[Natural Law]

"First, the "Bible" is not one book but a collection of 66 ancient Jewish scrolls from the book of Genesis to the book of the Apocalypse."

Some expert! There are 73 books and not all are "ancient Jewish Scrolls".

[Siena Dreaming]

First, the "Bible" is not one book but a collection of 66 ancient Jewish scrolls from the book of Genesis to the book of the Apocalypse

I'm not sure the Huffington Post article said differently.

Maybe I wasn't reading the correct Huff Post article. Unless, I saw something different, the one I read (which was linked) actually seemed fairly right on about the Bible.

[MWS]

I sense a Catholic/Protestant canonicity thread coming on...

[Campion]

The fact that the both the Old and New Testaments were in existence and received as inspired before Roman Catholicism developed show the silliness of that assertion.

Speaking of silly assertions, here's one.

"Received as inspired"? By whom? Who has the authority to "receive" something as "inspired"? The Church, of course. But which church? Where? How?

"Before Roman Catholicism developed"? When did that happen, exactly, and more importantly, where's the proof? Not just handwaving ahistorical inventions like "Constantine did it" or "Leo did it," where's the proof that the faith of the Roman Christians was organically changed between AD 200 and AD 450? There isn't any.

And there was plenty of dissension over the content of the NT throughout the first four centuries, which is why two Catholic councils and a Papal decree between AD 380 and AD 410 were required to settle the matter. That's why the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement aren't in your 66 book Bible.