Why Was the Apocrypha Removed from the Bible? 

Blessings, and thank you so much! I am a strong proponent of truth. I do my absolute best to remove all biases, assumptions, and presumptions from the content I present to believers and those non-believers who may frequent my content. Scripture says, "The truth shall make us free." This principle guides my work and underscores the importance of truth in promoting understanding and open dialogue among all who engage with my content.

@@gclmedia 1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. 2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number. 3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. 4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”

@@dougy6237 You copied and pasted this at least 7 times. Stop spamming, dude :)

@@zacharyshort384 Yes, isn't it just terrible when a Catholic quotes history and scripture!. If we're not careful we might find out the truth and convert to Christ's Catholic Church!

@@dougy6237 That has zero to do with spamming unless you're suggesting spamming the "Good News" will do something other than turn people off; in which case, I have some *bad news* ;)

Thank you so much...there are sooooo many!!! I have a series of videos coming that will present some of the most commonly overlooked!

@mcintosh6214 be careful with that. People are philosophers instead of relationship experts when it comes to God. They talk themselves and whoever will listen to them out of relationship with God and into leaning on their own understanding of scripture. You need the truth to sell lies. Those other books, although alluded to in the current 66 books of the Bible, are not inspired by The Holy Spirit. They contradict the established Word of God.

@@Whoo_Boy actually they do not, but let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

@mcintosh6214 if they didn't they would be openly studied in every Protestant and Roman catholic church. The catholic church would even have them translated into Latin. But let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

@@Whoo_Boy Come on, thats like Saying the Iraneus persecuted Valentinians because they didn't believe in the Holy Trinity when that's nonsense. The truth is there is truth the church doesn't want people to know, for fear it will lead them astray like you say, but not because it goes against Jesus teachings. For example saying everything including Evil is part of God's will. And I'm sure focusing on equality based on the human spirit and not based on the flesh didn't go over well with the good ol boys of the Church lol. For Example Gospel of Mary preached equality regardless of gender or orientation. Gospel of Judas preached we all get out of hell eventually. Gospel of Truth literally admits the Trinity as we know it. Father and Son as One, Son is fully God and Fully Man, Holy Spirit is their Message of Love brought forth by their Ministries of Churches from All Realms. The Elohim aka Holy Spirit. But it goes into such detail to describe what the Holy Spirit is that it would just make most people go cross eyed. Don't forget even the original Gospels kept secret and only for people of the Church ,not for laymen, and it was death if you transcribed them to another language. All the crazy stuff about describing other realms, or creation, or the Holy Spirit, or the Old Testament God being a different God and in what way depending on which old Christian Sect you ask. Its understandable why all that was taken out. Its just too complicated and distracting. But none of it technically goes against the Bible or Jesus's teaching. Philosophizing was literally a core teaching of Jesus. Seeking Knowledge and thou shall find. The Gnostics taught us that any so called Abrahamic Religion that has Given God a name different from He Is that Is, or I Am that I Am, in their scriptures, are automatically marked as being false by God's design. His word can't be changed in his name. Because the word for his name was Christ the Messiah. Our Image. To admit Jesus referred to himself as who was revealed to Abraham and Moses, is to admit in the Trinity. I disagree with Gnostics in that the old testament God was a different god. I believe it was as a Parent to Children of a more primitive race. And Jesus was our Formal introduction as no longer just Parent. But also as Friend and Savior.

Thank you so much. There is so much more than meets the eye. I often say that the Bible is complex but not complicating; simple but not easy. We have to stay on the pursuit of Discover with consistency and persistence. And you are so right there was a major shift in the Church at that time.

You are a blessing! I appreciate you more than you know. Check out my Apocrypha Playlist (Updated Weekly) ru-vid.com/group/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3&si=tOP15raLwsgNVhkz

Email me

"the 7 books were put into a separate part of the bible by luther" The Apocrypha was separated by Jerome in his Latin Bible in the 4th century. ___________________________ "by luther because they contradicted his heresies." Luther never said anything about the Apocryphal books contradicting his heresies. Luther stated that the Apocrypha was useful to be read by protestant Christians. But that it should not be used for doctrine. The same reasons most CATHOLIC church fathers gave for not using the Apocrypha for doctrine.

@@mark9531 Jerome did not remove them. But he questioned them based on the fact that the Jews has removed them. He was following the lead of post-crusifixion Jews. By then, the Jews were no longer authorities over scripture 🤣🤣. And while he tried to move thrn, the church said "nah".

@@chukulan Good afternoon chukulan. You said; "He was following the lead of post-crusifixion Jews" What did the crucifixion have to do with the canon of the OT. The canon of the OT had been completed for 400 years by the time of Christ. The church did not determine the OT canon. The Jews had been copying the OT for 400 years. _____________________________ Jerome did not follow anyone's lead. Whether Jews or the church. Jerome's OT did not include the Apocryphal books Jerome separated the Apocryphal books and called them the Apocrypha

Luther doesn’t believe in prayers to the dead. 2nd Maccabees affirms prayer to dead. Luther then removed from his own canon. Tried to do the same thing to James be of faith without works being dead but didn’t get enough support as was blatantly wrong. He tried to be a new pope if only he was a reformer not a betrayer.

@@Idishrkdmd Good afternoon ldishrkdmd. You said "Luther then removed from his own canon" *_Every book of the Apocrypha_* was in Luther's 1534 German translation. Including I & 2 Macabees There is not one difference between Luther's German Bible of 1534 and Jerome's Latin Bible of AD 401. _____________________ "He tried to be a new pope if only he was a reformer not a betrayer." He was a reformer in the pattern of Jerome. Luther was probably the second most brilliant theologian after Jerome.

Thank you so much. I love truth therefore I most love God’s word!

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZzIsyuSXccY.htmlsi=zsR-EW2126Wk8tOL

Based Protestant. Bible > Church

Thank you for sharing! I appreciate you. I have several videos that go further into the Deuterocanonical Books which I refer to as the Apocrypha being that I am Protestant and that my viewers at large are also, but I do accept these books as well as others as Scripture. Check out the Apocrypha playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3&si=WD7_5dizgzRSNtVs

Actually, none of the scriptures teach purgatory. That is not Biblical. That is a Catholic tradition wrongly imposed on scriptures by priest mis interpretations.

Dude. Martin Luther had the right to spark the Protestant reformation. Indulgences are not biblical, and neither is purgatory. Nobody back then had access to the Bible’s. only priest or monks and they were able to manipulate it. Luther became a monk and found that indulgences and purgatory aren’t real so yes he sparked the reformation for good reason. You cannot buy or live off anyone’s salvation but your own. The thief on the cross was told he’d be with Christ in paradise that day, not a middle place where he’d need to be purged of his sins. That’s the whole reason why Christ came down. We are deemed righteous in the eyes of Gods for those that accept Christ. If purgatory is real then Christ died for nothing. His blood is what saves us, he died a death I deserved so I can live. There is no middle ground or cleaning place, we are clean because of him and through him everything is set free indeed.

You are most welcome! Check out the entire playlist ru-vid.com/group/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3&si=Ingpb7bMcwJFTlEr

You are most welcome. Thank you more!

1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. 2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number. 3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. 4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”

Yay! Thank you! I appreciate you. Be sure to stay connected.

@@gclmedia Will do

Thank you 🙌

1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. 2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number. 3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. 4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”

I have a teaching that delves into this that I haven’t uploaded yet. You are on point!

John 16:13

@@gclmediait shouldn't be. It teaches that we can pay for the sins of the dead. An that fallen angels had sex with women. Wich is just ridiculous.

Multiple early church councils declared the Apocryphal books to be divine canonical scripture in the 300’s AD.

​@@dustygatrell-ru7tg it said angels had sex with women?

@@dustygatrell-ru7tggenesis ch 6

Blessings and thank you. I have several videos on this channel concerning the Apocrypha…but if you have something specific you’d like me to address please let me know. I’d be more than happy to create a video about it for you.

​@gclmedia I do. Do you consider these books part of the word of God removed from the word of God or would you consider them unlawfully added and why?

They are quoted/referenced by Christ and the apostles in all 27 books of the New Testament

@richlopez5896 Blessings and thank you! I have multiple videos proving that the Apocrypha as well as other Biblical yet Non-canonical books were quoted throughout the New Testament. 👇🏾 ru-vid.com/group/PLDeCxlE5-BAPUfLvJDjCkmTXo-fXyL3h3&si=eCLBuzJA8IQX0Q5b

@@gclmedia The proper term for the 7 removed books is Deuterocanon.

Well, he's not talking about New Testament apocrypha.

Excellent question. On each Monday I will be doing what I’m calling Apocryphal Mondays. I will be delving into your question every week. But here is a video that I am sure will pique your interest. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tE7fPPIOMRg.htmlsi=Qe9-GEqx9q_18Vai

1. No one has the right to add or subtract books from the Bible. 2. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a direct quotation from the canonical books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Nahum; and the New Testament allusions to them are few in number. 3. Some of the deuterocanonical books are referenced in a way that shows the New Testament authors considered them to be inspired records of biblical events. For example, Hebrews 11:35 describes people in the Old Testament who “were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they may rise again to a better life.” These people are only described in 2 Maccabees 7, which describes brothers who accept torture instead of eating pork and violating Jewish law. Since the context of Hebrews 11 includes “the men of old [who] received divine approval” (v. 2), this means the books describing the Maccabean martyrs were part of the Old Testament that was used by the author of the Letter to the Hebrews. 4. The idea that the early Church viewed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture is even more evident in the writings of early Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Cyprian, and Origen. Moreover, these fathers cited these books as “Scripture” or “holy Scripture,”

John 10:22 references the holiday of Hanukkah. Read 1 Maccabees 4. Hebrews 11:35 references the Maccabean martyrs. Read 2 Maccabees 6 & 7. Hebrews 13:2 references the angel Raphael in the book of Tobit. Daniel 8 & 11 prophesy about Alexander defeating the Persians and his kingdom split in 4 parts, which was fulfilled in 1 Maccabees 1.

Go read the apocrypha for yourself . Also read the book of Enoch 👀

I can give you a list of verses. They are quoted/referenced in all 27 books of the New Testament

There was just as much of an uproar then as well. It's just not talked about often. Research the KJV- Only Movement and the Apocrypha Controversy.

Thats interesting!!! A Catholic Bible by definition includes the deuterocanonical books, and finding one without them would be atypical and not representative of the Catholic tradition. Where did you find it? I’m interested to know who the publisher is and what edition this might be. Share...🤔👀

Thank you so much. Understanding historical context enriches our appreciation for the diverse biblical traditions and helps us to understand things that are not part of the western culture. Keep doing what you are doing, exploring! May God bless your journey!

2 Timothy 3:16 doesnt seem to have the meaning you think it does. Trent Horn explores this God Breathing word. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BxqtRAOAXYU.html

Does Timothy also condone slavery? And leviticus gives a detailed description on just how to beat slaves,I believe.

Those 7 books have always been a part of the Bible's canon of scripture

Thank you so much. I do my best to be accurate yet as short and concise as possible. Believe me when I say it is not easy to do being that I create theological content.

Great explanation. Easy to understand and to the point.

It was Jerome who used the word Apocrypha in his Vulgate in the section which contained these extra books. The word Deuterocanonical did not appear until the 14th century.

Blessings and thank you for watching and engaging. Have you seen this Short? 👇🏾 ru-vid.com2D16wlzmbSc?si=KMah3HGaIQTEE0sL

I do my absolute best. I try to present only the facts in an interesting way.

Well, thank you so much! You’ve made my day! 🤗 Be sure to check out my other videos on the Apocrypha…the insights get deeper and greater. The Lost Books: ru-vid.como0m_qTPGKZc?si=N-fO6xY4X79xypHc Martin Luther’s Apocrypha ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZzIsyuSXccY.htmlsi=qbw74vT5OQ62_0W8 Who REMOVED the Apocrypha ru-vid.como-JyExR1fxQ?si=qI0C_4jcKwcF2UGm Disputed Books ru-vid.com2D16wlzmbSc?si=7ZSi5zECSGOyYkoS

No disrespect to the content provider, but on a broader level, the truth may not always be what we are "looking for". Seek first the Kingdom of God and not just your own truth.

Blessings and thank you. I appreciate your kindness. If you are willing, talk to me. I am a student at heart. What do you disagree with? I’m open to learn! 🤗

Thank you for watching and engaging. I went to the channel but I did not see any videos on the Apocrypha 🤷🏿‍♂️

Thank you for watching and engaging! You are spot on. I talk about this in some of my other videos on the “so-called”Apocrypha.

Not just the Pope every bishop that attended the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.

He moved them because most of these books did not agree with his theology of Sola Fide and Purgatory. The Book of Maccabees contains passages that prove Purgatory. He also called the Book of James the "“epistle of straw". So that one got almost removed as well. The question is, where did he get the authority to demote these books. Is his understanding of the Christians' teaching superior to the previous councils?

@@maxellton He was to put it kindly a very prideful person.

Good evening David. You said; "Martin Luther, on his own authority, moved seven books queried by St Jerome to a separate section, which he called the apocrypha, arguing that they were of lesser authority" Actually, David, Jerome did ALL of that. Luther merely followed Jerome's pattern. ~Jerome separated the Apocryphal books. ~Jerome called the the Apocrypha. ~Jerome said they were of lesser authority.

It's a Custom beat created for my video and audio teachings! Do you like it?

@@gclmediano it’s ass

I love you back! And I appreciate you more than you know.

Blessings! And thank you. I have not encountered an NKJV version of the Apocrypha. I have it separately. Here is a link to a few resources including the Apocrypha amzn.to/3PVb8yz

Check out the orthodox study Bible Old Testament newly translated from the Greek text of the Septuagint, including the Deuterocanon New Testament from the New King James Version

KJV 1611 Editions which is the 1st editions of the year 1611, never been revised by Protestants, will have them between the O.T. and the N.T. ..... You can still buy that edition .... usually in a Large White Beautiful Hard copy Book ... NKJV"s will not have them

I appreciate you! Thank you for taking the time to watch and comment.

Thank you for your kindness and words of encouragement! I appreciate you!

Nice!

The first so called parallel is superficial, while the second parallel are not parallel at all. 8 is not equal to 7, and the stories contradict each other. The Sadducees are giving a what-if question to Jesus stating that husbands die one by one, and the said husbands are brothers.

Blessings and thank you for engaging. Check out this video if you have an opportunity. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZzIsyuSXccY.htmlsi=PQ6YDAm0sLgHM9Ni

kenapa tidak?

@barryhowell8992 It's absolutely Astounding how many "believers" if you will, don't understand that. KJV, is definitively the worst translation. But how many people Actually Read the texts they "believe"?

Martin Luther almost removed the book of James. So who has an authority to remove? If decide to remove book of colossians, would you immediately follow suite or test it first?

@@TatureBud lol he did remove it. Just wasn't successful in getting many to follow. He was a brave and also very interesting person. Good response nonetheless.

@@jeremymoffet9034 Good afternoon Jeremy. You said; "he did remove it" Luther's 1534 German Bible contained all 27 books of the NT, all 39 books of the OT, and all books of the Apocrypha.

@@mark9531 Fair point...I should have said, more accurately that he rejected it and believed it to be impossible to reconcile it with other books of the Bible (mostly Paul in my opinion). He even called it an "epistle of straw". He rejected other works as well.

Blessings and thank so much for engaging! If you have the opportunity please take a look at this video 👉🏾Did Martin Luther Remove the Apocrypha? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZzIsyuSXccY.html

@@gclmedia Luther removed the 7 deutero-canonical books. He also removed James Jude Hebrews and Revelation, though some of his co-religionists pressured him to reinstate the 4 NT books. Facts

Not true. He simply repositioned them to be between the Old and New Testaments. He specifically wrote that they were good for reading, despite his views on their canonicity.

@AppleOfThineEye The Bible consists of two sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. A third section, created by some guy in the 16th century, is not part of the Bible.

@@fantasia55 Assuming you're talking about the Apocrypha, no, that is also not true. It was written, at the absolute latest, in the fourth century, as Augustine wrote about it. You are free to debate the canonicity; saying it was written in the 16th century, however, is simply false.

ESV makes a Bible like that.

"King James had us only reading 66 books" The King James Bible contained the Apocrypha until 1884

They contain some very intriguing insights. I love making those connections that can only be found in the Apocrypha.

Thank you! And if god is within, there is no need for a preacher,priest, rabbi,etc.

Indeed!

Thank you for your engagement! I appreciate you taking the time to engage with this content and your input. May I offer some insights into the points you've raised? 1. The term "Deuterocanonical" identifies a subset of books within the broader Apocrypha. The seven books you are referring to -Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and First and Second Maccabees-are consistently recognized as Deuterocanonical. It's important to take note that the designation "Deuterocanonical" is used within certain traditions, particularly in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox contexts. The total count of books in the Apocrypha can vary based on which texts are included or excluded, but “ALL” the books commonly referred to as Apocrypha are part of the Deuterocanonical books. This term highlights their recognition as canonical by some traditions while not universally accepted by others. 2. While it's true that Martin Luther had concerns about certain books in the Apocrypha, the statement oversimplifies the historical context. Luther “DID NOT” remove these books from the canon; instead, he relocated them within the Bible, between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing a distinction in authority. The process of defining the canon was not uniform across church history, and various Christian traditions held different views on the status of these books. The late 4th Century councils, such as the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, did discuss canonical lists, but there wasn't a universal consensus among all Christian communities. Additionally, the 15th Century reference likely pertains to the Council of Florence, which sought to address church unity but did not establish a binding canon. The assertion that Luther removed these books due to disagreements with Catholic beliefs oversimplifies the historical and theological factors involved. Luther's concerns were nuanced and related to specific doctrines, not a wholesale rejection. Check out my video titled Luther’s Apocrypha ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZzIsyuSXccY.htmlsi=0yZEQ8MPISQMos7_ 3. You are correct! Early Protestant Bibles continued to include these books, albeit “often” placed in a separate section (most commonly between the Old and New Testaments). However, over time, many of these books gradually ceased to be included, a shift attributed in part to decisions made by “The Publishers and Printers”. Check out my YT Short ru-vid.como-JyExR1fxQ?si=zVRgSa98-y9rwz6o Much Love!!!

Good morning Ike. You said; "I’m not sure where he is getting 14" That is a good question. The 7 whole books of the Apocrypha are *Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and I Maccabees and II Maccabees.* ________________________ The other 7 books of the Apocrypha are actually *extensions* or additions to other books of the Old Testament ~ *I Esdras* [Additions to the book of Ezra] ~ *II Esdras* [Additions to the book of Nehemiah] ~ *The Rest of Esther* [107 verses added to Esther] ~ *The Song of the Three Children* [Addition to the book of Daniel] ~ *The Stories Susanna* [Addition to the book of Daniel] ~ *Bell and Dragon* Daniel [Addition to the book of Daniel] ~ *The Prayer of Manasseh* [Addition to he book of II Chronicles]

"deuterocanonical books (what he calls apocryphal)" I hope you don't mind if I make couple more clarifications. These books were called Apocrypha by Jerome as a section in his Latin Vulgate. Where he segregated the Apocryphal books from the rest of the Canon of Scripture. All early church fathers referred to these books as *Apocryphal* ________________________ There has always been and there always will be questions as to the canonicity and inspiration of these books. Dating all the way back to Origen, Jerome, Clement, Athanasius, Ruffinus, Hilary, Gregory of Nazianzus, Melito, and Cyril of Jerusalem all had strong opinions as to the inspiration and canonicity of the Apocrypha. Early church fathers considered these books as ecclesiastical, enlightening, to be read and taught. But there has always been a distinction between these books and the inspired canon of scripture.

"Protestants removed these books from their inspired canon during The Reformation" "Early Protestant Bibles still continued to include these books but in a different section" These books were never listed as part of the inspired canon. These books have always been separated from the canon of scripture (Until the English Douay-Rheims) Jerome separated these books from the inspired canon with a heading called *Apocrypha* in the Latin Vulgate. Jerome also wrote a clear disclaimer that these books, though enlightening, and should be read, were not part of the inspired canon of scripture.

"Many of these books stopped being included over time due to Bible-printing costs." That is correct. All English Bibles, even into the Reformation, contained the Apocrypha. Often following Jerome's pattern of separating them from inspired canon and writing a clear disclaimer as to their canonicity. The Apocrypha remained in the KJV, by law and copyright, until 1884. As you stated, it was removed for cost. And also to reduce the 17"x12"x5" 1600 page size of the KJV.

Although, I do believe that I did. Forgive me! Please accept my apology. Here is the reason why 👉🏾 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o-JyExR1fxQ.htmlsi=C4oHjtg7RjQumy0o

Good morning souououo. You said; "You did not say why these book were removed" The primary reason any major publication of the Bible removed the Apocrypha was not for any ecclesiastical reason. It was simply a matter of economics. The King James Bible was a 17"x 13" x 5" thick. It was 1600 page a lectern Bible which weighed 30 pounds and was chained to the pulpit. _________________________________ It included the apocrypha, The Book of Common Prayers, and many pages of calendars, bible reading and prayer schedules, genealogies of the patriarchs, kings, holy days, veneration of the saints, maps, etc. When Congress gave Robert Aitken the copyright to print the 1611 King James Bible in the US, he took everything out of the KJV except the 66 books. This made the Bible affordable and the size it is now.

"why they are considered uninspired by God" A distinction must be made between why they were removed (which I stated in my last comment. And why they were not considered inspired. Here is the quick reason they are NOT considered inspired: ~There was a 400 year silence when God ceased to speak to His people, Israel, and the New Testament. ~If God was not speaking to Israel, He was not inspiring his people to write more scripture, after the book of Malachi ~None of the characters in the Apocryphal books claimed to be prophets, who would have written scripture ~The Characters in the Apocryphal books recount their prayers to God. *But none ever claim that God, the Holy Spirit, or angels spoke back to them* This is the essence of inspiration. And what is lacking in the Apocryphal books

They are not hard to find. If you have older family members it is likely that you have access to one and are just not aware. Purchasing them takes a little more effort: flea markets, garage sales, estate sales, Facebook marketplace, etc. These Bibles contrary to popular beliefs are not rare. The Bible is the MOST printed book in the world. It only gets harder to find them as you get closer to the creation of the printing press. After that, it is just a matter of how much you are willing to invest?!

Thank you so much for engaging. I appreciate you. And yes, indeed, they sure are.

Yes, that's the Catholic position. For the Reformers, since the Apocrypha was not part of the Jewish Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), they questioned its canonical status. The Hebrew Bible was solidified in its current form sometime around the first century AD. This canon does not include the Apocryphal books, which were written primarily in Greek and not in Hebrew (with a few possible exceptions). The Reformers recognized the Jewish community's role in preserving the Hebrew Scriptures. This acknowledgment, however, was more about recognizing the historical and linguistic authenticity of the texts rather than assigning ecclesiastical authority to the Jewish community.

@@ntlearning Yes, and you give the false Protestant position, which is problematic for several reasons beyond the very cogent one I gave. Luther had no authority to change the canon, no matter what his excuses were because of his conjured up theology that misunderstood Paul, or any other Protestant after those books had been in the Christian (Catholic) bible for over a thousand years. . The Deuterocanonicals were part of the LXX, the Septuagint, and biblical scholars know it was cited widely by the apostles. About 90% of the references in the NT about the OT came from the Septuagint. In the first century, there was no closed canon of the Hebrew bible. Judaism was NOT some monolithic body that had agreed on a Hebrew bible. So Luther's excuses are nonsense, especially after the revelations after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 that Luther knew nothing about...the Essenes kept scrolls including some of the apocryphal books before the time of Christ. What Jews finally decided upon much later is immaterial. Protestants used the Masoretic texts which came long after the CC had canonized the OT in the 4th century with Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome. That decision never changed in the CC and was infallibly declared by the Council of Trent over a 1000 years later with no change in response to Luther's nonsense. No one knows for sure when the first attempts were made by the Jews to close their canon. It doesn't matter....the CC had the authority from Jesus...He promised to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the chosen leaders of the Church He founded into all truth (Gospel of John) and to be with it always. That includes canonizing the bible which should be an inconvenient truth to Protestants, but they either ignore or twist biblical passages to support their flawed theology...the promise of Jesus DID NOT APPLY to the 16th century schisms and traditions of men who made up their own religions and picked and chose what books of the bible they wanted. The Church Jesus founded did not need to follow the old covenant and what Jews thought anyway...they had no belief in the New Testament. The CC had the biblical authority, not Luther or Calvin or the Jews or any other human, to say what was scripture. The CHURCH of the NT bible had that authority. The bible called it the "pillar and foundation for the truth." Not Luther, not bickering Protestants, not Jews.

@@richardkramer4076 Thanks for the cut and paste. Keep it shorter because people don't read long threads. But we are not talking about the NT. We are talking about the OT. It was the Jewish Church and their tradition that we are grafted from. The Jewish Fathers rejected those books because they believed them not to be true Hebraic Canon. They don't care about Catholics and Protestants. And the Hebrew Tanakh came out before the Bible was codified. The Church should not be so proud. Peter to decide the NT, and Moses to decide the OT. Jewish Church and Christian Church = One Tree. Interestingly, Saint Athanasius had the Protestant Canon. That's quite funny.

@@ntlearning I didn't cut and paste a single word. It was all from memory. Of course, it's convenient to blame the length of my response, because it refutes your claims. You pretend the "Jewish fathers" were all in agreement...that is flat wrong The Sadducees believed the Torah, but not what all the other Jewish sects like the Pharisees believed for example. Temples kept various scrolls, not a Hebrew bible. No one can point to a definitive closing of the Hebrew canon until the 9th century. The rest is just speculation. Jamnia is myth. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an inconvenient truth for Luther and you. You have yet to give a good rebuttal to my claims, while I have addressed yours. You just can't wiggle out of the big problem for Protestants...they had NO AUTHORITY to change the canon that had been in place for a 1000 years. Jews have no authority to be deciding a Christian canon....nor does Martin Luther. The bible makes clear WHO has the authority, and it is not 16th century schismatics, regardless of how much you ignore the truth. Chew on truth for a while.

I have a video coming soon that deals with the ideas you mentioned. Stay tuned!

If we could go back just a little over 130 years ago we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Check this out when you get a chance ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZzIsyuSXccY.htmlsi=Q4o5S2aXSU-wQHL6

Luther should be regarded as one of the great villains against the Christian faith

Blessings! I can’t quite make out what you are trying to say.

​@@gclmediaby the way, thank you so much for your zeal. I make professional videos also. Maybe it's God's will for us to communicate in private and collaborate someday

Thank you for your engagement, and I appreciate your interest. However, it's important to address some inaccuracies in your comment. The King James Version (KJV) was commissioned by King James I for the Church of England, not as a state-sanctioned Bible for Catholics. The Geneva Bible, while popular among Protestants, had its controversies. The KJV aimed to be acceptable to both High Church Anglicans and Puritans. While the Geneva Bible was favored by some reformers, the KJV was commissioned to be a more inclusive and widely accepted translation within the English-speaking world. Lastly, the authorized Catholic translation has been the Douay-Rheims Bible since its publication between 1582 and 1610. This translation was a response to the Protestant Reformation and the popularity of the Geneva Bible (1560).

The Apocrypha wasn't added. It was removed.

@@NathanH83 indeed, by the printing companies no less.

Blessings! I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly. Actual apocrypha? 🤷🏾‍♂️

Judith takes place after the Maccabean revolt, long after Jerusalem was destroyed. And that's when Nineveh was rebuilt.

You are right! The Deuterocanonical books were not removed from the Catholic Bible.

Thank you so much. It is interesting that you would say that. 🤔

I assume reading them would be an essential part of the research.

@@MatthewAbhisheg I don’t understand your comment.

The apocrypha is reading the “Bible.” But yea people need to test all things. Also I love how we can prove someone removed text and in revelation it warns of what happens to those who add or take away from the scriptures. So study why the reformers removed it, and you find out their lies and hidden stuff was just men in error back then thinking they had the authority

You nailed it.