The Removed Books of The Bible

In the 'Reformation' there were 7 Old Testament Books 'Removed' from The Holy Bible. In this video we prove that this may not been an appropriate thing to do; and we use New Testament Scripture to make our case.

[@jewela44]

So good! I love reading all the removed books because of how much context they add to the Bible. And I totally agree about making a stand and not pretending. After working for 30 years in a career that he absolutely loved (he was an audio guy for the Mormon church/cult ), when he was told he would have to take the jab or he couldn’t work, he resigned then and there and retired early. The penalty was worth it to keep his health. Sadly, he was the only one who did not give in, and now a few of his coworkers have either died or have developed terrible health problems. Fear of man over God is so prevalent these days. Thanks for another awesome teaching!😊

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You for sharing this Sister! I'm thrilled to hear You felt the message that was in that 'removed book' was an edifying one. I appreciate You and Your kind words!

[@kevindavis3841]

Very interesting to follow your journey through Study. I also find Truth in other “lost books”.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You Brother Kevin! And having You cone along on this journey has been a great encouragement to me; Enjoy those other books Brother, and be edified and blessed.

[@YeshuaReigns2]

Excellent topic. What I find compelling is that the scriptures that were used & quoted by Christ & the apostles was the septuagint of which those seven removed books were a part of. Those books also shed light on historical facts that were happening from after Malachi to right before Christ was born. Truth is you're correct. It wasn't the catholics that added those books, it was the protestants that removed them. The hypocritical part is while they condemn the papal system for claiming infallibility, what gave them the authority to declare them not a part of scripture? The book of Enoch, which is NOT part of what they call the apocrypha, is not truly Enoch's work. The BOE teaches celestial angels mating with human women & producing hybrid creatures. The BOE is cited by teachers of a growing doctrine which states that YeHoVah God created a pantheon of lesser gods & gave them to the nations to be their gods to lead them astray while YeHoVah God picked Israel for Himself. I think one notable person who espouses this view is Jonathan Cahn who recently wrote a book entitled "The Return of the Gods". Another well known scholar, the late Michael Heiser espoused that position & wrote a book entitled "The Unseen Realm". I'm noticing that this heresy is gaining ground. The sad truth is that Christianity became corrupted after the apostles left the scene as Paul under inspiration rightly predicted. One thing is for sure: the catholics do not have everything wrong & the protestants surely do not have everything right. Those 7 books Tobit, Sirach, Mac 1, Mac 2, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch. They were all in the scriptures that Jesus quoted from. The septuagint has become my favorite version. In my opinion, the protestants overstepped when they removed those books. And as flawed as the papacy may be, the protestants are a distaster with over 20,000 denominations--all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit. Yeah right -- only if the HS is schizophrenic! Great job & great topic my brother!

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You for sharing Bro! Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is an obvious Scripture that backs up much of what You are suggesting...(unfortunately, the Old King James didn't translate that Scripture well). And those 7 books point to some things that may indeed give us the answers to many of our questions. I, much like You, take the position that those that took the position to remove books should not have done so. I always appreciate Your input and encouragement my good Brother. Thank You again!

[@richardrosas912]

Reading through the book of Tobit does seem to help us understand that the 7 spirits before the throne of Christ mentioned in Revelation is a probable reference to 7 angels and not necessarily a reference to the Holy Spirit. Tobit mentions the Angel Raphael as one who stands in the presence of God much like Gabriel in Luke 1.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You Brother Richard! I fully agree. Reading Tobit was a joy for me, so I'm thrilled You brought it up here...Thanks again Bro!

[@daviator4720]

Thank you Shade. I remember Maccabees from my childhood exposure growing up RC. I think you are onto something with the question "How can a reference to a Scripture from an Old Testament book which had been dropped from the KJV Bible be ignored when placed within a New Testament scripture in the KJV of the Bible ?" Some interesting considerations !

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You Brother Dave! I found another 'doozy' in one of the other books that I believe You will be especially interested in; this one, Lord willing, I will be able to share with You in person. GOD bless You Brother!

[@huntymags]

Paul quotes from Greek plays and philosophy in the New Testament. Particularly, the phrase “in Him we live and move and have our being” was originally from a poem by Epimenedes, from 600 BC, talking about Zeus. Being a student of the ancient literature, Paul appropriated that quote and applied it to Jesus Christ. Does that mean that the poem of Epimenedes is canonical scripture? Obviously not. A quote from a source doesn’t make that source Scripture. Truth is truth wherever it’s found. As another person stated, all the apocryphal books contain doctrinal errors and don’t align with the whole of the Bible. They also were never considered canonical by the early church.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

@@huntymags Thanks for sharing your point of view. That said, I would suggest that the context of Hebrews 11 is not a 'debate' or an 'account' of a conversation trying to 'convince' people of Christ like in the Book of Acts. Rather, the Hebrews writer is quoting Patriarch after Patriarch, siting their historical truth and value to the subject of 'Faith' which is quite a bit different than the analogy You are attempting to make. As for the 'canon' of the 73 books, it was indeed canon from 382AD onward...And Luther himself continued to quote from those books in his career. As for the repeated 'doctrinal errors' argument; it appears to me that each denomination has plenty of self examination to do in that department.

[@BobThebuilder-o1e]

It’s a good suggestion to compare different texts check out Acts 24:15 in the YLT98…. Just to push back a bit on the Removed books. Do the Jews consider any of those books cannon? Flavius Josephus only considered the OT books that are found in most Christian bibles today as inspired or cannon. He doesn’t mention any of the others. He lived in the first century.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You for the comment and good suggestions! Thank You also for the friendly pushback! Excellent...and something to strongly consider... To my knowledge, the Jews would tend to eliminate books from their canon based on 'unfulfilled prophesies'. My understanding is that they have eliminated the Book of Daniel. So it appears to me that their position about Christ seems to navigate their decisions. Those are my thoughts... Thanks for sharing!

[@Truth3eeker]

This a great video. Exactly where im at in my walk. Do you by chance have a meeting in Windsor or just through video ?

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

There are times where I meet with folks locally; are You in my area?

[@Truth3eeker]

@@ShadeStoneMusic I'm really not sure. I live in LaSalle.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

@@Truth3eeker ...that is fairly close; email me at: [e-mail] I can always let You know when we are getting together.

[@Truth3eeker]

@@ShadeStoneMusic Thank you 🙏

[@jenniferpepler5843]

I am new to my belief in God and so I don't understand why these books were removed. Do you have any insight on that Shade?

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Yes I do have some understanding on this. The 'Bible' certainly always had (at least) the 73 Books that the Catholics still maintain. That is a simple fact. When the Protestant movement (around AD 1500) began, the leaders of the movement separated the books and called them 'the apocrypha'. They remained in the Protestant Bible Canon, but marked as less inspired in some way. By the time we get to the 1800's and their version of 'theology' was developing and changing, they removed the books completely. There is material that challenges their version of the 'good news' and some verses that support positions that the Protestants no longer maintain that the Catholics do. My overall position is that all the early church interpreters regarded them as Books that belonged in the Bible, and the Protestants had no right to remove them. Clearly, many Protestants would disagree with me; But I would continue to stand on the position that we should have (at least) all 73 Books. Hope this helps!

[@jenniferpepler5843]

Thanks so much for the explanation Shade!

[@loveandloyaltytotruth]

Stephen in the book of Acts mentioned Jacob's family as 75, we find only 70 in our 66 books canon. I think it's Jasher that has 75.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Great Catch! Thank You for sharing this.

[@janmarino6473]

Some New Testament writers quoted from the book of Enoch which isn’t inspired but from which we might be able to learn. Quoting from a source doesn’t make the source inspired. After all, Jesus quoted Aesop!

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I do note Your points and position; and I would ultimately agree that at minimum, we can learn from these texts. I would also suggest however, that If a book was part of canon for centuries, it must have been declared 'inspired' at one point; therefore a group suddenly calling it otherwise makes these texts far more valid in my opinion then simply books we can learn from. And when Jesus quoted Aesop, it wasn't a teaching on 'Faith' with a huge list of Patriarchs like in the Book of Hebrews. As for Enoch, the Ethiopian Bible has it as part of their canon. Lots of learning from great comments like these so Thanks for sharing!

[@icyettall2905]

This is what I believe about the book of Enoch! I like to use the World English Bible.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I have a copy of the Book of Enoch as well...'One Enoch' continues to be in the Ethiopic Bible. Thank You for sharing!

[@JG-xw5rs]

Very good 👍 I came across a guy named Neil Douglas klotz, who said jesus spoke aramaic, and when Jesus said, "Believe in me ,it should have said believe like me.He said some of the words weren't translated correctly into Greek. Have you ever heard of this ?

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I haven't heard this specifically. That being said, I've been thinking about the phrase 'believe in me' and what that really means in the context of the rest of Scripture; I think of verses like: 'imitate me as I imitate Christ'; this verse is not about a verbal confession; it's about 'being like' Christ. Which would be more conducive to what Mr. Neil Douglas is saying: Believe like Jesus so You can Be like Jesus. Certainly something to think about. Thanks for sharing this!

[@JG-xw5rs]

Another thing I've found was that all denominations and major religions apply the golden rule. It might be worded differently than love your neighbor but meaning the same thing .something to ponder.🤔

[@boastonlyinthecross]

@@ShadeStoneMusicI learned a very interesting thing called “theosis” while I was a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox Church of America. I’m sure you’re aware of it already but I am just bursting with thoughts and recollections as I binge watch your wonderful content. God became man so that man could become God. We are to imitate Jesus in our journey to theosis. I am sorry I am so excited now finding your content that I am “spam commenting”. I am feeling that Jeremiah emotion of “fire shut up in my bones”!! I apologize for all my enthusiasm in the comments and please don’t feel obligated to reply. I just cannot help myself. This is all so delightful and thought provoking. It drives the mind to rehearse the Holy Scriptures!! I also agree with this video on the compilation of Scriptures. I encounter so many people who seem to actually fear those other books. I want to ingest all of it! Jesus is Truth! Man it’s hard to even go to sleep because I want to stay up all night watching these videos! Who has time to sleep when there’s so much edification to be had!?!? 😂

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

@@boastonlyinthecross Comments like these are an absolute blessing and joy to read! So please, don't apologize for all that enthusiasm of Yours! It's very encouraging to see the excitement You are displaying here. So with that said, I say Thank You!

[@Bradleymarlin-e7w]

Great teaching brother.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You! 💌

[@kellyblakeborough3371]

The church fathers used maccabees. I think it was Polycarp

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I agree...all the early Church interpreters used the 7 books...Maccabees included; best as I can tell, it wasn't until the 1800's that it appears that the books were removed from the Protestant denominations.

[@LeighMartel]

Help me out lol..I am having a brain fog crisis and I need to get this settled in my head. When Jesus ressurected did only a certain amount of people come out of the grave? I am just confused in contrast to the 2nd coming in 70 A D when the dead went with the Lord? I am 100% sure I am complicating this unnecessarily but I am trying to get my timeline right after a lifetime of futurist nonsense...I am currently on this road alone as my family thinks I'm nuts but I am very settled with this view because it's scripture and plain but as far as this second coming is concerned in 70 A.D I am confused ...It may be a dumb question but I'm willing to be dumb to get smarter haha..So who went to Heaven after Christ was risen and which people went from the 60 to 70 year mark? I heard the 3 1/2 years was the armies of God gathering the dead and leaving wasn't lightning speed as portrayed in the movies of raptured live people. It's appointed for man to die once and then judgement so this had to be just a ressurected thing not a translated alive thing right? Am i crazy? So Lazurus died twice? Help!! Lol. Straighten me out here b4 I DDT myself lol. My over analytical brain is a good thing and a bad thing at times. It's 7 am eastern time in the US and instead of sleeping a bit longer my noodle is plotting against me about this...I believe this is all true and I've been taught wrong all my life I just need to settle some questions

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

There are different views on Matthew 27...I do have my interpretation. Here is the link to the video...that may be a good place to start: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWnGY4ydoNyHbKc

[@CupOJoeOuttaIdaho]

Orthodox study Bible also has these books… will post a chart I found in the OSB here on YT.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You!

[@LeighMartel]

Which books are legit other then what u mentioned? Is Enoch ok? What about the bookof Adamand Eve and Jasher?

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Great question! I have never read the Book of Adam and Eve, but I have read Enoch and Jasher; I have enjoyed those books. I don't put as much weight on them as the 66 to 73 books of the bible; but I personally wouldn't disregard them. I think Enoch and Jasher have value.

[@LeighMartel]

@ShadeStoneMusic so I am concerned about reading false copies...As long as the list of books here aren't tampered with i will surely add them to my reading list...This was a wonderful video about referencing Hebrews and 2nd Mac. There is a passage in Jasher speaking of creatures appearing half man and half something else coming out of the woods after a great storm and stealing a bunch of donkeys...I know the book of Jasher is referenced in 1st or 2nd Samuel I believe I am not 100% sure but people say that this can't be genetically but hyroglyphics if they were not created as some hoax and it seems it's legit show creatures with human and animal features so what's your take on the legitimacy of these books and perhaps false copies..I just want the real..The book of Adam and Eve 1 and 2 are totally excellent! I listened to the audio on you tube

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

@@LeighMartel ...I can't say that I have done extensive research on Jasher & Enoch. So my opinion wouldn't be all that valuable. But I really like that you have the mindset to find the most legitimate copy; very wise. I read them to get a sense of what they were about, but never intended them to be a major part of my interpretations. But the 7 Books that are still in the 'Catholic Bible', that I would recommend any well known version.

[@jordanvandegiessen1801]

Brother, I love your argument. However, I am sure that the apostles quote from Gnostic gospels/theology. By using the simple metric “if they quote it, it’s inspired” is not enough in my eyes. You would need to qualify that by saying “is quoting and not refuting”. Meaning “is quoting as an authoritative source” and “not quoting to refute”. I know this seems like obvious, but opens up the path to confusion for those young in Christ or wayward men who are still learning.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You for the kind words and sharing! Your position is duly noted. That said, the focus of the video was on the '66' vs '73 books'. In this context, this particular presentation could not or should not (in my opinion) be used to authenticate any other books or writings.

[@jordanvandegiessen1801]

@@ShadeStoneMusic Absolutely. My sharing is out of an abundance of caution and grace. I have much love for you brother, have been eating well off of your material. Thank you and praise God.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

@@jordanvandegiessen1801 ...I did not question that for even one second my Brother! All points duly noted. God bless You and Your family!

[@stephenphillips8792]

Not really a pushback here, my good sir, but you asked the question and gave an answer regarding: if Hebrews quotes something from somewhere else, and we believe Hebrews is inspired, then therefore that thing that was quoted from is likely inspired. Not really but funnily enough, youu're probably right. So Paul quotes somebody from Crete saying "all Cretians are liars" and whatnot. So, clearly we know not everything that guy said or wrote will be truthful but apparently truthful enough, generally speaking. As that "prejudicial" quote was inspired and confirmed in our bibles. I thought it was a bit funny but almost a stoner type funny.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

🤣🤣...This is rather interesting and funny at the same time!

[@megansousa2659]

Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1, word for word.😊

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Another great catch! Thank You for the gem Sister!

[@Bradleymarlin-e7w]

You think the apostles may have read this passage in Maccabees, I do., considering they died willingly and without remorse for our Lord and Saviour.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I personally think that if they are quoting Maccabees then it would stand to reason (in my opinion) that they read this passage and probably the entire book. Thank You for sharing! 💌

[@LeighMartel]

Hey it's me again imagine that! 😂 so to add to my already very long message just 5 Minutes ago or less when Jesus died and the ones from the old covenant that were in Sheol were allowed into Heaven at that point right? How come there needed to be another ressurection in between the 60 mark and 70 A.D mark? I thought everybody after the ressurection of Jesus just went straight to Heaven after death and this time frame in 30 something to 40 years after he ascended in front of the disciples right? I gotta have this cleared up. 😂

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Very good question. I do have a different take on the Matthew 27 resurrection. I don't believe that happened 'at the cross'...because Jesus didn't resurrect yet; that wasn't until three days later. So I think that is what I call a 'flash forward'. I have a video on this...(I put the link on one of your other messages)...but just in case, I will put it here as well: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fWnGY4ydoNyHbKc

[@LeighMartel]

@ShadeStoneMusic awesome..Will listen tonight.Thanku so much

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

@@LeighMartel Keep me posted!!

[@davidst-jacques5901]

You'll also find that God told us 'the ending in the beginning' in each trimester (666 year period). Jesus' life is told via Daniel's life (3rd trimester)... Daniel conquered the Dragon (Bel and the Dragon) = Jesus conquered the Beast in AD 70 (Shade's video) Daniel 5:29 Dressed in Purple Mark 15:17 Daniel 6:16 Mockery Matthew 27:43 Daniel 6:19 Prayed 3 times before facing death Matthew 26:44 Daniel 6:14 Leaders could not save them Matthew 27:24 Daniel 6:17 Stone in front of entrance Matthew 27:60 Babylon 66 year duration/ 66 AD Nero Rome Susanna and the Elders = John 8:1 (adultery/lust ) Daniel's peers (his people) thru him to the lions (sentenced to death) .... just like what happened to Jesus. So if you need answers in the ending, you only need to look for them in the beginning. addendum... Nero's life told via Nebuchadnezzar... Nero ran around dressed as a wild beast tormenting citizens = Nebuchadnezzar was a beast for 7 years Nero was known as the musical tyrant = Neb..."As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music" Nero colossus (bow down or die) = Neb ..."you must fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into the blazing fiery furnace". (Daniel 3:5) Nero colossus height ~100 feet = Neb's statue = sixty cubits, ~90 feet And of course the people in Rome recognized it as 'the time of the end' , thanks to the prophet Daniel.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

This is excellent! I am going to have to take some time with this one...my wheels are turning all over the place. LOL Great stuff. Thank You!

[@kelliea5729]

I believe we should have 73. Interesting that the number ended up being 66. Not a good number...

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I agree with the 73. PS - why don't you like 66? LOL

[@allwillberevealed777]

Protestants trying to blame the Catholics for removing those books 😂

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thank You for commenting. What I was finding (in general) is that many protestants thought the catholic church 'added' the books; I simply inform them it was the other way around; in the time of 'reformation' the protestants decided to also 'reform' the bible by removing books. My vote is that they shouldn't have done that. Thanks again!

[@12Burton24]

The only thing i blame catholics is praying to other "gods"(maria and saints) and for the whole story of selling access to heaven or pe/do priests. But you know we dont reach anything if we blame each other. Funny is also that catholics start to take the bible serious but just until its about LG/BTQ /+ and than the great leader in vatican already thinks that they can marry in the church even marriage is specificly for one male and one female. Just saying you find always stuff in an other church.

[@12Burton24]

Catholics pray to other gods( maria and saints).

[@12Burton24]

Catholics sold papers to go to heaven.

[@12Burton24]

Catholics want to marry everyone even the bible says one male and one female

[@One-Ruler-1Victor]

Amen! However I would disagree. Thise books weren't removed in the reformation. King James had them translated and it wasn't common for those books to not be included until the mid 1800s. Their removal wasn't due tobthe reformation... I don't slam my fist but! Lol

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

You are certainly very accurate my good Brother! That said, I think you may agree that when the apocrypha was first published as a 'separate intertestamental section' in Luther's Bible of 1534; this was the step that lead to the eventual 1800 removal. This in turn, has caused many (not all) Protestants to believe those books were 'added' and are now convinced they are not inspired and that the 'Catholics added the books'. So yes, the original reformation did not remove them, but those in the 'continuing reformation' did remove them. My5cents! LOL

[@One-Ruler-1Victor]

@@ShadeStoneMusic I agree. Thanks and I love ya brother.

[@preacher060810]

One word does not make a good argument. Just because there is a word quoted does not mean all the others was inspired. There is a a lot of date errors and other false doctrines in those other 7 books that’s why they are not canon. They may have some good passages, they may even have some historical events yet they do not fit the other 66 books. The book of Enoch that is looked at so much was not even written by him and does not fit time line of other Old Testament books

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Thanks for sharing your point of view. I would suggest however, that at minimum, the 'one word' certainly makes 2nd Maccabees inspired; and I'm not sure how you can understand the 2nd without the 1st Maccabees. Further to this, I'm not sure why we today think that anyone had the authority to make these changes after centuries of them being considered canon. As for the 'False Doctrines' you are alleging; I can't help but think that these books were removed because they didn't 'fit' the new dogmas that were being developed in that time period. Something for every bible student to consider for themselves.

[@ClayA.Reynolds]

The Old Testament references a great deal of literature that as far as I am aware is indeed lost to time. That doesn't validate the referenced texts such as "The Annals of the Kings" as inspired by God, but rather signifies the historicity of the Bible. Jude quotes the words of Enoch. These same words can be found in "The book of Enoch". Now, this either means that Jude directly quoted "The Book of Enoch" or both "The Book of Enoch" and "Jude" are pulling information from an earlier source. This does not necessitate that "The Book of Enoch" is inspired in the same manner as "Jude". There are many instances of the use of a word that appears merely once or twice in all of scripture. We have a tendency to weave stories and doctrines from these single use instances; for which case, I prefer to err on the side of caution. One such example could also be "Nephilim" in Genesis 6. "The Book of Enoch" and "The Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus are NOT in agreement on the interpretation of this passage in Genesis 6. One portrays the creation of giants via the procreation of fallen angels and mankind, whilst the other insinuates the downfall of the descendants of Seth whom were once deemed righteous in the eyes of God but were now intermarrying with ungodly peoples and thus falling away and their actions having become as that of the Grecian giants. I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters such as this so that I'm not found guilty of perverting absolute truth with my own selfish inclinations and/or preferences. I've been quite humbled in my own studies and have come to realize how much man-made doctrines I had adhered to due to men just as myself that believed doctrines contrived of single-word instances.

[@mled31611]

I believe in the Book of Jasher it's mentioned in the old testament. I tell people that elephants and apes are humans punished by God. The book of Jasher makes this claim.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

Wow! I knew that Jasher was in the Old Testament; I also have a copy of it but I haven't had a chance to read all of it. Thanks for sharing!

[@juanitablakeney5704]

Unless God said remove it it shouldn't be move.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

I agree. And to think that these books were included for more than 1500 years suggests that they shouldn't have been removed in the time of the 'reformation'. Thank You for sharing!

[@12Burton24]

Did god say to add it opposite questions.

[@jimrogers501]

Jesus wasn’t jewish.

[@ShadeStoneMusic]

My understanding is that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah...Antient Israel. I do not know otherwise.