My copy of the Geneva Bible includes only the 66 books of the standard Bible today. I will have to check out the intro to see what it says about the Apocrypha.

historian said:

---

My copy of the Geneva Bible includes only the 66 books of the standard Bible today. I will have to check out the intro to see what it says about the Apocrypha.

---

The original 1560 edition of the Geneva includes them. You probably have the 1599 edition of the Geneva that was reprinted post 2000 which has removed them. The interest in the Geneva is generally sparked from the rediscovery of the fact that it - not the KJV - was the bible of the Puritans on the Mayflower. Interestingly, despite it being the Bible of dissenters from the Church of England, it does include Henry VII's favorite addition of the Doxology to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew.

Most modern Bible translations remove that addition and end the Lord's Prayer without the Doxology.

You can see the addition to the text of later Protestant Bibles clearly when you see the text of the Wycliffe Bible of the 1300s which does not contain the Doxology.:

"9 And thus ye shall pray, Our Father that art in heavens, hallowed be thy name;
10 thy kingdom come to; be thy will done in earth as it is in heaven [+thy will be done as in heaven and in earth/be thy will done as in heaven so in earth];
11 give to us this day our each day's bread;
12 and forgive to us our debts, as we forgive to our debtors;
13 and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen."

The best and most accurate translation of the Lord's Prayer into English is probably found in the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, also ending without the Doxology. It really captures the true meaning of the Lord's prayer, 'Give us this day Jesus' not 'Give us this day lunch':

" Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen."

The Orthodox Study Bible has the definitive English translation of the OT, relying on the Septuagint. But the publishes got lazy and used the NKJV for the NT. It is probably the best and most accurate "single binding" Bible available today.

If you want the absolute 100% most accurate set of scriptures available, you're going to have to get two Bibles because it doesn't exist under a single binding in print today. Probably the Orthodox Study Bible for the OT Text, and the OT/NT study notes...and maybe the Douay-Rheims for the NT text if you can find it without commentary, or the 1560 Geneva (http://www.genevabible1560.com/) understanding that it has some modifications from the original like the one I cite above. The Wycliffe Bible is available online, but I don't know if you can get it in print. There is a Orthodox NT translated directly from the Greek NT, but it's difficult to find. But if you do find it, that plus the OSB's old testament gives you the holy grail of sola scriptura as of 2025.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Cite your evidence that Jerome finally considered it canon.

---

First, Jerome studied with the non-Christian Jews that were the intellectual descendants of the Pharisees. Of course they rejected the Deuterocanon and Jesus. He was influence by their thought. ---> this is a genetic fallacy. Just because the Pharisees rejected Jesus, it did not mean they didn't have the canon correct. In fact, Jesus himself verified that their canon was correct, when he said came to fulfill everything the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, and Writings) prophesied about him. Jesus didn't say a word about the apocrypha. The apostle Paul wrote that the Jews were "entrusted with the very words of God". If the Jews got the canon incorrect, then this would be false.

In the prologue to Judith, he states that "because this book is found by the Nicene Council [of A.D. 325] to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request" to translate it. ---> he acquiesced to their request to translate it, because they thought it was canon scripture. He himself did not. As did the majority of patristic writers and theologians following him until the 1500's.

Also in Against Rufinus 2:33, he references the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, he wrote, "What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches?" ---> following their judgement, not what he himself believed.

Finally, at the end of the day, he acquiesced to the Church as to what the proper canon was. ---> umm, no he didn't. You still haven't cited any proof of this, you're merely repeating your assertion.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The plain and simple fact is, as I've shown you before, that from the time of Jerome up until the 1500's the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars did NOT view the apocryphal books as canon. You can deny this all you want, you're not going to make this magically untrue.

---

You can type it all you want it is completely untrue to state that a majority of the Church fathers rejected the entire Deuterocanon. ---> they rejected it as CANON, not rejected it entirely. You're trying to move the goal posts.

Throughout the Middle Ages, most theologians and scholars accepted the books and used them in liturgy and teaching. ---> yes, they did. But they didn't regard it as CANON. You're trying to shift the argument.

I say it earlier and it bears repeating. The Church collected the books of the Bible that God made inspired. It wasn't the Church fathers or scholars that declared what was canon. It was the Church that performed that role. ---> the Roman Catholic Church wasn't around when the "core" books (about 22 books) of the New Testament were already unanimously considered by Christians to be the word of God. The rest were debated. Yes, the "church" received the books that God inspired. Not the "Church" (aka Roman Catholic Church).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not struggling to admit anything. You're trying to argue that since Bibles contained the apocryphal books, that it meant they were considered canon. Again, the majority view during most of Christian history thought otherwise. Those books were in Bibles, but they weren't considered canon. There's a difference between being "in" a Bible, and being canon scripture. You are trying to lump them together, which is fallacious as I've repeatedly explained.

---

Your argument is ludicrous. Why would the Church put books in their bible if they weren't canonical?
---> for the same reason the Septuagint contained BOTH canonical and non-canonical books. Being bound together in one book doesn't mean everything in there is canon.

After the Council of Rome in 382, the bible NEVER contained the Shepard of Hermas or First Clement, which were both debated to be scripture. ---> neither were they considered scripture by the early church, before any Roman Catholic council ever happened.

After that point, the bible never contained 1 & 2 Esdras, Book of Enoch, or the Book of Jubilees.

Once the canon was set, the Church did add books for "valued reading". The bible only contained the 73 books.

The bible was changed by the "reformers". To say otherwise is to be historically and intellectually dishonest. ---> the Reformers merely returned to the beliefs of Jesus, his apostles, and the early church before the Roman Catholic Church existed - the apocrypha were never considered canon scripture by them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"The books were always there" - they were not present in the earliest known Christian canon lists (Melito's canon, Bryennios' list). Even Roman Catholic councils approved canon lists that did not contain the apocryphal books. You are arguing against history. Luther didn't remove what was already considered "removed" by the earliest canon lists, the majority of church fathers, theologians, and scholars from the time of Jerome until the 1500's, and even Roman Catholic councils themselves.

---

When Melito's canon list was written, we still didn't have the NT settled. Scholars now believe Bryennios' list was now actually written 2 centuries later. Irrespective, once again, the NT wasn't even settled at this point. ---> Melito's canon and Bryennios' list had to do with the Old Testament, not the New Testament. You're confusing two different arguments.

There's no reason to believe that the Church had the OT settled at this point either. ---> Jesus and his apostles pretty much settled that. As far as the church is concerned, what Jesus and his apostles knew was canon, is what they should also consider as canon.

---

Responses above in bold.

Worth a listen

Interesting video, which brings into the discussion the question of apostolic succession. The Protestant response (outside of Lutheranism) might be something like even if what the video says is true, there is no Biblical evidence that they (1) had the authority to pass this power to others or (2) ever did.

Coming back with "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2) would probably result in them saying that this only addresses the gospel/doctrine and not forgiveness.

From our perspective, the Latin church ended in 1054 AD when it fell into schism and the modern Roman Catholic Church which replaced it neither has apostolic succession nor valid sacraments. In other words, the religious institution that modern Roman Catholics are part of is not really the same one to which Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and Saint John Chrysostom belonged. But that is not really surprising. Human institutions drift, change, and are subject to the whims of men. That is why what Orthodoxy accomplished, and continues to accomplish, is remarkable.

Realitybites said:

---

Interesting video, which brings into the discussion the question of apostolic succession. The Protestant response (outside of Lutheranism) might be something like even if what the video says is true, there is no Biblical evidence that they (1) had the authority to pass this power to others or (2) ever did.

Coming back with "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2) would probably result in them saying that this only addresses the gospel/doctrine and not forgiveness.

From our perspective, the Latin church ended in 1054 AD when it fell into schism and the modern Roman Catholic Church which replaced it neither has apostolic succession nor valid sacraments. In other words, the religious institution that modern Roman Catholics are part of is not really the same one to which Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, and Saint John Chrysostom belonged. But that is not really surprising. Human institutions drift, change, and are subject to the whims of men. That is why what Orthodoxy accomplished, and continues to accomplish, is remarkable.

---

The interesting thing is everyone has a view and maybe we get to find out in the end who adhered most closely to what Jesus and God commanded.

Realitybites said:

---

From our perspective, the Latin church ended in 1054 AD when it fell into schism and the modern Roman Catholic Church which replaced it neither has apostolic succession nor valid sacraments.

---

I'm not the expert, but I doubt that's what most Orthodox believe. For our part, we Catholics recognize the validity of Orthodox sacraments and succession.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

From our perspective, the Latin church ended in 1054 AD when it fell into schism and the modern Roman Catholic Church which replaced it neither has apostolic succession nor valid sacraments.

---

I'm not the expert, but I doubt that's what most Orthodox believe. For our part, we Catholics recognize the validity of Orthodox sacraments and succession.

---

Dam is correct here.

The eastern orthodox does not make Claim for the validity or invalidity of the sacraments of the Catholic Church; however most orthodox, theologians and religious leaders, believe that the sacraments are valid.

The orthodox church does claim that the Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession.

Sadly, most most orthodox churches will not allow Catholics access to the sacraments, but the Catholic Church does welcome the Orthodox to participate in the sacrament at the holy sacrifice of the mass or Divine Liturgy.

There are people who say a lot of things.

This is from the official website of the OCA.

" …the different understanding of Confession held by Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. For example, does one confess to the priest, who personally has the "power" to offer absolution and forgiveness, or does one confess to Christ in the presence of the priest, with the priest proclaiming God's forgiveness at the conclusion…

Concerning whether Roman Catholicism is considered a heresy: Orthodox Christianity in general would view certain aspects of Roman Catholic teaching as heretical."

Another example would be baptism, which in Orthodoxy is by immersion. But most of Orthodoxy is concerned with maintaining and practicing the faith once delivered to the saints. You would never see something like Vatican 2, female priests, gay marriage, dancing girls, or other liturgical abuses in Orthodoxy.

Trad Catholics are right in their gut instincts but they only go back 100 years when they need to go back 1000.

Hope the Pope doesnt start hating the Texas Rangers

The Texas Rangers remain the only MLB team to refuse to host a “Pride Night” in celebration of the LGBTQ+ community.

Every season, 29 out of the 30 MLB teams host various Pride events.https://t.co/FyHUFNP52P

— The Dallas Express News (@DallasExpress) June 26, 2025

Realitybites said:

---

There are people who say a lot of things.

This is from the official website of the OCA.

" …the different understanding of Confession held by Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church. For example, does one confess to the priest, who personally has the "power" to offer absolution and forgiveness, or does one confess to Christ in the presence of the priest, with the priest proclaiming God's forgiveness at the conclusion…

Concerning whether Roman Catholicism is considered a heresy: Orthodox Christianity in general would view certain aspects of Roman Catholic teaching as heretical."

Another example would be baptism, which in Orthodoxy is by immersion. But most of Orthodoxy is concerned with maintaining and practicing the faith once delivered to the saints. You would never see something like Vatican 2, female priests, gay marriage, dancing girls, or other liturgical abuses in Orthodoxy.

Trad Catholics are right in their gut instincts but they only go back 100 years when they need to go back 1000.

---

Yep, I've heard Orthodox guys refer to Catholics as the original Protestants

Papal Protestants is the typical term, but yes, basically. Sola Pope came before Sola Scriptura.

Dude, you are so misinformed it's not funny. The earliest recorders show the other patriarchs submitting to the Bishop of Rome.

There are no heretical views in the Catholic Church because we have had valid councils since 1054.

The Orthodox Church is so fragmented, that you can get two of them to agree on the time of day much less convene a council to clarify doctrine.

Explain Christianity pre-1054

“Atop the bell tower of the modern church the progressive clergy, instead of a cross, place a weathervane.”

Nicolás Gómez Dávila pic.twitter.com/pLNM73eu2m

— Mark W. (@DurhamWASP) August 27, 2025

Our new Woke Pope...

Pope demands end to the ‘pandemic of arms’ as he prays for victims of Minnesota school shooting https://t.co/r9g5ffWhFo

— Dallas Morning News (@dallasnews) August 31, 2025

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Explain Christianity pre-1054

---

The Wokeness of the Pope continues

Pope Leo XIV says Americans that support migrants being deported aren’t really ‘pro-life.’

“Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the U.S., I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”

pic.twitter.com/xcjGtIQhCi

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) October 1, 2025

He hid it as long as he could. Im rarely if ever wrong.

The enemy within continues.

Fre3dombear said:

---

He hid it as long as he could. Im rarely if ever wrong.

The enemy within continues.

---

Agreed


The leftists remain in control of the Vatican.

There used to be a great Catholic aggie here that posted. I wish he were here to give an educated and bvoice of experinced opinion. Instead everyone is separated into two groupd as if there were only two kinds of people., the geniuses that agree with you and the evil idiots that dont.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

There used to be a great Catholic aggie here that posted. I wish he were here to give an educated and bvoice of experinced opinion. Instead everyone is separated into two groupd as if there were only two kinds of people., the geniuses that agree with you and the evil idiots that dont.

---

Why don't you agree with me?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

There used to be a great Catholic aggie here that posted. I wish he were here to give an educated and bvoice of experinced opinion. Instead everyone is separated into two groupd as if there were only two kinds of people., the geniuses that agree with you and the evil idiots that dont.

---

One thing is certain, we could all agree with you but them wed all be wrong. So theres that

The catholic aggie seems to have passed on. God rest his soul.

If everyone here agreed with me I would go to a different board. Who wants to sit in a room where everyone thinks the same way?

The aggy is still here. Post count doesnt start over when you change names.

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

and jobs with the Vatican. They have the funds to do it

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

True, they have stolen a lot of jobs that Americans used to do

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

A. Some do ….some do not.
B. In any case those who did not enter the country legally are not entitled to residency. Unlike the over ONE Million of individuals who entered the US legally every year.
C. So let the pope stop being a hypocrite and put up the money necessary for the 'human' upkeep of these millions and grant them residency in the Vatican.
D. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

A. Some do ….some do not.
B. In any case those who did not enter the country legally are not entitled to residency. Unlike the over ONE Million of individuals who entered the US legally every year.
C. So let the pope stop being a hypocrite and put up the money necessary for the 'human' upkeep of these millions and grant them residency in the Vatican.
D. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

---

Accurate. He is the most WOKE POPE in history

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

A. Some do ….some do not.
B. In any case those who did not enter the country legally are not entitled to residency. Unlike the over ONE Million of individuals who entered the US legally every year.
C. So let the pope stop being a hypocrite and put up the money necessary for the 'human' upkeep of these millions and grant them residency in the Vatican.
D. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

---

They have a higher labor force participation rate than the native population, by a good margin.

It isn't the pope's job to solve our immigration issues. He's entrusted with the care of our souls. The Church recognizes that nations have the right to control their borders. They don't have the right to do so in a cruel or lawless manner. We support such policies to our own spiritual detriment.

Leo is simply and accurately stating our own church's teaching.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

A. Some do ….some do not.
B. In any case those who did not enter the country legally are not entitled to residency. Unlike the over ONE Million of individuals who entered the US legally every year.
C. So let the pope stop being a hypocrite and put up the money necessary for the 'human' upkeep of these millions and grant them residency in the Vatican.
D. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

---

They have a higher labor force participation rate than the native population, by a good margin.

It isn't the pope's job to solve our immigration issues. He's entrusted with the care of our souls. The Church recognizes that nations have the right to control their borders. They don't have the right to do so in a cruel or lawless manner. We support such policies to our own spiritual detriment.

Leo is simply and accurately stating our own church's teaching.

---

When he knocks down the walls around Vatican City Ill give a **** about what he claims.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

A. Some do ….some do not.
B. In any case those who did not enter the country legally are not entitled to residency. Unlike the over ONE Million of individuals who entered the US legally every year.
C. So let the pope stop being a hypocrite and put up the money necessary for the 'human' upkeep of these millions and grant them residency in the Vatican.
D. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

---

They have a higher labor force participation rate than the native population, by a good margin.

It isn't the pope's job to solve our immigration issues. He's entrusted with the care of our souls. The Church recognizes that nations have the right to control their borders. They don't have the right to do so in a cruel or lawless manner. We support such policies to our own spiritual detriment.

Leo is simply and accurately stating our own church's teaching.

---

When he knocks down the walls around Vatican City Ill give a **** about what he claims.

---

Leftists always say they'll start listening to pro-lifers when we start speaking out against war crimes and militarism. They're not being honest with themselves either. The Catholic Church already does this, and of all pro-life institutions it is probably the most reviled.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The pope is right about inhumane treatment (which is not synonymous with deportation).

---

The pope is being hypocritical.

The United States admits more legal immigrants than any country on earth.

And by a large margin.

However if the pope cares to put the Vaticans money where his mouth is…..he should offer to provide free housing , medical care and residency for the millions of individuals who entered our country illegally.

---

They don't need free housing; they have jobs.

---

A. Some do ….some do not.
B. In any case those who did not enter the country legally are not entitled to residency. Unlike the over ONE Million of individuals who entered the US legally every year.
C. So let the pope stop being a hypocrite and put up the money necessary for the 'human' upkeep of these millions and grant them residency in the Vatican.
D. Anything less is pure hypocrisy.

---

They have a higher labor force participation rate than the native population, by a good margin.

It isn't the pope's job to solve our immigration issues. He's entrusted with the care of our souls. The Church recognizes that nations have the right to control their borders. They don't have the right to do so in a cruel or lawless manner. We support such policies to our own spiritual detriment.

Leo is simply and accurately stating our own church's teaching.

---

Cruel and lawless. Very WOKE of you. Do you fly the Pride flag too?