Good job all in showing why the Deuterocanoncal/Apocryphal books are not consider Divinely-inspired, sacred Scripture. Such a high bar SHOULD BE met for any writings to be held as binding all believers to obedience. I wonder what Roman Catholics think we are missing by not holding them in the same view as they do? For that matter, if the Jews - unto whom were given the Oracles of God - rejected them as of divine origin, then who are we to come along centuries later to append them to what is called the Old Testament? Why not keep them in an appendix of sorts like Jerome did and Luther followed for a "Christian" version useful for reading but not for determining doctrine?
All those books are readily available today should anyone desire to read them. I have read them and I can say I honestly don't hear God's voice through them. Not a one EVER states Hear the word of the LORD... (Jer. 7:2;Hosea 4:1), or A prophecy: The word of the LORD... (Zech. 4:6;9:1;12:1), or the word of the LORD came to... (Ezek. 1:3; Zeph. 1:1; Micah 1:1), or A prophecy: The word of the LORD to Israel.. (Malachi 1:1), or For the LORD speaks... (Isaiah 1:2). Not a one of them ever claims to be from a Prophet of the Lord. In fact, there was even acknowledgement that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41). There are doctrinal errors, geographical errors and historical errors in them - that alone should rule out Holy Spirit involvement.
It is true that the Council of Trent dogmatically declared these 7 books (out of the 15 extra in the LXX) as canonical and equal to the other books of the universally accepted Old Testament, but I believe their reason for doing so was NOT to settle the matter for all Christians. The real reason was to bolster their dogma of Purgatory and Indulgences because a few of these books seemed to teach it. For example, the book Tobit says:
Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
Also, In II Maccabbees:
It was for these reasons that the Protestant versions of the Bible gradually excluded those books. I've yet to have a Catholic tell me their favorite verses from them, point out some Messianic prophecy within or critical doctrine not found elsewhere in Scripture. Instead, what we usually get is a smug "our Bible is bigger than your Bible" or "you have a Pharisee-approved Bible", or "you have an abridged/incomplete Bible". That's okay, I'd rather have the TRUE word of God - the kind where holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I don't think I'm missing anything.
And see here on the LXX, which is evidenced as neither being close to being standardized, nor as large and containing the books later copies later have.
, but I believe their reason for doing so was NOT to settle the matter for all Christians. The real reason was to bolster their dogma of Purgatory and Indulgences because a few of these books seemed to teach it. For example, the book Tobit says: Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness." Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting." Also, In II Maccabbees: 2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Forgot the rest of your post, which supports what Rome did and Luther protested against, but which many prosperity preachers would like as well.