Only Prot. ones can be excluded per individual RC decree. Thus the RC NAB is sanctioned despite its problems even noted by Richard John Neuhaus, while if some of the notes/commentary that have been in it (esp. study versions) for decades now (and also criticized by this RC) were found in the KJV it would be roundly used by RCs as an example of what happens without the RC magisterium.
Last i looked, the current edition will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
But some RCs defend Rome while attacking Prots at any cost to credibility.
The OP of this thread has been disproven.
NYer ---
why continue to bring this same sort of half-baked nonsense to FR?
About the only good it does is to possibly allow those not otherwise exposed to issues of formation of canon (of Scripture) to be better able to make determinations as to the matters...and in the end, expose claims made by the RCC as to it's own magesterial infallibility to be ridiculous...
Is that your aim? Are you Alex Murphy in disguise?
Do you read the replies, follow the conversations, go to the sources as those arise, weigh the evidences, etc.?
These kind of threads can be like a stick in the eye.
Why do you persist in this sort of thing (such as posting threads like this)?
It always stirs up animosities...
You've been at it for years now. LITERALLY -- years.
In the end it only discredits & makes the RCC look bad. Which is a SHAME, for not all there is bad. Not at all.