A
Alligator
Guest
been getting alot of that in here lately
you wouldn't be talking about me, would you?
been getting alot of that in here lately
you wouldn't be talking about me, would you?
no, if I did I would not have hit like what you said![]()
EG, I just wanted to say I've missed you these last few days.
derailing over. please continue.
Protestant Reformed Canon
I have a hard time believing someone that is 97 years old is as fluent as you are on an internet forum.
In most any library.The "Protestant Reformed Canon" is the inerrant Word of God?
And where, exactly, do you find the Protestant Reformed Canon?
I concurr with Elin, on this. As you well know Jack this Canon is well established and is accepted as the Word of God my the vast majority of the Christian world.
In most any library.
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.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?
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.
I am sad for you Jack, having no assurance of salvation is a desperate situation to be in.
Did you remember to ask the librarian for help in finding the Reformed Canon?I went to the library.Elin said:In most any library.JackH said:And where, exactly, do you find the Protestant Reformed Canon?
Does your version of scripture contain any of these verses Jack?I didn't know you are the one who determines who is saved.
That's not in my Bible.
It must be in yours. You know, the "inerrant" one you keep talking about.
What Bible is that again, your "inerrant" one?
Many Christians state that A belief in Creation is not something to get too "worked up about" as it is not really a "salvation matter"......I beg to differ. It is possibly the biggest stumbling block to the non christians ability to see their need for Salvation ......
Indeed it is.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.
Tell me this Jack, what is your fixation with 6000 years.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?
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.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?
Sorry you don't like my haircut. I guess that means we won't be dating.........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.
Why do you think that a " young earth is "ignorant nonsense". Surely not based on carbon and radioisotopic dating etc. these dating techniques have been shown to unreliable and scientifically flawed.