-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
And that's a real pic of the Alligator person.
I do believe you have a chainsaw. Explains a lot, including your haircut.
How old I am is irrelevant, at least with respect to this thread.
What is relevant is how old the earth is.
I don't really care if the earth is 3.5 billion years old or 344,232 million years old, or whatever, as long as it's not 6,000 years old or thereabouts.
I'm willing to adjust my estimate of the earth's age by a few billion or million years, based upon the preponderance of scientific evidence. You don't appear to have much wiggle room on your 6,000 years.
I do believe you have a chainsaw. Explains a lot, including your haircut.
How old I am is irrelevant, at least with respect to this thread.
What is relevant is how old the earth is.
I don't really care if the earth is 3.5 billion years old or 344,232 million years old, or whatever, as long as it's not 6,000 years old or thereabouts.
I'm willing to adjust my estimate of the earth's age by a few billion or million years, based upon the preponderance of scientific evidence. You don't appear to have much wiggle room on your 6,000 years.
The Protestant Reformed Canon is "accepted as the Word of God by the vast majority of the Christian world" you say?
The majority of Christians worldwide are Catholic not Protestant, so I question your above statement.
Incidentally, the Pope apparently doesn't have a problem with evolution or the earth being older than 6,000 years.
Perhaps your lack of understanding has to do with the Bible you are reading, which you seem to be claiming is "inerrant."
Which Bible is that again you claim is inerrant?
The majority of Christians worldwide are Catholic not Protestant, so I question your above statement.
Incidentally, the Pope apparently doesn't have a problem with evolution or the earth being older than 6,000 years.
Perhaps your lack of understanding has to do with the Bible you are reading, which you seem to be claiming is "inerrant."
Which Bible is that again you claim is inerrant?
P
Well Jack I think can all now see that you clearly don't have a personal relationship with The Lord as you have made it very obvious that you don't understand what Christianity is.
Firstly may I just say that you are factually incorrect when you say that "the majority of Christians worldwide are Catholic". You can question away all you like at my statement but you are simply incorrect.
secondly why would it interest me what the pope has or hasn't a problem with?
thirdly I certainly lack understanding on many many subjects, but you know what...I know what it means to e redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, through His death and resurrection and it is my prayer that you will come to know His saving grace in your life too.
you are a twister Jack and it is clear that your only purpose for being on his forum is to satisfy your warped ego. One day you will bow before the King of kings and all your attempts at clever words will mean nothing before His majesty. I am sad for you Jack, having no assurance of salvation is a desperate situation to be in. Surrender your proud heart to The Lord and let the Holy Spirit reveal God's truth to you instead of believing the lies of Satan.
Firstly may I just say that you are factually incorrect when you say that "the majority of Christians worldwide are Catholic". You can question away all you like at my statement but you are simply incorrect.
secondly why would it interest me what the pope has or hasn't a problem with?
thirdly I certainly lack understanding on many many subjects, but you know what...I know what it means to e redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, through His death and resurrection and it is my prayer that you will come to know His saving grace in your life too.
you are a twister Jack and it is clear that your only purpose for being on his forum is to satisfy your warped ego. One day you will bow before the King of kings and all your attempts at clever words will mean nothing before His majesty. I am sad for you Jack, having no assurance of salvation is a desperate situation to be in. Surrender your proud heart to The Lord and let the Holy Spirit reveal God's truth to you instead of believing the lies of Satan.
P
Does your version of scripture contain any of these verses Jack?
15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit
1 Samuel 24:13
As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you.
Matthew 7:20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Matthew 12:33
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
Luke 6:43
"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Luke 6:44
Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
James 2:18
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
James 3:12
My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
i am not the one who determines anything, just one who is observing the evidence of your works and testing them against recognised scripture that really quite "scientific" isn't it. You should be all in favour of that.
I am still interested to hear how you reconcile the Death and resurection of The Lord Jesus Christ, along with all the other miraculous deeds that we find in the bible, with your sceptical take on life.
i am aware that you are refusing for some reason to tell anyone if you trust in The Lord Jesus's death for your salvation ( which seems at odds with a "saved" persons lifestyle) but if you believe that you are saved i would be really interested to learn on what you base your hope of salvation? Just curious because I know of one way and one way only. "I am the way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through me"
i also believe that this is just a game to you....that you love to stir the pot as it were, but remember that it is The Lord that we will all answer to so I caution you to bear that in mind.....do not dishonour Him.
15"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit
1 Samuel 24:13
As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil deeds,' so my hand will not touch you.
Matthew 7:20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Matthew 12:33
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.
Luke 6:43
"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Luke 6:44
Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.
Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
James 2:18
But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
James 3:12
My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
i am not the one who determines anything, just one who is observing the evidence of your works and testing them against recognised scripture that really quite "scientific" isn't it. You should be all in favour of that.
I am still interested to hear how you reconcile the Death and resurection of The Lord Jesus Christ, along with all the other miraculous deeds that we find in the bible, with your sceptical take on life.
i am aware that you are refusing for some reason to tell anyone if you trust in The Lord Jesus's death for your salvation ( which seems at odds with a "saved" persons lifestyle) but if you believe that you are saved i would be really interested to learn on what you base your hope of salvation? Just curious because I know of one way and one way only. "I am the way the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through me"
i also believe that this is just a game to you....that you love to stir the pot as it were, but remember that it is The Lord that we will all answer to so I caution you to bear that in mind.....do not dishonour Him.
Your last post contains nothing pertinent to the topic of this thread, which you started.
Let’s get back to what you said in your first post, quoted above.
I believe in creation. I just don’t believe all creation occurred around 6000 years ago.
You indicate that God’s Word tells you that creation occurred 6000 years ago. You also keep saying that God’s Word is “inerrant.”
So what Bible is inerrant, according to you? The King James Version perhaps? Is this a difficult question for you to answer? The Protestant Reformed Canon is not a specific answer, since it is found in many versions of the Bible.
It appears to me that you are apparently basing your creation date solely on what you say is an “inerrant” Bible and attempting to make science accommodate that date. Right?
Let’s get back to what you said in your first post, quoted above.
I believe in creation. I just don’t believe all creation occurred around 6000 years ago.
You indicate that God’s Word tells you that creation occurred 6000 years ago. You also keep saying that God’s Word is “inerrant.”
So what Bible is inerrant, according to you? The King James Version perhaps? Is this a difficult question for you to answer? The Protestant Reformed Canon is not a specific answer, since it is found in many versions of the Bible.
It appears to me that you are apparently basing your creation date solely on what you say is an “inerrant” Bible and attempting to make science accommodate that date. Right?
P
Tell me this Jack, what is your fixation with 6000 years.
personally speaking, I never mentioned 6000 years...in fact I think you were the person who introduced 6000 years into this thread back at post #32 and again in post #37. Kenneth mentioned it shortly after you but his comment, incidentally one that I agree with was that the bible gives us no as to how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall.
personally speaking, I never mentioned 6000 years...in fact I think you were the person who introduced 6000 years into this thread back at post #32 and again in post #37. Kenneth mentioned it shortly after you but his comment, incidentally one that I agree with was that the bible gives us no as to how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall.
P
With reference to the Canon of scripture. You presumably know more about this than me but for my part, I read from a range of bible versions, some of which have as their originators for the New Testament the Textus Receptus and others of which are based upon the Alexandrian text. Now I'm not saying that these texts are word for word exact copies of the inspired word of God however as is almost universally accepted by any recognised scholars that I have read about, any differences in the transcribing of these through the ages has led to only the least significant of deviations and none of these are in matters of doctrine or essential facts. You may wish to argue or dispute this however your argument will not be with me, or I suggest with most or any of the contributors to this thread, however I'm sure they can all speak for themselves. Any argument you may be trying to make really holds little if any weight as, with very few exceptions, those bibles which most Christians read and study are generally accepted to be true representations of the inspired Word of God.
The Old Testament is I believe based on the Hebrew bible or protocanon but I am no expert.( I'm sure if you are really desperate to know the ins and outs of this there are threads on this forum that may be discussing this a greater detail. This is not the subject of this thread.
in any event none of these "versions" of the scriptures differ in the key points that you are wishing to dwell on here, to mention only a few, the accounts of creation, the flood of Noah's time, the "virgin birth", the miracles of Jesus and most importantly the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, none of which as I understand it, have been scientifically "proven" or obey the immutable laws of physics that you so love.
I love the statement made by the theologian J. L. Dagg regarding the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,"Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray.
To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,
We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus.
Out of curiosity.....humour me....I would love to know if you accept that The Lord Jesus was crucified, died for you on that crossand rose again from the dead to sit at God's right hand.
I do .( I thought I better add that lest you criticise me for asking something of you that I was not prepared to discuss myself).
1 Peter 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope you have..
The Old Testament is I believe based on the Hebrew bible or protocanon but I am no expert.( I'm sure if you are really desperate to know the ins and outs of this there are threads on this forum that may be discussing this a greater detail. This is not the subject of this thread.
in any event none of these "versions" of the scriptures differ in the key points that you are wishing to dwell on here, to mention only a few, the accounts of creation, the flood of Noah's time, the "virgin birth", the miracles of Jesus and most importantly the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, none of which as I understand it, have been scientifically "proven" or obey the immutable laws of physics that you so love.
I love the statement made by the theologian J. L. Dagg regarding the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,"Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray.
To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,
We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus.
Out of curiosity.....humour me....I would love to know if you accept that The Lord Jesus was crucified, died for you on that crossand rose again from the dead to sit at God's right hand.
I do .( I thought I better add that lest you criticise me for asking something of you that I was not prepared to discuss myself).
1 Peter 3:15 Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope you have..