Originals Only

[JM]

How many believe the Bible to be only inerrant and infallible in the original autographs? How many know or understand the history of this modern doctrine?

Have you considered...If the originals are the only infallible Bible, then we do not have the Word of God, but a mixture of error and truth. How are God's people to be guided?

As one person put it in another thread, 'if God wants, He could reveal Himself in a Sears catalogue.' As a Christian and fundamentalist, I view this as modern sickness brought on by Englishment thinking mixed with theology.

This is also the consequence of Peligianism/Arminianism, to believe human will can do something contrary to God's will, it leads to the human being able to corrupt God's word and hence, the word of God becomes the Sears catalogue.

Where does it end!

sp

[rural_preacher]

Have you considered...If the originals are the only infallible Bible, then we do not have the Word of God, but a mixture of error and truth. How are God's people to be guided?

Apparently you do not believe that God is absolutely sovereign (?)

I believe that God is sovereign. In His sovereignty He has preserved His Word and provided us with it to this very day.

I do not believe He has preserved His Word in a unique way in the KJV. The KJV is nothing more than an English translation. A good one...but still only a translation.

The KJV only doctrine places God in a box and there is no legitimate evidence that God has placed Himself in such a box...humans have tried to put Him there.

BTW, I totally disagree with the "Sears catalogue" comment made in that other thread. I believe God has uniquely revealed Himself through the Living Word (Jesus Christ) and the Written Word (Scripture).

Yes, we have God's Word today. We have it because of God's sovereign work through people that He has used as His instruments to bring us His Word. I do not, however, believe that He has done so through the methods which are advocated by the KJV only proponents.

That's all I'll say.


--

[AVBunyan]

Yes, we have God's Word today. We have it because of God's sovereign work through people that He has used as His instruments to bring us His Word.
--
May I respectfully ask where "God's Word" is today - where can it be found?

Thanks and may God bless :wave:

Well, while I'm hear I'd like to comment on this original issue.

Who Says Only the Originals Are Inspired?

Now with that let’s talk about this “doctrine” of “Only the Originals are Inspired or the True Word of God”

1. Where in any Bible does it say “only the originals” are inspired? Who invented this doctrine and “made it a fundamental of the faith”? Some of you folks are really hung up on this “original” issue. Do you believe that if you had the “originals” in your hands that you would get 110 volts of shock! Do you believe that if you had the real “originals” in your pulpit to preach from that your “baptism” count would go up?!?!? As God as my witness if I had the “originals” in my possession I would lock them up in a safe and preach out of a King James Bible and not bat and eye! Some of you folks would put them in a display case and bow down before them and then charge admission to finance your youth’s softball trip to Six Flags Over Texas!

There is no verse in any Bible that say “only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds good – just not scriptural.

Now this next part some of you will scoff at – some will say that is old stuff and some of you might say, “That makes sense to me!”

2. In Tim. 3:16 it says: All scripture is given by inspiration…” If it is scripture it has to be inspired according to II Tim. 3:16. Don’t call what you have in your hands “scripture” unless you believe it to be inspired. The “Bible” says that if you want to call what you have “the scriptures” then it has to be inspired. If it is not inspired then it is not scripture.

3. Look at II Tim. 3:15 – Timothy had the scriptures – according to vs. 16 there were inspired. Did Timothy have the originals? Of course not but what he had was inspired for the next verse says that the all scripture is inspired. Timothy had a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals!

The “scriptures” just told us that something other than the originals could be inspired.

4. Can the AV1611 be inspired? Why not? Who or what says they couldn’t be – II Tim. 3:15,16 says more than just the originals can be scripture and thus be inspired.
Were the KJV translators inspired men? No.
Could what they have put down been inspired? Why not?
I do not believe they were inspired but what God had them put down was.

Don’t you believe God runs things? Don’t you believe that God works all things after the counsel of his own will – Eph. 1:11? Don’t you believe God can control have his hands upon a 1611 Bible committee? You mean you don’t take the providential approach to history? Do you mean that God just let’s man run things on his own? Do you mean that you are putting your faith or lack of faith in the KJV translators, which were mere men?
THE 1611 TRANSLATORS WERE HOLY SCHOLARS AND HOLY MEN BUT MY FAITH IS IN THE GOD WHO CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED THE AFFAIRS OF THOSE MEN! No wonder why you folks keep using the translators as an excuse for faulty translating – your faith is in men and not the Providential hand of an all-powerful, all seeing, all-directing God!

Again, we don’t care what you read or believe. But when what you read or believe or promote affects the work of the ministry down here then we have a duty to get involved to warn, DIVIDE, make war, instruct, encourage, EXPOSE, for the sake of others, (who desire to know), so that they can know what is going on here. Some of you folks don’t like final authority in your lives – you want to be able to pick and choose. You want a way out if all possible. Could it be pride?

The bottom line – We desire true saints to know that hey have the inspired word of God in their hand so they can be equipped to do the work of the ministry.

Some of us just happen to believe that we have the scriptures in our hands. Many of you don’t have the scriptures and by your own beliefs admit that.

1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If you don’t’ believe what you have in your hands is the word of God it can’t work effectually in you. And guess what folks – our work, as a whole, is not very effectual. Part of the reason is most saints today don’t have the scriptures and according to Heb. 4:12 there is where the power comes from today. Yes, the Holy Spirit does the work but the Spirit utilizes the words of God down here.

God bless :wave:

[rural_preacher]

Oh, but I do believe that what I hold in my hand is the Word of God. I just don't believe that I'm only holding the Word if I'm holding a KJV. I most certainly would not bow down and worship the "originals" if they were found. I worship and serve Almighty God only.

You are seeking what you believe is "logical consistency" in your approach to all of this. I understand that. I once sought diligently for "logical consistency" in everything. But the Holy Spirit patiently worked in my heart and brought me to realize that I was putting my faith in "logic" rather than in God alone. I finally came to the point where I understood "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding".

My faith is in Almighty God who transcends mere human "logic". His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

When I hold a Bible in my hand (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB...), I'm holding the Word of God in my hands. Does that make sense according to your system of logic? No. Does that matter to me? No. Why? Because my faith is not in logic or in a particular English translation. My faith is in the Sovereign, Almighty God.

I Corinthians 1:25
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."


--

[AVBunyan]

When I hold a Bible in my hand (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB...), I'm holding the Word of God in my hands. --
Thanks rural_preacher for your comments.

rural_ I trust you will consider the questions below - these are questions I had to wrestle through some time ago myself.

1. All the above versions disagree with one another so...are they all the "Word of God"?

2. All of the above accept the KJV attack the deity of Christ in places (this is well documented) so...rural_preacher is this ok with you?

3. The modern versions do uphold the deity of Christ in places but does this mean it is still ok to attack it in other places?

4. Though all the new versions contain the "message" does this mean they are all Bibles?

5. Because you can find the fundamentals iin the modern versions does this mean they are Bibles?

6. Would you mind defining what you mean by the "Word of God"? - thanks

God bless

[e=mv^2]

The vast majority of Chistendom, be they Italian, Romanian, English or German all agree on the core principles. If someone is reading the Vulgate or Die Bibel the message that comes across is the same. That leads me to believe:
1) Different translations, even given different languges, are capable of getting the same inspired message across.
2) The reader, not the scribe, is the one that needs divine guidance.

The best Bible is the one that the reader can understand and will actually read. If someone is uncomfortable with the KJV and can not understand it efffectively then they need another version. The best version is the one with a worn binding, the worst - the one with a dusty cover.

The early Christians had very little in the way of writings but they were still able to understand the core principles. They were still able to feed the hungry and tend the sick. They got the message in a way that was meaningful to them.

[AVBunyan]

1) Different translations, even given different languges, are capable of getting the same inspired message across.

2) The best Bible is the one that the reader can understand and will actually read.

3) If someone is uncomfortable with the KJV and can not understand it efffectively then they need another version.

4) The best version is the one with a worn binding, the worst - the one with a dusty cover.

Thanks e=mv^2 for your thoughts. Come - let us reason together....

1) So, what would you think are the most important to God here - the "message" or his "very words of God"? do a search in the Bible and see where God places the emphasis - on his words or a message.

2) I thought the best Bible was the one that has not pulluted the major doctrines and accurately contained the words of God. So, the reader determines the Bible? What if that Bible attacks many of the major doctrines - is this ok?

3) What happened to the one who does the intepreting (Holy Spirit)? Why not rely upon the Spirit for the work? Our understanding is not based upon our intellect. Many an uneducated saint from the past had no trouble with the KJV . The saint approaching the scriptures with a humble and believing heart will get what God has for him.

4) True to an extent. But a version which attacks the deity of Christ can be wore out also - does the wearing out make the Bible God's word or the words in it being from God make it?

Just some food for thought. You might consider reviewing your criterior for what makes the word of God the word of God.


God bless :wave:

[TwinCrier]

How many believe the Bible to be only inerrant and infallible in the original autographs? How many know or understand the history of this modern doctrine?

Have you considered...If the originals are the only infallible Bible, then we do not have the Word of God, but a mixture of error and truth. How are God's people to be guided?

As one person put it in another thread, 'if God wants, He could reveal Himself in a Sears catalogue.' As a Christian and fundamentalist, I view this as modern sickness brought on by Englishment thinking mixed with theology.

This is also the consequence of Peligianism/Arminianism, to believe human will can do something contrary to God's will, it leads to the human being able to corrupt God's word and hence, the word of God becomes the Sears catalogue.

Where does it end!

I do believe that people can do things that are out of God's will. It's called sin. I believe the KJV is the only accurate traslation of the Holy Bible in the English language currently in print today.

[JM]

I do believe that people can do things that are out of God's will. It's called sin. I believe the KJV is the only accurate traslation of the Holy Bible in the English language currently in print today.

Amen!

Twin, sin is another topic I'll continue via pm's. :hug:

Peace

[JM]

Thanks AV, if only I could express myself as clearly as you do!

[BT]

The argument fails on one specific point, but before I give the point I do believe that the KJV version is the Word of God and that it is infallible and inerrant. I do not use other translations because they come from corrupt manuscripts. Though I do acknowledge that they do contain (some) truth, I do see that they are corrupt and refuse to use them.

Now the failing of your argument is that the KJV is a translation. It's not an original work. It is a translation of the inspired Word. When God gave the revelation to Paul and the other writers, He gave it in Greek. Not English. He inspired them to use the language that they knew but He didn't give them the KJV he gave them Greek, which they wrote. Which was later translated into English AND many other languages (infact it is still being translated today). When the revelation was completed it was completed in Greek not English. No new revelation was given, so we conclude that NEW writings outside of the originals are NOT inspired.

To claim that the translation is inspired AS A TRANSLATION is foolish. The words from which the translation comes are inspired and the KJV which holds to the literal translation of the Authorized Document contains the inspired Word of God.

Just how many inspired translations are there? If the KJV is inspired AS A TRANSLATION then is the French version also inspired, the German, the Russian, the Brazillian? No. But do they contain the inspired Word? If they come from the Received Text they do, just the same as the English KJV.

And of the KJV which version is inspired, or are they all inspired? Just the 1611, or one of the many revisions of that one?

That's the issue of the originals...

[JM]

That's the issue of the originals...

BT, I know what you believe on this issue, could you add a little bit more to make it clear for those who may not understand the point you're making?

[e=mv^2]

1) So, what would you think are the most important to God here - the "message" or his "very words of God"? do a search in the Bible and see where God places the emphasis - on his words or a message.

The "Very words" were written in various languages. "Ιησούς Χριστός" and "Jesus Christ" are very different words. They are even written in different alphabets.

If you were to read:
ΟΥΤΩΣ ΓΑΡ ΗΓΑΠΗΣΕΝ Ο ΘΕΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟΣΜΟΝ ΩΣΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΥΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗ ΕΔΩΚΕΝ ΙΝΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΜΗ ΑΠΟΛΗΤΑΙ ΑΛΛ ΕΧΗ ΖΩΗΝ ΑΙΩΝΙΟΝ
or
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
is it more important that you understand the words or the message? I am now just learning greek myself and I am no where near the point where I can read the first block of text. I can however understand the message.

The problem that you are going to run into here is that it is likely that the originals were written in greek, it was the language of the educated and the one that was used to record events - however the language that Christ most likely spoke was aramaic. So you have God himself speaking aramaic and the disciples writing in greek. That is one translation before the words even hit paper.

I belive that what is important to God is his children. When the message gets across and the person is saved then the tool that delivered that message is effective.

2) I thought the best Bible was the one that has not pulluted the major doctrines and accurately contained the words of God. So, the reader determines the Bible? What if that Bible attacks many of the major doctrines - is this ok?

I guess I should preface all of this by saying that I am no expert on different bible versions. I know that there are people in "groups" that have changed things that they do not like. Those versions are absolutely out. They do not contain mistakes or errors - they were dileberately altered. Big difference there. So let's say that a "version" that has been deliberately altered to suit the false beliefs of a "group" is totally wrong.

3) What happened to the one who does the intepreting (Holy Spirit)? Why not rely upon the Spirit for the work? Our understanding is not based upon our intellect. Many an uneducated saint from the past had no trouble with the KJV . The saint approaching the scriptures with a humble and believing heart will get what God has for him.

Agreed. As I said it is the reader that needs inspiration. The scribe needs accuracy moreso than inspiration. Although I would still argue that a person needs to be able to at a basic level understand the words that are on the page. Once they can be understood at that basic level then the interpretation can begin. If the reader is unable to get the language down then there is nothing to be interpreted. The saints in the past might have used "thee" and "thou" in thier everyday language. I guess my point is that the translator for the KJV put it into the language of that time. There is a significant difference in the language used then and the way we speak today.

4) True to an extent. But a version which attacks the deity of Christ can be wore out also - does the wearing out make the Bible God's word or the words in it being from God make it?

You are totally right. I did not consider someone from a "group" handing out some altered book and calling it the bible. I suppose that "version" could be worn out as well. Nasty thought that. My comparison was more directed towards the mainstream versions.

To get back to the OP:
Have you considered...If the originals are the only infallible Bible, then we do not have the Word of God, but a mixture of error and truth. How are God's people to be guided?

I think that there are many many ways of saying the same thing. As far as the meaning is not changed I do not have a problem with having passages worded slightly differently. When the meaning changes then I have a problem. For example:
"I concur"
being changed to:
"I agree"
is fine. That change can help with understanding.
Changing it to:
"I disagree"
is not. That changes the meaning.

It is strange to me that some people attempt to retranslate the original greek to support some bogus claim. They forget that there are millions of greeks that need no translation (or very very little) and get the same meaning that all the rest of us do.

[BT]

BT, I know what you believe on this issue, could you add a little bit more to make it clear for those who may not understand the point you're making?

I can try.

The issue has come to the trustworthiness of the translations, but the real issue is the originals from which the translations are ... translated.

There are essentially two sets of manuscripts; the TR (received text) and the ET (eclectic texts).

One is good (TR), one is bad (ET), and there are volumes written on this.

One set of translations (TR) (KJV) consists of a literal translation.

One set of translations (ET) (NIV,NASB, etc) consists of rationalism and "textual criticism" (furthermore, based on bad and inconsistent manuscripts).

So my point is that the reason the KJV is best is that it is a literal translation of the only reliable manuscripts, which has been PRESERVED throughout the years and is TRUE to the originals.

But the KJV as a TRANSLATION is not inspired. It's impossible. It's a copy.

[hindsey]

The problem that you are going to run into here is that it is likely that the originals were written in greek, it was the language of the educated and the one that was used to record events - however the language that Christ most likely spoke was aramaic. So you have God himself speaking aramaic and the disciples writing in greek. That is one translation before the words even hit paper.


The saints in the past might have used "thee" and "thou" in thier everyday language. I guess my point is that the translator for the KJV put it into the language of that time. There is a significant difference in the language used then and the way we speak today.

You are totally right. I did not consider someone from a "group" handing out some altered book and calling it the bible. I suppose that "version" could be worn out as well. Nasty thought that. My comparison was more directed towards the mainstream versions.

I'd like to just comment on a couple of things...

The fact that the NT authors wrote down in a different language than that which was spoken, proves that there CAN be an Inspired translation. In the Old Testament, Moses spoke to Pharaoh in Egyptian, but it was recorded in the Hebrew writings, everyone here would agree those were inspired. So, there CAN be a perfect/inspired translation...

Thee means You, and Thou means You. I joke about it, but in reality the KJV is easy enough to read without any help - in most places. Of course, there are some that without having a better grasp on the English of the time can be difficult. But these become less and less, the more you read the KJV. Also, Thee and You in the KJV are different. Thee is singular, You is plural.

The mainstream Bibles like the NIV are guilty of many of the same "changes" that versions like the NWT.

[If Not For Grace]

I t's a shame Moses did not have the KJ to go by, don't you think?http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/355v.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxdm11798US)

[twistedsketch]

All the above versions disagree with one another so...are they all the "Word of God"?
Do they really? Or are they just different ways of looking at the same Word? Remember, I am limiting this question to the versions rural_preacher used: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV.

All of the above accept the KJV attack the deity of Christ in places (this is well documented)
That's news to me. Show me where. And I'll show you where the KJV has a doctrinal error if you take the passage too literally.
Though all the new versions contain the "message" does this mean they are all Bibles?
Since they do not add to it or take away from it, I'll say yes.
Because you can find the fundamentals iin the modern versions does this mean they are Bibles?
Same answer as the last question.

Would you mind defining what you mean by the "Word of God"? - thanks

The words and teachings of God, faithfully preserved, canonized, and translated.

[hindsey]

Do they really? Or are they just different ways of looking at the same Word? Remember, I am limiting this question to the versions rural_preacher used: KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV.

That's news to me. Show me where. And I'll show you where the KJV has a doctrinal error if you take the passage too literally.

Since they do not add to it or take away from it, I'll say yes.

Same answer as the last question.

The words and teachings of God, faithfully preserved, canonized, and translated.

It's not just a matter of translating a word differently. NASB, NIV don't have the following 17 verses in them:
Matthew 17:21

Matthew 18:11

Matthew 23:14

Mark 7:16

Mark 9:44

Mark 9:46

Mark 11:26

Mark 15:28

Luke 17:36

Luke 23:17

John 5:4

Acts 8:37

Acts 15:34

Acts 24:7

Acts 28:29

Romans 16:24

1 John 5:7


Examples of changing verses re: Deity of Christ.
1 Tim 3:16 KJV: "God was manifest in the flesh..."
1 Tim 3:16 NIV: "He appeared in a body..."
1 Tim 3:16 NASB:"He who was revealed in the flesh..."
1 Tim 3:16 NWT: "He was made manifest in the flesh..."

1 John 5:7 KJV: "For there are there that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
1 John 5:7 NIV: "For there are three that testify:"
1 John 5:7 NASB: "For there are three that testify:"
1 John 5:7 NWT: "For there are three witness bearers,"

These differences have nothing to do with Interpretation.

[twistedsketch]

It's not just a matter of translating a word differently. NASB, NIV don't have the following 17 verses in them:
Matthew 17:21

Matthew 18:11

Matthew 23:14

Mark 7:16

Mark 9:44

Mark 9:46

Mark 11:26

Mark 15:28

Luke 17:36

Luke 23:17

John 5:4

Acts 8:37

Acts 15:34

Acts 24:7

Acts 28:29

Romans 16:24

1 John 5:7

All footnoted.


Examples of changing verses re: Deity of Christ.
1 Tim 3:16 KJV: "God was manifest in the flesh..."
1 Tim 3:16 NIV: "He appeared in a body..."
1 Tim 3:16 NASB:"He who was revealed in the flesh..."
1 Tim 3:16 NWT: "He was made manifest in the flesh..."

I don't see any perversion of His deity here. The NASB says it better than the NIV, but I see nothing heretical.


1 John 5:7 KJV: "For there are there that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
1 John 5:7 NIV: "For there are three that testify:"
1 John 5:7 NASB: "For there are three that testify:"
1 John 5:7 NWT: "For there are three witness bearers,"

This verse was first found as a side note in the Vulgate - I believe in the 7th century. It was not found in any Greek manuscript until it was back-translated from the Vulgate so it would be included in the Textus Recieptus. I do not deny the Trinity, but the KJV rendering of this verse has stuff that was added on later. The question of its inspiration falls to whether the monk who penned it was divinely inspired or not.

[Shane Roach]

What does it mean, "all footnoted"?

Also, how can the NIV and NASB not have 1 John 5:7 in them if you then turn around and quote them?

Er, my post appears to be aimed at two people, the first a question for twistedsketch and the second for hindsey.

:)

[Shane Roach]

This verse was first found as a side note in the Vulgate - I believe in the 7th century. It was not found in any Greek manuscript until it was back-translated from the Vulgate so it would be included in the Textus Recieptus. I do not deny the Trinity, but the KJV rendering of this verse has stuff that was added on later. The question of its inspiration falls to whether the monk who penned it was divinely inspired or not.

I don't understand this either. If it was a side note, perhaps he found it in an original translation that has been lost? Does anyone at all know why it is there and not in other places? It seems a rather important verse to come up missing... especiually given the controversy still that comes from many about the nature of the Trinity.

[hindsey]

1 John 5:7 in those Bibles is not really 1 John 5:7. It is 1 John 5:6 split into two. I don't know why they did it this way and didn't just leave it out like they did with the other 16 verses that were not included in their versions. There have been many people smarter than you or I that have written books about this verse on both sides of the issue. But I point it out just to show that they are different.

"footnoted" means that there is a note at the bottom of the page that says something along the lines of: "some manuscripts include verse 'such and such' which says 'such and such'". But, I always wonder whether that means they are the words of God or not. And if they are, does that mean that all of the footnotes are?

[Andyman_1970]

I do believe that people can do things that are out of God's will. It's called sin. I believe the KJV is the only accurate traslation of the Holy Bible in the English language currently in print today.

Is this an assertion that use of any other version other than the KJV is a sin?

[constance]

This passage is called the "Johannine Comma" by Bible Scholars. It was part of the Latin Vulgate, "the" Latin bible of the medieval Church. Erasmus (a sixteenth century Catholic scholar who compiled the greek text from which the KJV was written) refused to include it in his version of the Greek text because he couldn't find an old Greek text to back it up. Some people say that he was "provided" with [a new and fresh] one.

At best, the arguement is someone made a genune error and accidentally copied a margin note in as a verse. At worst, someone felt that they needed to substantiate the Trinity and intentionally jot*&*tittled this in.

Oh, and, yes, I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, in the original. This is a perfect example as to why.

Constance

[twistedsketch]

I don't understand this either. If it was a side note, perhaps he found it in an original translation that has been lost? Does anyone at all know why it is there and not in other places? It seems a rather important verse to come up missing... especiually given the controversy still that comes from many about the nature of the Trinity..

Given the sheer volume of copies of the older Greek manuscripts we have, I think that's unlikely.

[Laserman]

Hi,

Isn't it straange that the only folks stirring up strife about " The Bible Issue" are the KJV onlyites.KJV onlyism is a man made dogma ,mostly it's Ruckmanism. Maybe they should spend more time reading their KJV and praying instead of attacking others who spend time in other versions.

Laserman

[Andyman_1970]

Hi,

Isn't it straange that the only folks stirring up strife about " The Bible Issue" are the KJV onlyites.KJV onlyism is a man made dogma ,mostly it's Ruckmanism. Maybe they should spend more time reading their KJV and praying instead of attacking others who spend time in other versions.

Laserman

Amen brother.............. :thumbsup:

If I didn't know ahead of time that Dr. Ruckman was a follower of Jesus, I'd have a hard time believing that he was with the tone of many of his writings - it tends to fly in the face of the whole John 13:34-35 "the world will know you by your love for one another" thing Jesus said.

[JM]

Oh, and, yes, I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, in the original. This is a perfect example as to why.

Constance

And this is a perfect example of why people don't trust the Bible anymore, if only the originals are inerrant and infallible (which means God did take care of His word by providence), then it's not only possible but probable that we don't have God's word today.

:groupray: