Its functionally not available the way you make it out.
The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
Not really. Just because a religious text was in use and circulation doesn't make it "the Bible." There are reasons the text was narrowed down to the books included. I've read quite a number of ancient extrabiblical texts. It's pretty easy to see why they were excluded.
As to the discrepancy between what Protestants accept as canon, and Catholics, it comes down to the authority of the Septuagint. Catholics believe in it, Protestants don't.
There are no serious discrepancies between the known ancient manuscripts of the books of the Bible. For the NT, it's a difference of a few sentences--and nothing doctrinal. For the OT, it's a few hundred letters.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
Its functionally not available the way you make it out. The Protestant bible that most are familiar with has fewer books than the Catholic bible. The Catholic bible was shorter than the jewish and greek texts that preceeded it.
You can find, with some effort, an 'original bible', but most people have access only to the books and translations deemed "good" somewhere along the way.
Not really. Just because a religious text was in use and circulation doesn't make it "the Bible." There are reasons the text was narrowed down to the books included. I've read quite a number of ancient extrabiblical texts. It's pretty easy to see why they were excluded.
As to the discrepancy between what Protestants accept as canon, and Catholics, it comes down to the authority of the Septuagint. Catholics believe in it, Protestants don't.
There are no serious discrepancies between the known ancient manuscripts of the books of the Bible. For the NT, it's a difference of a few sentences--and nothing doctrinal. For the OT, it's a few hundred letters.
I have read extensively on what was culled from the bible, and I disagree. There was an entire book that detailed the life of young Jesus, for instance, that was far more than 'a few hundred letters'.
Whether you agree with its discard or no, its not as you are portraying it. Its also not going into how different comparing translations can make the Word come out.
...and it wasn't considered authoritative scripture by the early Christian community (the time of the Apostles).
What was the substance of the arguments for those advocating inclusion with canon?
Mainly because Jesus kills a boy out of spite.
Go back and read what I actually said.
Splinters and eyes. You first.