quote: The true canon must first have the true new testament canon. Whatever the orthodox church was using is the new testament canon.
Seems a bit arbitrary, and what is the "orthodox church" ? And what time period. Should we bring back books like The Shepherd of Hermas ?
quote: To determine what makes up the old testament canon, it must be referenced in the true new testament canon.
Why have a different rule for Old and New Testaments ? Why, for instance is it not sufficient to be referenced by a canonical work, regardless of whether it is in Old or New Testament ?
And, it is well known that Jude references 1 Enoch. So presumably you have to add 1 Enoch to your canon. Good luck with that. There's also the question of whether Jude references the Assumption of Moses - and before you point out that that's uncertain, how do you handle uncertain cases ? Include a work "just in case" ?
quote: The protestant old testament canon is the only one that has all the books referenced by the true new testament canon and the books that are not referenced are also in the majority of all the other known old testament canons. This is what makes the protestant canon superior to all others.
As we know, that isn't true. But even if it was, why would that make the Protestant canon superior ? Following arbitrary rules isn't enough - the rules need to be justified.
quote: Jude is not referencing the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was not around when Jude was written.
1 Enoch is pre-Christian, so it certainly was around when Jude was written. And Jude explicitly cites the words as coming from Enoch (the man), which I do not think you will find in Deuteronomy.
quote: While it is true that all other canons include the books of the protestant canon and the protestant canon contains a few books not referenced in the New Testament, a criteria must be established for books not referenced in the New Testament. All of the apocryphal books never make a claim to divine inspiration or make a claim to divine authority. All the books of the protestant Old Testament DO either make a claim to divine inspiration or a claim to divine authority either explicitly such as "Thus saith the Lord", or implicitly such as the book of Esther when it provides authority for the celebration of the Jewish feast of Purim.
I think you will find that many books in your canon do not make such a claim. How about Luke, for instance ? Or Jude, since it's come up here and it is very short. (And even where the books do make such a claim it only covers a part of them).
And you still haven't addressed the validity of your criterion for the NT books. What do you mean by the "orthodox" Church, and why is its choices superior to any alternatives ?
As far as I am aware most modern Bible translations have only gone through a single translation, so multiple translations through an automated system (which will not do as well as a good human translator) will greatly exaggerate the problem. That isn't to say that the translations are perfect and sometimes it is a good idea to compare multiple translations to get a better understanding - but generally translations should be mostly correct (although we should certainly be very, very cautious about trying to dig big meanings out of little details, and I can remember some arguments here that made that mistake)
The problems with the Bible (excepting dubious micro-analyses) are more likely to be from errors in the original texts and corruption over time (everything from copyists mistakes to major additions - as in the case of Isaiah).