Why is the Catholic OT different that our OT?

[Byblos]

You make it sound like I believe mere men voted and came up with the list of books. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact that would be YOUR argument as you have no link whatsoever to inerrant guidance. All you could do is make an assertion that the books are authoritative. Well how do you know that? That is why you're still missing the bigger point. God didn't give us a list of books for us to tell which ones are inspired and which aren't. It took men to recognize which books are indeed authoritative. Now either these men were guided by God into recognizing the differences, or they were left to their own devices. I am in the camp of the former.

Sure, it took men to recognize that. And, I wouldn't even argue against them being guided to do so. But that doesn't make them authoritative.

That's as far as I wanted to take it, thank you.

Let me ask you. When did 1 Corinthians become authoritative and scripture?

The moment it was penned under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So let me ask you, by whose authority was it accepted as canonical?

[PaulSacramento]

None of that changes that is how it was.
Whether we agree with that process or not, it was what it was.

So we all ought to put blinders on and accept the reality that that's how it always was and stop asking question. Okay, got it.

Look at the codex Sinaiticus VS the Vaticanus or the canon of the eastern orthodox church or the Ethiopian church.

I am well aware of the differences, it there weren't any we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Not sure why the "tone" or am I reading a "tone" where there isn't one?

Not a tone Paul, only an ever-so-slight hint of sarcasm .

I stand by my statement, regardless of what we THINK about the process, it was what it was and there is nothing we can do about it now.

What we can do is look at the process and see if it makes sense in answering the OP's question, and that is what we are attempting to do.

There was a certain criteria that the early church fathers used in viewing books, gospels and letters as authoritative, but by the time the canon was made, that process had ALREADY made the authoritative books authoritative.
That different regions had SOME different books is understandable base don what they had to work with.

You're right, it doesn't matter what happened after the books were recognized as authoritative (whether or not that came about before or after formal canonization is irrelevant). This is why my question is rather centered around these criteria by which the books became authoritative as opposed to the canonization process.

No one group can or should call their canon "more authoritative" than an other.

Surely you can see how that presents a huge problem Paul as we would have no basis by which we can definitively state which books are inspired and which aren't. Never mind the difference between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles which are mainly concerned with the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books of the OT. Now you've opened up the possibility for contention in the NT books as well. There are some who would consider the gospel of Thomas or the newly discover gospel of Barnabas as part of the canon and therefore inspired. What would you say to them?

I understand better what you are getting at and I understand the role the tradition has and must take in this regard.
It is a valid point that one must be critical of what is viewed as authorative and not just that the "word of others" for it ( as in the case of the Gnostic gospel of Thomas for example), BUT on that same note the Gospel of Barnabas WAS included in the Codex Sinaiticus so, perhaps, it was "authorative enough" for the compliers of that Codex ( I don't recall if it was in the Codex Vaticanus).
But like you said, the process in regards to the OT question ( which I got away from, sorry).
Have read the books in the RC Canon I have to be honest and wonder why they were omited from the Protestant one.
Almost seems like an act of "rebellion" and nothing more.
I do however recall once seeing a chart that was complied of the votes that each bishop took when each of the Canonical Books/Letters were being voted on to see if they were authorative.
Anybody else recall seeing that?

[PaulSacramento]

In the end, it seems what we have is a collection of books and letters that were viewed as authoritative because they were inspired by God ( the writers were under God's HS), they were viewed by authoritative by those that possessed them and copied them and saved them and passed them one until, centuries later, they were complied into one collection and canonized by those who believed they had the authority to do so.
Sure there was some debate at the time, and even before that time and even after that time.
Debate and discussion is good and what couldn't be "held up to discussion" was "put aside".
Sure things would have been simpler of Marcion had got his way, LOL !

[PaulSacramento]

Thoughts:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/Periodic ... canon.html

I don't particularly like any article the mentions the hypothetical "Q" as if it was a certainty.

[PaulSacramento]

We shouldn't forget that even the Jews of Jesus' time didn't always read the "same books", Jude's letter is an example, where he quotes the Book of Enoch and, according to some, the assumption of Moses, both not part of the "typical" Hebrew canon.

[bippy123]

In response to the OP, the 1611 King James Version actually includes the Apocrypha, same as the English version of the Vulgate used by Catholics. It was removed from the KJV in 1885 and has never been reprinted in subsequent Protestant Bibles.

Some claim the Apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed over a 100 years ago or so. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls contained parts of the Apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit. Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." Personally, I find the books of the Apocrypha excellent historical resources, especially Maccabees. Bel and the Dragon is an entertaining read and the prayer of Manasseh is uplifting considering what a terrible king of Judah he is referenced to be in Kings.

I know that I'm late to this party but the deutercanonicals weren't added or taken out in the 1500's or 1800's.
They were originally taken out at the council of jamnia about 60 to 70 years after Christ, and they were taken out by the pharasees who also disagreed with Jesus being the son of God, and they also didn't want any new trstament scriptures included in their bible. This took place in 90 to 100 ad.

[1stjohn0666]

Martin Luther has the Germanic version of the bible, he is a protestant reformer and the Apocrypha texts are found in it.