(January 5, 2013 at 9:33 am)Aractus Wrote: The question isn't whether the Apocrypha should be in the Bible or not. You and I both know that in the 17th century the Church of England read from the Apocrypha in Church every Sunday.
You have access to Catholic sources and material which I typically don't (except perhaps for the online Catholic Encyclopaedia). You are fully capable of doing your own research.
The Vulgate is the main thing here, for me. It was decreed at the Council of Trent to be the holy infallible word of God. The fact that your newer translations no longer use it primarily, as you point out, means that Catholic scholars must think one of two things. 1. that the LV is NOT the holy infallible word of God or 2. that they have something better than the holy infallible word of God (LAWL).
God didn't give us two completely different books of Isaiah, that's ridiculous. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or they're both wrong, but you can't have them both as infallible, same thing with the rest of the books - it's just a good example here.
Do you want to know what I see as the biggest problem with the Catholic viewpoint on scripture? The Jews did not alter their canon since the destruction of the first temple. So in a way you're denying history by claiming that some unknown historical event took place, and the Jewish scriptures became corrupted.
I thought I explained my position already; so i will make it simpler NO.
