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

[finalfrogo]

I read something today that confused me... is the Bible that Protestants use different from the Bible that Catholics use? Is the Bible of Eastern Orthodox also different?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by finalfrogo

I read something today that confused me... is the Bible that Protestants use different from the Bible that Catholics use? Is the Bible of Eastern Orthodox also different?

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?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by finalfrogo

I read something today that confused me... is the Bible that Protestants use different from the Bible that Catholics use? Is the Bible of Eastern Orthodox also different?

This is what I find confusing: Some people insist that "the" Bible is inerrant. They seldom say which Bible is inerrant. The various translations in use today contain some fairly significant differences. If "the" Bible is inerrant, I'd like to know which one it is.

[standing_alone]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This is what I find confusing: Some people insist that "the" Bible is inerrant. They seldom say which Bible is inerrant. The various translations in use today contain some fairly significant differences. If "the" Bible in inerrant, I'd like to know which one it is.

Probably (though I don't think any Bible is the word of God, cause I'm a filthy unbeliever ) the first Bible written ever, for wouldn't that be the one that was inspired by God and would therefore be inerrent?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by standing_alone

Probably (though I don't think any Bible is the word of God, cause I'm a filthy unbeliever ) the first Bible written ever, for wouldn't that be the one that was inspired by God and would be inerrent in the minds of believers?

Well, obviously the original writings of the prophets and apostles would be far closer to inerrant than anything we have today. But it's not as if "the first Bible written ever" was written as a single book. The canon has changed many, many times over the centuries since the individual books comprising it were authored. And even if the originals were letter-perfect, what about all the writings that either didn't make the cut or were literally lost? No book that is incomplete can be considered truly inerrant.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

This is what I find confusing: Some people insist that "the" Bible is inerrant. They seldom say which Bible is inerrant. The various translations in use today contain some fairly significant differences. If "the" Bible is inerrant, I'd like to know which one it is.

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.

[Booko]

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.

I had one person try to tell me that the King James Version was the one that Jesus wrote, and that's why it was better than all the others.

Even Ripley would've been amazed by that, I suspect...

[Ody]

Different translations, same idea (mainly)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Booko

I had one person try to tell me that the King James Version was the one that Jesus wrote, and that's why it was better than all the others.

The one that Jesus wrote?

Even Ripley would've been amazed by that, I suspect...

Yes, I suspect he would!