From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 14:56:43 EDT
>Problems in other
>translations can always be "solved" by appealing to the original
>manuscripts. Since those are not available, such a solution seems to me to
>be without any usefulness.
If the original manuscripts/tablets are inerrant, the Bible is more
reliable. It becomes a divine document, not a human document. I imagine
that most of us at least consider the Bible to be 99% accurate.
Any chance that we simply don't fully understand the rest? Does it
really matter if Mark only mentions one blind man? This shows that
Mark's & Matthew's accounts are not merely copies of each other.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 14 2002 - 09:00:15 EDT