Our Christian foundation is what makes our university unique. This is the place to bring prayer requests, discuss theological issues and how to become better Champions for Christ.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#472772
There really isn't anything valid in this article. It has been thoroughly destroyed by several actual scholars (which the author of the piece is not).

http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-p ... le-part-1/

http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-g ... le-part-2/

http://danielbwallace.com/2014/12/28/pr ... the-bible/

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/ ... its-a-sin/

[youtube]
[/youtube]


Also, regarding Newsweek:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/201 ... -jang.html
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#472774
He's basically regurgitating poorly-crafted and already-disputed Bart Ehrman arguments which he himself doesn't actually understand. It's just really bad all the way through.

I will say that he makes one good point, that lay Christians don't know their Bible well enough, don't know the history of the church at all, and haven't equipped themselves to defend Scripture against attacks like this. I know that sounds like three points, but it's really one.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#472783
So you're saying he doesn't make a valid point, but then that he does? :-P

(I'm just giving you a hard time). I'll agree that Christians don't know the Bible well enough or the hx of the church.
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#472789
If you google Kurt Eichenwald, you can tell the guy really really hates conservatives.

James White is finishing up another 90 minutes today analyzing the article. He's invited Eichenwald to call in, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. These guys never go face to face with people who actually know what they're talking about. Just look at Matthew Vines.
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#472792
ALUmnus wrote:If you google Kurt Eichenwald, you can tell the guy really really hates conservatives.

James White is finishing up another 90 minutes today analyzing the article. He's invited Eichenwald to call in, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. These guys never go face to face with people who actually know what they're talking about. Just look at Matthew Vines.
I believe Matthew Vines did go against Michael Brown, unless you were including him in those who don't actually know what they're talking about. Although there are people on the other side of THAT specific debate who also don't go head-to-head with others like Peter LaBarbera.
User avatar
By PAmedic
Registration Days Posts
#472807
I thought a lot of it was quite plausible.

Then again, I'm not what you'd call a fundamentalist

I'm interested to read through those rebuttals
User avatar
By Kiwon
Posts
#472811
PAmedic wrote:I thought a lot of it was quite plausible.

Then again, I'm not what you'd call a fundamentalist

I'm interested to read through those rebuttals
Just curious, what's your definition of "fundamentalist?"
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#472819
The thing about the rebuttals that stands out to me, at least in Albert Mohler's, is that even though there were no sentences/spacing in koine Greek, that they know what it means by context. And thus, when things are taken out of context (or alleged to be), you get misinterpretation/misapplication on a whole host of issues (not just homosexuality).
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#472989
ATrain wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/that ... 94018.html

Long read, anyone want to do any fact checking? It is obviously written with a bias, but some points do appear to be valid.
My biggest problem is the author claims that Evagelicals haven't read the 'real' Bible. Or even the 'current' Bible. It is obvious that the author HASNT read it.
I though Mohlers rebuttals were solid but I would have taken the Greek argument in a different direction. Basically, English sentence structure and Greek were/are different. So the 'run on sentence' argument leading to misinterpretation is not very strong. His inability to descern Moral and Ceremonial law in the Old Testament is also evident. Finally, he seemingly confuses a Translation from a Paraphrase. No one would argue that The Living Bible is more true to the original than The Revised Standard Version.
For this article to be better it would have been a good idea to get translation experts from both sides to lay out his case. Even throw in a Rabbi or Jewish scholar to rebut the Evangelical view of the OT.
In short, I didn't see any valid points, a hit piece and something I would have read in my under grad theology class.
By flamehunter
Registration Days Posts
#473025
But how many people are going to read it and accept it at face value? Damage done, truth not necessary. This is the battle we face and it will only get worse, I'm afraid.
User avatar
By NotAJerry
Registration Days Posts
#473044
flamehunter wrote:But how many people are going to read it and accept it at face value? Damage done, truth not necessary. This is the battle we face and it will only get worse, I'm afraid.
Nobody reads Newsweek.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#473049
BJWilliams wrote:Im surprised its still in publication frankly
The Bible? Still money to be made selling those :twisted:

If you mean Newsweek, they ceased print publication awhile ago, but have since been bought and this was their first 'new' print publication since then
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#473063
Purple Haize wrote:
ATrain wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/that ... 94018.html

Long read, anyone want to do any fact checking? It is obviously written with a bias, but some points do appear to be valid.
My biggest problem is the author claims that Evagelicals haven't read the 'real' Bible. Or even the 'current' Bible. It is obvious that the author HASNT read it.
I though Mohlers rebuttals were solid but I would have taken the Greek argument in a different direction. Basically, English sentence structure and Greek were/are different. So the 'run on sentence' argument leading to misinterpretation is not very strong. His inability to descern Moral and Ceremonial law in the Old Testament is also evident. Finally, he seemingly confuses a Translation from a Paraphrase. No one would argue that The Living Bible is more true to the original than The Revised Standard Version.
For this article to be better it would have been a good idea to get translation experts from both sides to lay out his case. Even throw in a Rabbi or Jewish scholar to rebut the Evangelical view of the OT.
In short, I didn't see any valid points, a hit piece and something I would have read in my under grad theology class.
I am going to disagree that the "run-on," sentence argument isn't valid/very strong. I'm not just referring to the author's views on homosexuality, but continuous debates within Christianity as a whole: drinking, women in ministry, predestination v. free will, etc...
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#473067
ATrain wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
ATrain wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/that ... 94018.html

Long read, anyone want to do any fact checking? It is obviously written with a bias, but some points do appear to be valid.
My biggest problem is the author claims that Evagelicals haven't read the 'real' Bible. Or even the 'current' Bible. It is obvious that the author HASNT read it.
I though Mohlers rebuttals were solid but I would have taken the Greek argument in a different direction. Basically, English sentence structure and Greek were/are different. So the 'run on sentence' argument leading to misinterpretation is not very strong. His inability to descern Moral and Ceremonial law in the Old Testament is also evident. Finally, he seemingly confuses a Translation from a Paraphrase. No one would argue that The Living Bible is more true to the original than The Revised Standard Version.
For this article to be better it would have been a good idea to get translation experts from both sides to lay out his case. Even throw in a Rabbi or Jewish scholar to rebut the Evangelical view of the OT.
In short, I didn't see any valid points, a hit piece and something I would have read in my under grad theology class.
I am going to disagree that the "run-on," sentence argument isn't valid/very strong. I'm not just referring to the author's views on homosexuality, but continuous debates within Christianity as a whole: drinking, women in ministry, predestination v. free will, etc...
Grasping the different sentence structure was the most difficult thing to adjust to studying Greek. What you bring up regarding Predestination etc have little to do with Grammatical context. It's not seeing the forest for the trees. When the minutia of translation gets convoluted it's best to take a step back and look at the whole body of work.
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#473068
ATrain wrote:
ALUmnus wrote:If you google Kurt Eichenwald, you can tell the guy really really hates conservatives.

James White is finishing up another 90 minutes today analyzing the article. He's invited Eichenwald to call in, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. These guys never go face to face with people who actually know what they're talking about. Just look at Matthew Vines.
I believe Matthew Vines did go against Michael Brown, unless you were including him in those who don't actually know what they're talking about. Although there are people on the other side of THAT specific debate who also don't go head-to-head with others like Peter LaBarbera.
I watched the Vines-Brown deal back when it happened. Vines was not prepared for it to be a debate (and even said so, thought he was going on the show for a different reason), and Brown is someone who will monopolize all the airtime unless you have a moderated debate. So it was just an overall mess. I've never heard of LaBarbera, but there have been plenty of calls for formal debates from evangelicals, and no response. Actually, Doug Wilson, Matt Lee Anderson, and Sherif Girgis have been able to have a few, but those have been more philosophical and less so Biblical.

And regarding the translation points, I'd read Wallace and Kruger, and listen to White (all of which I linked to). That's not Mohler's area of expertise. These things have been refuted over and over again, and are not new arguments. It's just that only one side gets any coverage.

Here is Part 2 of James White's response:
[youtube]
[/youtube]
By ATrain
Registration Days Posts
#473070
LaBarbera is the founder of AFTAH...his website is full of disgusting images from the most fringe elements of LGBT culture. Will happily attend IML, Folsom Street Fair, roam the streets of Boystown in Chicago, etc...but won't come, even with the guarantee of anonymity, to a gay Christian conference in his hometown of Chicago.

I didn't watch the Vines-Brown debate, I just know it occurred. No idea who Wilson, Anderson and Girgis are.
User avatar
By LUminary
Registration Days Posts
#473092
flamehunter wrote:But how many people are going to read it and accept it at face value? Damage done, truth not necessary. This is the battle we face and it will only get worse, I'm afraid.
That's the sad truth.
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas b[…]

There’s a cerebral side to the game, which M[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]