Those who don't believe God could, can, and will, preserve His Word, don't know the One I do.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
Well.... since we are all having a final say it appears, I'll just make the observation that He must have figured the Roman Catholics needed more information since their bible is bigger.
I just learned via PM that since I don't believe the bible to be inerrant, my Christianity has been revoked.
Now you tell me that I know a different God than you know. My concept of God has served me exceedingly well for many years so I know you will understand when I don't modify it to fit another man's concept.
Interesting ideas brought up here that have a lot to do with the topic of the OP.
Not in the order posted, but one thing to note is the huge difference between the Roman Catholic Church (note I say the church as an institution not individual members thereof for I am not herein maligning individuals but communicating my understanding of their doctrines) and Protestants is that the former see the church as giving Scripture authority while the latter see the Scriptures as giving the Church authority (although what that authority looks like varies greatly between denominations). It stands to reason, therefore, that the authoritative cannon of the two would vary rather significantly. I am not 100% sure of this, but it seems to me that I've also been told that the Roman Catholic Church's Bible contains books that were not seen as authoritative before the schism between them & the Orthodox Church in the early part of the second millennium AD.
As to revocation of Christianity I find the thief on the cross to be a good reference in these situations; that is, what do we suppose he believed? It doesn't say, but Christ affirmed the man's place in the Kingdom of God, and I doubt the guy understood infallibility or inerrancy or whatever.
On the flip side of that Ricky begs an excellent question. Christ is quoted as asking the Pharisees what miracle would be greater... healing a man (I can't remember the deformity or ailment of the specific person in the story) or forgiving the man's sins. The Pharisees said healing, so Christ healed the man and proceeded to forgive the man's sins under the implication that if He was sufficiently powerful to do the former then He was also powerful enough to do the latter. In similar fashion I would ask... what is harder to accomplish? The salvation of sinful, fallen men or the preservation of the story of that salvation for many generations?
When I ask myself that question I personally come to the conclusion that the salvation I have no doubt exists was a much bigger task than preservation of the story. If God is powerful enough to save for Himself a people, then He certainly can be counted on to bring those people a word sufficient to communicate that salvation, at least in my mind.
Anyway, I don't think I've run across a single person in this thread that I wouldn't love to share hunting camp with. I personally find that most of the controversy we run up against here is due to the lack of personal contact over the internet. Disagreeing with and maligning some type under a somewhat anonymous screen name is a lot easier for me to do than a flesh and blood person with whom I've shared a meal and a hunting camp. Maybe its just me but I suspect it isn't.
Grace and peace y'all!
