CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Azier the Swordsman wrote:Don't forget that every version other than the old King James Version has been corrupted by Satan.... and desigend to turn you away from God. Check this pile of hogwash out.... http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

I...I can't even think of words to describe this...this load of...I can't even say the word on CAA...but that's what it is...

Somebody needs to send these people a friggin' clue... ><

To think I've been corrupted by the evil of the NIV all of my life. I'm going to burn my edition of the NASB immediately.

Do I sense sarcasm? It is interesting, if not all the way true... I don't really trust those "paraphrases" though. The Message is interesting, but not the true Word of God. His people of today made it and it sometimes doesn't even follow....yeah

kaemmerite wrote:I...I can't even think of words to describe this...this load of...I can't even say the word on CAA...but that's what it is...

Somebody needs to send these people a friggin' clue... ><

Well it's never been hard to find lunatics on the internet. Then again, Chick's clownish conspiracy theories, incompetent history and open bigotry actually seem to have a following in some places.

That history isn't likely to be accurate.... and besides, God is extremely serious when it comes to changing his Word around..... if the other versions were "corrupted", God would never allow them to be used by true Christians.

And don't forget, Jack Chick is generally known to be a legalistic hack anyways..... you know, the kind that preaches 'turn or burn, if you listen to rock you are going to hell, ect'.

Azier the Swordsman wrote:That history isn't likely to be accurate....

Oh, it isn't. We're learning about this stuff in my Western Civ class. That pamphlet made it look like England was a bunch of heroes who denied the "evil" pope in that tract, but in reality, England separated from the Catholic Church because Henry VIII got tired of his wife and wanted an annullment. Knowing the Pope wouldn't give him one for political reasons, he decided to start his own church. Some "hero." XP

Well, I'm not going to let those pamphlets bother me, because those do have inaccurate information on it. Sometimes I think they over emphasise (spelling) on certain topics.

But them saying that about the N.I.V. version, that's a load of CRAPOLA! I use the N.I.V. and so does my dad, and he's an ordained minister going for a doctrine in Greek and Hebrew.

Try and explain THAT Jack Chick? Tell me how the N.I.V. doesn't say that people can get to where God wants them to be with His help?

What I think about him is he's an assumtuous (spelling) guy.

Did you know the NIV supports the gap theory? The gap theory states that between verse one and two there were millions of years of evolution and "primitive" races before Adam and Eve. Which clearly contradicts Adam as the beginning of creation (mankind that is). The language of the NIV is really understandable, but they changed a few things around that shouldn't have been (none should have been). The KJV is the best, but it's hard to understand sometimes. I always read the Russian Synodal Version, it's the old one, but I understand it quite well. I use the KJV for comparison, or when I come accross something I don't really understand in the Synodal Version.

anime4christ wrote:Did you know the NIV supports the gap theory? The gap theory states that between verse one and two there were millions of years of evolution and "primitive" races before Adam and Eve. Which clearly contradicts Adam as the beginning of creation (mankind that is). The language of the NIV is really understandable, but they changed a few things around that shouldn't have been (none should have been). The KJV is the best, but it's hard to understand sometimes. I always read the Russian Synodal Version, it's the old one, but I understand it quite well. I use the KJV for comparison, or when I come accross something I don't really understand in the Synodal Version.

The NIV is more accurate actually. The KJV changed things around for readability. (That's why the KJV has verses not in the NIV... they never existed in the first place) Second, I have never seen anything in my NIV that supports the 'gap' theory. (I assume you are referencing Gen 1:1-2 right?) And third, the KJV is just a headache to read. *waiting for Technomancer to comment*

Well, I guess I could say something since you asked . I've never seriously looked at either translation in it's ins and outs- neither of them are Catholic bibles. I *expect* that the greater linguistic and historical knowledge available to modern day scholars would have resulted in a better translation over all though for the NIV. That said, the two different approaches to translation that the two bible versions exemplify are not always directly comparable. A truly literal translation is accurate in one sense, but may leave out information important to the reader (e.g. idioms, euphemisims and so forth), which another approach might better convey.

PS. I have no idea about the NIV and "gap" theory, as I've never read the translation. Since I'm not a literalist in that regard anyways it scarcely matters.

PPS. I will also admit that I quite like the poetical, if not doctrinal value of the KJV.

I know the KJV is hard to read, that's one of the reasons why I read the RUSSV. Yes the first to verses is what I'm talking about. The translaters of the NIV believed in the gap theory, look at the footnote.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was* formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
________________________________________________
*Or possibly became

Technomancer wrote:PPS. I will also admit that I quite like the poetical, if not doctrinal value of the KJV.

Me, too. I refute the KJV as the best/only/most accurate translation, but I still believe it is the inspired Word of God and it does flow quite nicely. It's rather melodic to read.

Anywho, the NASB is the most literal translation. But that doesn't necessarily make it the best, either. As Technomancer pointed out, literal translations can lead to misunderstandings because the meanings of figures of speach may be lost.

Most modern translations had a much greater volume of ancient texts to draw upon then the KJV did. The KJV actually depended on translations of the Bible as opposed to the original language scripts.

I am not a literalist or a legalist, so it doesn't much matter to me. I have not seen evidence otherwise, so I believe all of the translations in use today were made by those honestly seeking to do the will of the Lord, so they are all still God-breathed and useful for teaching.

I don't know enough about the gap theory to comment on it.

I've never heard of the gap theory myself... but I once heard some kind of theory that the dinosaurs once inhabited the world till they were wiped out and Genesis began..... but there is really no way of telling. We really don't know for a fact what the Earth or the Universe was like before Genesis, because there were no humans back then and God never told us. I do not believe, however, there was intelligent life on Earth before Genesis.

There was no Earth before Genesis.

but I once heard some kind of theory that the dinosaurs once inhabited the world till they were wiped out and Genesis began

That is part of the gap theory.
I do not belive in the gap theory or theistic evolution. period. I believe the world and everything on it was created about 6000 years ago in 6 literal days. I believe dinosaurs were also created and always lived with man and a few may still be alive today (like Loch Ness Monster, Champ, etc.).
see http://www.drdino.com
And go ahead and laugh if you want.

You won't see me laughing, at least not out of spite. I personally believe man and dinosaurs coexisted. However, some here do not. I, for one, do not want to get into that kind of discussion in this thread.

We should reserve this thread for discussions about the Bible itself and not theories about what happened between its lines.

I agree, cuz I don't think anything happened between it's lines!

anime4christ wrote:There was no Earth before Genesis.

We don't really know that for a fact.... it's true God 'created' the Earth in six days, but it could have been originally just another lifeless planet like the others in our galaxy that he chose to reform into the Earth....

We don't know when during the point of creation God started working on the Earth, if it was immediately after creating the Earth, if he later got back to the Earth, or ect. We think of the creation of the Earth as the absolute beginning because it's where OUR history begins.... but God's been around forever; so there is really no telling what he's done with the Universe before Genesis. We will just have to wait and find out.

Exactly, God's been around forever cuz He duzn't have time, that's y He's not old. We're the ones that are stuck in time. If u read the Bible carefully, u'll notice that God has different dimensions then we do. So that's y u can't ask "what was God doing millions of years b4 He created the Earth?", cuz there was no time b4 He made us. U see, "Once upon a time, there was a time, when there was no time." In Genesis, God made matter and created Earth, so the Earth is only about 6000 yrs old. If u need to interpret "God created the heavens and the Earth" into something else, then u'r creating a cult, so plz don't do that. That verse is the literal meaning of what it says. U see, the coal and oil couldn't stand under so much pressure for more then 10,000 yrs, so obviously it's younger. Real science backs up Genesis 100%!

There is in fact a considerable diversity of opinion with respect to how the bible should be interpreted. This is far from "cultish", and is in fact well supported by respected theologians. There is rather less diversity with respect to scientific opinions however, which rightly constrain how we understand the bible.

For some useful links, please see

The late pope's statement on evolution:
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

American Scientific Affiliation (Christian scientists and their thoughts)
http://www.origins.org/mc/resources/pope.html

Creation and Thomistic thinking (an excellent aricle, highly recommended)
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html

TalkOrigins (an excellent site dedicated to the scientific issues)
http://www.talkorigins.org

By way of changing the subject has anyone read Thomas Cahill's 'The Gifts of the Jews'?. I finished it recently, and thought it an excellent look at the historical development of the Old Testament and its revealing of God.

Heh...I don't believe those people who say that Genesis was not literal. It's not like Revelation, which is a vision. If it says that God created the heavens and earth, then he did. It couldn' be there without him. That is taking away from His power...and that I hate. Our whole lives are centered around adding to God's glory as Christians.

It's not a matter of questioning Genesis's truth, it's a matter of questioning its...well, I can't think of the word. But, for example, if I were to say,

My pet, Gracie, is a mammal.

That would be a true statement. But there are thousands of species that are classified as mammals, so telling you that Gracie is a mammal is not very descriptive, now is it?

It's the same with Genesis. It is 100% true, but is it descriptive? Hardly. The word "day" could mean any amount of time,

For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

To quote Psalms 90:4.

Hmm, I feel like I've had this discussion before.

Real science backs up Genesis 100%!

Define "real science." Most National Geographic articles and other scientific journals state that the earth is billions of years old, which you obviously disagree with. You could respond by saying, "Well that isn't real science!" So then is real science defined by what you believe to be true, and all evidence to the contrary is discarded?

If that's what everyone took "real science" to be, then we'd still believe that the sun revolved around the earth, and that it was flat. That was accepted fact for many years. But science has since shed new light on the subject. In fact, those who stated that the earth revolved around the sun were branded "heretics" because many people of faith stated that the Bible supports a geocentric solar system with a flat earth. It was a misinterpretation, most people of this day and age would say, but then again, that's what I'm saying about a literal six-day creation.

If I may quote Mystery Science Theater 3000...

"Fine! I admit the superiority of your unprovable theory over my unprovable theory!"

Thats a great quote kamm. I'll have to remember that one.

What I wanted to add was that really the more important issue here is WHY God made the earth and humanity, not HOW he did it, be that he did it through special creation, evolution, or a mixture of both, is not the central issue. Its fun to discuss it and all, but let us not lose focus on the real point here. The fact that the Father made the earth and its inhabitants to glorify his Son, according to his will.

Chapter one is the account of Creation and Chapter 2 is just a more detailed account of it. I don't believe in the gap theory, but I can see that some people do when they don't put their trust in the Lord. I take Genesis to be literally a 6 (24 hour) day creation and one day of rest. Anime4Christ, God is outside of time so there is probably no relevance to what He was doing before He created anything. Its beyond our comprehension but it is interesting to think about.

kaemmerite wrote:It's the same with Genesis. It is 100% true, but is it descriptive? Hardly. The word "day" could mean any amount of time,

For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

To quote Psalms 90:4.

That's funny, I can imagine it now the plants surviving a thousand years without the sun! The plants were made before the sun, so thay had to be literal days.

kaemmerite wrote:Define "real science." Most National Geographic articles and other scientific journals state that the earth is billions of years old, which you obviously disagree with. You could respond by saying, "Well that isn't real science!" So then is real science defined by what you believe to be true, and all evidence to the contrary is discarded?

[quote]Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method), a global community of scholars, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process and carried by this community (and others). Natural sciences study nature]
Science is what can be tested in the labs. Evolution can not, in fact evolution isn't even a valid scientific theory, it's a stupid religion. Look up religion in the dictionary.

anime4christ wrote:That's funny, I can imagine it now the plants surviving a thousand years without the sun! The plants were made before the sun, so thay had to be literal days.

They weren't made before the light, though. Light was made before plants.

And plants CAN survive without the sun. There ARE plants on the ocean bottom, thousands upon thousands of feet below the surface of the water, where the sun cannot reach. So yes, they CAN survive without the sun.

Isn't science fun?

Science is what can be tested in the labs. Evolution can not, in fact evolution isn't even a valid scientific theory, it's a stupid religion. Look up religion in the dictionary.

First of all, you said that "real science agrees with Genesis." However, creation cannot be tested in a lab. You've just contradicted yourself.

Evolution IS a valid scientific theory, if you've read enough about it. Technomancer is the site's "evolution expert," more or less, and he can attest to the fact that evolution IS widely accepted by most scientists. In fact, it's accepted by a lot of Christians too. Ever heard of "theistic evolutionists?"

Thats a great quote kamm. I'll have to remember that one.

Thank you. I just like how people get bent out of shape over something that cannot be proven one way or another. I don't mind if someone wants to debate evolution or YEC, but at least have done research on it and have some valid points to refute an argument.

What I wanted to add was that really the more important issue here is WHY God made the earth and humanity, not HOW he did it, be that he did it through special creation, evolution, or a mixture of both, is not the central issue. Its fun to discuss it and all, but let us not lose focus on the real point here. The fact that the Father made the earth and its inhabitants to glorify his Son, according to his will.

Zane. You get 1,000,000 cool points.

My pastor is doing a ten week sermon series on Genesis. I liked the quote he said at the beginning of the first sermon.

"Genesis is not a story of creation. It is not a story of humanity's fall. It is not a moral story. It is not a history lesson. Genesis is a story about GOD. To reduce Genesis to anything else is to miss its point entirely."

oro!girl7 wrote:If it says that God created the heavens and earth, then he did. It couldn' be there without him. That is taking away from His power...and that I hate. Our whole lives are centered around adding to God's glory as Christians.

Stating that the creation story in Genesis is not literal, is not the same as denying God's action but rather changes how that action is understood. The article that I linked to regarding St. Thomas Aquinas and causation explains this idea quite well and is worth reading if you have the time.

Science is what can be tested in the labs. Evolution can not, in fact evolution isn't even a valid scientific theory, it's a stupid religion. Look up religion in the dictionary.

This is in fact wrong. The principal mechanisms of evolution: mutation and natural/artificial selection are well observable both in the lab and in the wild. In fact, observing speciation (the appearance of new species) is nothing new and is well documented in the scientific literature. Of course, other aspects of evolutionary theory such as common descent are testable using genetics. Moreover, all claims must be evaluated rigorously through peer-review.

In addition, since evolutionary theory makes no claims about the existence of God, of the soul or any sort of morality it certainly can't be thought of as a religion. As well, since the scientists who accept the theory come from a variety of religious backgrounds including Christianity it hardly seems to have anything to do with the spiritual side of human existence. Remember just because a theory may affect certain religious claims, that does not make the theory a religious position. I do recommend that you peruse the links that I provided earlier, since you may find some useful information.

As far as belief and Genesis goes, no I don't hold to a literal interpretation at all for the simple reason that it doesn't match what we actually see in the world. This doesn't pose any great problem for Christianity since the idea of such a reading of the book has been acceptable for far longer than any current theories have been. The ancient Hebrews were in any case hardly a scientifically sophisticated people so it makes sense that God would speak to them in a way they could understand and relate to as human beings and in the context of their culture.

Technomancer wrote:The article that I linked to regarding St. Thomas Aquinas and causation explains this idea quite well and is worth reading if you have the time.

Thank you, Technomancer, that was very informative. Two quotes stuck out in my mind:

A master principle which informs Aquinas' analysis of creation is that the truths of science cannot contradict the truths of faith. God is the author of all truth and whatever reason discovers to be true about reality ought not to be challenged by an appeal to sacred texts.

For example, when one reads in the Bible that God stretches out His hand, one ought not to think that God has a hand. The literal meaning of such passages concerns God's power, not His anatomy.

Also...

The ancient Hebrews were in any case hardly a scientifically sophisticated people so it makes sense that God would speak to them in a way they could understand and relate to as human beings and in the context of their culture.

Right. When they talk about the moon and sun, for example, and the moon is referred to as "the lesser light." As most people know, the moon cannot shine on its own. It is a reflection (or refraction, always get those two mixed up) of the sun's rays off of its surface that gives the moon its shine. If the sun were to vanish, the moon would cease to appear in the night sky. Now, would the ancient Hebrews, being slaves without a formal education, understand this phenomena? No, of course not. So, to make it easier to understand, the moon was referred to as a "lesser light," even though the moon has no light of its own.

Thus ends Nate's astronomy class.

If you're talking about seaweed, it is not a plant, it's algea. Plants with chlorophil cannot survive thousands of years without light. And evolution is a stupid religion designed to remove God. A religion is what u believe created evrything, that's what evoultion is. Ever heard of Dr. Hovind? http://drdino.com Oh, and theistic evolution makes God seem small. U see, my God didn't have to experiment with millions of years of death and suffering like the "theistic evolution god", my God got it right the first time and literally told how he did it. Plus, doing it literally the way Genesis says would make my God more powerful. If you believe in theistic evolution, let's not argue about it because I believe in a completely different God. Mine did it six literal days and is far more powerful that the "theistic evolution god". So let's not argue, okay? Thank you.

Whatever. Read the links I provided, and better yet maybe some actual science so that you can understand the subject instead of posting links to well-known frauds like Hovind. I've got a neural networks assignment to finish.

Frauds? Do u have any idea how many ppl got saved thru his ministry? God doesn't use frauds to do his work! (at least mine doesn't)