The Apocrypha.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Paul357

Member
Sep 24, 2026
66
4
18
Why were the Apocryphal Books deleted from the common Bible and should we read them?
I know they are in the Ethiopean Bible. I am studying Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees and Giants in relation to the Angels, Nephilim etc. Enoch specifically has a lot of information and is cited as a source in the common Bible.
 
Why were the Apocryphal Books deleted from the common Bible and should we read them?
I know they are in the Ethiopean Bible. I am studying Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees and Giants in relation to the Angels, Nephilim etc. Enoch specifically has a lot of information and is cited as a source in the common Bible.
Just take the Book of Jubilees as an example. One reason to reject Jubilees as inspired Scripture is that it contradicts the Bible in numerous and significant ways. Perhaps the biggest conflict between Jubilees and Scripture is Jubilees’ extremely negative attitude toward Gentiles. In Jubilees, God himself created spirits to rule over the Gentiles and lead them away from following him (Jub 15:30-32)

Jubilees states that all the descendants of Lot are destined for complete annihilation (Jub 16:9). The problem is that Lot’s descendants include the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19:37:38). Thus, Jubilees’ proclamation of destruction for Moab and Ammon contradicts the Prophets’ hope of salvation and restoration for a remnant of these peoples in the latter days (Jer 48-49; Isa 15-16). Worse still, when one considers that Ruth was a Moabite, Jubilees’ condemnation of Lot’s descendants would extend to her, to her grandson King David, and to the Messiah himself (Matt 1:5).

Such disagreements from what is in Scripture is enough to show me that Jubilees does not belong in the Bible.
 
Just take the Book of Jubilees as an example. One reason to reject Jubilees as inspired Scripture is that it contradicts the Bible in numerous and significant ways. Perhaps the biggest conflict between Jubilees and Scripture is Jubilees’ extremely negative attitude toward Gentiles. In Jubilees, God himself created spirits to rule over the Gentiles and lead them away from following him (Jub 15:30-32)

Jubilees states that all the descendants of Lot are destined for complete annihilation (Jub 16:9). The problem is that Lot’s descendants include the Moabites and Ammonites (Gen 19:37:38). Thus, Jubilees’ proclamation of destruction for Moab and Ammon contradicts the Prophets’ hope of salvation and restoration for a remnant of these peoples in the latter days (Jer 48-49; Isa 15-16). Worse still, when one considers that Ruth was a Moabite, Jubilees’ condemnation of Lot’s descendants would extend to her, to her grandson King David, and to the Messiah himself (Matt 1:5).

Such disagreements from what is in Scripture is enough to show me that Jubilees does not belong in the Bible.
Thank you. I am told the Apocryphal Books dont have the Geomatria Maths Code that the other Books have?
 
Why were the Apocryphal Books deleted from the common Bible and should we read them?
I know they are in the Ethiopean Bible. I am studying Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees and Giants in relation to the Angels, Nephilim etc. Enoch specifically has a lot of information and is cited as a source in the common Bible.
The Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books weren’t “deleted” from Scripture; they were never part of the inspired canon used by Jesus and the apostles, which is why the mainstream Bible doesn’t include them.
The Hebrew canon—the one Jesus refers to as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms”—never contained Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, or the Book of Giants, and the early church inherited that canon.
Books like Enoch were widely read and even quoted (Jude cites Enoch the same way Paul cites pagan poets), but quotation never equals inspiration.
Scripture quotes many non‑canonical works without treating them as Scripture.
The Ethiopian tradition preserved a broader library, but that regional canon doesn’t redefine the universal one.
You can read Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, and Giants as ancient Jewish commentary—they’re valuable for understanding how early Jews interpreted Genesis 6, angels, the Watchers, and the pre‑Flood world—but they must be read under Scripture, not alongside it as equal. They contain expansions, interpretations, and sometimes contradictions that Scripture itself does not authorize.
So yes, they’re useful for background study, especially on topics like the Nephilim, angels, and the pre‑Flood world, but they are not inspired, and Scripture never treats them as part of the God‑breathed canon.
 
Why were the Apocryphal Books deleted from the common Bible and should we read them?
I know they are in the Ethiopean Bible. I am studying Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees and Giants in relation to the Angels, Nephilim etc. Enoch specifically has a lot of information and is cited as a source in the common Bible.
Luther cut out the seven whole books, plus parts of two others, because he thought the Christian Old Testament canon ought to be the same as the Hebrew Bible. Centuries earlier, the rabbis had removed different books for different reasons. The only three I remember offhand are Tobit, because it seems to condone the use of black magic (the two episodes, in Chaps. 6 and 11, about the various uses of a fish’s internal organs), and Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach) and 2 Maccabees because those two books were originally written in Greek, not Hebrew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
You have to ask God what's true, and be careful that you're hearing from the Holy Spirit.
There are a lot of people who think it's just nonsense, but I'm given to see it as it's part of the Bible.
Don't lean too much on the consensus of man when you have your own Interpreter with you.

Please don't shove anything from those books into people though, especially where it's not called for. All that matters is that people are on the way to serve God.
 
.
Why were the Apocryphal Books deleted from the common Bible and should we read them?
WARNING: A super intelligent yet extremely subtle creature remains actively involved in a full blown deception of which the Apocrypha is integral. The following is a shocking exposé of a diabolical plot.

The Apocrypha is not inspired, while many continue to point to the inclusion of the Apocryphal Old Testament books in Bibles. All pure Bibles viewed these books as non-canonical and said so in their preface.

The Wycliffe Bible warned in its Prologue that only those books written in Hebrew were canonical. Others, it said,

“...shall be set among Apocrypha, that is, without authority of belief...[that] be not of the authority of bible ancient Hebrew...

[R]eceiveth not them among holy Scripture...that be not ancient Hebrew and be not of the number of holy writ;

[T]hey aught to be cast far away...for me doubteth the truth thereof” (Prologue, pp. 1, 2).

Wycliffe said that when the “Word of God is not heard, spiritual death broods over all” (Schaff-Herzog, s.v. Wyclif, pp. 464, 466).

“[H]e designated the Bible as the one authority for believers, and so teaching, traditions, bulls, symbols, and censures go by the board as far as they do not rest on Scripture.”

Tyndale and Coverdale did not approve of the Apocrypha. King James, himself did not approve of it.

Tyndale would not translate the Apocrypha. Coverdale removed the Apocrypha from the Old Testament scriptures. He prefaced his intertestamental section saying, these books “are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrew...[and] are not judged among the doctors to be of like reputation with the other scripture...And the chief cause thereof is this: there be many places in them, that seem to be repugnant unto the open and manifest truth in the other books of the Bible” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 110).

Rogers’ Thomas Matthew’s Bible said, “the books called Apocrypha...are not found in the Hebrew nor in the Chaldee” (Dore, 2nd ed., p. 116).

Samuel Ward was among a few who were assigned the task of translating the Apocrypha. King James I said:

“As to the Apocryphal books, I omit them because I am no papist.” (Basilikon Doron ).

Most Christians shared the King’s desire for a Bible without the bulky Apocrypha. As early as 1612 printers (London: Barker), anxious to supply the large demand, printed Bibles without the appendage of the unnecessary Apocrypha. They were following the pattern of the quarto edition of the Great Bible (ed. 1549), some copies of the 1599 Geneva, a quarto edition of the Bishops’ Bible, dated 1577, and many personal hand-sized earlier Bibles. Antiquarian booksellers today offer for sale numerous early copies of the KJV without the Apocrypha (e.g. 1612, 1629 (Norton and Bill “Printers to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty”), 1637, 1653, 1662, 1682; Peter Cresswell, Antiquarian Bibles, South Humberside, England: Humber Books, Catalogue 23 et al,; TBS, No. 31).

The Apocrypha is a series of books, written between B.C. 250 and B.C. 100, which exemplify the “superstitious” “traditions,” “imaginations,” and “commandments of men” which Jesus and Paul warned against (Acts 17:22, Matt. 15:9, Rom. 1:21, Gal. 1:14). The Apocrypha characterizes the “cultural, ethical, and religious background” which surrounded the time of Christ. Even Princeton’s Bruce Metzger writes:

“This body of literature also supplies important information regarding the life and thoughts of the Jewish people during a significant period of their history, namely the period just prior to the emergence of Christianity. By becoming acquainted with these books, therefore, one will be better able to understand the political, ethical, and religious background of the contemporaries of Jesus Christ” (Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha, NY: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. viii).

For the same reason, current Study Bibles, like the Scofield Reference Bible (“From Malachi to Matthew”) and Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible (“Between the Testaments”) include a section between the Old Testament and the New Testament, explaining the events, history and beliefs of the intertestamental period. The KJV translators, like early Bibles, simply included the real thing. No one today thinks that Scofield’s notes are a part of the Bible, just as no true Christian in 1611 thought that the Apocrypha was a part of the Bible. Bible Prologues stated ‘up front’ that the Apocrypha was not scripture. The Great Bible’s Prologue stated that the Apocrypha was not “found in the Hebrew” Bible. Wycliffe’s Prologue said that the Apocrypha “is, without authority.” Luther’s Bible (1534 ed.) stated that the Apocrypha is “not to be considered as equal to Holy Scriptures.” The early Westminster Confession of Faith stated that the Apocrypha is “no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the church of God; nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” The KJV translators said that the Apocrypha was not scripture because it was not written in Hebrew, nor ever accepted by the Jews or early Christians, nor ever mentioned by Jesus Christ -- because it detailed those “superstitious” “traditions” which Jesus and Paul warned about.

Early Bibles, including the KJV, placed numerous non-Biblical items within the binding of the Bibles for practical reasons. They included things like calendars, genealogies, maps, gazetteers, metrical Psalms for singing, and the Apocrypha (which shed light on just exactly what “superstitions” and “traditions” were being followed by the Jews). Even today Bibles include concordances, dictionaries, notes, histories, commentaries, and cross references. No one mistakes these for being equal to the scriptures. In 1611 and before, few people had a collection of books, most owned only one book, the Bible. Binding other materials within it served a practical need. Even today it is less expensive to print and purchase one book of 1200 pages, than two books each having 600 pages.

Unlike pure early English Bibles, such as the KJV, 1611, which separated the Apocrypha from the Bible, the corrupt Catholic bibles (e.g. New Jerusalem Bible) and their manuscripts (e.g. Vaticanus from which the TNIV, ESV, HCSB NIV, and NASB are translated) intersperse these corrupt books among those of the Bible. Rather than including them as a warning of exactly what “commandments of men” Jesus was warning about, these corrupt versions placed Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees after the book of Nehemiah; they placed Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus following the Song of Solomon and Baruch following Lamentations. The Song of Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon are included in the book of Daniel. Why? The Catholic church has adopted the “traditions of men” expounded in these books. Some of the heresies included in these books include the following taken from the New Jerusalem Bible:

1.) “[A]lmsgiving expiates sins” and “almsgiving saves from death and purges every kind of sin” (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Tobit 12:9).

2.) Purgatory, and prayers for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:39-45).

3.) “[T]orments and the rack...irons” for the “disobedient” (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-29).

4.) The immaculate conception of Mary; reincarnation and transmigration of souls for New Agers and Hindus (Wisdom 8:19, 20).

5.) Monism and pantheism. “For your imperishable spirit is in everything!” (Wisdom 12:1). Even new versions changes, like the NKJV’s “God is spirit” (John 4:24) echo the New Age concept that god is in “everything.”

Since Catholic bibles include the Apocrypha as scripture, it becomes vital that Bibles no longer include it, even as history.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wattie
Why were the Apocryphal Books deleted from the common Bible and should we read them?
I know they are in the Ethiopean Bible. I am studying Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees and Giants in relation to the Angels, Nephilim etc. Enoch specifically has a lot of information and is cited as a source in the common Bible.
Some people will say these books reject the current Canon but in reality if we took Jasher for a second and read about Sodom we see more details about the multiple sins and not the obvious ones that when God said He destroyed them for many sins in the Torah.

Many of these books were accepted by David and Joshua whom we call heroes of the Bible. So they have much to offer even if the Roman Council in 325 AD rejected them.
 
The Apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books weren’t “deleted” from Scripture; they were never part of the inspired canon used by Jesus and the apostles, which is why the mainstream Bible doesn’t include them.
The Hebrew canon—the one Jesus refers to as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms”—never contained Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, or the Book of Giants, and the early church inherited that canon.
Books like Enoch were widely read and even quoted (Jude cites Enoch the same way Paul cites pagan poets), but quotation never equals inspiration.
Scripture quotes many non‑canonical works without treating them as Scripture.
The Ethiopian tradition preserved a broader library, but that regional canon doesn’t redefine the universal one.
You can read Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, and Giants as ancient Jewish commentary—they’re valuable for understanding how early Jews interpreted Genesis 6, angels, the Watchers, and the pre‑Flood world—but they must be read under Scripture, not alongside it as equal. They contain expansions, interpretations, and sometimes contradictions that Scripture itself does not authorize.
So yes, they’re useful for background study, especially on topics like the Nephilim, angels, and the pre‑Flood world, but they are not inspired, and Scripture never treats them as part of the God‑breathed canon.
We see Jesus and some Disciples including the Apostle Paul and the brother of Jesus using the Oral Tradition of Enoch that we read in the New Testament.
 
Many of these books were accepted by David and Joshua whom we call heroes of the Bible. So they have much to offer even if the Roman Council in 325 AD rejected them.
325 is the date of the Council of Nicea, but I don’t think that was when the Church defined the canon of scripture. That decision is usually said to have been made at one of the later councils, possibly either Rome in 382 or Carthage in 397.

In any case, the canon adopted at the time was identical to the one still in use today in Roman Catholic Bibles, including Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch.
 
Some people will say these books reject the current Canon but in reality if we took Jasher for a second and read about Sodom we see more details about the multiple sins and not the obvious ones that when God said He destroyed them for many sins in the Torah.

Many of these books were accepted by David and Joshua whom we call heroes of the Bible. So they have much to offer even if the Roman Council in 325 AD rejected them.
The jasher as we know isn't the real Jashar that was divinely inspired. it's a lost true book, like the prophet iddo, and other records referred throughout scripture that the prophets of the Bible made.
 
325 is the date of the Council of Nicea, but I don’t think that was when the Church defined the canon of scripture. That decision is usually said to have been made at one of the later councils, possibly either Rome in 382 or Carthage in 397.

In any case, the canon adopted at the time was identical to the one still in use today in Roman Catholic Bibles, including Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch.
Well said!
 
We see Jesus and some Disciples including the Apostle Paul and the brother of Jesus using the Oral Tradition of Enoch that we read in the New Testament.
"Books like Enoch were widely read and even quoted (Jude cites Enoch the same way Paul cites pagan poets), but quotation never equals inspiration.
Scripture quotes many non‑canonical works without treating them as Scripture". I copied this from the same post you answered to. Maybe you missed that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
The jasher as we know isn't the real Jashar that was divinely inspired. it's a lost true book, like the prophet iddo, and other records referred throughout scripture that the prophets of the Bible made.
Most of today's versions still include many oral traditions passed throughout the Hebrew/Jewish generations which cover alot of original information.

Look at Enoch. The portions quoted in the New Testament his oral teaching passed down to Noah and sons and eventually passed to Paul and Jude who quoted him the most.
 
"Books like Enoch were widely read and even quoted (Jude cites Enoch the same way Paul cites pagan poets), but quotation never equals inspiration.
Scripture quotes many non‑canonical works without treating them as Scripture". I copied this from the same post you answered to. Maybe you missed that?
I'm not claiming these were 100% Inspired but rather they do hold great truths to the events happening in that day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul357
I'm not claiming these were 100% Inspired but rather they do hold great truths to the events happening in that day.
I am not claiming that these books don't hold truths or inspiring messages. I think of them as commentaries of the ancient world.
But "God Breathed"?, No. That is my only contention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tall_Timbers
I am not claiming that these books don't hold truths or inspiring messages. I think of them as commentaries of the ancient world.
But "God Breathed"?, No. That is my only contention.
When I think about the Book of Jasher because it includes a partial view of the Garden with Adam and Eve and then touches on Babel and Nimrod after Noah's sons began multiplying and then covers some insight to what was happening when Sodom fell to the Wrath of God. It even includes the lineage from Noah to his great great great grandson Abram or we know as Abraham. For me seeing that Joshua and David read it even having the Torah from Moses was more about historical values and it confirmed Genesis as basically providing additional information.

But I do agree it was not Inspired by God to write. It's more like the Other non Christian sources that ancient Greek, Roman, Josephus, and other historians that mentioned Jesus and described how the day of the Crucifixion even in Greece had earthquakes and the day became darkened.

These historical writers and writings are not Inspired by God but do give a great deal of evidence that ultimately backs what we read in the Bible.

I understand the Bible doesn't need confirmation from other sources but it's pretty sweet that these written accounts exist and do
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paul357 and OMC