<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for CCUC Worship Arts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wam.ccuc.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wam.ccuc.net</link>
	<description>Showing God&#039;s people the most excellent way</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 05:28:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. by James </title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/07/for-yours-is-the-kingdom-and-the-power-and-the-glory-forever-amen/comment-page-1/#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>James </dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 05:28:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=717#comment-476</guid>
		<description>Also, though there may have been a few minor copy errors over the centuries, these are often just updates in grammar, etc.  That is, the Bible we have is substantially equivalent to the original manuscript.  Not only that, but the Bible stands distinctly apart from other old books of its age.  That is, compared to other old books such as the Illiad and the Odyssey, the Bible shows itself amazingly far more accurate from a textual evidence perspective.  For a popular level discussion, I&#039;ve always enjoyed the section from Josh McDowell&#039;s &quot;A Ready Defense&quot;.   
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.christianbook.com/a-ready-defense-josh-mcdowell/9780840744197/pd/42816?item_code=WW&amp;netp_id=121095&amp;event=PPCSRC&amp;view=details&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://www.christianbook.com/a-ready-defense-josh...&lt;/a&gt; 
 
For a more academic reading, I find Beale&#039;s &quot;The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism&quot; to be an excellent presentation of evidence for the inerrancy of scripture.   
  &lt;a href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=jpLHcaKXD5IC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=inerrancy&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=kzpBTNOZMZXVnged-N3EDw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://books.google.com/books?id=jpLHcaKXD5IC&amp;amp...&lt;/a&gt; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, though there may have been a few minor copy errors over the centuries, these are often just updates in grammar, etc.  That is, the Bible we have is substantially equivalent to the original manuscript.  Not only that, but the Bible stands distinctly apart from other old books of its age.  That is, compared to other old books such as the Illiad and the Odyssey, the Bible shows itself amazingly far more accurate from a textual evidence perspective.  For a popular level discussion, I&#039;ve always enjoyed the section from Josh McDowell&#039;s &quot;A Ready Defense&quot;.<br />
  <a href="http://www.christianbook.com/a-ready-defense-josh-mcdowell/9780840744197/pd/42816?item_code=WW&amp;netp_id=121095&amp;event=PPCSRC&amp;view=details" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.christianbook.com/a-ready-defense-josh.." rel="nofollow">http://www.christianbook.com/a-ready-defense-josh..</a>. </p>
<p>For a more academic reading, I find Beale&#039;s &quot;The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism&quot; to be an excellent presentation of evidence for the inerrancy of scripture.<br />
  <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=jpLHcaKXD5IC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=inerrancy&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=kzpBTNOZMZXVnged-N3EDw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=jpLHcaKXD5IC&#038;amp.." rel="nofollow">http://books.google.com/books?id=jpLHcaKXD5IC&#038;amp..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. by maggie</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/07/for-yours-is-the-kingdom-and-the-power-and-the-glory-forever-amen/comment-page-1/#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>maggie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=717#comment-474</guid>
		<description>I never knew that extra bit until praying it in a non-Catholic church. When I learned it in a Catholic church (way back when I was a child), it just ended, &quot;. . . deliver us from evil. Amen.&quot; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I never knew that extra bit until praying it in a non-Catholic church. When I learned it in a Catholic church (way back when I was a child), it just ended, &quot;. . . deliver us from evil. Amen.&quot;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. by Pastor Green</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/07/for-yours-is-the-kingdom-and-the-power-and-the-glory-forever-amen/comment-page-1/#comment-473</link>
		<dc:creator>Pastor Green</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=717#comment-473</guid>
		<description>This is an issue of identifying the most likely original text from all of the different handwritten Greek manuscripts we have (there are thousands).  
 
As you know, the Bible was handwritten and hand copied for centuries. This led to copying errors. Some are simple to understand, such as the copyist skipped a line, used a different spelling, or updated the copy to reflect different grammar. For example, would you copy: &#8220;Doest the Lord speakest thusly?&#8221; or change it to read, &#8220;Does the Lord talk like this?&#8221;  
 
When making a handwritten copy, errors are inevitable. It is remarkable not that we have such errors, but how few there are. Those copying the Bible were generally very careful to be accurate. The invention of the printing press and the first major book printed using movable type, the Gutenberg Bible, did not occur until the 1450s. Yet, even printed books have errors, just fewer of them.  
 
The field of study that scholars use to decide which ancient manuscript is most likely to not have been changed is known as Textual Criticism. It is a lot of work to learn the rules for textual criticism and then to examine all of the variants and finally make a decision that can be explained to other scholars as to what the most likely original reading is.  
 
A much easier way for you to get a handle on a particular passage is to use the notes on the NET Bible. Note 19, for Matthew 6:13, follows. (The various ancient manuscripts are identified by the letters and numbers in parenthesis.) What matters to you is the conclusion, &#8220;The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading.&#8221;   
 
19 tc Most mss (L W &#920; 0233 &#203;13 33 &#207; sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅ&#964;&#953; &#963;&#959;ῦ ἐ&#963;&#964;&#953;&#957; ἡ &#946;&#945;&#963;&#953;&#955;&#949;ί&#945; &#954;&#945;ὶ ἡ &#948;ύ&#957;&#945;&#956;&#953;&#962; &#954;&#945;ὶ ἡ &#948;ό&#958;&#945; &#949;ἰ&#962; &#964;&#959;ὺ&#962; &#945;ἰῶ&#957;&#945;&#962;, ἀ&#956;ή&#957; (&#8220;for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen&#8221;) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 &#203;1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading. 
 
Source: &lt;a href=&quot;http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&amp;chapter=6#v19&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&amp;chapt...&lt;/a&gt; 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an issue of identifying the most likely original text from all of the different handwritten Greek manuscripts we have (there are thousands).  </p>
<p>As you know, the Bible was handwritten and hand copied for centuries. This led to copying errors. Some are simple to understand, such as the copyist skipped a line, used a different spelling, or updated the copy to reflect different grammar. For example, would you copy: &ldquo;Doest the Lord speakest thusly?&rdquo; or change it to read, &ldquo;Does the Lord talk like this?&rdquo;  </p>
<p>When making a handwritten copy, errors are inevitable. It is remarkable not that we have such errors, but how few there are. Those copying the Bible were generally very careful to be accurate. The invention of the printing press and the first major book printed using movable type, the Gutenberg Bible, did not occur until the 1450s. Yet, even printed books have errors, just fewer of them.  </p>
<p>The field of study that scholars use to decide which ancient manuscript is most likely to not have been changed is known as Textual Criticism. It is a lot of work to learn the rules for textual criticism and then to examine all of the variants and finally make a decision that can be explained to other scholars as to what the most likely original reading is.  </p>
<p>A much easier way for you to get a handle on a particular passage is to use the notes on the NET Bible. Note 19, for Matthew 6:13, follows. (The various ancient manuscripts are identified by the letters and numbers in parenthesis.) What matters to you is the conclusion, &ldquo;The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading.&rdquo;   </p>
<p>19 tc Most mss (L W &Theta; 0233 &Euml;13 33 &Iuml; sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅ&tau;&iota; &sigma;&omicron;ῦ ἐ&sigma;&tau;&iota;&nu; ἡ &beta;&alpha;&sigma;&iota;&lambda;&epsilon;ί&alpha; &kappa;&alpha;ὶ ἡ &delta;ύ&nu;&alpha;&mu;&iota;&sigmaf; &kappa;&alpha;ὶ ἡ &delta;ό&xi;&alpha; &epsilon;ἰ&sigmaf; &tau;&omicron;ὺ&sigmaf; &alpha;ἰῶ&nu;&alpha;&sigmaf;, ἀ&mu;ή&nu; (&ldquo;for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen&rdquo;) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 &Euml;1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading. </p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&amp;chapter=6#v19" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&amp;chapt.." rel="nofollow">http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Mat&amp;chapt..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. by Tweets that mention » For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/07/for-yours-is-the-kingdom-and-the-power-and-the-glory-forever-amen/comment-page-1/#comment-472</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention » For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=717#comment-472</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Hong. Hans Hong said: RT @ccuc_wam: New post: For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. http://bit.ly/bg80fI [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans Hong. Hans Hong said: RT @ccuc_wam: New post: For Yours is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever. Amen. <a href="http://bit.ly/bg80fI" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/bg80fI</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jesus Day 06-05-2010 by Tweets that mention » Jesus Day 06-05-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/06/jesus-day-06-05-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-465</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention » Jesus Day 06-05-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 03:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=691#comment-465</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans H, CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Jesus Day 06-05-2010 http://bit.ly/aaqRR7 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans H, CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Jesus Day 06-05-2010 <a href="http://bit.ly/aaqRR7" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/aaqRR7</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Farewell, Phil! by Tweets that mention » Farewell, Phil! CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/farewell-phil/comment-page-1/#comment-464</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention » Farewell, Phil! CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 14:27:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=660#comment-464</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans H, CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Farewell, Phil! http://bit.ly/aCVnKl [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hans H, CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Farewell, Phil! <a href="http://bit.ly/aCVnKl" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/aCVnKl</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sunday Worship 05-16-2010 by Tweets that mention » Sunday Worship 05-16-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-16-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-463</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention » Sunday Worship 05-16-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 20:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=639#comment-463</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Sunday Worship 05-16-2010 http://bit.ly/dpO98M [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Sunday Worship 05-16-2010 <a href="http://bit.ly/dpO98M" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/dpO98M</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sunday Worship 05-09-2010 by Tweets that mention » Sunday Worship 05-09-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-09-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-462</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention » Sunday Worship 05-09-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 20:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=631#comment-462</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Sunday Worship 05-09-2010 http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-09-2010/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Sunday Worship 05-09-2010 <a href="http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-09-2010/" rel="nofollow">http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-09-2010/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sunday Worship 05-02-2010 by Tweets that mention » Sunday Worship 05-02-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-02-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-461</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention » Sunday Worship 05-02-2010 CCUC Worship Arts -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 15:10:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=626#comment-461</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Sunday Worship 05-02-2010 http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-02-2010/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CCUC WAM. CCUC WAM said: New post: Sunday Worship 05-02-2010 <a href="http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-02-2010/" rel="nofollow">http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-02-2010/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Sunday Worship 05-16-2010 by Hans</title>
		<link>http://wam.ccuc.net/2010/05/sunday-worship-05-16-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-460</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 16:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wam.ccuc.net/?p=639#comment-460</guid>
		<description>Very spirit led worship, team. I liked the scriptural leading and meshing from song to song--flow and blend was excellent. 
 
Excellent piano-work Bethanie! What you were doing matched the ebb and flow of the emotion in the songs--really liked it. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very spirit led worship, team. I liked the scriptural leading and meshing from song to song&#8211;flow and blend was excellent. </p>
<p>Excellent piano-work Bethanie! What you were doing matched the ebb and flow of the emotion in the songs&#8211;really liked it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

