>>232973
The Hebrew Bible has a certain list of scriptures. When it was translated into Greek in the 2nd century BC more writings were added to that over time. Of course you have to know "the bible" is a modern thing. People had individual scriptures, even into the middle ages, when Joan of Arc was on trial it says she "swore on the four Gospels and some of the Epistles" they didn't have her swear on the whole bible why? Probably because they didn't have access to one. There was probably one in Paris tied by a chain in the church. "Well we're not gonna bring it over for this trail."
When Christians put the New Testament with the Old Testament, they used the Old Testament from the Greek Bible (Septuagint) which also came with the additional stuff in it like Maccabees. However it has always been controversial. Jerome in the 4th century was the one who made the world's most popular Bible, the Latin Bible (Vulgate), and although he translated from the Hebrew Bible he also included the additional writings from the Greek Bible. Although he considered them "semi-canon" at first but he was somewhat convinced over time maybe that they were just canon. Therefore the English Bible did essentially the same thing, the Hebrew Bible is canon, the additional writings in the Greek Bible are semi-canon. Of course the Apocrypha in the English Bible is different than the Latin, for example II Esdras is only in the English Bible not in the Latin. Justin Martyr is the first Christian to mention canon issues, in the second century, saying that the Jews were taking books out of their canon because of Christianity. But then you can also say even in the first century some people were trying to reject Paul's letters. Eusebius in the 4th century mentions a sect of Christians who only accepted the Gospel of Matthew. There's the Peshita canon and the Armenian church, and there's also the Ethiopian Bible which has the most insane canon there is.
But all these things are about nonsense in some ways, just an excuse to argue about nothing. If Psalm 151 is in the Bible or not what does it change? Does it change the way we live or interact or pray or anything? No, well. So you make a decision which Bible. You won't find ANY Bible that excludes the true boiled down canon. You've got 150 Psalms in every Bible, whether you want to add one more or not I don't know. But that's why the Bible repeats itself over and over again, That's why God has four Gospels not one, and tells Israel's history twice not once. And so many things are just repeated over and over, You can exclude half the Bible from canon and it would still say the same things and have the same conclusions. And also the Bible repeats itself so much in case you missed something the first time which is common.
A problem with the Apocrypha being canon though, is that no one in the New Testament references those books, like Maccabees or Ecclesiasticus, or Susana (addition to Daniel), or Judith which would have helped make them canon for sure. And most notably Wisdom is never mentioned in any of the New Testament writings, despite the fact it has one of the greatest prophecies of Jesus.
A problem that doesn't exist however is a change to anything. Whether the Latin or English Apocrypha is canon, doesn't really change anything. Yes, Maccabees mentions praying for the dead and giving money to the Temple for the sake of the dead, other than that there's really nothing unique in the Apocrypha. And that is a big statement that Maccabees makes, you can come to your own conclusions if you want. One reason for the English Apocrypha being removed from English Bibles is that the English Apocrypha includes II Esdras which is essentially indefensible in terms of reliable writing. It's questionable whether it was ever meant to be taken as actual history or just a story to tell theological points. It's a book that talks about Ezra one of the last old prophets and it tells a story of him getting revelations from God and part of those revelations include God telling Ezra the Messiah will be called "Jesus" and he'll do this and that. It's obviously a book written long after the time of Ezra 5th century BC and even long after the time of Jesus, at best it might be late 1st century, and I'd like to think it is, but it could be 2nd century. Obviously again, if it was written before the time of Jesus someone obviously would have mentioned it in the New Testament writings "hey remember how Ezra said the Messiah's name would be Jesus and he would do this and that exactly specifically." And II Esdras has God speaking to Ezra, so whoever wrote it basically just made up words for God to say while speaking to Ezra, which the rest of the Apocrypha really doesn't go that far, it's mostly books of wisdom from holy men.
Animals change within their kind, they have that built in, built in diversity and adaptability in the code of their and our DNA. But a Turtle does not have whale code, it does not have sunflower code, it cannot acquire those things. Evolution purposes that organisms born with birth defects, those birth defects are passed on and build up one generation after another over time so that any organism can turn to anything. Look up the earliest ancestors for man, it's usually purposed as a worm or a sea sponge, and ask yourself, within 500 million years, naturally breeding worms, could you ever through birth defects get a human begin? And when that birth defect happens you need another creature of the same problem to breed with it and it has to take over the population and then the next birth defect change, it doesn't matter how many millions of years you have, if something is not going to happen it's not going to happen. The Bible says God created each "animal kind", now that actually is exactly what we see. We see kinds of animals and their diversity. the wolf has been bred into many different kinds of wolves, which we call dogs, there are tons and tons of very different dogs. Can we breed them into plants? or beetles? or back into fish from whence they came like us? There's no biological reason to believe that would ever happen without serious gene splicing mad scientism, even the dogs we have now are a result of serious calculated intervention. And we haven't even bred anything better than what we started with. Pugs and Chihuahuas would get wrecked by a wolf. And most dogs would not survive on their own.
Now atheists are lost, they can believe a single cell formed itself and then bred accidentally to all organic life on earth if they want. But many Christians believe in evolution through God because "academic people with blue hair said evolution is true because.... it is." but the evidence for evolution is not there. And also, the Bible doesn't fit with evolution, no matter how hard they try, you can't have millions of years of death before Adam's sin. God created man in his own image, directly, not through millions of years of monkeypeople world. And I'll tell you honestly there's a whole world of research and evidence against evolution and also exposes how full of lies it is. God created man from the dust of the earth. I believe he can do that. And Atheists say "haha that's so stupid" not realising that they themselves believe that the dust created man by on it's own. Like finding a cell phone on the ground and saying "ah yes, this must have formed through unintelligent natural processes." Man can take the metals of the earth and create a car, some things simply don't form on their own, like DNA. And they can have their theories and these things, they are easily be debunked, the fact is they have to have their theories regardless of how ridiculous they are. All of our history written in stone talks about Noah and the flood, talks about God creating man, talks about acient people living really long lifespans, talks about the Tower of Babel, no mention of monkeypeople or monkeyworlds. I've already posted some presentations and things which you can look at with just an open mind. I think everyone should look at all things and just know the evidence of opposing views. I know why flat earthers believe what they believe, I've seen a lot of their stuff and I don't consider their evidence sufficient but I've looked into it and into the round earth evidences. Most people believe evolution they genuinely don't even know why yet at the same time don't accept any opposing view, why? because the idea that God is here and staring us right in the face is unsettling.
The real evidence against evolution is not how ridiculous it is though, it's the alternative explanation for the layers of earth, which were laid down by the global flood. That fact is what is what's really being purposed. But yeah you can already look into that stuff.