Many of these had no notes whatever, but were the text alone. When did 66 books cease to be inspired, merely because seven others were not thought to be & were therefore (often) not included ? If mistranslation is a reason for burning Bibles, every Catholic Bible on earth - and every other - should be committed to the flames: the fact is, that no such thing as a perfect translation exists; translators always have to do their best, which is never perfect. The Church did not burn enough Bibles, if the reason that which you give.
The Church’s policy in Bible-burning has no purpose, if it was ***not ***that of “control[ling] what went into Scripture” - that is a very good description of the reason for that practice: “control” sums it up nicely. It is very feeble to applaud the action of the Church, and not its motives for that action. By praising the end achieved, you are committing yourself to praising the means to attain that end. Fundamentalists are willing enough to insist that the Flood covered the entire globe - but they become very coy about taking responsibility for all the animal turds defecated by the larger beasts they say were on the Ark. An honest Fundamentalist takes responsibility for all the turds that are the result of his belief - Catholics should take responsibility for all the turds that result from praising the burning of Bibles.
As for the Sixtine Vulgate of 1590, which left out at least four verses of the Bible, it fully qualifies to be burned like those others, for it was “seriously flawed”.
