I din't bold it, but I was told that since I am not a Calvinist I am an Augustinian . . . or something like that.
The Adamic Problem
- Thread starter trofimus
- Start date
-
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.
So explain in the book of Acts how the apostles spread the gospel message. Did they use a Bible with the New Testament or some other written document? Back then since a scribe spent months copying a Bible they were very expensive and rare. It wasn't until the printing press was invented that Bibles became cheap and commonplace. Start explaining. It was using the creeds with additional memorized verses of the Bible. Until the printing press was invented people normally committed sections of written documents to memory. That disappeared with the advent of the press since books became much much much cheaper.
Really? Paul WAS the epistle. James WAS the epistle. Peter WAS the epistle . . . and so on. They had the letters to the churches as they were being written. What do you mean they didn't have the New Testament? The only thing they didn't have was leather-bound Scofield editions, but they had all they needed.
yeah I know...go back to my question...I bolded it in your quote and asked you what the bolded meant.....and I have never aligned myself with any ""ist" or "NIAN" view other than ChristIAN.......and then I do not take the liberty to call myself that...only JESUS can rightfully name his servants as Christian.....IMV
Is he still peddling his Catholic creed over the bible....one of many reasons he is on ignore.....oblivious to the fact that they had the church letters and passed them around..........
They're known as "autographs", the original writings of the scriptures. Long since disappeared. What remains is copies of copies and so forth. That which is called the Canonical Gospels, the first four Synoptic (synonymous as to reporting of Jesus life, ministry, death), are that of Matthew , Mark, Luke, John. Mark records the start of Jesus' ministry: ""The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" Mark1:1 "
These are then dated to around 70 to 100 A.D. . Prior to that , as was evidenced in Jesus teachings, the Good News was delivered verbally. Or, as an "oral tradition".
Largely because literacy wasn't as common place in civilized societies as it is today. People then made great efforts to recall the news of the day, or in our discussion, the teachings of Messiah, near verbatim.
Skeptics of the Bible, or Jesus ministry, will say the Bible is not inerrant because the Synoptic Gospels tell a different story from one book to the other.
In actuality the reason the books carry the same message but account it differently is because it is the reporting of the individual Apostles witness to the events.
Just as in contemporary society as example, you and I say witness a baseball game together. You account of it after from your perspective as lets say a Cubs fan. And I account as a Yankees fan. Yet we're both talking about the same game.
That was my point. I disagree with Schofield on several issues but those are the agree to disagree issues. They are outside of the creeds defining what a person must believe to be a Christian. They were created by the early elders for that purpose along with defining any disagreement with them as heresy and any Biblical issue outside of them as agree to disagree. This is the historical reason for the creeds.
Oh yeah . . . some people will argue with God on how hot they think hell should be.
I don't mean to shock you, but, Scofield didn't write the Bible. I just threw his reference Bible to throw you a bit. What I really meant was the Peter S. Ruckman Reference Bible. You really should get one.
It was the P4t that posted it . . .
BaptistBibleBeliever said:
Augustine is also one of the big reasons that there is even a Catholic church. During the tribulation all the illegitimate children of Rome will return to the fold--including these Calvinists.
P4t said
Actually your doctrine, as well as virtually all anti-calvinist's teachings is very close to Rome's teachings. You're swimming in the Tiber and don't even know it.
I had a Schofield Bible for many years. That is how I know what it said in the comments section. Most I agreed with but some I disagreed with. Either way it caused me to think through the issues.
5 minute rule hit again.
I had a Schofield Bible for many years. That is how I know what it said in the comments section. Most I agreed with but some I disagreed with. Either way it caused me to think through the issues. Currently I use my smart phone as a Bible using the web site biblegateway.com. It also has a commentary section. With it I look up book and chapter and easily go between translations. I use mostly NIV, ESV, AMPC and KJV. Doing this I can easily avoid the misunderstandings 400 years brings to KJV. KJV has in some verses a way of translating that is easier to understand. For example "the carnal mind is enmity against God" the other translations don't have the immediate impact of that statement with their longer translation saying the same thing.
I had a Schofield Bible for many years. That is how I know what it said in the comments section. Most I agreed with but some I disagreed with. Either way it caused me to think through the issues. Currently I use my smart phone as a Bible using the web site biblegateway.com. It also has a commentary section. With it I look up book and chapter and easily go between translations. I use mostly NIV, ESV, AMPC and KJV. Doing this I can easily avoid the misunderstandings 400 years brings to KJV. KJV has in some verses a way of translating that is easier to understand. For example "the carnal mind is enmity against God" the other translations don't have the immediate impact of that statement with their longer translation saying the same thing.
This is precisely why I only read one bible per language. (I speak two languages, english isnt my native language).
If I have to look something up in english, I always always always use the KJV. Its translated by smart people, its a good translation that has served the english-speaking people for centuries. I can understand it despite not being a native english speaker, therefore nobody else has an excuse if you are born in an english-speaking country!
When you stick with one bible, its easier to agree on things, and there is less bickering about "But my translation says this, or its better translated as this and that". All that confusion is out the window, it says what it says, and we believe it.
People claim the newer translations are easier because they get rid of all those archaic words. Really? There are just as many and some new ones.
And if the Bible is so much easier now, why are so many people confused about the simplest of Bible doctrines, such as salvation.
Because that is the way the Devil wanted it to be. He has counterfeits of everything else, but no one seems to want to admit that he has counterfeit Bibles as well.
I'm with you. I'm going to use the one that God has used for 407 years to the saving of souls and the book behind all the great revivals.
It is obvious you fail to understand the issues KJV has. First it is 400 years old and that means many words have changed meanings and words have disappeared from the language. Here is a list of the problems.
For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:
Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples, ….
The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:
unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Iswa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).
Moreover,, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers: Phrases that no longer make sense:
ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)
And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)
Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a man who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
Stupid answer. Most sites time limit is getting into the post. Then allowing the person to accurately fix the post. This site has the shortest time limit. Thus instead of fixing the post additional posts are required!! Thus adding confusion.
it's not the answer, but the answer must have something to do with this:
God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.
(1 John 1:5)
(1 John 1:5)
God divided the light from the darkness.
(Genesis 1:4)
can light exist without darkness also existing? yes, i think so
but can we see, without contrast? not with the kind of eyes we have now, i think. so maybe it is in order for those who He gives eyes to see, to see - like here:
What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy
(Romans 9:22-23)
like i mentioned earlier, tho, there's that 'what if' you know, reading Job, Job asked why, and God's answer didn't tell him why - it was basically, who so think you are to ask?
