Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Religion > Christian Bible Study > Re: Was "Re: Do...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 2 of 4 Topic 1688 of 1747
Post > Topic >>

Re: Was "Re: Do We Take the Bible Literally?"

by Matthew Johnson <matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Feb 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM

In article <8B3F3782-9A05-669E-9F48-35EE7C5246F0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, James
says...
>

[snip]

>And finally, concerning ALL of the Bible being perfect and without
>error, remember all we have is COPIES of the originals, which would
>have been error free.

Well, that sounds all very nice, until you realize it does us absolutely
no good
that the _originals_ were error free, since we do not _have_ the
originals.

[snip]


-- 
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96) 


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))
 




 4 Posts in Topic:
Was "Re: Do We Take the Bible Literally?"
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-02-10 16:01:24 
Re: Was "Re: Do We Take the Bible Literally?"
Matthew Johnson <matth  2008-02-11 12:55:13 
Re: Was "Re: Do We Take the Bible Literally?"
Bart Goddard <goddardb  2008-02-12 18:57:01 
Re: Was "Re: Do We Take the Bible Literally?"
Matthew Johnson <matth  2008-02-13 08:28:26 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Mon Sep 8 11:35:06 CDT 2008.