Earth Much Older Than Believed By Most Christians

[Sola Scriptora]

Well lets clear things up:

1- Just how many church histories do you have? Do you mean books or church histories? When I said over twenty, I meant histories, not book count. Schaff's has eight books, Gonzalez has two, Latourette has two, D'aubigne has five, Faber has four, Wylie has three, Foxe's original had eight, etc. Its more than twenty books Super J. The total books I have on this is probably forty or fifty books on church history, some are single volume, others are multi-volume sets. So what are you talking about then, books or sets?

2- You said you didn't understand why I was bringing up the educational stature of the Fouding fathers and many of the preachers and teachers of days gone by, and I say it is relevent because you implied they were part of the ignorant masses who believed Romanism is Babylon and antichrist. I merely pointed out to you that many of the people who believed this were far more educated and scholarly than you and those elite 100 you mentioned. In other words, its not LACK of education that causes people to take my position. That was never the issue. You said it was. You are wrong, period.

Many scholars and the common man, who were also far more educated than we are believed my position. And my point is the Holy Ghost can teach a man straight out of the BOOK with no great scholarly education. Do you deny this??? Do you believe the the Holy Ghost is limited to scholars if he wants to teach His people something?

3- Lastly you said:

I was saying you were no biblical scholar, which, your actions have proven this assertation correct

What "actions"? My actions have been refuting your false statements about me and about this issue with FACTS. I don't know what you idea of a Scholar is, but it is not someone who graduates some school where half what they were taught is error. Scholarly people read the primary sources, and then read what others have said about them. Scholars deal with facts, and hunt them down...real scholars anyway. But I have no interest in meeting YOUR criteria for a scholar, but rather, the Lords.

And so, I'm not going to prove that Rome is Babylon--millions of Christians have believed this, and millions do now. Some of the greatest Christian scholars believed this, and it was taken for granted as common knowledge. Since you are going against a universal belief of the body of Christ down through the centuries, the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove your assertions that all these people are wrong, and you are right. You are the one departing from the general consensus of the body of Christ, so you need to prove your point, not me.

Edited October 30, 2004 by Sola Scriptora

[apothanein kerdos]

1- Well just how many church histories do you have? Do you mean books or church histories? When I said over twenty, I meant histories, not book count. Schaff's has eight books, Gonzalez has two, Latourette has two, D'aubigne has five, Faber has four, Wylie has three, Foxe's original had eight, etc. Its more than twenty books Super J. The total books I have on this is probably forty or fifty books on church history, some are single volume, others are multi-volume sets. So what are you talking about then, books or sets?

Oh, well that makes sense then. I was talking soley about books and not about the sets. My apologies, I misunderstood you. I think now you see why I was a bit taken back and suprised that you were proud about 20 "books"...of course, you weren't talking about just books.

2- You said you didn't understand why I was bringing up the educational stature of the Fouding fathers and many of the preachers and teachers of days gone by, and I say it is relevent because you implied they were part of the ignorant masses who believed Romanism is Babylon and antichrist. I merely pointed out to you that many of the people who believed this were far more educated and scholarly than you are those elite 100 you mentioned. In other words, its not LACK of education that causes people to take myu position. That was never the issue. You said it weas. You are wrong, period.

It is a lack of education. Education is something we learn without bias (hopefully). THe thing is, all of these men had a bias against the Catholic church. The problem is, Bablyon in the Bible is an actual nation with an actual city.

Many scholars and the common man, who were also far more educated than we are believed my position. And my point is the Holy Ghost can teach a man straight out of the book with no great scholarly education. Do you deny this??? Do you deny the the Holy Ghost is limited to scholars if he wnats to teach His people something?

Not at all. However is someone who knows the Greek and knows how to interpret the Bible and is in tune with the Holy Spirit says it's not talking about Catholocism, then I'm bound to believe them.

What "actions"? My actions have been refuting your false statements about me and about this issue with FACTS. I don't know what you idea of a Scholar is, but it is not someone who graduates some school where half what they were taught is error. Scholarly people read the primary sources, and then read what others have said about them. Scholars deal with facts, and hunt them down...real scholars anyway. But I have no interest in meeting YOUR criteria for a scholar, but rather, the Lords.

They also hold a certain level of respect, which you haven't done in any debate on this board. Any well educated fool can debate and point out books, but it takes a scholar to do so in patience.

And so, I'm not going to prove that Rome is Babylon--millions of Christians have believed this, and millions do now. Some of the greatest Christian scholars believed this, and it was taken for granted as common knowledge. Since you are going against a universal belief of the body of Christ down through the centuries, the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove your assertions that all these people are wrong, and you are right. You are the one departing from the general consensus of the body of Christ, so you need to prove your point, not me.

All you had to do was make the topic.

[Sola Scriptora]

When I asked you about the Holy Spiriti teaching us, you said:

Not at all. However is someone who knows the Greek and knows how to interpret the Bible and is in tune with the Holy Spirit says it's not talking about Catholocism, then I'm bound to believe them.

I'm sorry, but this gnostic premise is to be rejected out of hand. We KNOW what the Greek says because we have it translated to us IN ENGLISH. The Greek does not give people the big advantage you were taught to believe they have. many greek grammarians have proven over the years to be some of the biggest Bible blockheads when it came to sound doctrine.

The Bible plainly tells us in Rev 17 the whore is that great CITY, not a nation, but that great city which reigns over the the people of the earth. She is seated on seven hills. Anyone in John's day knew exactly to what he referred to, except 20th century Greek grammarians! How sad. You're following the wrong crowd.

[Guest Thomas I believe]

You've hit no nerve, you are simply running, as predicted. I called your bluff, and you have wasted no time engaging in retreat. Be honest, the truth is you see the handwriting on the wall. Now why don't you do as you said and "beat" me with your superior knowledge you claim to possess? Surely it must be an elementary task for someone of your stature and learning?

Sola, What is your goal here ?

In His Peace, Michael

[Sola Scriptora]

Thomas:

Well, the qoute you have in your post has been clarified between me and Super J, so my point? Romanism came up, I made some comments, and away we went!

I know I believe strongly in what I post, and it comes through, but I do not try to insult people I am debating with. But when they start doing it, and claim to be Christians, then I go after this behaviour until there is resolution. Super J mistakenly said I was ignorant of history grace and judgement. Those comments are out of line, and there is no way he can know this about me, and he was wrong anyway. I think we've cleared this up.

So, when it comesto Rome, I take the historic position Christians of every walk and level of learning have taken--She is the bloody whore of Rev 17, and no amount of th 20th century scholarship can change the plain statements of Scripture, and no amount of running to the Greek to avoid the truths of the English can change it.

[ayin jade]

It has been so pleasant reading threads without the fighting lately, and then this comes along. If you two have a dispute with each other, is it possible to take it into private PM's so that the rest of us dont have to see the hostility in your words. Please?

Romans 14:1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Over music, and now over what is babylon, and who is learned and who isnt.....these are disputable matters.

[traveller]

Let's get this thread back on topic please, as Jade requested.

[Sola Scriptora]

That is fine, but lets remember, no "cheap shots". No hitting "below the belt". If you see this happen, don't wait for the victim to defend himself, tell the culpret he was out of line. If you want to referee this thing, jump in on the first sign of trouble please.

[georgesbluegirl]

Wow, such hostility.

One brief comment about Catholic belief about the Bible:

Super Jew, could you give me ideas of where you're getting the info that Catholicism claims the Bible is infallible? I've been taught - literally all my life, my mom worked at a seminary, so I grew up around religious discussion - that the Bible is the Word of God as translated through the lens of culture and language by men. I'm pretty sure that the Catechism says that too (of course, I paraphrase, its probably about forty pages long!!). Here's some writing from Fr. Raymond Brown who was awesome, one of the best known, prolific and brilliant of modern theologians, and who I studied in a theology class once, explaining the whole thing, I think it sums it up nicely.

"The message of the Incarnation is that there is no way to avoid the interplay of the divine and the human in approaching God. Biblical literalism, since it makes all divine, supplies a false certitude that often unconsciously confuses the human limitation with the divine message. A literalist interpretation destroys the very nature of the Bible as a human expression of divine revelation.

One must understand that only human beings speak words. Therefore the very valid description of the Bible as "God's word" has both the divine element ("God's") and the human ("word")."

***From the American Catholic.

[ayin jade]

If scripture contains error as you assert, then please explain this verse. It clearly states that scripture is God-breathed.

2 Timothy 3

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The epistles were considered scripture back then too as shown in this verse:

2 Peter 3

15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.