Jeffery, I think that Sue is more correct than you. That's a wonderful, inspired comment she made. The compilers of the Bible often didn't put things in order. There are many compilations that straightened these verses out and put them back into their ORIGINAL order whatever that may be, so the KJV doesn't look or read in the same order as you see in your Bible of today. So to say that Sue has taken something out of context because it may be out of order, belies history. Not only verses in our Bible are out of order to the original, but chapters and whole books of the Scriptures too. Quite often compilers added their own notes also.-----What makes you think that Matthew, a tax collector, wrote the Gospel of Matthew and that if he did, he had a ready pen and paper and wrote down in shorthand everything that Jesus said and IN ORDER? Don't you think that he would have been more interested in really listening to Jesus and gaining some spiritual insight? Are you even sure that he heard Jesus in person? If he did, and I think as a disciple may have heard some, are you sure he walked the long trek home after listening to Jesus and was able to print by hand, everything in order and in exactly the same words? Do you think that he may have left something out on occasion? As all of us know, the stories were always word of mouth, not the printed page. Many of these things were written years later after they were heard. The synoptic Gospels are most generally the same and in the same order, but not all were disciples, so they copied from one another, hence their sameness in a lot of areas. Let me tell you that most authorities say that Mathew had Mark's Gospel before him as he wrote his book, inserting his own valuable additions, very seldom diverting from Mark's order. Also, Matthew borrows about half of his narrative from St. Mark and aprox. one third was borrowed from Luke. His main source of his discourses was a document called the Logia. -----There were numerous other Gospels that are not now in our Bible, although were transmitted in earlier history. The Gospel of Peter, for instance is contaminated by fiction. The despised Mathew, employed by Herod and the REPUTED author, was writing for the Jews from his tax collector's viewpoint. His point of view would necessarily be different than that of Luke who was St. Paul's interpreter and a physician. Mark was writing for the Romans. John's recordings were SELECTED by him to make a certain other point----that of illustrating the incarnation of the Son of God. So each was a scribe and not necessarily a reporter, scribing from others’ copies with a personal point of view and with a particular purpose and audience in mind.----The two different viewpoints of you and Sue illustrate my point that all of us take and see from the Scriptures different things because of our different backgrounds, personal history, occupation, likes, dislikes, and purposes----even though we all are reading the same words. This is good, for God speaks to all of us individually and according to our need. The point is for each of us is to gain the SPIRITUAL meaning of the Scriptures and not get hung up on semantics. Is there any one of us that can dictate another's inspiration? Your origanl inspiration taken from Sue's was what you should cling to.