Why? I already dealt with most all the various aspects of that, what it means and what the ramifications are -- and how none of that changes a thing which I told you that generally refutes your claims.
"Did not alter the original texts" here you mixed with "whatever happened to the canon".
Those are two different issues, but which you are mixing or conflating as to being the same, or *something*.
As far as contents of various books goes;
That is neither here nor there, for the discussion was not necessarily about the contents of the texts themselves -- AS I HAVE ALREADY pointed out to you and explained WHY.
Yet I did show you where the text of Genesis had been altered in one location. Do you forget that so soon?
Oh, wait --- I see in yet another comment you made some brief mention (and a lot of bluffing) about Gen 3:15, as if that had not been changed by Roman Catholics.
I could show you Douay-Rheims to go along with what I've already shown you straight from the USCCB webpages to show how the word phrasing indicating "their heel" has been substituted for what is in the Hebrew decidedly masculine "his" heel and in the Hebrew that a "he" or masculine shall inflict injury to the serpent's head.
Many scholars have dealt with this precise issue and verse. There is no way to honestly feminize the "seed" with which the serpent's seed shall have enmity with. When they interact it is not a "her" which shall bruise or harm the snake, and it is not a "her" which the snake shall strike at, but her seed which is identified in the masculine gender. The Douay reads that "she shall crush" [the serpents head] and the serpent "shalt lie in wait for her heel".
So go ahead. Disavow the Douay-Rheims -- as not official enough?
Here at FreeRepublic, we've been down this road before. Next up will be to disavow the United States Catholic Bishops version which they provide on their own official web portal (or else disavow the portal? -- anything-- any "trick" whatsoever to deny culpability for the RCC in regards to this issue).
Where I've seen this end up is there is "no official Roman Catholic Bible" OTHER THAN the Vulgate! No "official Roman Catholic" English language bible -- at all!
Isn't that true?
How convenient it all is --- for those who seek hedges of obfuscation, from which they can then duck and dodge behind, to then suddenly dart out from with whatever special pleading or special interpretation they think they can bluff or buffalo others with, the same as they fool themselves with. Rabbit trails...
Meanwhile, there are honest translations from Greek and Hebrew texts which do not indicate either what the USCCB claim Genesis 3:15 says, and which soundly refute the Douay versions as for it being a "she" rather than a masculine "he" who shall do the head crushing and have his own heel struck, or laid in wait for.
Perhaps you would care to here tell us what precisely is this "Catholic Bible" which you have in mind?
If we end up with nothing "official" other than Vulgate, then that would beg the question -- which Vulgate? There is more than one version of that.
Oh, wait. You just produced in another comment, Hebrew and Greek both -- which you termed "original".
What are you going to do? Pull out a copy of Septuagint? If so -- which 'copy' -- which version?
Which Hebrew texts are you using?
Provide links, show your work. No more of this "mystery" game engaged in within this other effort of your own to drag it all off into the bushes (of obscurity).
As for the canon itself having changed;
It is unavoidable that be here a consideration, for you were originally saying that the Catholic Bible has not changed in 2000 years.
Yet it has changed, in what is most properly considered to canon -- as I have well enough established.
Why do I have to repeat this? Cannot you not read and comprehend?
I showed you how the canon HAS indeed changed, taking much effort, and going into some detail while you sat back and did nothing but spout your own shown to be erroneous opinions.
You give up 400 years like it was nothing. I showed you that it was more than 400 years, and why even up to and during Council of Trent, the writings which Jerome termed 'Apocrypha' were not accepted as being fully equal (thus in actuality 'canonical' OT) by significant numbers of learned, Roman Catholic churchmen.
Instead of sitting back on one's own duff and yawning, telling others to read --- do that yourself.
Those are two different issues, but which you are mixing or conflating as to being the same
That is actually my point. The canon was established by early 5c. The books are unchanged since the Apocalypse was written sometime in the 1c.
Trent merely asserted the same canon of the Old Testament the Church always had since 4c. Opinions whether the Deuterocanon should be canonical does not alter the canon. They are opinions.
I repeat: when I said "the Catholic Bible is the same for 2000 years" I was fully aware that the canon took centuries to develop. Trust me, when I post something I do so deliberately. The concern expressed to me was done by a noisy and unthinking poster not deserving an answer at length. But the concern was not about canons developing but about the fact that the Church also teaches outside of the Scripture, -- such as the teaching on the veneration of saints. The concern was expressed in the form that by doing so the Church "adds to the scripture". Hence my answer:
| the Catholic Bible is the same for 2000 years |