastern culture these and other seemingly small incidents certainly do represent a radical change in the role of women, given the view that women were mere chattel (property), which was the norm in Jesus day. Other interpreters, who also believe in inerrancy, see only the passage where Paul says women should be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12). Who's interpretation should we believe? If holding to the position of inerrancy doesn't give us firm answers to hard questions, why do denominational leaders put such great importance on it. Only this: the inerrancy message is a thinly disguised version of "you may not disagree with me." The issue is power, control, and the right to dictate who may do what and when; to tell other Christians what they may and may not believe. This is so foreign to the message of Christ, that it should shock all true Christians. As the old hymn says, "the Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord." The Bible is our primary source for knowledge about Christ, but it is not our foundation.

But if he named them - found no suitable helper - then God creates Eve, and both Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day, he would have to have named them in one calendar day. Moses ia assumed to be the author and editor of most of the first five books of the the OT (the Pentateuch). Probably written in either the 15th or 13th centure BC., depending on when the Exodus occured (only a 200 year guess).

Okay - I can now understand your literalism. Genesis 2:18 ff - It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him. Now the Lord God formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creture, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the fied. (wonder how long that took). But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the mans ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib . . and he brought her to the man. Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. So to make the stories jive, Adam named all of the animals of the earth in less than a day so that he and Eve could be created on the 6th day. Got it.

It doesn't say that. Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning" Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and earth when they were created . . ." Even if it is more descriptive, how do you describe the differen chronologies? Go read it before you say that chapter 2 is just more descriptive. You have read something into it that is not there - that is not literalism. It is an assumption Chapter 2 is much less descriptive than chapter 1. Chapter 1 takes 31 verses to get creation completed Chapter 2 takes 24 and three of those verses are giving the names of Rivers in and around the "garden". First "Old Testament" class I took at Centre I had to write a compare and contrast paper on the "2 DIFFERENT CREATION STORIES".

Why no literalist response to the two different creation stories that are put forth in Genesis?

My statement was in regard to being proud to be in a minority regarding literalism of the Bible - which is a very new thing in Biblical Scholarship, only introduced in this century. For years no one even considered taking the Bible literally.

Only if you take the creation story in Genesis 1 literally. Now, if you take the creation story in Genesis 2 literally man was created before the animals. Of course to take the Bible literally you have to believe both - which is to say that God created animals before he created man before he created animals. Time line Genesis 1 Heavens and Earth Light sky land vegetation sun, moon, stars water animals birds livestock Man Time Line Genesis 2 Heavens and Earth streams man garden/maybe before man trees animals Eve now tell me how I take this book literally when I have two different time lines with two different orders of creation. If I am a literalists I cannot imply or infer meaning so . . . what do I do?

Yeah, who cares if a thousand years of biblical scholarship goes against what someone in the last 50 years has chosen to teach.

Are there no assumptions or faith used when reading the Bible? Honest to goodness - Do you realize that it is a minority of Christians who believe the Bible is literal, word for word? That was not even taught at the flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville until the mid 1990s It is not taught now in places like Truett (Baylor) and Mercer or at Wake Forest.

precisely:ylsuper:

Someone please point out the lies in "Sicko".

do you care to respond . . . What do you do with the 2 DIFFERENT stories of creation With the 2 DIFFERENT sermons on the mount With the 3 DIFFERENT stories of the crucifixion Withg the 3 DIFFERENT birth stories What do you do with Paul who preached and wrote that Jesus was coming back in his life time - Is Paul still living somewhere on and Island we don't know about, or was he wrong?? perhaps. Have you read the scripture that closely or have you let someone else tell you what it says. Matthew 25 - the story of the sheep and the goats says you go to heaven b/c your treat the poor nicely. It says nothing of believing in Jesus as the Savior. Jesus is telling this story, so what does that mean . . . If you take it literally?

You are talking of course about all of the horrible philanthropy that Rosie does? Check out her lifestyle, other than her lesbianism and see what she does with all of that money she makes. Sheesh.

I thought Joan or Arc was a martyr (burned at the stake:confused: )

So you don't take the quote from Jesus literally. I think it is pretty black and white and unless you "interpret" it, it says Anyone who breaks one of the least to these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. There is no way to spin it. It is black and white (and red in the Bible I am using now). What do you do with the 2 DIFFERENT stories of creation With the 2 DIFFERENT sermons on the mount With the 3 DIFFERENT stories of the crucifixion Withg the 3 DIFFERENT birth stories What do you do with Paul who preached and wrote that Jesus was coming back in his life time - Is Paul still living somewhere on and Island we don't know about, or was he wrong?? perhaps. Have you read the scripture that closely or have you let someone else tell you what it says. Matthew 25 - the story of the sheep and the goats says you go to heaven b/c your treat the poor nicely. It says nothing of believing in Jesus as the Savior. Jesus is telling this story, so what does that mean . . . If you take it literally?

Women with smaller hips used to not be able to have babies - of course not all women . . . and for the record - i grabbed several silly examples to make a point - there is change that takes place over time regardless or what pushes that change.

Then attack his points where you find falsehoods. Don't call him a mooch who lives off his parents and then complains to them. It is a poor analogy.