Salvation is by faith ‘alone’, without works (Eph.2:8-9, Tit.3:5), so it is all of grace.
And if it is by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work’(Rom.11:6)
Of course we're worried about the common man -- the same reason why you don't give a teenager the Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible and even more so in the days before the internet, before freely available books when one mistranslated Bible could wreak havoc -- what if someone say wrote "oath's" instead of "oaths'"? It gives a subtle change in meaning, right?you got a problem with this? Do you agree or disagree that the word "alone" was added in? I'm not arguing about the doctrine but about the mistranslation -- Our main topic is on the errors in translation. If you want to stick to one topic at a time, it would be good."In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, the Mentel Bible, a High-German vernacular Bible was printed at Strassburg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times." -- yes, this is proof the the Church was ok with books translated into the vernacular - if it was properly vetted. What was wrong with Luther's? Well, the addition of the word alone to Romans 1:17 is a good example of how one can build up philosophy from a wrong translation
Granted, this was not as bad as the wholescale mistranslation of the Jehovah's witnesses or Gnostics etc.
Unless you wish to argue with us if you think that the Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible is good?