Christopher000 wrote: but the textbooks themselves. So much of their evidence has been proven to be straight up hoaxes, mistakes, or just bad science, yet the textbooks have never been updated, edited to address or completely remove all of the nonsense they still point to as their proof of evolution.
Case in point the Brontosaurus
When I was growing up outside the church, we were taught it was the largest ever land creature from millions of years a go- OK, I bought the story
In College I find out there was no such thing, it was just a mixture of bones from other dinosaurs (Camarasaurus & Apatosaurus). In 1979 it became official, Bronto never exited. But I noticed it remained in cartoons
Earlier this year, I see Brontosaurus in Wikipedia. I'm like huh? Yep, in 2015, they brought her back
oy vey Not only have they hoaxed bones, mismatched bones, made composite bones, filed down bones to make them fit evolution...now they are bringing back old lies and wiki doesn't mention that the previous museum pieces were fiction
OK OK, maybe there was a Brontosaurus pre flood. Shouldn't textbooks and wiki declare the ones evidenced in the Carnegie Museum were a fiction?
Adriel wrote: Big Brother Liberalism telling people what to say think and do especially in their moral standards. Not only do they go to hell themselves but they would teach children to go to hell too.
No worries, the Wicked will fall into their own traps. Sure they will rage against GODs Church in desperate fits of jealousy, but its just vanity
Galatians 4:30 Â Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Reformed, Lutheran and Catholics all agreed the Anabaptists were wrong. Anabaptists were considered more dangerous than Catholics. Not just theologically, Anabaptists were the ISIS of the Reformation era
For discussion purposes, lets just choose one early reformer and what they taught about the Lords Supper For instance, the LORDs Supper and John Hus
Hus was accused of teaching Consubstantiation vs Transubstantiation. Hus at his trial denied this. But even if he taught the former, he would be in violation of the Westminster Catechism and deemed a heretic. If he taught the latter as he testified, he would be labelled lost(or a Jesuit troll) by members of this board
Most Reformers didn't have everything right, so do we condemn their error? How about those that believed Hus, but stayed with the RCC because there was nothing else? Are they condemned too? I don't think so. There are MILLIONS of Saints from the RCC, Millions of Saints from Protestant Churches, and I look forward to spending eternity with all of them Worshipping GOD
Christopher000 wrote: and I don't believe anyone will be able to pull the, "I was tricked", or, "I didn't know" cards.
That's too Arminian. Just to think that would imply that somehow GOD could be unjust and would be a clear sign of a lack of true faith. The wicked cant stop the salvation of the Elect
The wicked will be convicted by the witness of their own consciences
Belgic Confession- Article 37(edited for space) ...Then "the books" (that is, the consciences) will be opened, and the dead will be judged according to the things they did in the world,^81 whether good or evil. Indeed, all people will give account of all the idle words they have spoken,..Therefore, with good reason the thought of this judgment is horrible and dreadful to wicked and evil people. But it is very pleasant and a great comfort to the righteous and elect,..The evil ones will be convicted by the witness of their own consciences, and shall be made immortal-- but only to be tormented in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.^83 In contrast, the faithful and elect will be crowned with glory and honor. The Son of God will "confess their names"^84 before God his Father and the holy and elect angels; all tears will be "wiped from their eyes"
Christopher000 wrote: So, you just jump right on in not even knowing anything? Sure appears that way.
Chris, Have you looked at the website traffic statistics for SermonAudio lately? SA has dropped 20% in traffic. We are now the 43k most popular site, as we were the 33k most popular before Dave went overboard on his unfounded accusations. People don't want to read bickering, backbiting as innuendo when coming here
Adriel wrote: Modern versions incorporate the popish texts sinaiticus and vaticanus which are corrupt. - Note the effects upon the Romish theologies. http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm
Since Erasmus was Catholic & dedicated all his work to Pope Leo, wouldn't the KJV actually be a popish text too?
Since Westcott and Hort were Church of England clergymen of the 1800s(a conservative time), why call their work popish? I understand people saying their work embraced the arminians in the COE, but hardly popish. The RCC had no problem with the KJV friendly Douayâ€“Rheims Bible, but the Douayâ€“Rheims Bible ran counter to the work of Westcott and Hort
(fyi-No answer needed, those were just rhetorical questions, I just come here because I enjoy watching the confusion)
James Thomas wrote: From the first edition of 1560 Geneva Bible and its last edition in 1644, 160 editions, totaling around a half million Geneva Bibles, were produced. And for the first time common people could not only understand the words in the Bible, they could actually own one. Its widespread use first solidified the English language among the common people, not the 1611 King James Bible as many assume. Actually, the King James Bible required decades to surpass the popularity of the Geneva and supplant it from the hearts of the English speaking world and only achieved this by making it illegal in 1616 to print any other copy other than the 1611 KJV. Tyndale used Erasmusâ€™s Greek text (third edition) to produce the first printed English New Testament in 1526. He later revised his New Testament and it was printed in Antwerp, Belgium, in 1534. Despite living as a hunted criminal, Tyndaleâ€™s work was exceptional and so accurate that the later widespread Geneva and King James Bibles would utilize more than 80 percent of his exact wording. In fact, much of the vast influence attributed to the Geneva and King James Bibles should be attributed to one man whom God used for His purpose â€” William Tyndale
To answer the original question, Southern Churches shouldn't be obligated to rid their Civil War landmarks. Slavery was just one of many factors contributing to the war, and few Northern abolitionists wanted to make Blacks their equal. Many abolitionists wanted to repatriate Blacks to Africa, others wanted them as cheap labor for factories, still others wanted them for military duty. You want to be shocked? read what Lincoln thought about the Black Race
ken wrote: I did not even mention the flood where god destroyed the world because of sin. Gal. 3:28 refers to justification, none of mans differences matter as they stand before god. With respect to their salvation all who have on Jesus Christ are all one in Christ Jesus. There are still men and women, black and white. In Acts Cornelius is a slave owner, is he a manstealer? Acts 10:28 Peter receives a vision from God to go to Cornelius a slave owning Gentile. jews by their law were forbidden to associate with gentiles. God did not create equality between men.
I just walked in. I don't know where the discussion was, Slavery in the Southern US States or 1st Century Judea and Samaria.
Exodus 21:16 Â And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Ex 21:16 would apply to those that stole or are in possession of stolen persons. I would guess that Cornelius did not steal any men, and wasn't in possession of stolen persons. However, if my US History professors were accurate, Ex 21:16 would apply to many US slave holders
Haman the Agagite wrote: this story appears regularly, and it has the same '...applies across all faith traditions studied...' which means Muslims in their mosques, Buddhists in their meditation centers, are getting the same benefit, without quoting any Bible verses. And I wonder if it includes the Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California, who are famed for being healthy and long-lived. Maybe it has to do with not using caffeine, tobacco, pork, etc.
Or the health benefits of actually honouring the Sabbath?
I know I'm happy after Services & Bible Studies, happy and healthy go together
little missions wrote: Sadly not always if you examine many of today's tracts. They often do not define even simple basic bible terms. In Ryle's day people still heard about the God of the Bible, so had some idea of what the basics of the gospel are. Today if a tract doesn't mention the Divinity of Christ and who our Creator is; rarely mentions/explains even the most fundamental doctrine of 'Justification By Faith ALONE;' doesn't refer to sin as 1 John 3:4 'Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.' and therefore doesn't even mention what a law breaker is in the sight of a Holy God?
Even a good tract needs an evangelist to explain the meaning. The 70 weren't sent out to hand out tracts to appease their own wickedness as some good work to cover their sin, the righteous understood what was at stake
Â Luke 10:11 Â Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Â Â Luke 10:12 Â But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
Jim Lincoln wrote: 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. ---ESV SteveR, I would recommend the above about head covering. Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church and others of that ilk, ignore the above Bible verses. Were you thinking about the incident below?
read on....The long hair as a headcovering excuse for women falls apart
1 Corinthians 11:6 Â For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
My church also has fallen victim to that Biblical illiteracy. So now we have a Church full of uncovered women, many with short hair but not shorn.
One thing I learned here on SA, backbiters can influence Church policy. And its clear they have influenced this. But it doesn't mean we men shouldn't respect Mideastern women and their obedience to Biblical mandates...even if the wicked have changed that policy here
I just read another story about a Muslim woman being harassed because of her head covering. Why are these men picking on women with physical intimidation? Newsflash bigots: Christian women from the Mideast wear headcoverings too. Why? Because its Biblical.
Chaldean Christians really have the deck stacked against them in this country. If it isn't their headcoverings, its their skin color, being mistaken for a muslim, some liberal wants to deport them because they are Christian, if not those items then some callous reprobate might not consider them Christian enough to support
Graham, Moore, and Trump aren't being Marxist. They just think that these illegals are on a different level than your garden variety illegal. Jews feeling Germany during WW2, or runaway slaves fleeing cruel masters during the Civil War had more than just economic reasons to enter illegally. Chaldean Christians are running out of places to hide in the Mideast