"Silly boy, it's all about trust."

[Ninurta]

...

Heck didnt the church remove even more books when they translated it into English. Was that grass roots and organic too. 

• 1 Esdras
  
• 2 Esdras
  
• Tobit
  
• Judith
  
• The rest of Esther
  
• The Wisdom of Solomon
  
• Ecclesiasticus
  
• Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
  
• The Songs of the 3 Holy children
  
• The history of Susana
  
• Bel and the dragon
  
• The prayer for Manasses
  
• 1 Maccabees
  

https://consciousreminder.com/2017/03/12...ible-1684/

In reality the Canon is not set in stone and differs from Catholics / protestants etc.  Your nonsense filter is just controlling the narrative by different groups.

 :-)

I did go and read the linked page, and found it to be fraught with misinformation. For example, it says the first English Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1611. That is wrong at every point.

The first English Bible I am aware of was that of John Wycliffe, started in I believe 1382. Prior to this unnamed Catholic Bible of 1611, there were, in English, the Tyndale Bible, the Bishops's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and probably a few less well known translations. So, the Bible was not first translated into English in 1611 as claimed. However, Wycliffe's early version WAS at least translated from the Vulgate.

The only translation I know of from 1611 is the King James Version, and it was not translated from the Latin Vulgate as claimed. It was translated from the best available (at the time) texts in the original languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

The Douay-Rheims version of the Catholic Church WAS translated into English from the Latin Vulgate, but it was translated in 3 installments from 1582 to 1610. It was translated by the Catholic Church as a Counter-Reformation move, intended to claw back English speaking peoples from the Reformation movement back into filling the coffers of the Catholic Church.

As demonstrated above, the apocrypha as listed were never removed from the Catholic Bible, nor the earlier Protestant Bibles. Not in 1684, nor at any other time. The author may be confused, since, in the Catholic Bibles, the Apocrypha are interspersed into the Old Testament texts. For example, "Bel and the Dragon" forms a part of the Book of Daniel in the Catholic Bibles, rather than a stand-alone book.

So, all the way around, the article is disinformative.


.