"So are you saying that the canon of Scripture is still open?"
I'm not making any claim for or against that (I've left that to the Ecumenical councils of the 1st 1000 years). What I am saying is the when modern thought conflicts with earlier traditions I must choose the earlier chosen by the entirety of the Church pre-denominational (all 5 Patriarchs [Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem], synods, and Bishops).
If Christ promised to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the Church in all Truth then I must by faith believe Christ. For a 1000 years before the great schism, and continuing since then in the Orthodox Church, an unbroken line of the fullness of the Truth has lived.
A very interesting point to consider: The 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD was conviened to answer a simple question raised by Arius concerning the Divinity of Christ. What is interesting is how they proceeded. The 318 Bishops where not asked to interpret scripture or perform and exegesis of verses. Instead that where asked to express what had been handed down to them via their predicessors (tradition). They had to do this because the scriptures as you hold them today did not exist. What you think is scripture was part of many other books that the Church had to consider. Grant it by 325 AD the Church had a pretty good idea which were going to be included and which ones not. But it was not until many centuries later that the cannon as you see it today was accepted at an Ecumenical level.
Interesting how it lined up perfectly with scripture and was easily defended by scripture. Not because they were all Saints, but in spite of the human element, the Spirit of Truth was present.
I would add this final comment. The modern bible, although very very close is completely inaccurate over some key passages (when lined up with the original Greek). The bias that have found their way into modern scripture has significantly changed many iota's and many tittle's. Outside of Orthodoxy, I can't find a true version absent of bias. A person may say I'm bias, which may be true, but then I have to ask...but what about writings that confirm the original language from the early centuries?
Although my personal opinion, I believe that the same Ecumenical Councils would reject these modern translations as another gospel as they did other minor variations from the Truth.
Although modern translations can guide you close to Truth, humility is what is required to cross the finish line. Pride is the mother of Sola Scripture and ultimately, it will deceive.
As I understand it, many claim that the original greek you refer to wasn't penned till the 3rd century...And that, by a fella named Origen, I believe...
The bias that have found their way into modern scripture has significantly changed many iota's and many tittle's.
Your church claims that Jerome translated the Latin vulgate from the 'originals'...And later the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible was translated into English...
Outside of Orthodoxy, I can't find a true version absent of bias.
Depends on what you call a 'true version'...
Again, as I understand it, 95% of ALL available preserved manuscripts are in line with the manuscripts used to pen the Catholic bible...Where the Catholic bible disagrees with the Majority Texts, those manuscripts came out of Alexandria Egypt, where as the Majorority Texts originated in Antioch, Syria (where people were first called Christians...
And, all modern English versions used the same Egyptian Catholic manuscripts except for the King James Bible (and unfortunately, the New King James) which again, came out of Antioch...
When the Egyptian manuscripts disagree with 5% of the vast majority, it stands to reason that the 5% do not belong...And it's not just jot and tittles...It's verses like 'call no man father', changing the 10 Commandments where it deals with worshipping graven images, rejecting priests that wear long robes, etc..It's an interesting study when you look at the other side of it...