Catholic Bible Vs. Protestant

I'll do my best to address the errors themselves since I didn't do that yet.

1) Myth: Tobit endorses the use of magic

Of course not. This is a subject of miracles, not magic. We don't conclude in Exodus 12:4-7 that rubbing lamb's blood on doorways to keep death out is magic, but a subject of miracles.

2) Myth: Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.

Forgiveness of sins is by Grace alone, and one needs Faith to obtain grace, but faith without Works is dead (James 2:24). Tobit 12:9 is in accordance with one's works due to his faith. It's not suggesting works of one's own self and devoid of faith. Revelation 22:12 says "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done."

3) Myths about Historical Errors.

Here's what I found from the Jewish Virtue Library on the Chaldeans...
Judith might have considered Babylon part or no different the Assyrian empire, since Babylon was part of the Assyrian empire. Beyond that, Judith could have meant the northern kingdom of Israel were Assyrians, since the Assyrian empire had first defeated it and thus changed at least part of its culture. Another thing to consider would be the Roman empire -- after the fall of the western part of it the eastern part lived on, and they called themselves Roman, and whatever they called the Roman Empire, was still the same. It was future historians that changed the naming.

The links in reading are interesting, but they are 1) going by their own fallible interpretation and 2) dismissing scripture that isn't part of the deuterocanon. It's a case of cherry-picking in order to push an agenda rather than being truthful.

I do agree that if there are truly errors, then it can't be God's Word as God's Word is without error. Exodus 20:4-5 says not to carve idols, but one might find error with Exodus 2:15 or Numbers 21:8-9 as each involve God commanding His people to make cherubim out of beaten Gold and when Moses made the bronze serpent that whomever was to look at it would live.

This is why Bible study must be done very carefully. One could easily find contradictions, but the Holy Spirit isn't one to contradict or confuse.

Again, I believe its more perspicuous than the examples you provided.
I am a Protestant. Maybe I can help some here. Originally the early translations did have the apocrypha in them! Even the vaunted KJV did have the apocrypha in it! Now not all protestants get along... seems to me like hardly any! That is one reason for so many versions of the Bible. IF you really want to get into a bible debate there is the KJV ONLY out there. God Help us all with them. Don't even try to talk to them. The NET New English Translation came from the Dallas Seminary of a very decidedly modern Baptist background. The NIV came from a meeting between the Trinity College and Reformed Church. I would probably be chastised by my protestant brethren, I also have a couple of Catholic Bibles and really enjoy them. I do like the Catholic study bible.

Hello there,

Thanks for your comments. I have no disagreements with what you said about the Apocrypha. However, the topic in this post is that it never was deemed canonical until the council of Trent in response to the reformation.

In addressing bible translations, I disagree that there are many translations of the bible due to protestant disagreements. Some bibles are literal type of translations like the KJ bible while others are higher level translations. My favorite literal translations are KJV and YLT. My favorite paraphrase is of the new testament, J.B. Phillips New Testament. However, if you are studying line upon line, it is essential to have literal type of bible as the higher level translations are design to capture the thought according to the authors interpretation which may not agree with your thought or the actual thought of text.

God Bless,