History of the Bible for 3rd Graders

Comments

7 responses to “History of the Bible for 3rd Graders”

1. 

   February 1, 2011

   JimII

   I really think kids pick up on what we are passionate about. At Chalice Christian in Gilbert, AZ we work hard to rotate people every three years, including Sunday School teachers. I think the young people really benefit from having people with different strengths teach them.

   P.S. I love the people graphic. Very cool.

   Reply
   1. 

      February 2, 2011

      Henry Neufeld

      The kids loved the people graphic. I was worried about that, because I used a very simple icon. But they were impressed as the icons got smaller and smaller and filled the field of the slide.

      But they were even more excited about the small section of Sinaiticus that I showed, and the discussion of copying.

      Reply
2. 

   February 20, 2011

   Kristofer K Moore

   May I ask what is your theological standpoint? (i.e. born-again Christian, Catholic, etc.); and also your soteriological viewpoint if you have one (wesleyan-arminian or calvin)? And finally, are you an adherent to the Egyptian Text Style or the Byzantine Text Style? Thank you,
   Kris

   Reply
   1. 

      February 21, 2011

      Henry Neufeld

      Those are interesting questions for the length of a comment. Short answers —

      I am a Christian falling within the bounds of orthodoxy. I’m a member of a United Methodist congregation.

      I’m largely Wesleyan in my soteriology though with some exceptions.

      I would take neither the Egyptian nor the Byzantine text as definitive; I take an eclectic approach to textual criticism.

      Reply
3. 

   February 24, 2011

   Kristofer K Moore

   I truly appreciate your response to the textual criticism question. I am happy to hear that someone still respects the Byzantine text type (I hope that is what you meant). I think simply looking at the oldest ones in existence is not a definitive approach, and I think that the Byzantine Text type possibly represents a preserved ancient tradition of copying, based on the greek-speaking copyists’ expertise.

   However, I have to say that the word ‘orthodox’ is a dying word in Christianity. Who is the Orthodox church today? This word was useful before 451AD (before the major split between Orthodox Christianity, i.e. The Oriental Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church). From then on, either church could claim to be orthodox, while they both had differences of opinion. How much greater are the number of differences within the Christian Church today? There were even differences in the early Christian Church between Paul and the other 12 Lord’s apostles. Galatians is a very good reference to this, as well as Act 21:25. In the verses leading up to this verse, the elders at Jerusalem gave Paul instructions to prove to the believing jews that he was an observing jew, but then said, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

   Paul related in Galatians that he preached his Gospel to the gentiles, indicating according to Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard in their “Introduction to Biblical Interpretation” that there were two gospels: one to the jews and one to the gentiles. Since that time, it seems to me that the Gospel takes on different forms among different cultures and people groups within the gentile category. There are differences of opinion within different Christian denominations, but Paul said that some would say they could eat meat, and some would say, no. Some would honor a day in the name of giving glory to God, and another would not honor a day in order to give glory to God.

   My point is this, though some teachings may vary from one denomination to another, soteriology is the key doctrine that must not be altered from that which was taught by Jesus and His Apostles. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. This is the doctrine that should be most carefully be studied. I fear that your exceptions to the Wesleyan Arminian teaching that you subscribe to are that you believe in total depravity of all men to include the redeemed, and you believe in the perseverance of the saints, meaning the saved (elect) do not have to worry about dying and going to hell for going back into a life of habitual sin, because God will give them a chance to repent before they die.

   Reply
   1. 

      February 25, 2011

      Henry Neufeld

      A couple of points …

      Regarding the Byzantine text, I believe I respect it, but I wouldn’t follow it absolutely. I like geographical diversity in the manuscripts supporting a reading, so I’m not going to reject it automatically.

      No, you haven’t found the points on which I differ with Wesleyan-Arminian doctrine. I tend more toward the eastern view of theosis with a certain acceptance for openness theology, because I believe very few of our Christian expressions do justice to the cases in which God “repents” in the Old Testament.

      So no, I don’t believe in the perseverance of the saints, and my view of total depravity probably differs from Calvinism more than does Arminianism. But sometimes I miss the nuances of the various positions. I believe we are incapable of saving ourselves, but that God makes salvation available to all.

      Reply
4. 

   February 25, 2011

   Tyson

   Hi Henry,

   Would you consider sharing your presentation as a resource for others to use? Is it in PowerPoint format? I, for one, might like to borrow this for our church.

   Thank you.

   Reply