Different Bibles? Wha? (translation, prophet, protestants, catholic, Christianity)

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

The one that Jesus wrote?

Hey, they never taught me in Sunday school that the Bible was comprised mainly of oral traditions from various times that were later recorded. So I figure, in a way it's not that bizarre, if you don't read much.

The part where anyone would think Jesus spoke English is what kind gets me. But then, people can't find basic stuff on a map either, so maybe it's not so strange after all.

I have a lot of interesting conversations with people while sitting at the counter at the Waffle House. You get to meet a lot of really normal people there.

It's also a great opportunity to ask guys in the trades how to do those little fix-it jobs around the house.

[finalfrogo]

Originally Posted by sojourner

It's real easy. Most of those who say the Bible is inerrant read only the Protestant, King James version. Therefore, the Protestant, King James version is the one that is inerrant.

You can't be serious! Are you saying the inerrancy of a Bible is effected by the number of people who read it?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Booko

Yes. The Catholic bible also contains deuterocanonical books.

From what I read JamesthePersian post in another thread, apparently there is no single canon in Orthodox Christianity, though they have a lot in common.

See post #10 in this thread:

why are there 66 books in the bible?

This is not quite true. The RC canon has most (but not all) of the deuterocanon. We use all of it, so our OT canon is slightly larger than theirs. We, the OOs and the RCs also use the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text of the OT (which most Protestants use) which means that there are many minor (and some not so minor) differences in the non-deterocannonical texts.

The Orthodox Church does have a single canon. What you appear to have misunderstood is my argument against a single canon accepted by the whole Church in history. The RCs reduced the Septuagint very early and the Ethiopian canon was longer than ours even before the schism at Chalcedon. In addition, Aramaic speaking Christians used the Peshitta. That means that there were three or four different canons, all considered valid, used in different areas within the one Church. Since the various schisms this is no longer the case as the Ethiopians are now OO, we are EO and the Latins RC (though the OOs have two canons, the majority using the same one we do).

One thing that is important to note is that all of these canons were based on the Septuagint with most or all of the deuterocanon included. The actions that lead to the Protestant Bible had no precedent in any Church prior to the Reformation which rather puts the lie to the claims of sola scriptura.

James

[Booko]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

The Orthodox Church does have a single canon. What you appear to have misunderstood is my argument against a single canon accepted by the whole Church in history. The RCs reduced the Septuagint very early and the Ethiopian canon was longer than ours even before the schism at Chalcedon. In addition, Aramaic speaking Christians used the Peshitta. That means that there were three or four different canons, all considered valid, used in different areas within the one Church. Since the various schisms this is no longer the case as the Ethiopians are now OO, we are EO and the Latins RC (though the OOs have two canons, the majority using the same one we do).

Ah, I was hoping you would drop in this thread.

One thing that is important to note is that all of these canons were based on the Septuagint with most or all of the deuterocanon included. The actions that lead to the Protestant Bible had no precedent in any Church prior to the Reformation which rather puts the lie to the claims of sola scriptura.

I was raised Protestant, but it was only after reading a little of church history I realized how disconnected from history many Protestants have become. And I was raised in a denomination that wasn't too disconnected, even. It does lead to some odd conclusions sometimes.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by finalfrogo

You can't be serious! Are you saying the inerrancy of a Bible is effected by the number of people who read it?

No, I'm saying that most of the people who claim that the scriptures are "inerrant" make that claim having read only the King James version. It's tongue-in-cheek.

[may]

Bible Online this is my favourite bible