@MoreCoffee
1. NO other denomination has the same books in their Bible than the post-Trent RCC. Yours is a completely UNIQUE Bible, NO other embraces yours.
2. Most Protestants always have included SOME Deuterocanonical books in their biblical tomes. Luther had one MORE in his translation than you have in yours. The Anglican Churches has several MORE of them in theirs than you do in yours. Yes, I know, most Catholics have not been told that - indeed, they are often told falsehoods in this regard, but yes, Lutherans and Anglicans and many Reformed churches have a very long history of INCLUDING some of them in their tomes, in every case, MORE of them than in your new RCC one.
Read the following...
This is in 4 parts.... How We Got the Old Testament Writing began around 3400 BC in ancient Samaria, a land where Abraham (and Judaism) would be born some 1300 years later, so writing was already an ancient and well established by the time of Abraham. It’s very likely that Abraham could...
www.christianityhaven.com
. This is in 6 parts: How We Got the New Testament It’s an important question but one very few Christians ask. There are two common MYTHS: Roman Catholic: Jesus told Peter that these 27 books (and only these) are canonical, Peter told the Catholic Church, and eventually (it took many...
www.christianityhaven.com
.
I didn't stick with that rather tedious video to the end, so rebutting what I'm going to say here is fine with me if there is something that was covered there and I just failed to notice it.
1. The idea that there are masses of Protestant converting to Orthodoxy seems to be a favorite tale told among Orthodox Christians who, I have noticed, often exaggerate the growth of Orthodoxy in America.
The evidence for this wave of converts seems to be lacking, unless of course, there are more Protestants converting to Orthodoxy in absolute numbers because no matter what the total number may be, there are a lot more Protestants in our country who are eligible to convert to anything than there are members of any other faith.
2. Whether a publication of the KVJ includes the Apocrypha or not, it doesn't actually "prove" anything...and certainly not something that's new. The Apocrypha was never banned. Those books were merely understood not to be divinely inspired. That's not to say they are worthless, however, but just that no doctrine can be based upon them. (By contrast, several of the most familiar Roman Catholic doctrines depend upon some verse or other taken from the Apocrypha).
3. The Roman Catholic Church ejected a number of the books of the Apocrypha from the canon of scripture during the Reformation era. It wasn't just the Protestants who did this, so it makes a strange argument IMO to have Catholics claiming that the Apocrypha is an essential part of the Bible and saying that it always has been this way.
