TL;DR
All modern Bibles, excluding the KJV and NKJV, are based off a heretical text.
The "Confessional" Position of Textus Receptus is backed by scripture, giving solid validity to KJV and NKJV

Here is a video with a very basic rundown of what's above

Biblical Translations - 3a
The KJV vs NKJV
We have now covered the errors of Biblical translations and have narrowed God's word on a single line of translations, the Textus Receptus, but there are two Bibles that come from it. Which should we use? Lets examine what both Bibles have to say
------------------------------
One of the biggest reasons someone would use the NKJV is because of its easy-to-understand language. Does this affect doctrine? Is there a limit to what should be taken out and changed?
The NKJV omits...
"Lord" 66 times
"God" 51 times
"heaven" 50 times
"repent" 44 times
"blood" 23 times
"hell" 22 times
"JEHOVAH" entirely
"new testament" entirely
"damnation" entirely
"devils" entirely
In fact, the NKJV ignores the Textus Receptus in over 1,200 times and has replaced the KJV Hebrew ben Chayyim Old Testament with the corrupted Stuttgart edition ben Asher Old Testament.
------------------------------
One of the most startling things the NKJV has done is demote Christ in the sake of easy-to-understand language.
Luke 13:8 NKJV used "Sir" instead of "Lord"
Mat 18:26 NKJV says "before him saying, Master" instead of "and worshipped him saying, Lord"
Mat 26:64 NKJV says "right hand of the Power" instead of "right hand of Power"
Gen 22:8 says "God will provide for himself a lamb" instead of "God will provide himself a lamb"
John 8:35 says "a son" instead of "the Son"
Col 2:2 says "the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ" instead of "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" (trinity)
Mat 8:19 et al. "Teacher" instead of "Master"
Mat 19:16 "Good Teacher" instead of "Good Master"
Mat 22:16 "Teacher" instead of "Master"
Mat 23:8 "One is your Teacher, the Christ" instead of "one is your Master, even Christ"
Mat 23:10 "And do not be called teachers, for One is your Teacher, the Christ" instead of "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ"

In these verses, the NKJV actually copies the incredibly corrupted JEHOVAH WITNESS VERSION and DEMOTES Christ, THE TRINITY, and the PLAN OF SALVATION
Acts 3:13 the NKJV says "His Servant Jesus" instead of the KJV "his Son Jesus"
Acts 3:26 the NKJV says "His Servant Jesus" instead of the KJV "his Son Jesus" again
Acts 4:27 & 30 say "holy Servant Jesus" instead of "holy child Jesus"
Col 1:15 says "the firstborn over all creation" instead of "firstborn of every creature"
Mark 2:15 the NKJV actually OMITTED Jesus
Heb 4:8 and Acts 7:45 the NKJV says Joshua instead of Jesus
2 Thes 3:5 says "patience of Christ" instead of "patient waiting for Christ"
Acts 17:29 the NKJV says "Divine Nature" instead of "Godhead"
Phil 4:20 says "our God and Father" instead of "God and our Father"
Rev 1:6 says "his God and Father" instead of "God and his Father"
Col 3:17 says "God the Father through Him" instead of the KJV "God and the Father by him"
John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 the NKJV says "Helper" instead the KJV "Comforter"
1 Cor 11:1 says in NKJV "Imitate Christ" instead of "followers... of Christ"
Rom 3:3 says "faithfulness" instead of "faith"
Rom 11:30 says "disobedient" instead of "not saved"
Rom 11:32 also says "disobedient" instead of "not believed"
1 Cor 1:16 & 2 Cor 2:15 says "are being saved" instead of simply "are saved"
------------------------------
Why would the NKJV copy the Jehovah Witness cult?

Biblical Translations - 3b
The KJV vs NKJV
As we've seen, in the name of easy-to-read language, the NKJV has demoted Christ, attacked the trinity, and downplayed the plan of salvation. The NKJV also supports new age ideas that are incompatible with Christianity.
------------------------------
The NKJV supports Works Salvation:
Mat 7:14 NKJV states "difficult is the way" instead the KJV "narrow is the way"
Gal 5:22 NKJV says "faithfulness" instead of the KJV "faith"
1 John 5:13 NKJV says "may continue to believe" instead of "may believe"
Eccl 5:20 "God keeps him busy" instead of the KJV "God answereth him"

The NKJV supports "progressive ages" AKA Hyper-Dispensationalism:
Mat 12:32 NKJV "age to come" instead of the KJV "world to come"
Mat 13:39 NKJV "end of the age" instead of "end of the world"
Acts 15:18 NKJV "from eternity" instead of "from the beginning of the world"
1 Cor 15:45 "Adam being a living being" instead of "Adam was mad a living soul"

The NKJV alludes to pantheism, androgeny, and gender equality:
Luke 7:19-20 & Mat 11:3 the NKJV says "the Coming One" instead of the KJV "he that should come"
John 7:18 et al. NKJV "the One" instead of the KJV "he" or "his"
John 4:24 NKJV "God is spirit" instead of KJV "God is a spirit"
2 Cor 2:10 "presence" instead of "person"
Gen 2:18 NKJV says "helper comparable to him" instead of "help meet for him"

The NKJV supports a "the devil made me do it" mentality:
Phil 3:21 NKJV "lowly bodies" instead the KJV "vile bodies"
1 John 5:19 "whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one" instead of the KJV "whole world lieth in wickedness"
Mat 5:37 NKJV "the evil one" instead of KJV "of evil"
Luke 11:4 NKJV "deliver us from the wicked one" instead the KJV "deliver us from evil"
2 Cor 1:12 NKJV "boast" instead of KJV "rejoicing"

The NKJV supports religious tolerance and a one world religion:
Acts 24:14 NKJV "sect" instead of KJV "heresy"
Acts 17:22 "very religious" instead of KJV "too superstitious"
The word "heathen" was replaced with "nation(s)" 148 times
Acts 8:9 "astonished" instead of the KJV "bewitched"
Acts 25:19 "religion" instead the KJV "superstition"
2 Cor 10:5 "casting down arguments" instead of the KJV "casting down imaginations"
Titus 3:10 "Reject a divisive man" instead of the KJV "an heretic...reject"

The NKJV has subjective standards:
Mat 5:32 et al. NKJV "sexual immortality" instead the KJV "fornication"
1 Cor 6:9 "homosexual" (calamities only) instead the KJV "effeminate"
The KJV word "sodomite" is changed to "perverted persons" completely
2 Tim 3:17 "complete" instead of the KJV "perfect"

The NKJV uses new age terms:
Mat 23:10 et al. "the Christ" instead of the KJV "Christ"
Ps 106:6 NKJV omits the word Satan
Rom 6:24 NKJV "slave" instead the KJV "servant"
The NKJV changes "hell" into "hades" 22 times
The NKJV changes "devil(s)" into "demon(s)" 81 times

The NKJV messes with the mark of the beast:
Rev 13:16 et al. "a mark on their hand" instead of the KJV "a mark in their hand" this subtle difference could go a long way.
1 Sam 13:21 "the charge...was a prim" (alluding to a microchip) instead of the KJV "they had a file...for the coulters"
------------------------------
It's very apparent the KJV and the NKJV are not the same. Now we can see that the difference in language can downplay or manipulate crucial doctrine

Babylon Mystery Religion - Ralph Woodrow PDF
——————
Recently sent to me by a friend, this book details several origins of corruption in Christianity that stem from Babylonian magic and ritual practice.

Icons such as the Virgin Mary, Saints, obelisks, festivals and more have their roots in very ancient mystery religions and have made their way into the Christian faith, subverting its practices and ensnaring its people into the complacent, unrecognizable Judaized Christianity of today.

@NephilimHour
@TheParanormiesPresent
@AltSkullMirror

Biblical Translations - 4
KJV vs the world
From what we have explored, the new age Bible versions are corrupted while the KJV stands alone. Even the NKJV, which claims to be from the KJV, is simplified to the point of corrupting essential doctrine and demotes Christ. The KJV is it right? There is one more trick up satans sleeve... C. I. Scofield
------------------------------
The Scofield KJV Bible is a perverted and twisted interpretation of the word of Lord YHWH.
Futurism and Hyper-Dispensationalism have no place in the church of Christ.
The claims that Christ was not the messiah or that Christ only came to save the Jews is blasphemous to the core.
The idea of Dispensationalism promotes the idea that Jews are special, are "God's chosen people" and are somehow free from the sin brought on by the Talmud.
------------------------------
How can somebody claim to be Christian and say Christ isn't the Messiah?
The fruit of dispensationalism is rotten, and we will cover this shortly.
https://t.me/TruthInYeshua83

False Doctrine
Dispensationalism
What exactly is dispensationalism? I've claimed it to be a false doctrine without truly explaining what is is, or how it is wrong. The video above does a fine job, but I need to explain a little deeper.
------------------------------
The Scofield Bible divides the history of the world into periods of time, known as "dispensations :" (I) Innocence, (2) Conscience, (3) Human Government, (4) Promise, (5) Law, (6) Grace, (7) Kingdom.
Within each "dispensation" or age, the Lord supposedly "deals with man upon a plan different from the plan of the other dispensations."
For example, the period from Sinai to Calvary was "the dispensation of Law;" from the cross to the second coming, "the dispensation of grace;" and from the sec­ond coming to the close of the millennium, "the dispensation of the kingdom."
There is no "mingling" of methods of salvation during these periods, according to the Scofield scheme. There was "no grace" in the dispensation from Moses to the cross; "no law" in our present period of "grace." Moreover, our era is the era of the church, and has nothing to do with the kingdom. The age to come ushers in the kingdom. This "kingdom" belongs to the Jew­ish nation, which will be restored and its people converted during the millennium.
------------------------------
These ideas have zero scrip­tural support. The idea that grace did not exist before Christ is insane... The idea that "plans" don't matter to other "ages" is complete heresy. This promotes the idea that the Old Testament doesn't matter to those who follow Christ. When in reality ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (1Tim 3:16).
Faith and Grace have always existed, for our God YHWH does not change (Mal 3:6).
In fact, nobody has been saved on account of following the Law (Rom 3:20). If somebody breaks a single law, he has violated the entire law! (James 2:10)
The men in the Old Testament were not justified by the Law, but by their Faith (Heb 11)
The Law was the schoolmaster to bring people to Christ (Gal 3:24-25)
Those in the Old Testament who lived by Faith were those who lived by the Law (Gal 3:12)
There is no Law that brings salvation (Gal 3:21) and if salvation and righteousness did come from the Law, Christ is dead in vain (Gal 2:21)
I could go on and on exposing each "dispensation" one by one with multiple examples within scripture.
------------------------------
Dispensationalism is a blasphemous doctrine, that downplays and manipulates the Lord YHWH's plan of Salvation through Christ our King.

There are plenty more errors in the Scofield Bible such as a "secret rapture" a "second chance" for those who've died in sin, and even a "postponement" of the Kingdom of God. The book is full of error.

Stay away from Dispensationalism and its false teachers. The Scofield Bible is a blasphemy and perversion of the word of God YHWH.
------------------------------
Some popular proponents of Dispensation that I know of are:
- Dr. Gene Kim from the Youtube channel "Real Bible Believers"
- Robert Breaker from the Youtube channel with his name, "Robert Breaker"
- John Hagee from the Youtube channel "Hagee Ministries"
- Dr. Sam Gipp from the Youtube channel with his name, "Sam Gipp"
------------------------------
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring themselves swift destruction.
-2 Peter 2:1

Note: The KJV video explaining with the coffees was done by Dr. Sam Gipp, the dispensationalist. This comes to show that some dispensationalists can be correct on certain things, but they are by no means in the right doctrine as a whole and by no means should all their teachings be looked into. As you watch videos or read their commentaries, remember what the Lord says in Matthew 10:16 "...be ye therefor wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

The Jew
The Jew, the Canaanite?
They take the self-proclaimed title of "God's chosen" and claim to be a holy people, closest to God. To Dispensationalists, the nation Israel and its state religion has a right to be preserved no matter the cost. Where did they come from?
------------------------------
The first thing to note is what "Jew" actually means Biblically.
Strong's H3064: a Judahite, or descendant of Jehudah
Strong's G2453: Judæan, i.e. belonging to Jehudah

The word Jew should not be read with the modern day interpretation. In the Old Testament, Jew should be read as Judahite AKA a descendant of Judah. In the New Testament however, the definition of Jew has expanded to those who are from the province of Judæa or have ancestry to the tribe of Judah.
------------------------------
According to a study published in May 2020, while researching the genetic makeup of ancient Canaanites, the researchers "found that most Arab and Jewish groups in the region owe more than half of their DNA to Canaanites and other peoples who inhabited the ancient Near East—an area encompassing much of the modern Levant, Caucasus, and Iran."
-Article written on the subject: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-jews
-Research paper: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.024
------------------------------
As seen in the Bible, the Israelites were not allowed to mix with the Canaanites or any other peoples. They were instructed to keep marriage and other things within their tribe, such as having children, appointing leadership positions, ect.
(Num 35 & 36; Deu 7:1-5; 17:15; 23:2-8; Neh 10:30; 13:22-30; et al.)
------------------------------
From a genetic standpoint, the modern day Jew and the ancient Israelite are not very similar. They can't be. Being at least half Canaanite, there is no doubt the ancestors of the modern Jews within Israel did not follow the rules laid out by the Lord YHWH to the Israelites. Despite this, Jews of today still claim to be either from the tribe of Juda specifically or they claim to have ancestry from all 12 tribes.
According to the study linked above, the Canaanite, being a localized group, did not share much DNA with other tribes in the surrounding areas, making them genetically different than others in the area. This means they themselves did not generally mix with other tribes. Canaan, having rich soil for farming, makes sense as to why the Canaanites did not move around much and mingle.
------------------------------
If these Jews are lying about their ancestry, or are at least ignorant concerning their genetics, where did they come from? Can they trace at least some of their ancestry to the ancient Israelites? What about the Ashkenazi, who are they? If Jews today are not the 12 tribes of Israel, where did they go?
All will be covered in the future. God Bless

Biblical Translations - 4
KJV 1611
Since we have narrowed down on the KJV, I think the next step is to talk about the books included, namely the Apocrypha.
------------------------------
Everybody knows about the standard 66 canonical books within the Bible, Genesis to Revelation, but not many people know about the Apocrypha, or that the KJV 1611 actually incorporated it into the translation. Why did they do this? What's the purpose? First, some history.
------------------------------
Queen Mary I, also known as Bloody Mary, reigned from 1553 to 1558. She got the name Bloody Mary because of her persecution of Protestants and her attempts of reinstalling Roman Catholicism.
Queen Elizabeth I (reigning from 1558-1603), the half sister of Bloody Mary, imposed a high degree of uniformity within the Church of England. During her reign Protestantism was reinstated as the official religion of England.
In the times leading up to King James religious tension I'm England was at an all time high.
In 1604 a conference was held that requested a new English Bible because existing translations "were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original."
------------------------------
The Catholics at the time used the Reims New Testament while the Protestants mostly used the Geneva Bible or the Bishops Bible.
The Catholics used the Apocryphal writings and incorporated them in their Bibles. The Protestants did not.
King James wanted his translation to be the universal Bible used by both Catholics and Protestants.
------------------------------
In 1592, Pope Clement VIII removed 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh from the Vulgate.
By June 1604, King James had approved 54 revisers, but only 47 actually participated. When the group came together there was an agreement to add the apocrypha between the New and Old Testament. The Protestants wouldnt agree unless they also include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Menasseh.

The list of Apocryphal books included in the KJV 1611 are as follows:
• 1 Esdras (AKA 3 Esdras)
• 2 Esdras (AKA 4 Esdras)
• Tobit
• Judith
• an addition to Esther
• Wisdom
• Ecclesiasticus (AKA Sirach)
• Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy
• Song of the Three Children (addition to Daniel)
• The Idol Bel and the Dragon (addition to Daniel)
• Prayer of Menasseh (addition to 2nd Chronicles)
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees
------------------------------
Why are these books debated on? Is there any validity to these books? We will explore this later on. In the meantime, proceed with caution. God Bless

Apocryphal Texts
1 & 2 Maccabees
Each Apocryphal book should be addressed, to either confirm or deny some legitimacy. I figured we would first touch on the KJV 1611 Apocrypha and work from there. So is 1 & 2 Maccabees inspired or semi-inspired as the Catholic Church claims? Do they have accurate writings?
------------------------------
1 and 2 Maccabees tells the story of the same events, throughout the Maccabean Revolt, but with multiple different viewpoints.
The first question many have about this book is this: should they be included into the canon? A question to this question would be, are they inspired?

There's no doubt in my mind, that the idea of something semi-inspired doesn't actually exist. Texts are either fully inspired or not inspired at all.
In order to have some form of validation, there must be prophecies.

"And laid stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them." - I Macc. 4:46

"So was there a great affliction in Israel, the like whereof was not since the time that a prophet was not seen among them" - I Macc. 9:27

"Also that the Jews and priests were well pleased that Simon should be their governor and high priest for ever, until there should arise a faithful prophet" I Macc. 14:41

From these verses, we can see that during the time of the Maccabean Revolution there were no prophets. No prophets means no inspiration. No inspiration means no canonization.
I think Pope Gregory the Great (ca 600 AD) when talking about 1st Maccabees said it best: "We address a testimony from books though not canonical, yet published for the edification of the Church."
------------------------------
If even a Pope said they were not canonical, why would the Catholic Church keep them?

"And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen ... And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. ... 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, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." - II Macc. 12:39-46

Praying for the dead is not a Biblical concept. When anyone brings up praying for the dead, these verses come to mind...
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes..." - Luke 16:22-23
Lazarus (the beggar) and the rich man did not have any time between the moment of death and their destination. Lazarus died and was immediately in Abraham's bosom. The rich man died and was immediately in hell. No amount of praying can sway what the Lord has already done. (Isaiah 55:8-9)
------------------------------
Since there is false doctrines and no inspiration within these books, we can safely say that these books do not belong in the Bible, or really anywhere near it.
The books may present an interesting view of the Maccabean Revolt, but should not be looked at as God's truth. We will explore some other books later on.
God Bless.

"𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙨, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝘾𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘸𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘻𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 (1 𝙈𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙨. 6:46)." - 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘰𝘣, 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬 19 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘳 34 (578-595 𝘈𝘋), 𝘣𝘺 𝙋𝙤𝙥𝙚 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵

"𝘈 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴... 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘚𝘺𝘯𝘰𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘸... 𝙏𝙬𝙤 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙨, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙... 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩, 𝙖𝙨 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙨, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘶𝘭𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥; 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙖." - 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘚𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 1𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘦 (1546)

Whoops.

Apocryphal Texts
Song of the Three Children
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
While the book of Daniel ends after twelve chapters according to the Masoretic Text, some translations, like the Septuagint, include three extra chapters to Daniel: chapter 13, the "Song of the Three Children"; chapter 14, "Susanna"; and chapter 15, "Bel and the Dragon," which is a three-part narrative. Is there any legitimacy to them?
------------------------------
Song of the Three Children joins on to Daniel 3:23 which says "And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace."
• Some context: The traditional view is that Daniel was written sometime between the end of 600.BC or early 500.BC.

"Neither is there at this time, Prince, or Prophet, or leader, or burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to sacrifice before thee, and to finde mercie." - Song of the Three Children 1:14
This verse may point to the time between 168 and 165 BC, when Epiphanes Antiochus IV profaned the temple. But on more occasions than one, in later times, the temple-services were suspended, as e.g. during the invasion of Jerusalem by the Egyptian king, Philopater Ptolemy IV between 221 to 204.BC.
------------------------------
The Story of Susanna is about a woman who is falsely accused in a court all because she refused sexual intercourse with two powerful elders. Upon crying out to God, the Lord sends Daniel to witness for her.

While this does appear in Greek texts like the Septuagint, it does not appear in any Hebrew texts including the Masoretic Text, which alone disqualifies the text. This means the addition was written sometime during the Hellenistic period in Israel before the Septuagint was written, between 332 and 200 BC.
------------------------------
Bel and the Dragon consists of two separate stories: one relating to Bel; the other, to the Dragon. In the first part, Daniel exposes the trick by which the priests of Bel made it appear that the idol consumed the food and drink set before it. In the second Daniel slays the Dragon-god by putting into its mouth cakes made of pitch, fat, and hair, after eating which it bursts apart. Daniel is thereupon cast into a den of lions, but remains unharmed by the beasts, and is fed by the prophet Habakkuk, who is miraculously brought from Judea for that purpose by an angel.

This story also does not show up in any Hebrew text. Why Habakkuk is included is beyond me.
------------------------------
To top all of this off, Dead Sea Scroll manuscript fragments have been found of the book of Daniel. To my knowledge, these fragments do not contain any of the Greek additions (the Song of the Three Young Men, Bel and the Dragon, and the Story of Susanna).
Conclusion: These stories are more than likely based off folklore around Daniel and were written during the Hellenistic Period within Israel.
God Bless

The Canon
The OT & Ezra pt 1
What is the Canon of scripture?
------------------------------
According to the Church Fathers, the Dead Sea Scrolls, even the Pharisees and Sadducees, the prophet Ezra closed the canon of the Old Testament.
Funny enough, the canon we have today were not the only books known to the ancient world. What did Ezra have to say about it? What did Ezra know about these extra books?
2 Esdras, otherwise known as The Ezra Apocalypse, is an apocryphal book banned by the Catholic Church that shows up in the KJV 1611. Here is an interesting excerpt:

2 Esdras 14:38-48 from KJV
"And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink.
Then opened I my mouth, and, behold, he reached me a full cup, which was full as it were with water, but the colour of it was like fire.
And I took it, and drank: and when I had drunk of it, my heart uttered understanding, and wisdom grew in my breast, for my spirit strengthened my memory:
And my mouth was opened, and shut no more.
The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread.
As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night.
In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books.
And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it:
But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people:
For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.
And I did so."

If 204 books were recorded,
70 of those books were kept for the wise men,
Leaving 134 books for public knowledge.
Are these 134 books supposed to be the canon?
We have 39 books of the Old Testament, but the Hebrew consolidates these 39 books into 24. This leaves 115 missing books. Is this accurate?

Other translations of 2 Esdras 14:44 are as follows:
• Anglicanized NRSV "So during the forty days, ninety-four books were written."
• RSV "So during the forty days ninety-four books were written."
• WEB "So in forty days were written fourscore and fourteen books."
• KJV 1611 “In fourty dayes they wrote two hundred and foure bookes.”
------------------------------
So what's the deal? Did Ezra copy 94 books or 204?

If Ezra copied 94 books, that would leave 24 (today 39) books in the canon, which is the exact number of books in the Old Testament.

How did translators come up with 94 and 204? This gap in translation must be explored, as it is of most importance.
God Bless