A few questions?

[endure4salvation]

I don't reckon the Catholic Bible is much different than the Protestant Bible other than the addition of the Apocrypha.

Don't forget Daniel! The D-R and NAB both have more chapters in Daniel than the Protestants do.

But I am not a Catholic or a Protestant, so what version should I use?

[Guest Angeledei]

I don't reckon the Catholic Bible is much different than the Protestant Bible other than the addition of the Apocrypha

Just a small clarification and you can look this up anywhere really. It was after the Reformation that Luther and his cohorts subtracted from Scripture books, they personally believed were not "inspired" books, even though these books were always a part of Sacred Scripture.

The "reformers" not only took away books, but verses and chapters as well; mostly those which did not jive with their new found theology.

Don't forget Daniel! The D-R and NAB both have more chapters in Daniel than the Protestants do.

But I am not a Catholic or a Protestant, so what version should I use?

Again, in the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture and branded them with the pejorative title "Apocrypha."

Catholics refer to them as the "deuterocanonical" books (since they were disputed by a few early authors and their canonicity was established later than the rest), while the rest are known as the "protocanonical" books (since their canonicity was established first).

The recognition of the deuterocanonicals as part of the Bible that was given by individual Fathers was also given by the Fathers as a whole, when they met in Church councils. The results of councils are especially useful because they do not represent the views of only one person, but what was accepted by the Church leaders of whole regions.

The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.

This exact same canon was implicitly affirmed at the seventh ecumenical council, II Nicaea (787), which approved the results of the 419 Council of Carthage, and explicitly reaffirmed at the ecumenical councils of Florence (1442), Trent (1546), Vatican I (1870), and Vatican II (1965).

Anyway, to answer your question about which version, I would stick to the Douay-Rheims as it is the closest to the Latin Vulgate.

[myrockJesus]

because I see your view of History is distorted:

martian luther

the freedom of a

christian

Christian faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is not possible for any man to write well about it, or to understand well what is rightly written, who has not at some time tasted of its spirit, under the pressure of tribulation; while he who has tasted of it, even to a very small extent, can never write, speak, think, or hear about it sufficiently. For it is a living fountain springing up unto eternal life, as Christ calls it in John iv.

Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by various temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that I can speak of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with more solidity, than those literal and too subtle disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon it without understanding their own words. That I may open then an easier way for the ignorant

[sagz4Christ]

Just a small clarification and you can look this up anywhere really. It was after the Reformation that Luther and his cohorts subtracted from Scripture books, they personally believed were not "inspired" books, even though these books were always a part of Sacred Scripture.

The "reformers" not only took away books, but verses and chapters as well; mostly those which did not jive with their new found theology.

I would love to know where you got that information. Because from MY studies on the canon, the OT as I know it was already put together by the time of Christ. And the NT was for the most part together in bundled letters by around 100-120A.D.

My source?

"The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" by F.F. Bruce.

The page? 12.

Did you get that information from the church fathers after Luther?