So many bibles! Which one to believe?

That dang blasted Martin Luther! Imagine him thinking OF dear innocent and perfect sinless James that way.
surly you are not confused by James letter are ya? you propably also understand just like that dang blasted Luther that it is not God that justifies people by what he sees .

but as the James letter clearly points out it is only us people that justify people by what we see.
for poor innocent James clerly points out it is his eyes not Gods that justify people by what he sees them do.

Luther AND IAM SURE YOU TO found
that it is only God that REALLY messes things up by justifying those ungodly------- good for nothings like DR Luther.

6.Romans 5:6
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:5-7


every one just not that low down good for nothing martin luther knows one must bear real and true sins to be saved Since God does not save imagenary sinner's!
so let our sins be strong but our faith in christ his complete and full and free forgivness be stronger still.

I am a convert and this summer, my family came to visit and my 10 year old sister asked me if Catholics use the same Bible as Methodists. I was like "Well... mostly..."

We dispute about seven of the Old Testament books (and parts of books) between the Catholics and Protestants. However, there was still some debate over those books which are called "deuterocanonical" (due to their distinction from the Jewish canon) or "apocryphal" (though the "apocrypha" also includes books that neither of us accept, such as the Book of Enoch). The Jews had an open canon until they decided to close it after the destruction of the Temple to try to unify the Jewish people.

There were various councils that declared slightly different canons but it wasn't defined dogmatically until Trent, in response to the Protestants. Luther doubted the authenticity of some books (antilegomena - "spoken against") but these are not topics that are not discussed by the Church fathers. Lutherans today cast doubt on Hebrews, James, Jude, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, and Revelation, in addition to not including the seven deuterocanonical books. They were trying to simplify the religion. So even though the Catholic canon was common, you can't honestly say that Luther removed them if the canon wasn't dogmatically defined and Luther split before it was.

In another thread, someone asked if there were any denominations that didn't use Paul because the poster objected to the idea of Christ as a sacrifice. Well, I told him, you could pick any one of the Gospels and you're going to get the same basic message as Paul expounds upon.

I have also heard it said that every Psalm is about Jesus, that you could just live on that book. The Psalms are amazing, the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer has a schedule for a 7 week cycle, monks and nuns (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican) sing the Psalms every week and it is said that the Desert Fathers used to know all 150 by heart and repeat them every day! The Psalms are a treasury of wisdom, the Gospel was written long before Jesus came.

We don't all have the same canon, it's true. But it's not as though crucial elements to the Gospel message are included in those seven books. Does it really matter if Daniel poisoned a dragon? If St. Raphael didn't give Tobit his eyesight back? If Judas Maccabeus didn't conquer half the known world? I'm not saying those things didn't happen, or that there aren't things to learn from those stories, but are they crucial? It's not like trying to take out Romans or Luke or Genesis or something. Certain books are more critical than others but all are good.

When I was an Anglican (Episcopalian), I used to do Morning and Evening Prayer from the Book of Common Prayer with my friends. The lectionary gives readings from all the books, including the deuterocanonical/apocryphal ones, but if those are scheduled, alternative readings from the usual canon are given for those who don't want to use them (or don't have an "unabridged Bible" as my friend calls it). I think people then miss out and we used to always read from those books because we weren't as familiar with them. But I think a balanced approach is best.

So if you're a Protestant, learn those stories you've missed out on. If you're a Catholic, don't freak out that the Protestants have a shorter Bible. And most of all, none of it does any good if you don't actually read it.

That was an excellent post, PtC! I was puzzled by your statement concerning Lutherans holding particular canonical NT books in doubt. I have never encountered any Lutherans that hold those views. Can you give some references for your statement?

Concerning the Psalms, I find it a great pity that the majority of churches no longer sing them as part of their worship. I am very happy to have found a church that has all of them available for singing in worship and they are put to good use. As someone has said, if they were good enough for Christ and the apostles, they ought to be good enough for us.

Thanks again