Original King James had it. 1611

What a ridiculous comment lol. The Authorized King James Version Bible includes the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha. As an Anglican, we still read these books during the Liturgy of the Word.

Orthodox bible is full books

Because it was not compatible in their theology!

They also don't accept Jesus, it takes a few hundred years for something to be accepted as scripture. (It was the same for the NT documents.) Those books were around and kept in the temple when Jesus was around, the Jews refused them afterwards to distance themselves from Christianity. The Septuagint, which is far older than the current Hebrew texts we have now... Includes all these books. It is older because they would often burn the old copy when they would transfer over the texts, or they were lost to time. Meanwhile the Septuagint is about as old as the dead sea scrolls. Which I'm fairly certain also contained these books.

@@KillerofGods So you're telling me or what I'm gathering from your comment in one aspect is that the Apocrypha books lean more towards Christian doctrine than the ones that were kept?

@@lizicadumitru9683 No, merely that they were used and were Relevant during the time of Jesus and the early church. Rabanic Jews later decided to refuse them because they weren't around long enough to be canonized. In fact before the destruction there were many different sects of Jews and their beliefs weren't nearly as uniform. I believe the current era of Jews are most closely related to the Pharisees. Their were the most spread out so their beliefs survived the destruction of the temple. Where the other sects were mostly concentrated around the temple.

So why is that a good reason but the 1100 years of the Catholic Church using the Deuterocanon isn’t a good reason?

@@bourbonrebel5515 If your comment was meant for my original comment...then I believe they are unnecessary because the people who penned those apocryphal letters themselves declared that they were not inspired; they were written in the time when prophecy/words from the Lord had dried up.

I have the pdf bro find a way of me sending you I've got Instagram

The disciples would have used the Septuagint which include the apocryphal writings

"Hanukkah is known as the Feast of Dedication (John 10:22) or the Festival of Lights. Hanukkah isn't mentioned in the Protestant Testament. Its origin is in the intertestamental period, during one of the most courageous episodes in Israel's history (167-164 BC; see 1 Macc. 3-4; 2 Macc."

There are Hebrew copies of them found in Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, rabbinic Judaism is not the same as 2nd temple Judaism. Christianity is older than the denominations of the current jews so is our canon (their canon was formed after the bible). Jesus did quote from the Maccabees. He used the Septuagint.

@@LuzianJThat’s not true, we know the cannon from writers like Josephus in the first century, and Josephus says that their inspired writings ceased in the time of Artexerxes, around the 4 century BC, which is when Malachi was written.

@@samsmith4902 the Septuagint is still older than Josephus. There was no unanimous agreement among the 2nd temple Jews, even during Josephu's time there were scholars who disagreed with him. The reason for the current canon of the Jews is because they could not find the Hebrew translations of those books.

Why are you lying? The apocrypha was in the Greek Septuingant - an old testament manuscript that was used during the time of Jesus and Disciples. The new testament referenced it multiple times, and during that time was regarded as scripture. Are you going to say the Apocrypha that was taught in Jewish Synagogues during Christ's time wasn't inspired? Shame on you. Google is free. Learn basic history

Romans 3:2 tells us this. The Oracles of God were written in Hebrew. Luke 24:44 Jesus tells us that he fulfilled the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms. The Hebrew Bible Old Testament doesn't have one apocryphal book in it. What scriptures did Jesus quote that were from apocryphal? Please give me at least 3 clear examples since you are accusing me of lying

@mrodriguez6449 Here are a few scriptures that are alluded in the Greek text during the time of Christ in the Apocrypha: Sirach 28:2: “Forgive your neighbor’s injustice, then when you pray your own sins will be forgiven.” Matthew 6:14-15: “If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you.” Tobit 4:16 (15): “See thou never do to another what thou wouldst hate to have done to thee by another” (Douay). Matthew 7:12: “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.” Wisdom 7:26: “For [wisdom] is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.” Hebrews 1:3: “[The Son] is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.” Wisdom 9:13: “For what man knows God’s counsel, or who can conceive what the Lord intends?” Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?” This greek interpretation of the text was widely accepted during the time of Christ. As the apocrypha was literally taught in Jewish synagogues at the time. However let's go more in depth. Now let's start with your first point - The oracle's of God. Since the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), shouldn’t we have the same Old Testament canon as they do? The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law-and most likely the prophets-was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed. In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septuagint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic. When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics. If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ. This is the view of Historians Not only that. The translation the EARLIEST christians used were the Greek Septuingant. For 1500 years the greek septuigant was recognised as scripture, by the most ancient churches. The Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic church. For you to throw out thr apocrypha that even thr Aposteles of Christ used tell me all I need to know

@@mrodriguez6449 Before I start I'd like to apologise for coming off as aggressive, I shouldn't have. I'm sorry. Secondly this is going to be long The Apocryhpha: The Apocrypha (Deutrocanonical) books have both biblical and Extra biblical evidence for its inspiration, and also the Earliest Christians. Firstly let's start with Biblical Evidences. There are plenty of new testament references to the Deutrocanonical books. 1. The most blatant example includes Jesus reference to it in the Lords prayer. Matthew 6:14-15 - "For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses". This exact statement, in this exact phrase only appears 1 time in the entirety of the Old Testament. That is in the Apocryphal book of Sirach 28:2-3 - "Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray, Does anyone harbor anger against another, and expect healing from the Lord?" This exact teaching and wording echoes the exact sentiment expressed by out Lord in Matthew 6:14-15 2. References to Martyrs: In Hebrews 11 (which we can both agree is divinely inspired) Speaks of martyrs who died in hope of ressurection of the next life. Which closely replicates the belief in the book of Daniels Hebrews 11:35 - "Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection" - Again this sentiment is explicitly stated in 2nd Maccabees chapters 6 and 7. In fact Hebrews 11 is directly referencing 2nd Maccabees Chapter 7. 2nd Maccabees 7 speaks of Matyred Brothers who rejected evil and died in hopes for the resurrection however for sake of length I will shorten it down to 1 verse - 2nd Mac 7:9 - "With his last breath he said: “You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to live again forever, because we are dying for his laws.” 3. We see another reference in Hebrews Chapter 1 speaking of the Son - in the exact same manner the Wisdom of Solomon speaks. The similarities are striking, if not 1 to 1. Look at the following verses from Wisdom 7:26 - 28: "For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness. Though she is but one, she can do all things" Now let's look at Hebrews 1 "He [the Son] reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power" Notice the similarities between the Apocrypha and the New Testament 1. They both are the reflection of God 2. Both sustain the universe 3. Though they are one they can do all things 4. They are both the images of the goodness of God. (And as Jesus said, only God is good right?) These are the 3 references you asked for. Some Protestant and all Catholic scholars alike through proper exegesis of the text would come to this conclusion. There are many more references in the new testament but I would be here all day. Secondly let's get to external evidence from the Apocrypha, what does history have to say about this? Let's get tp the earliest evidence for the apocrypha. That's right the very first century. One of the earliest pieces of evidence comes from a person who, despite his hostility toward Christianity, nevertheless attests to a few truths of Christianity, including the acceptance of the Deuterocanon: Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137). What does he say about the Christian relationship with the Apocrypha? In a work called Tosefta Yadayim 2:13, Akiba says: “The Gospels and heretical books do not defile the hands. The books of ben Sira, and all other books written from then on, do not defile the hands” (2:13), However what does this mean The following is an extract from researcher Gary Michuta: " The phrase “do not defile the hands” refers to a non-sacred text. Sacred texts require ritual hand washing after they were touched. Non-sacred texts do not. Therefore, Akiba is stating that the texts listed are not sacred (i.e., they are not Scripture). Since the Gospels appear to be mentioned, Akiba’s remarks are in regard to the Christian scriptures. What’s fascinating here is that Akiba’s rejection of the New Testament as Scripture also includes the rejection of the “books of ben Sira and all other books written from then on.” The book of Sirach (ben Sira) is the oldest book of the Deuterocanon (or what Protestants call the Apocrypha). Therefore, this decree rejects the whole of the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture. This declaration suggests two very important points. First, there must have been a significant number of Jewish Christians that accepted the Deuterocanon as Scripture prior to Akiba’s remark (i.e., before A.D. 132) for Akiba to associate it with the Christian scriptures. Second, Akiba must have believed that there existed a real possibility that non-Christian Jews may accept it as sacred Scripture as well. Otherwise, there would be no need for his ruling." Keep in mind the very last few sentences. EVEN SOME JEWS REGARDED APOCRYPHA AS SACREF DURING THE TIME OF JESUS. This directly counters your point on Romans 3:2 regarding the Oracles. Why? Let's go further in depth. God’s written word was entrusted to the Jews, but he never provided them with an inspired table of contents. For that reason, there has been ample disagreement over the canon-especially among Jews. The Old Testament took over one thousand years to compile, and the list of inspired books grew continuously as God’s word was revealed. This gradual accretion indicated that the Jewish people felt no need for a static canon but remained open to further revelation. They divided their sacred writings into three parts: the law, the prophets, and the writings (which were canonized in that order). By the time of Christ, the law-and most likely the prophets-was set in number, but the writings were not yet closed. In Jesus’ time, the Samaritans and Sadducees accepted the law but rejected the prophets and writings. The Pharisees accepted all three. Other Jews used a Greek version (the Septuagint) that included the seven disputed books, known as the deuterocanonicals. Still other Jews used a version of the canon that is reflected in the Septuagint and included versions of the seven books in question in their original Hebrew or Aramaic. When the Christians claimed that they had written new scriptures, Jews from a rabbinical school in Javneh met around year 80 and, among other things, discussed the canon. They did not include the New Testament nor the seven Old Testament works and portions of Daniel and Esther. This still did not settle the Pharisee canon, since not all Jews agreed with or even knew about the decision at Javneh. Rabbis continued to debate it into the second and third centuries. Even today, the Ethiopian Jews use the same Old Testament as Catholics. If anything is certain, it is that there was no common canon among the Jews at the time of Christ. Here are other sources that go far more indepth than a youtube comment ever could. Linkage between Hebrews and Maccabees - ehrmanblog.org/a-resurrection-for-tortured-jews-2-maccabees/ www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-deuterocanonical-books-are-never-quoted-in-the-new-testament William Albrecht - kzfaq.infomZKuy-Bh6DU?si=0qMGnd6tuW8v9CYW In depth discussion on Apocrypha with Trent Horn - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qridn7pqmpq0p30.htmlsi=1PhU2HOsC1yKCjcM Some Books: The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments. By Gary Michuta

It is a fact of History that the manuscript which was used during the time if Jesus was the greek Septuingant, which contained the Apocrypha. Its historical. Denying this would be denying history

Really nothing of significance in all the apocrypha

@@lizicadumitru9683 somehow 😂 have you read them?

@@user-lb3jq9kr5h That I have. They are fairly interesting but not much compared to the cannon we know.

@@lizicadumitru9683 mf really just called the wisdom of Solomon not interesting....

Nope. That’s called Protestant bias. You could say the same for the whole Bible you just don’t understand the passages in context etc.

And you are?

@@johnpaul3019 your friendly neighborhood reformed apologist. Anything else I can help you with please, don’t hesitate to ask. Always ready to defend and educate about the gospel of Jesus Christ 😊🙏

@@TexasJess777 hi, I’m a fellow Protestant. Could you explain why those books were not inspired by the Holy Spirit? I’m genuinely curious

@@TexasJess777 the irony of you sola scriptura goons is that you removed 7 canonical books. make that make sense

@@SuperSaiyanScandinavian which books? Cite sources for your claim.

The New Catholic Bible

Well that's one of them

The King James translation of the bible has all 72 books as far as I know.

the esclusion was because of the cost, the prothestant that pubblished those bibles had the mindset that "we reject these books already, we can just remove them" the fact that they were included earlier still means that the church see them as relevant part of the canon, but protestants didn't, thus removing them was convenient.

@@francescoaccomando7781 Protestant or not, the writings were never accepted by the early Church fathers. Rome is the only one who included them to charge for indulgences at its beginning. Rome prevented the layman from learning how to read the Bible and solidify power over control until false teachings were discovered by Roman Catholics in position of leadership who were Christians that could read Latin and left Roman Catholicism. These are known as Reformers because they chose to stick with what was originally understood and practiced, rather than adhering to Rome's teachings having added to scripture. The production of God's Word absent of these writings costing less is a subsequent result and not the primary motivation for excluding them. I'm thankful they can be read and studied even today for obvious false teachings.

Jude references and quotes Enoch 2 Samuel 1:18 references and quotes Jasher Believe it or not they used to read other things besides the Bible and they believed them it doesn’t have to be inspired to be true. The Texts are historical facts they used like it or not.

@@ballistic1980ify this argument is soooooo bad. GOD went to sleep for one thousand year woke up prepared some coffee and said ""omg what are Christians doing no no no I never said those books were supposed to be cannon"" Sorry it doesn't work that way .. if your "god" fell asleep he is not worth the time of MY limited human life.

@@stth-fe4ph nothing about what I shared says God went to sleep. Your comment sounds off...

No, the Bible was compiled and canonized by Catholics and Pope Damasus at the council of Rome 382, Any added or subtracted from 73 is NOT the original.

The Hebrew canon was formed in the 2nd century, why would you care what 1 sect of Jews had

Wrong. The "Hebrew" canon you speak of was formed after the canon of the bible. The reason they were rejected by Jewish rabbis is because they could not find Hebrew translations of it but years later guess what they found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

Ou mean your self made god yes 666 tight mark of the beast, orginal KJV has 7 books year 1611, and they even take out verses and chapters like Daniel Chapter 14 , pastors with there study bible are just scammers 📖💰💰💰 and funny think is prostants one teach about idolatry but doesn't even have book of wisdom 😂 thats why they pervert scriptura because they dont have complete Holy Bible 73 complet number 7 and Trinty 3 God Father Son and Holy Spirit and not 66 6 as born again son of john 8:44

NEV new English translation. Unless you can find a super old one in the original text 😂

What about them...

@@Compulsive-Elk7103 He said the Catholics have all the books, but they lack like three the EO use?

@@KillerofGodsthe eo have the same cannon of Old Testament as Catholics

The official canon was declared at the Council of Rome and reaffirmed at the Council of Trent

Better find Niv aka not inspired version

Definitely not

Find orginal KJV 1611 they have 73 books