“Knowing that the bible predates the Protestants is kinda relevant to the topic at hand.”
This comment doesn’t address the point I made about why the answer wouldn’t be relevant. If you want me to answer some hypothetical question on this subject, then the situation you construct must fit the situation we are speaking about, or my answer wouldn’t have any relevance to the original topic. Yours did not, for the reasons I explained. If you want to re-pose the question so that it fits the context, then my answer could be relevant and I’d be happy to give it.
“Absolutely I do.”
How so, when you do not accept the same canon that Jewish authorities have declared? Or when you express belief in the divinity of Christ, which the Jewish authorities denounce as a heresy and a blasphemy?
“As opposed to crediting it to Luther? Absolutely.”
Nobody credits the Bible to Luther, so this statement is a red herring. This isn’t a multiple choice question: was the Bible written by God, or was it written by the Catholic church? If you pick one, you must deny the other.
“How is a statement of historical fact arrogant?”
Well, it wasn’t a statement of fact, but a boast. You said it was “our book”, as if you owned God’s Word (note the possessive?), and then you claimed Protestants “nicked it”, against asserting ownership of what is rightfully God’s. God revealed the Word to men, and commanded us to share it freely with anyone who would hear. It is not possible to own what is not yours, and it is not possible to “nick” what is freely given to all by God’s grace.
Taking something and then later refusing to acknowledge authorship and the Catholic contribution? Nicking it is actually a rather kind assessment.
“was the Bible written by God, or was it written by the Catholic church?”
Was Luther saved or was he Protestant? This is a fun game.