[af_vet_1981]

The Authorized Version of the Protestant Bible (KJV 1611) contained a note from the translators who used the word "Bible" sixteen times in that essay. They defended their work of translating the Bible, even calling it "the whole Bible" in one place. In "the whole Bible" the KJV translators included those books in the order between the Old Testament and New Testament books. Those books remained for over 200 years in the Authorized Version (Protestant) and those books were not removed until 182(5/6), or 1885.

If it was "the whole Bible" in 1611 (and prior to that), it was diminished to save money after 1825 or 1885.

Were the translators wrong in 1611 (translating "the whole Bible"), or the publishers wrong in 182(5/6)/1885 (trying to save money)? Of course, if it were really about money, they could have dropped other books from the Old Testament.

The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and geneologies). The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. A portion of these books were called deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn't removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word 'apocrypha' means 'hidden.' Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit [source].

[daniel1212]

True to form , here you are vainly trying to gain a foothold when you lost the war as regards what books the Reformers considered Scripture. "Bible" comes from ta biblia (the books), the Latin form of biblosa book of books, but obviously the use of word does not mean all that a Bible contains is Scripture (including words added by translators, as those in italics in the KJV). Luther himself referred to his work of translating "the Bible" in his preface to it, and in the progress of the work he founded a Collegium Biblieum, or Bible club, but aforetime had already made distinction btwn Scripture proper and that which is not but which are included therein. "At last the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha as "books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read," was completed in 1534, and printed with numerous woodcuts." (http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther02.html)

Also, King James himself said, “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron). Article 6 of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion established by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 1801, referring to the Apocrypha, states: "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;" (Thirty-nine Articles of Religion).

As for saving money, publishing was costly, and with the lack of demand for these obscure books it made sense to leave them out in order providing Scripture.

You have now been provided more than is warranted in response to your flailing failing attempts to support what cannot be, that the 66 book Prot. canon of Scripture was not overall settled early on the Reformation, and thus you have no right to expect more here.