Poll: Most under 35 never heard of King James Bible

Accuracy and precision are important. If someone cannot be accurate and precise, perhaps he should not post.

Also, everyone does not know what notes the 1611 KJV contains. If a large portion of a nation’s population does not know what the KJV even is, then certainly many millions of people do not know what is in it.

You wrote:

“You present your words, which apparently are supposed to hold weight, given your “PhD in History”, yet history being what it is, disagrees with you. Yes, you are a credentialed fool, but you do get more amusing as the thread goes on.”

History agrees with me. You have utterly failed to show otherwise too. Your sciolism represents Protestant bigotry well.

You wrote:

“Well, I disagree it was a ‘church’ matter.”

It doesn’t matter. Your opinion is not history. It was considered a Church matter then no matter what your opinion 600 years later. Also, common sense would dictate that a Christian matter is automatically a Church matter.

“And the real ‘church’ are those who are truely saved in Christ, not any organized body that claims that IT is the church.”

False. You are making the same mistake that almost all Protestants make. Since Protestants have no historical Church to speak of they created the invisible church concept to explain their complete absense from history for over 1400 years. Thus, reading back into the NT, they see the Church as a body of all believers not realizing that at the time of the NT the believers were all one body, one Church. Those who broke away were not considered fully part of the one body because they had left the Church. Most Protestants today take umbrage at that concept because they believe it is an insult to the quality of their belief in Christ. in reality it is simply a statement about the actual existence of the Church.

You wrote:

“Did not Tyndale use Eurasmus’ Greek text?”

It’s essentially irrelevant to the issue as to what text he used. The complaints were that the translation was faulty or heretical, the notes were heretical and Tyndale was a heretic. Since Tyndale was a heretic, his heresy would have been impacted his work no matter what text he used.

OK. German Bibles were readily available before Luther with the support of the Catholic Church - in your world. In mine, those translations just never ended up in the hands of the people, while Luther’s did. 100,000 copies in 40 years.

Odd isn’t it. The Catholics supported getting scripture into the hands of common men (according to you), yet it just didn’t happen. It took a heretic to make it happen, and he did it in a couple of years. One year for the New Testament.

Isn’t it odd that God chose a heretic to do what the Catholic Church with all its power, money and influence could not?

But then, it is only odd if you accept the false notion that the Catholic Church WANTED commoners to read scripture. Or if you believe that before LUther, there were Bibles in the common tongue being bought and sold as fast as they could be produced...but then, maybe Luther was just a good producer.

More obvioulsy lied. His arguments against translating love as love, or elder as elder, or repent as do penance were stupid. Perhaps you ought to look at the Catholic Church approved NAB: “If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.” The KJV translators were dishonest - they were specifically required to translate it charity, and bishop, and church because a correct translation would undermine King James power. “No Bishop, No King” was an idea he learned in Scotland, and was the cause of his refusal to allow a correct translation.

But Tyndale’s refutation of More was both succinct and overwhelming. More was either incredibly stupid, which he was not, or a liar.

“The KJV is not accounted as the most accurate translation so you’re not helping your case with that.”

Never said it was. In fact, in the sentence of mine you quoted, I was making the point that it was LESS accurate than Tyndale’s translation 85 years earlier, and for dishonest reasons. The DR felt free to follow that dishonesty, although the NAB corrected some of it hundreds of years later.

As for the DR, you write, “It was always readable. I have a facsimile reprint of the original edition and have no difficulty in reading it.”

“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title Douay–Rheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible

“Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published”. In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. “

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

“Lets be aware of one important facts the “translators can say what ever they like, but it has been documented that significant portions of the King Jimmy have been lifted directly from the D/R. “ You have it backwards...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay%E2%80%93Rheims_Bible The Douay–Rheims Bible (also known as the Rheims–Douai Bible or Douai Bible, and abbreviated as D–R) is a translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English undertaken by members of the English College, Douai in the service of the Catholic Church. The New Testament was published in Reims (France) in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament, which was published by the University of Douai, followed nearly thirty years later in two volumes; the first volume (Genesis to Job) in 1609, the second (Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate) in 1610. Marginal notes took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character. They also offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which up till then had ovewhelmingly dominated Elizabethan religion and academic debate. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation. The New Testament was reprinted in 1600, So we are clear your position is that Catholics plagarized a book that would not be published for 29 years. WOW we Catholics are even more nefarious than you give us credit for.

“So we are clear your position is that Catholics plagarized a book that would not be published for 29 years. WOW we Catholics are even more nefarious than you give us credit for.”

Please try reading what I wrote. The DR Bible sold in most stores was done in the 1700s. The original DR was unpopular enough a translation that it is hard to find copies today of the ‘original’.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published”. In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. “

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

“So we are clear your position is that Catholics plagarized a book that would not be published for 29 years. WOW we Catholics are even more nefarious than you give us credit for.”

Please try reading what I wrote. The DR Bible sold in most stores was done in the 1700s. The original DR was unpopular enough a translation that it is hard to find copies today of the ‘original’.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they “almost amounted to a new translation”. So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published”. In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. “

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm

The only changes in the editions of the KJB were correcting printing errors and updating spelling etc. All of them are God's perfect words in English.

So the "Britches" Bible was a "printing error"

The Apocrypha wasn't considered canonical so it was removed due to printing costs.

I iknow that this might be difficult for you to grasp, but think about this:

Theduetrocanicals were first rejected byt he EXACT same people that rejected Christ, when they came up with the Palastinian Canon 70 years after Christ.

Second the Alexandrian Canon had been in use for over 100 years before Christ.

Third the Alexandrian Canon was the one that Christ and the Apostles referred to.

Fourth the Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.

Fifth No Christian Group Rejected this canon until 1500 years after Christ.

Each of these is a fact easily verifiable by secualr sources.

Please look up your own secular sources and prove me wrong.

The only changes in the editions of the KJB were correcting printing errors and updating spelling etc. All of them are God's perfect words in English.

So the "Britches" Bible was a "printing error"

The Apocrypha wasn't considered canonical so it was removed due to printing costs.

I iknow that this might be difficult for you to grasp, but think about this:

Theduetrocanicals were first rejected byt he EXACT same people that rejected Christ, when they came up with the Palastinian Canon 70 years after Christ.

Second the Alexandrian Canon had been in use for over 100 years before Christ.

Third the Alexandrian Canon was the one that Christ and the Apostles referred to.

Fourth the Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint.

Fifth No Christian Group Rejected this canon until 1500 years after Christ.

Each of these is a fact easily verifiable by secualr sources.

Please look up your own secular sources and prove me wrong.

The Jewish scriptures were settled before the birth of Christ.

“For example, Josephus, the noted Jewish historian, states that the prophets wrote from Moses to Artaxerxes (a contemporary of Malachi), and then he adds, “It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes... but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of the prophets since that time (quoted in Geissler and Nix, 1986, p. 271).” Likewise, the Talmud, a Jewish commentary on the Scriptures, writes, “After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah,...and Malachi, the Holy Spirit departed Israel (quoted in Geissler and Nix, 1986, p. 27 1).”

http://www.ou.edu/faculty/organizations/ouchrfas/reed11.htm

Also see: http://bible.org/article/how-many-books-are-bible

It was acceptable in the Catholic Church prior to Trent in the 1500 to question the canon status of the Apocrypha. Luther’s accuser, in fact, did so.

Jerome was also less than thrilled by them:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html

You wrote:

“OK. German Bibles were readily available before Luther with the support of the Catholic Church - in your world.”

How can you ignore over a dozen editions of the German Bible in multiple printings BEFORE Luther? How can you do that? That’s simply dishonest to deny the reality that these Bibles existed and were eagerly bought and read by people. It has nothing to do with “your world” - it simply is a fact.

“In mine, those translations just never ended up in the hands of the people, while Luther’s did. 100,000 copies in 40 years.”

Again, you’re wrong. If those Bibles did not end up in the hands of people, then who read them? Who bought them? Who printed them? Often in 12 or 13 printings no less! That means these Bibles were in print and being printed in the thousands year after year. Who do you think bought all of those Bibles? Remember, we’re talking about over a dozen editions of the Bible or NT. Who bought them? If you think it was ONLY the clergy, think again, because they were probably buying Vulgates first and foremost because that was the Bible of choice.

I don’t mind arguing with people who clearly have no idea of what they’re talking about. What amazes me is how you can ignore more than a dozen editions of the Bible as if they never existed. As the old Catholic Encyclopedia makes plain:

The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing. Of special interest are the five complete folio editions printed before 1477, nine from 1477 to 1522, and four in Low German, all prior to Luther’s New Testament in 1522. They were made from the Vulgate, differing only in dialect and presenting variant readings. Their worth even to this day has been attested by many scholars. Deserving notice as belonging to the same period are some fourteen editions of the Psalter and no less than ninety editions of the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and Holy Days. On the authority of a Nuremberg manuscript, Jostes (Histor. Jahrbuch, 1894, XV, 771, and 1897, XVIII, 133) establishes the fact of a complete translation of the Bible by John Rellach, O.P., of Constance (before 1450), and thinks it was the first German version printed.

How can you ignore all of that? Are you going to pretend it doesn’t exist? Is that rational? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Any at all? Nope. you have nothing. You have presented NONE.

“Odd isn’t it. The Catholics supported getting scripture into the hands of common men (according to you), yet it just didn’t happen.”

Clearly it did - as the above evidence shows.

“It took a heretic to make it happen, and he did it in a couple of years. One year for the New Testament.”

Nope. Clearly the Bible was already freely available in multiple dialects and printings. I have no doubt that Luther’s version sold many copies. We all know people often love to have their ears tickled by heresy and novel teachings and that is what Luther presented in his NT.

As Johannes Janssen, the famed German historian noted in his great work, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, the German language Cologne Bible - publishe din 1480 (that’s 42 years before Luther’s NT)had this in its prologue:

“All Christians should read the Bible with piety and reverence, praying the Holy Ghost, who is the inspirer of the Scriptures, to enable them to understand . . . The learned should make use of the Latin translation of St. Jerome; but the unlearned and simple folk, whether laymen or clergy . . . should read the German translations now supplied, and thus arm themselves against the enemy of our salvation.”

History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, [16 vols., tr. A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 (orig. 1891), v. 1, pp. 58-60]

So, it was already acknowledged INSIDE GERMAN BIBLES that in 1480 that German Bibles were plentiful. so much for your baseless, unresearched contentions.

The simple fact is that even German Protestant scholars don’t buy the nonsense you’re selling. E. von Dobschutz, all the way back in about 1900, wrote:

It can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture . . . We must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame.

Deutsche Rundschau, 101, 1900, pp. 61ff

Also, you still have not shown a single shred of evidence that More lied. The fact that the modern NAB might disagree with an understanding of More in 1525 or so doesn’t mean More lied. I realize that you might not understand that concept because it would take the ability to make judicious distinctions - something anti-Catholics have never, ever been known for. Present a sourced confession that More lied and I’ll believe it. Present evidence from his own pen in his own day and I’ll believe it. Showing that someone in 1970 disagrees with More’s understanding of Greek - if that is even the case - proves nothing except that More and the modern translators of the NAB would disagree. By your logic, someone could just as easily say it is the NAB editors are the liars. But that too makes no sense. Show evidence of lying and I’ll believe it. Showing there is disagreement simply shows there is disagreement.

Also, relying on wikipedia about the original DRV is pointles. Again, I actually have a facsimilie copy and have a modern reprint as well. I have no difficulty reading it. I know some people say a handful of sentences are hard to read. I have encountered all of about two. Even the KJV needed revisions as was done. It should be no surprise that revisions were made to the DRV as well.

Yes, there were German Bibles before Luther. Where did they end up? Not in the hands of commoners. There is a reason Luther’s Bible transformed Germany and the German language, just as there is a reason why Tyndale’s had that effect in England - and it isn’t because the market was sated with vernacular translations.

Luther’s translation transformed Germany.

“German humanist Johann Cochlaeus complained that

Luther’s New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

That happens when there is a vast need that isn’t met, not in a saturated market.

But you go on believing the Germans were up to their ears in Bibles - I cannot stop you. I’ll let other readers here decide if they believe Luther’s translation had the impact it did in a market where Bibles abounded!

“We all know people often love to have their ears tickled by heresy and novel teachings and that is what Luther presented in his NT.”

Yep. Like Tyndale, they were attracted to the heresy - so just what heresy is found in his or Tyndale’s translation? None. The problem wasn’t that they made bad translation, but that they made good ones. The ‘heresy’ was the word of God itself, being read and understood by common people.

“Present a sourced confession that More lied and I’ll believe it. Present evidence from his own pen in his own day and I’ll believe it.”

Oh golly. All I have to do to satisfy you is to have a confession by the liar himself. But More knew Greek, and Tyndale accurately translated the Greek. He attack Tyndale’s translation on points no Greek scholar could support. Thus he was either stupid (not true) or a liar.

The ease with which Tyndale refuted More nearly one million word attack suffices to prove the point. More’s arguments were ludicrous.

http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04301170&id=TOLOU6-00yUC&pg=PP9&lpg=PP11#v=onepage&q&f=false

“Also, relying on wikipedia about the original DRV is pointles. “

More to the point, perhaps, is that virtually no one has bought a DR Bible since 1760. If it were a good translation, it would have survived - as has Luther’s. But it was so little used that it was ‘revised’ in the mid 1700s, and that revision (pulled from the KJV) is what is now for sale virtually anywhere the “DR Bible” is sold.

You wrote:

“Yes, there were German Bibles before Luther. Where did they end up? Not in the hands of commoners.”

What evidence do you have for that baseless claim? Perhaps you would like to keep up that fantasy, but Bibles in the vernacular were precisely meant for the “commoners”. Were talking about tens of thousands of Bibles. How could they NOT be for the commoners? Clerics bought Bibles in Latin first and foremost. If you’re going to claim Luther’s Bible was meant for commoners, then how can it be that other vernacular Bibles were produced in the tens of thousands but were not mean for the commoners? Do you even see how your baseless assertion actually works against you? Again, what evidence do you have for these baseless claims?

“There is a reason Luther’s Bible transformed Germany and the German language, just as there is a reason why Tyndale’s had that effect in England - and it isn’t because the market was sated with vernacular translations.”

No, it is because those works ultimately affected state sponsored religion. They became standards. Luther’s Bible became essentially the only Bible for people in northern Germany because that is what the state churches used. Just as the Vulgate transformed culture and language being the Bible of the Church, Luther’s Bible would have the same impact on Lutheran Germany. It did not have the same impact in non-Lutheran Germany. With Tyndale’s translation it is much the same story but through a more circuitous route.

Also, who claimed it was a saturated market? Not me. See, you apparently resort to distortions when you have no evidence for your claims. I said there were Bibles available. I never said it was a saturated market. It wasn’t saturated by Luther’s translation either - as shown that eventually even the state churches had to allow other translations to be issued.

“The ‘heresy’ was the word of God itself, being read and understood by common people.”

No. What Luther did with Romans 3:28 shows his heresy was far different from the word of God itself. Cutting books out of the canon was also a problem of his. If he needed to he would have burned books of the Bible to get his heresy across. He said so himself. And even Luther came to realize that his original optimism that everyone would understand the Bible was nonsense.

as Luther himself wrote:

The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won’t have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord’s supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God; some say this, others that; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.

I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits. There is not one of them that does think himself more learned than Luther; they all try to win their spurs against me; and would to heaven that they were all such as they think themselves, and that I were nothing! The one of whom I speak assured me, amongst other things, that lie was sent to me by the God of heaven and earth, and talked most magnificently, but the clown peeped through all. At last, he ordered me to read the books of Moses. I asked for a sign in confirmation of this order, ‘ It is,’ said he, ‘ written in the gospel of St. John.’ By this time I had heard enough, and I told him, to come again, for that we should not have time, just now, to read the books of Moses. . . .

(”Letter of Doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp” [1525; possibly on March 21st]; found on pp. 91-92 in Jules Michelet, The Life of Luther Gathered From His Own Writings, translated by G. H. Smith, London: Whittaker & Co., from the original 1835 work; primary source given as: “Luth. Werke, tom. ii. p. 61, sqq.

“More to the point, perhaps, is that virtually no one has bought a DR Bible since 1760.”

Again: If people were not buying, then they wouldn’t be selling: http://www.saintbenedictpress.com/Catholic-Classics/Bibles.cfm?ct=1372

“If it were a good translation, it would have survived - as has Luther’s.”

It has: http://www.saintbenedictpress.com/Catholic-Classics/Bibles.cfm?ct=1372

“But it was so little used that it was ‘revised’ in the mid 1700s, and that revision (pulled from the KJV) is what is now for sale virtually anywhere the “DR Bible” is sold.”

It was revised. So was the KJV. The KJV that people know today IS NOT the KJV of 1611. It needed revision. It got it.

Ping for later

The Jewish scriptures were settled before the birth of Christ.

You are indeed correct.

Your sources are biased. I saad to check secular sources and quoted you one (Wikipedia) that cleary supported my view, You showed sources with an admitted bias.

“History agrees with me. You have utterly failed to show otherwise too. Your sciolism represents Protestant bigotry well.”

Of course it does. How can actual history argue with a PhD? Maybe you need to study up a bit more. The records is there, you need only study it. I know you History majors aren’t really good at that, and it is quite clear you simply do not know, even when it is served up by other posters on this thread on a silver platter.

Sciolism? You are the one who seems to not get the whole historical picture and you should know better. Maybe if you go stare at your diploma for long enough it will come to you.

Bigotry? You came on a KJV Bible thread spewing your usual nonsense. Please do not mistake my pointed barbs and insults as a general attack on Catholicism. They were meant for you personally. Just because you personally are a Catholic does not mean that your views have any weight with Catholics in general or the church as a whole. No, your own bigotry is entirely yours and on display here.

When someone takes you to school on the subject of your own (supposed) extensive studies doesn’t mean they are being bigoted, but then again, that is the last bastion of the feeble minded and those of weak intellect.

You would know this if you were actually the scholar you claim to be.

You wrote:

“Of course it does.”

Thanks for admitting you’re a sciolist.

“How can actual history argue with a PhD?”

It isn’t here. I keep posting sources and you keep ignoring them. And I mean sources more reliable than wikipedia.

“Maybe you need to study up a bit more.”

Nope. I study up anyway, but more study usually just confirms what the historians have already been publishing.

“The records is there, you need only study it.”

Already did. I am the one putting it in this thread while you’re ignoring it.

“I know you History majors aren’t really good at that, and it is quite clear you simply do not know, even when it is served up by other posters on this thread on a silver platter.”

No, actually I know history quite well - especially this time period. I know the records quite well. You, however, have shown that you do not know the records at all.

“Sciolism? You are the one who seems to not get the whole historical picture and you should know better.”

No, I get the whole historical picture right. That’s why I have not made the mistakes you have. That’s why you have failed to show even once where I was wrong. You have apparently no evidence whatsoever for what you claimed.

“Maybe if you go stare at your diploma for long enough it will come to you.”

No, I already know what I am talking about while you don’t.

“Bigotry? You came on a KJV Bible thread spewing your usual nonsense.”

Nope. Everything I said was true.

“Please do not mistake my pointed barbs and insults as a general attack on Catholicism.”

HA! Sure.

“They were meant for you personally.”

“Just because you personally are a Catholic does not mean that your views have any weight with Catholics in general or the church as a whole.”

My views have more weight with Catholics than yours - as it should be. What really matters, however, is that what I said was true and you were never able to offer any evidence against it.

“No, your own bigotry is entirely yours and on display here.”

No, what is on display is your failure.

“When someone takes you to school on the subject of your own (supposed) extensive studies doesn’t mean they are being bigoted, but then again, that is the last bastion of the feeble minded and those of weak intellect.”

I am the one who took you to school. When you made claims - none of which you had any shred of evidence for at all - and they were shown to be completely false what did you do? Did you go and study? Did you find evidence for your claims? No. All you did was resort to bigotry. Look at post 80. I explained in detailed how and why you were wrong. Now look at post 86. All you could muster was bigotry. It’s all you apparently had from the start. When someone challenged you, you fell apart and resorted to the usual bigotry.

“You would know this if you were actually the scholar you claim to be.”

You resorted to bigotry in post 86. I demonstrated how you were wrong and all you had was bigotry. Between the two of us, I am the only scholar. Your bigotry will keep it that way too.

Your post is too long. I can’t be bothered to read it. Can you summarize in two sentences? Thanks.

Josephus is hardly a biased source.

More on the subject of the Hebrew canon here:

http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

Jerome was reluctant to include the Apocrypha because it wasn’t part of the Jewish canon. If you like Wiki, see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Jewish_Bible_canon