>Tom,
>
>>>Len,
>>>
>>>>>God’s word is the Bible. The problem is having mankind interpreting His word and meaning.
>>>>
>>>>No, the Bible is just one of mankind's interpretations of God's word.
>>>
>>>What do you base this assertion on if I may ask?
>>>
>>>>In addition to the problems mankind has in interpreting His word & meaning, it comes from a variety of sources & a variety of languages,
>>>
>>>Not true. There are three source languages of the Bible; Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
>>>
>>>>so it also suffers the problems mankind has in translating from one language to another,
>>>
>>>Not true. There are so many more copies of extant documents (something like 40-50,000) of various passages of the Bible vs the next best runner-up (The Illiad by Homer with ~950 etant documents) that it's not even close. We can construct something like 98.5% of the entire New Testament without even looking at copies of it - from the various personal letters between people who quoted passages and so forth.
>>>
>>>>including the subtleties of meanings of words from a different culture.
>>>
>>>Most of the ignorance here is because we've dumbed ourselves down. <s> There are plenty of great Greek lexicons out there. A.T. Robertson comes to mind. I have several myself. I think the problem is not a lack of information but the dissemination of that knowledge.
>>>
>>>>I would suggest that most versions of the Bible in existence today bear very little resemblence to God's word & his meaning.
>>>
>>>Some do not. Some do. You may recall that in 1948 or so a young Bedouin goat herding boy who found what are called the Dead Sea Scrolls?? Well, prior to that find the earliest (extant) copy of the Book of Isiah was, oh, somewhere around 700 AD. They found a copy in one of the jars that matched almost perfectly (minor marks differences) with the AD 300 copy. What you most likely do not know is how Jewish scholars made copies of scrolls. It's quite interesting but I'll leave you to dig that one out. <s>
>>>
>>>You really need to educate yourself a little better here IMO. <s>
>>
>>Doug;
>>
>>The influence of Henry VIII has far reaching effects upon the understanding of the Church and its teachings. There is a tradition amongst the culture of the English to make up your own definition of the Church. Perhaps that is what we are seeing in this case. It has nothing to do with reality but rather the view point of one man influenced by his own ignorance.
>>
>>Tom
>
>*chuckle*
>
>And the first pope was married. <g> Remember.. Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law. <g>
>
>Or are you just being a trouble causer?? <g>

Doug;

You know me! :) hehehe.....

Tom