T
The_Cub
Guest
Scripture Alone? Is Half the Story Sufficient?
call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm
.
call2holiness.org/ScriptureAlone/ScriptureAlone.htm
.
- Status
Q
quaysman
Guest
Hello Cub,
I skimmed over the “Scripture Alone” article… Looks like the standard Catholic rebuttal of Sola Scriptura… Is there something in particular about the article that has you puzzled?
The Cub:
I skimmed over the “Scripture Alone” article… Looks like the standard Catholic rebuttal of Sola Scriptura… Is there something in particular about the article that has you puzzled?
The Cub:
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
Scripture is not half the story it is sufficient because it is the word of God vs. the word of man. Scripture is like God intended it to be an absolute truth. Nothing can be added or taken away. It gives athority to the church and the church recieves all authority from it. Scripture defines the Church and not the church Scripture.
S
space_ghost
Guest
Christ's friend:
yes if you don’t know “the rest of the story”. No if you do…
i don’t agree… if you don’t know any better (invincible ignorance) you might have a case, but scripture leads you to the church and tradition… apolistic tradition…
yes if you don’t know “the rest of the story”. No if you do…
A
alyssa
Guest
If Scripture defines the Church…then what happened before it was written?
M
Maranatha
Guest
The more you know history, the more you realize that Catholicism embodies Truth.
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
The Chruch did not exist before Scripture but it did exist during a part when it was being written.
I am sorry did you just imply that protestant churches and not in the Truth? Thats what it sounded like to me. I read history, I agree with the teachings of the fathers up to a certain point in history when Scripture was replaced with tradition.
S
scylla
Guest
I have read the Church fathers too and they look like they base their beliefs on the Church with scripture to back it up. Only later did the Church define scripture. That is the way Jesus instituted the Church, the definition of basing a church off of your own interpretation in the frame of Sola Scriptura came up hundreds upon hundreds of years later.
Of course our protestant brothers and sisters have some of the truth they have the Bible. There can only be one truth and when you come to the fullness of it you wont have “divisions among you”.
They just need to find the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” to come to the whole truth.
Of course our protestant brothers and sisters have some of the truth they have the Bible. There can only be one truth and when you come to the fullness of it you wont have “divisions among you”.
They just need to find the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” to come to the whole truth.
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
Sola Scriptura did not come around in the reformation. It was a teaching that has been around since Christ just like all of the Reformed docrines. Luther and the other reformers just took the credit because they reformed it back into the Church of Christ.
G
geezerbob
Guest
Christ's friend:
Scripture itself refers to the oral tradition, which never contradicts scripture. Please show us the proof of your statement. I don’t think you can because it contradicts history.
N
Newman60
Guest
Christ's friend:
The bible, once determined by the Catholic Church, remained unchanged until Martin Luther dropped books from the old testament more than a thousand years later. In fact he also dropped several new testament books in his “September” bible until his friend Phillip Melancthon (spelling?) convinced him to restore them. So Luther only added the word “alone” to a Pauline epistle because he didn’t like James Chapter 2. Today his foreshortened bible is nearly the same NT with a much abbreviated OT - missing some excellent books.
The bible doesn’t even claim to be the sole or whole authority. Moreover the part about adding or taking away only applies to the book it is a part of not to the entire bible. Otherwise Martin Luther and all who use his shortened bible are guilty of that very act! That is an historical fact. Martin Luther himself admitted a debt to the Catholic Church for providing and preserving the bible.
Newman60
In fact the Catholic Church did define what is in scripture in 393, 397 and 419AD. There was no bible until then nearly 400 years after the Resurrection. Catholics or if you will Christians all lived and handed on their faith for the first several hundred years after the Ascension of our Risen Christ without any bible.
The bible, once determined by the Catholic Church, remained unchanged until Martin Luther dropped books from the old testament more than a thousand years later. In fact he also dropped several new testament books in his “September” bible until his friend Phillip Melancthon (spelling?) convinced him to restore them. So Luther only added the word “alone” to a Pauline epistle because he didn’t like James Chapter 2. Today his foreshortened bible is nearly the same NT with a much abbreviated OT - missing some excellent books.
The bible doesn’t even claim to be the sole or whole authority. Moreover the part about adding or taking away only applies to the book it is a part of not to the entire bible. Otherwise Martin Luther and all who use his shortened bible are guilty of that very act! That is an historical fact. Martin Luther himself admitted a debt to the Catholic Church for providing and preserving the bible.
Newman60
M
Maranatha
Guest
Why did the Church have to determine what was in the Bible? I glad someone asked that question. 
Christianity was so successful that many fakes were being created. Here are a few:
The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
The Gospel of Peter.
The Gospel according to the Egyptians
The Gospel of Matthias.
The Gospel of Philip.
The Gospel of Thomas.
The Proto-Evangelium of James.
The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
The Gospel of Basilides.
The Gospel of Valentinus.
The Gospel of Marcion.
The Gospel of Eve.
The Gospel of Judas.
The writing Genna Marias.
The Gospel Teleioseos.
The Church has been battling heritics since the earliest days of it’s history.
Christianity was so successful that many fakes were being created. Here are a few:
The Gospel according to the Hebrews.
The Gospel of Peter.
The Gospel according to the Egyptians
The Gospel of Matthias.
The Gospel of Philip.
The Gospel of Thomas.
The Proto-Evangelium of James.
The Gospel of Nicodemus (Acta Pilati).
The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.
The Gospel of Basilides.
The Gospel of Valentinus.
The Gospel of Marcion.
The Gospel of Eve.
The Gospel of Judas.
The writing Genna Marias.
The Gospel Teleioseos.
The Church has been battling heritics since the earliest days of it’s history.
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Christ's friend:
Please!
Please!
T
The_Cub
Guest
Christsfriend,
PART I
I will apologize to you in advance, because I am going to give you the cold hard facts……unfortunately it is done in writing which is a very cold means of communication. I mean you no disrespect.
call2holiness.org/era-of-peace.html
In addition, there a several references within the New Testament that refers to the Deuters. Rather than explain this, Protestants simply ignore the fact. That is to say, that the NT in the KJV has references to missing texts within the KJV.
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
Why? because of Matthew 16:15-19
Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Once again, as the 1st writing above states, at the time that St. John was writing the Apocalypse (Revelation in English), the Church was on its 5th Pope. Clearly, the Church existed long before the Bible. Once again, the Bible was defined in the 4th century by Pope St. Damasus 1…and he gave charge to St. Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest to translate and compile the 1st Bible……the Latin Vulgate.
PART I
I will apologize to you in advance, because I am going to give you the cold hard facts……unfortunately it is done in writing which is a very cold means of communication. I mean you no disrespect.
- You did not read and heed the writing. It is the will of Almighty God that we seek the truth. And we are to do this regardless of whether it feels good or not.
call2holiness.org/era-of-peace.html
- The Bible is a Roman Catholic Book……we wrote it, plain and simple…even Martin Luther conceded that. The KJV is not the Bible. The Bible includes the Deutercanonicals which Luther deleted because they got in his way. Now he did this in spite of the many citations within scripture warning man not to add to or take away from the written Word of God.
In addition, there a several references within the New Testament that refers to the Deuters. Rather than explain this, Protestants simply ignore the fact. That is to say, that the NT in the KJV has references to missing texts within the KJV.
- It was the Catholic Church through Pope St. Damasus I that defined which books of the Bible were canonical and which were not. Holy Scripture became inerrant by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm
Why? because of Matthew 16:15-19
Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Once again, as the 1st writing above states, at the time that St. John was writing the Apocalypse (Revelation in English), the Church was on its 5th Pope. Clearly, the Church existed long before the Bible. Once again, the Bible was defined in the 4th century by Pope St. Damasus 1…and he gave charge to St. Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest to translate and compile the 1st Bible……the Latin Vulgate.
T
The_Cub
Guest
PART II
The word ‘heresy’ is Greek for ‘error’. Protestants teach heresy.
Did you read the citation from Psalm 127 in the writing? Are you willing to gamble your soul on man made “churches”, when Holy Scripture and logical deductive reasoning dictates otherwise?
- Indeed Scripture is insufficient. Once again you did not read the writing. You rejected the directive from Holy Scripture which stated that it is the will of Almighty God that we seek the truth. We know that Scripture is insufficient because Scripture tells us so, and the Pope pursuant to the authority granted in the keys by Jesus Christ has defined Scripture.
- No, Protestants are not ‘in the truth’ as you say. They do not have the Bible, and while they claim to believe in Scripture, they only follow those citations that make them feel good rejecting the others. A classic example is professing John 3:16 (taken out of context) while ignoring John 3:36.
The word ‘heresy’ is Greek for ‘error’. Protestants teach heresy.
- If you believe in Holy Scripture, then please answer the questions raised in the 1st writing. Where in Scripture does it say 'Scripture Alone"? Where in Scripture does it say that man has the right to start “churches” (i.e. ecclesial communities) in addition to His Apostolic Church? It doesn’t. Why then are there nearly 40,000 ecclesial communities if ‘Scripture Alone’ is the rule? All 40,000 or so, claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit….how can that be when there is only one inerrant Holy Spirit?
Did you read the citation from Psalm 127 in the writing? Are you willing to gamble your soul on man made “churches”, when Holy Scripture and logical deductive reasoning dictates otherwise?
T
The_Cub
Guest
PART III
Indeed, Jesus Christ started the Roman Catholic Church. He built it upon the Apostles. As a body on earth, He gave charge of His Church to St. Peter. He changed his name from Simon to Peter (which means ‘rock’), and built His Catholic Church upon St. Peter.
"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and **whatever you bind ON EARTH shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose ON EARTH shall be loosed in heaven.” **(Cf. Matthew 16:15-19).
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope. His successors for 2,000 years have each been the bishops of Rome and the Pope, the head of the universal Church.
Now, Protestants believe that their KJV represents 100% of the faith. It is apparent that Jesus did not emphasize the WRITTEN WORD while on earth. As a matter of fact, there is neither any evidence of Jesus picking up a pencil, pen or stylus, nor any evidence of Him telling His disciples to write anything down. Truly the Holy Spirit did later. My point is that the Faith for most of the last 2,000 years has been handed down ORALLY. Jesus traveled about preaching ORALLY. If He had wanted to emphasize that 100% of the Faith rested in the WRITTEN WORD, He would have sat down on day one and written the Bible Himself. At a minimum He would have directed the disciples to write things down. Further if He intended the WRITTEN WORD to represent 100% of the Faith, He would have seen that word processors, fax machines and photocopiers would have been invented and readily available during His public ministry, and He would have told His disciples to fax the Bible to all nations. Instead what He told them was:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mat 2819-20).
Indeed the Apostles wrote things down i.e. the books of the New Testament, but they primarily taught by preaching the gospel ORALLY.
The Bible was not compiled as such until the end of the 4th century, and the general public was largely illiterate until the 20th century. Clearly, the ORAL WORD was the primary source of faith for many years. Indeed there was writing during such time, but the faith was generally being handed down ORALLY. We have evidence of this historical ORAL preaching in the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors. **Now, this handing down of the Faith ORALLY and reflected in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors is called Catholic Tradition. ***Traditio *in Latin means "to hand down".
Imagine the value of studying the writings of St. Polycarp and Papias who were taught directly by St. John! They were EYEWITNESSES.
- Consider the following:
Indeed, Jesus Christ started the Roman Catholic Church. He built it upon the Apostles. As a body on earth, He gave charge of His Church to St. Peter. He changed his name from Simon to Peter (which means ‘rock’), and built His Catholic Church upon St. Peter.
"He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and **whatever you bind ON EARTH shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose ON EARTH shall be loosed in heaven.” **(Cf. Matthew 16:15-19).
St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope. His successors for 2,000 years have each been the bishops of Rome and the Pope, the head of the universal Church.
Now, Protestants believe that their KJV represents 100% of the faith. It is apparent that Jesus did not emphasize the WRITTEN WORD while on earth. As a matter of fact, there is neither any evidence of Jesus picking up a pencil, pen or stylus, nor any evidence of Him telling His disciples to write anything down. Truly the Holy Spirit did later. My point is that the Faith for most of the last 2,000 years has been handed down ORALLY. Jesus traveled about preaching ORALLY. If He had wanted to emphasize that 100% of the Faith rested in the WRITTEN WORD, He would have sat down on day one and written the Bible Himself. At a minimum He would have directed the disciples to write things down. Further if He intended the WRITTEN WORD to represent 100% of the Faith, He would have seen that word processors, fax machines and photocopiers would have been invented and readily available during His public ministry, and He would have told His disciples to fax the Bible to all nations. Instead what He told them was:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mat 2819-20).
Indeed the Apostles wrote things down i.e. the books of the New Testament, but they primarily taught by preaching the gospel ORALLY.
The Bible was not compiled as such until the end of the 4th century, and the general public was largely illiterate until the 20th century. Clearly, the ORAL WORD was the primary source of faith for many years. Indeed there was writing during such time, but the faith was generally being handed down ORALLY. We have evidence of this historical ORAL preaching in the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors. **Now, this handing down of the Faith ORALLY and reflected in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors is called Catholic Tradition. ***Traditio *in Latin means "to hand down".
Imagine the value of studying the writings of St. Polycarp and Papias who were taught directly by St. John! They were EYEWITNESSES.
T
The_Cub
Guest
PART IV
Now, the Catholic Church wrote the Holy Bible. Further, the Holy Bible is incomplete. How do we know this? Because Holy Scripture itself tells us so. Consider the following:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (Cf. John 20:30-31)
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Cf. John 21:25).
“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (Cf. John 16:12-15)
So, where is the rest of the Deposit of Faith if Holy Scripture is incomplete? The answer is in Catholic Tradition and in the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church (you will recall that He told St. Peter, “whatever you bind ON EARTH shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose ON EARTH shall be loosed in heaven.”).
Therefore to reiterate the Deposit of Faith is comprised of the following: Catholic Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.
Protestants do not recognize all of Holy Scripture. They have taken out 7 books called the deuterocanonicals. They have done this in spite of the fact that Holy Scripture says not to do so.
**Now, the reason you see Catholics getting annoyed with the charges of Protestants against the Roman Catholic Faith, is largely due to fact that they attack the complete Deposit of Faith using only Holy Scripture (and only a fraction of that). **Furthermore, many treat their KJV as their security blanket. They are governed by their feelings. They believe that if something makes them feel good then it is from the Holy Spirit; if it makes them feel uncomfortable then it is from the Evil One. Many verses in Holy Scripture (like those cited above) make them feel uncomfortable, so they deal with it by ignoring such verses, or twisting their meaning in such a way that they are comfortable once again. They do this in spite of the following:
“This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Consider the following story which I submit to illustrate their conclusions about the Faith based upon using only their KJV:
"Once upon a time, there was a man who was born blind. He spent all of his life in darkness. One day, his friend offered to take him to the zoo to introduce him to God’s creatures, which the blind man had never encountered before. The blind man was very excited about this opportunity.
The day for their adventure arrived, and his friend picked up the blind man and took him to the zoo. They proceeded from animal to animal, and the blind man was bursting with excitement.
When they came to the elephant, the blind man seized the elephant’s tail, and after having run his hand up and down his tail exclaimed, “Oh, I see, elephants are a lot like snakes!”
Now, the invalid conclusion reached by the blind man in the story above was due to his misfortunate handicap. Please understand that Catholics do not have any problem with Protestants believing in their KJV. The problem is that they have their eyes closed with only the tail in their hand, and are criticizing us and we have our eyes open to the whole elephant.
Scripture Alone? Is Half the Story Sufficient?
www.call2holiness.org/era-of-peace.html
How we know Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/how.htm
The names of the men who founded the Protestant ecclesial Communities:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm
Now, the Catholic Church wrote the Holy Bible. Further, the Holy Bible is incomplete. How do we know this? Because Holy Scripture itself tells us so. Consider the following:
“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” (Cf. John 20:30-31)
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Cf. John 21:25).
“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (Cf. John 16:12-15)
So, where is the rest of the Deposit of Faith if Holy Scripture is incomplete? The answer is in Catholic Tradition and in the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church (you will recall that He told St. Peter, “whatever you bind ON EARTH shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose ON EARTH shall be loosed in heaven.”).
Therefore to reiterate the Deposit of Faith is comprised of the following: Catholic Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.
Protestants do not recognize all of Holy Scripture. They have taken out 7 books called the deuterocanonicals. They have done this in spite of the fact that Holy Scripture says not to do so.
**Now, the reason you see Catholics getting annoyed with the charges of Protestants against the Roman Catholic Faith, is largely due to fact that they attack the complete Deposit of Faith using only Holy Scripture (and only a fraction of that). **Furthermore, many treat their KJV as their security blanket. They are governed by their feelings. They believe that if something makes them feel good then it is from the Holy Spirit; if it makes them feel uncomfortable then it is from the Evil One. Many verses in Holy Scripture (like those cited above) make them feel uncomfortable, so they deal with it by ignoring such verses, or twisting their meaning in such a way that they are comfortable once again. They do this in spite of the following:
“This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Consider the following story which I submit to illustrate their conclusions about the Faith based upon using only their KJV:
"Once upon a time, there was a man who was born blind. He spent all of his life in darkness. One day, his friend offered to take him to the zoo to introduce him to God’s creatures, which the blind man had never encountered before. The blind man was very excited about this opportunity.
The day for their adventure arrived, and his friend picked up the blind man and took him to the zoo. They proceeded from animal to animal, and the blind man was bursting with excitement.
When they came to the elephant, the blind man seized the elephant’s tail, and after having run his hand up and down his tail exclaimed, “Oh, I see, elephants are a lot like snakes!”
Now, the invalid conclusion reached by the blind man in the story above was due to his misfortunate handicap. Please understand that Catholics do not have any problem with Protestants believing in their KJV. The problem is that they have their eyes closed with only the tail in their hand, and are criticizing us and we have our eyes open to the whole elephant.
Scripture Alone? Is Half the Story Sufficient?
www.call2holiness.org/era-of-peace.html
How we know Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/how.htm
The names of the men who founded the Protestant ecclesial Communities:
home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm
- St. Paul teaches us that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ upon Earth. How can you call yourself Christ’s friend, when you reject Him in HIS Church?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Christ's friend:
This is total bunk, without a historical leg to limp around on…
F
Franze
Guest
Luther decided in XVI century what is Bible and what it isn´t, is he infalible, like the Pope?, but it isn´t Peter? the protestantism is a joke like the relativism where all is relative except this, greetings
A
awalt
Guest
Re: The Cub’s comment:
In addition, there a several references within the New Testament that refers to the Deuters. Rather than explain this, Protestants simply ignore the fact. That is to say, that the NT in the KJV has references to missing texts within the KJV.
Thisis absolutely correct! I can share my own story, scary in a way. The first time I read the Bible cover to cover was when I was moving from a convenience Catholic (not really into my faith) to a true Catholic and Christian, although at the time I was starting with reading the Bible and had not even gotten back to the Catechism yet.
I read the NIV version - I didn’t know any better and at the time, it was a big step up that I was reading ANY Bible
. Through reading that, I slowly was building an awareness that there were books missing? What is that all about? I thought the Bible was the Bible? Why are there books missing? Are there really, or are they named differently, organized differently, etc.?
Well, you know what happened - a little research, and voila - the Deuterocanonicals! Needless to say it was the last time I read the NIV
In addition, there a several references within the New Testament that refers to the Deuters. Rather than explain this, Protestants simply ignore the fact. That is to say, that the NT in the KJV has references to missing texts within the KJV.
Thisis absolutely correct! I can share my own story, scary in a way. The first time I read the Bible cover to cover was when I was moving from a convenience Catholic (not really into my faith) to a true Catholic and Christian, although at the time I was starting with reading the Bible and had not even gotten back to the Catechism yet.
I read the NIV version - I didn’t know any better and at the time, it was a big step up that I was reading ANY Bible
. Through reading that, I slowly was building an awareness that there were books missing? What is that all about? I thought the Bible was the Bible? Why are there books missing? Are there really, or are they named differently, organized differently, etc.?Well, you know what happened - a little research, and voila - the Deuterocanonicals! Needless to say it was the last time I read the NIV
- Status