[af_vet_1981]

V: “All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue.”

B: Nonsense, Protestants include them in their Bibles as well, they just don’t hold them to be on the same level as the Old Testament, a view that was entirely acceptable in the church at large until AFTER the Protestants departed from the Catholic church.

I do not see vladimir998's point refuted, namely that
"The standard I employed was simply this: ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES recognized books that modern Protestants do not."

I will grant that the original KJV did at least contain the deutercanonical books. A Protestant Bible is any Christian Bible translation or revision that comprises 39 books of the Old Testament (according to the Jewish Hebrew Bible canon, sometimes known to non-Protestants as the protocanonical books) and the 27 books of the New Testament for a total of 66 books.

This practice was standardized among Protestants following the 1825 decision by the British and Foreign Bible Society.[1] This is often contrasted with the 73 books of the Catholic Bible, which includes 7 deuterocanonical books according to Roman Catholic Canon Law 825, as a part of the Old Testament.[2]

[vladimir998]

Thanks af_vet_1981.

It is strange that anti-Catholics rail against the Deuterocanonicals but when they argue over them they always turn out to not know what they’re talking about and - even worse - they’re not able to make an intelligent, logical argument.

There are even anti-Catholics here arguing that people not yet alive at the time wrote the Deuterocanonicals without apparently realizing time travel only exists in science fiction books. Absolutely bizarre.