Do you think the Apocrypha was God inspired?

[SoccerLOTR]

Actually I think the Book of Enoch IS part of the Apocrypha...

And I definitely wouldn't say all of the apocrypha is accurate...but some of it I wonder why it was disqualified.

[John Chrysostom]

The Apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament.

The Septuagint which contains the Apocrypha is the text quoted in the New Testament.

Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians not the Assyrians!

Actually he was both, the Assyrian nation was conquered by the Egyptians and the Babylonians making Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians too.

Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."

That's not actually what Tobit says the actual quote is "For almsgiving delivers us from death and prevents us from entering into the darkness."

The Septuagint was the text used by Christ and the Apostles, the Apocrypha was accepted by the Church for almost 1,500 years until the Reformation. There really isn't a good reason for excluding them from the Protestant canon.

[Destiny J. Adams]

The Apocrypha is never quoted in the New Testament.

That's actually true, I had never thought of that before.

I am not Catholic, but I have been reading the book of Tobit recently. One of my best friends is Catholic so I borrowed a Bible from her and have kind of been reading it for the last couple of months.

As of right now, I don't except the Apocrypha Biblical Cannon, but that's only because that's what I've been taught my entire life. I have no Biblical evidence to back it up and I don't really have another reason to rejecting the Apocrypha as Cannon.

I have been told that the Apocrypha is a great historical reference though. *shrugs* Just my two cents.

[SoccerLOTR]

I was just reading the other day, and found the reason that at least some of the books were rejected...some were written a hundred or two hundred years after the rest of the Bible books, and often included other inaccurate historical or cultural information, giving little credibility to claims that it was written by someone who knew of the events firsthand. I don't know if this is ALL the books, but that's why at least some are not included.

[John Chrysostom]

Would you mind sharing some of the inaccuracies? Also much of the Old Testament was written by people without firsthand knowledge of the events, Genesis for example was written by Moses who was not there.

They were written a hundred years after the books accepted by Protestants, also it's not unusual for there to be large gaps between writings in the OT, I mean think about how long it was between the first five being written and the rest. That in of itself is not a good reason to reject them.