If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

I don't know who they mean by "Rome" here but it is not the official magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church.  Yes, individual bishops and theologians in the hierarchy no doubt questioned the inspiration of certain books during the first centuries of the Church while the canon was being discussed (as would be the case with any issue).  Prior to the promulgation of an official canon, it was up to the bishop to decide what to use as Scripture in his own diocese.  But in her official proclamations the Church has always maintained the same canon of 73 books, so the question is simply wrong on that point.

If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

Think about this. In 397, what were the most efficient means of communication? One had to send word to the four corners of the earth by messengers on foot, cart, horse, ship, etc. It took quite a while for word to spread to every church and diocese. And then how much longer than this to put the decree into effect? Remember, the copies of scripture that existed were all hand copied, so it may take a particular church a while to secure new Bibles. Plus, they would not be required to destroy older copies of texts that had other, non-canonical books in them. Those books would simply not be read as Scripture. The same would apply to books that were missing texts. Those books would not need to be destroyed -- new books would just be used in addition. So why would anyone be surprised to find some of these earlier books still in circulation?

I have a copy on my bookshelf of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It sits right next to my copy of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. One might as well ask, if the new Catechism is supposed to be official, why are there still copies of the Trent catechism in circulation? Just because we can still find older texts, that does not make the newer text invalid.

If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

This is a bit of confusion which we Catholic Apologists may be partially to blame for. Often the Councils of Hippo and Carthage are cited as the earliest defining of the canon by the Church. In fact, these were both local councils and not ecumenical councils of the Church. That is, they were binding only in those particular areas, and not the universal Church. The canon of the Bible was officially defined for the universal Church by proclamation of Pope Innocent I in the year 405. It just so happens that this canon agrees with the canons recorded by Hippo, Carthage, and the proclamations of numerous private bishops from records we have dating back to the second century.

Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.

I think this proves too much, at least as far as the questioner is concerned. It proves that the bishops at Carthage knew that their canon would not be binding without Rome's confirmation. It shows us that the primacy of the Church lies in Rome, which is an argument for the Catholic Church!

Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

No. The fact that the churches in those areas would, hundreds of years later, break away from the Catholic Church in schism, does not mean that they were not fully united with the Catholic Church prior to that. It would be like saying anything that the Church in Germany did before Martin Luther's time should be credited to the Lutherans and not the Catholics.

If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

She didn't. As I said before, the canon of the Bible has been a closed issue for the Church since Pope Innocent's proclamation in 405 AD. All the Church did at the Council of Trent was to reaffirm the constant canon that they had been using for more than 1100 years in the face of the Protestant's rejection of part of the Old Testament. How ironic (and unfair) that by reaffirming the canon the Church had known for over a millennium, the Catholic Church would later be accused of being the ones to alter it.

Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

The fact that two churches each make claims of authority in an area does not make them both wrong.

Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

This sounds like an essay question being asked on an exam!  The truth of the matter, though our questioner would have us believe otherwise, is that all of our Catholic doctrines are thoroughly based in the Scriptures, even if you cannot find a straightforward definition of them in the Bible.  Doctrines that are accused of being "un-biblical" such as the Assumption of Mary or the Immaculate Conception are supported in the Scriptures. 

For an example of an answer to this question I would suggest the practice of infant baptism.  While the Scriptures contain main instances of whole households being baptized, there is never an instance were we explicitly see an infant being baptized (though I must point out that nowhere in the Bible is this practice forbidden, either).  Nevertheless, we have Origen (185-232 AD) saying, "The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants."  And St. Augustine writes, "This the Church always had, always held." 

A quote from a second century Christian claiming Apostolic origin for a practice most likely wouldn't satisfy our questioner -- then again, I doubt anything other than a written affidavit in an Apostle's handwriting, sealed by a notary would!

Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

I can't, but why should I want to?  Catholics do not believe that Sacred Tradition "trumps" Sacred Scripture.  The two go hand in hand and both preserve the full deposit of the faith.  Nothing in one contradicts the other.  This line of questioning stems from the questioner's misunderstanding of the Catholic faith.

If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

First, the Catholic Church encourages the reading of Scripture.  We are not forbidden to read the Bible and apply it to our lives.  What is wrong is to assume that your personal opinion about what any particular passage "means" is more accurate than the constant 2000 year old tradition of the Church.  So what do we do when we have three organizations claiming to be authoritative (there are many more than this, in reality)?

The answer is simple.  Use your reason and common sense!  Just because Catholics recognize the proper authority of the Church does not mean that we must check our brains at the door, or that we blindly follow any group that makes claims of authority.  Any non-Catholic Christian sect, be they Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, or mainstream Protestant churches, teach doctrines that are novel, inconsistent with historic Christianity, and represent a break with, not a continuation of, tradition.  We recognize the authority of the Catholic Church for a whole host of reasons, but one of the major ones is that her teaching has been consistent since the time of the Apostles.

Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

This is an odd question seeing as the Catholic Church accepts the Septuagint canon of the Old Testament, which came from a third century BC Alexandrian council, while Protestant reformers prefer to use the shorter Old Testament canon established by the Jewish council at Jamnia around 100 AD.

If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

In response to "a" I would suggest that Catholic and Orthodox doctrines are not as different as the questioner believes them to be.  The Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox churches to be in a state of schism, not heresy, meaning that the basic truths of their doctrines has been maintained.  Regardless, my earlier point about two groups each claiming authority not making them both wrong also applies here.  In response to "b" this is simply a bad question.  What the questioner is basically asking is "if the church cannot be in error, then how come the church is wrong?"  That's your opinion, bub!

I would also like to ask what "church" he thinks the Scriptures refer to as the "pillar and foundation of truth?"

Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

What this very long question illustrates is the questioner's confusion regarding the status of the Sacred Tradition of the Church and the many traditions (with a lower case "t") that may or may not have at any given time the force of canon law or custom behind them.  Because it is customary in one place and time to stand during the Eucharistic consecration, to choose but one example, does not invalidate the custom of kneeling in other times and places.  Particular disciplines in the Church have changed throughout her history, but doctrines have remained the same.  For instance, baptisms may have been practiced through full immersion or by pouring water over the head.  But the theology behind the sacramental nature of the act remains the same.  Roman Catholics cross themselves from the left to right.  Eastern Rite Catholics (and Orthodox) cross themselves from the right to left.  But each profess the same faith in the Trinity by making this action. 

Our questioner is attempting to prove that doctrines have changed by showing changes in particular disciplines.  It's apples and oranges.  (And as a note, I am taking his references as provided at their face value.  I have not checked to see if his sources even say what he claims they say.  He could very well be in error there, as well, but it has no bearing on his real argument.)

Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

I'll make the same point that I did earlier.  Because a particular church, hundreds of years after the fact, would break into schism, has no bearing on what happened there earlier.  The questioner also has a false understanding of Apostolic Succession, which Catholics recognize in the Easter Orthodox churches, as well.

When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

This is another question based on a false assumption.  Catholics recognize both written tradition (what we call Sacred Scripture) and oral tradition (what we call Sacred Tradition) as authoritative means of passing down the deposit of faith.  The Bible also tells us that we must hold fast to oral tradition and the preached word of God (1 Cor 11:2, 1 Pet 1:25).

The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

As with the previous question where he cites the Church fathers, I have not taken the time to check his sources to see if the fathers truly say what he claims they do.  In any case, I would dare say no official Catholic document has ever stated that the "common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves" as this questioner claims.  But if this questioner's line of reasoning were true, and everyone who opened a Bible were easily able to come to an accurate understanding of the text, then we would find a great unity of practice and doctrine throughout the sola scriptura Protestant world.  What we have instead are thousands of denominations and great discord and disagreement.  The proof is in the pudding!

If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

Again, our questioner shows his ignorance of actual Catholic practice.  I suspect that the average Catholic at Mass has more Scripture read to him than at most Protestant worship services.

Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)

Here our questioner is making up his own standards and setting them too high.  Name one sure way that the new believer in Christ can know that the Pentecostal Holiness Church is the true church?  Or the Presbyterian?  Or Lutheran?  Or the local Evangelical Bible Fellowship?  If our faith were something that could be easily proven with a single, clear, statement, then there would be no room for Grace.