Historically, the Bible is a secondary support for Christians and Jews. I was raised Roman Catholic, and our tradition and practices included the Bible, but it was not a key centerpiece of our faith. The Jewish side of my family likewise have a rich history of tradition and faith that is lived, and not pinned down to every word in the Bible. When I have met with my Jewish family and friends for Bible discussion, I have enjoyed how they "allegorize" the Bible and give historical ponderings that reflect much more emphasis on personal meaning, rather than some "official" dogma.
The Bible was not really completely compiled and agreed upon until almost 400 years after Christ. Even then, various books, such as the "Shepherd of Hermes" were included at first, and then removed. While other books considered questionable are now in the NT Bible. The Hebrew scrolls were there, but were not commonly available to Christians except in the Synagogues. The New Testament was not there at all. Early Christians at times may have had letters shared and hear a reading, and possibly be able to copy the letters. But, it was the ancient Catholic Church (before the East-West split in 1054 AD) that eventually collected these letters and decided upon which ones were canonical and which were not. It was the Catholic Church that set the criteria as to what constituted a canonical and later on inspired book. The Catholics decision as to what should be in the NT Bible stills holds true for the Protestant Bibles today. Before the Bible was put together and made available, Christians (Catholics) largely lived by Church tradition and short creeds for memory (hence the Apostles Creed):
Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]
The DR (Catholic Douay-Rheims) New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]
The whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text were written by Dr. Challoner. [Source: http://www.drbo.org/intro.htm]
Christians simply had no NT to use for over 1500 years after Christ! The Bible was not really made available in general to people to get copies until after 1611 AD. Then, the completed verification with the Latin Vulgate was not complete until 1752 AD. This must give us cause to wonder just how the Watchtower Society and some Protestant denominations can make their absurd claims about restoring "truth" in these last days (similar to Mormon claims) when in fact such could not be circulating at all, not even during the time of Christ and the Apostles, except by what was known and accepted by word of mouth, tradition, and letters that were circulated. What was circulated were far more than what we call the New Testament. An early Christian would not really have a concept of which ospel and Epistle to treat as inspired and which to treat as a nice essay. The concept of an inspired NT just did not exist.
So, it was eventually the early Catholic Church that declared the Bible inspired. The New Testament is a Catholic work, built upon Catholic criteria, and Catholic claims of inspiration long after the Watchtower considered the Catholic Church to be completely apostate. Essentially, if the Watchtower really thought about it, the Bible is the work of total Apostates! Some modern Protestant denominations and members acts as if the Bible just magically popped directly out of heaven from God's hand. Some groups, like the JWs, treat every word as coming from the mouth of God. Many people forget that the Bible is not with Word of God, but that Jesus Christ is the Word of God! - John 1:1.
Could the Bible be inspired? Yes. But, I believe that it "contains" inspired words of God, and that the Bible also contains errors and words of men. (Not all Catholics would agree with me, but the Orthodox would to a degree.) So, when the Apostle Paul says that "All Scripture is inspired of God" he was really speaking about the Hebrew Old Testament. The Eastern Orthodox recognizes the limitations of the Bible, and take a more pragmatic view than do modern Protestants, especially fundamentalists. We must be careful when quoting the Bible to understand its limitations. The Christian faith is built far more upon tradition and Church evolution than upon Biblical developments. This is a point that completely escapes and ultimately undermines the credibility of such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses who think that they have restored "truth" but in fact have done nothing more than create a fiction.
Is there an authority available to properly interpret the Bible? This is a tough question to discuss on JWD, as ex-JWs have all but rejected any scent of religious authority. So bare with me a minute. The Apostle also stated that no prophecy comes forth by any private interpretation, but by men born along by the Holy Spirit. Prophecy is not just foretelling the future, but also telling of God's will, and announcing God's proclamations. When Protestants read their Bible they believe that the Holy Spirit moves them to understand their Bible. This is fine to a point, but falls apart when they begin to teach their interpretations ... this is why in the west, there are so many Protestant denominations. Eastern Orthodox never had a Protestant revolt. How do we know if our understanding is an interpretation or is the product of the Holy Spirit moving us? Therefore, this is why the Apostles warned of those who would be teachers in the Church ... they bare a heavy responsibility because if they start teaching private interpretations and leading others, they will be held to account for their teachings.
If non-Catholic Christians are intellectually honest with themselves ... each one would go back and review all of the various Gospels and Epistles written that the Catholic Church left out of the NT Bible. They would then set up their own criteria for what is canonical, and they would make their own determinations as to what is inspired and what is not inspired. But, instead all Protestants (Jehovah's Witnesses included) accept this very Catholic work we call the New Testament. The Bible is an important and useful historical work. It details a rich history of the Jews and early Christians. But, it must be kept in perspective and not worshiped as a final authority. In fact, the King James Bible removed six books because these support Catholic teaching from before the time of Christ. If non-Catholics would read a Catholic Bible, and read the six books that the KJV removed, they will discover important history that in part clarifies Catholic tradition. This is why the Catholic- Orthodox NT has 72 books, whereas the KJV and other Protestant Bibles have only 66 books.
The Big Question is: Is your NT Bible the accurate NT Bible ... or is it a Protestant Corruption ... or is it a Catholic conspiracy? You Decide!
Jim Whitney
Next topics: What do you define as the Church? ... and then ... Praying to the Holy Spirit
E-mail me at: 
