-> >LL>All translations have certain biases.  The KJV is no different. Some
-> >LL>translations of the bible are good.  Other translations are
horrible.  

And in the last fifty years a lot of other 'gospels' have been found...


-> >LL>same thing is true of other religious texts, such as the Qur'an. 
There
-> >LL>simply is no such thing as a "one text fits all" when
-> >LL>it comes to religion.

Lately I have been suspicious of your posts: Are you SURE that someone
older and wiser than you doesn't sneaks into your room and posts here?
-> 
-> JS>Hello Lee. While I have long been a KJV advocate, for reasons which
-> JS>I explain in my series "In Defense Of The KJV", which
you can read
-> JS>here...

'His sins may be as scarlet, but his articles are not read...:-)
 
 
-> JS>...nevertheless, even I am willing to admit that the KJV Bible is
-> JS>not a perfect work.
("Even I..." :-)

-> 
-> No work of man is ever perfect.  But the gospel accounts must be
-> taken as accurate, if the story is to be believed.  That is the only
-> record we really have, meaning we must accept that record a priori.

Would tht include the Naj Hammadi library? The Gospel of Jesus? The Gospel
of Thomas, The Gospel of Judas?

-> 
-> No book of the bible is a history.  Not even the gospel accounts.
-> It is more a revealing of religious truth(s).

True, and largely ignored. :-|

  Those who wrote the
-> gospel accounts were believers.  Nobody knows who the actual people
-> who wrote them were.  Nor is that really important.
True.

  The Jewish
-> people accept the writings of the Torah as true, just as Christians
-> accept the gospels as true, same as Muslims accept the Qu'ran as
-> true.
-> 
-> JS>Is it God-inspired? Yes, I do believe that it is; but because
-> JS>the actual physical work was done by man, and because man is not
-> JS>perfect, then obviously, human flaws will have crept into the Bible.
-> 
-> Muslims argue that the Torah when given to man by God was perfect,
-> but was later "corrupted" by man.  Muslims also argue that
the Gospels
-> when given to man by God was perfect, but was later "corrupted" by
-> man.  Naturally, Muslims argue the Qur'an when given by God to man was
-> also perfect.  Within the first century of Islam, the Qu'ran was also
-> "corrupted", which is why Muslims destroyed later editions of the
-> Qu'ran, the idea to keep the Qur'an "pure."  That is why the Qur'an
-> must be recited in Arabic at all mosques.  English won't cut it.
-> French won't cut it.  Nor any other language.  It has to be Arabic.
-> 
-> What is God-inspired?  How do we know something to be God-inspired?
-> The Prophet Muhammad did not know if the Qur'an was the work of God
-> or of the Devil.  It took his wife, Fatima, to convince him it was
-> the work of God, rather than the Devil.
-> 
-> As Christians, we believe the Gospel to be God-inspired.
-> Naturally, Jews believe the Torah to be God-inspired, and
-> Muslims believe the Qur'an to be God-inspired.
-> 
-> If Christians believed in the same way as Muslims (or Jews), Christians
-> would not be Christians.  If Muslims believed in the same way as
-> Christians (or Jews), Muslims would not be Muslims.  If Jews believed
-> in the same way as Christians (or Muslims), Jews would not be Jewish.
-> 
-> JS>But here's the thing -- and again, I explain this in my articles --
what
-> JS>non-believers cannot apparently understand, is that inspite of the
-> JS>manipulation of the Bible by both political and religious forces over
the
-> JS>centuries, if we truly believe that God is who He says He is, then we
must
-> JS>also believe that He has been able to preserve the most important
essence
-> JS>of His Word; the central message, of course, being Salvation through
-> JS>Jesus Christ.

THAT is where Kochman/Snyder basically, fundamentally errs.
The central message is the teachings of Jesus. But if you are saved by
grace and belief in a coming resurrection, you can forget all that nonsense
about
loving your neighbor, not judging, being a good samaritan, the discourses
on Matthew ('from the Mount) ... 
-> 
-> What is a "non-believer"?  Muslims call all non-believers
"infidels".
-> Yet Muslims give honor to Jews and Christians, calling them "People of
-> the Book" - whose religion is tolerated because all believe in one God.
-> 
-> The Jewish way of salvation is not the same as the Christian or Muslim
-> way of salvation.  Peoples of different faiths have different beliefs.
-> 
-> Just because one is Jewish does not mean he/she is damned.
-> Just because one is Muslim does not mean he/she is damned.
-> Just because one is non-Christian does not mean he/she is damned.
-> Just because somebody calls himself/herself a Christian does
-> not save them from eternal damnation.
-> 
-> When Jesus was dying on the cross, he made believers out of
-> everybody, including others being executed, as well as Roman
-> soldiers who were doing the executing.
-> 
-> He made even more believers after He had risen from the grave,
-> scaring the living bejeezus out of everyone who saw Him walking
-> the streets of Jerusalem.
-> 
-> So who are we to say who are "non-believers"?
-> 
Depends on who/what you believe :-)

Happy with the handle 'heretic'...
****************
You should taste my mustard pie
Though it's a little spicy
You should really give it a try
With tabasco it IS a little dicey..) 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5