Whats wrong with this statement?

Here are some staements frome the prefaces of some Protestant Bibles and other decrees:

Statements on the Apocrypha from Reformation Days
Luther Bible (1534). Title to Apocrypha: "APOCRYPHA, that is, Books which are not to be esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, and yet which are useful and good to read."

Coverdale Bible (1535). Title to Apocrypha: "APOCRYPHA: The books and treatises which among the Fathers of old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of Hebrew."

Geneva Bible (1560). Preface: "The books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as books proceeding from godly men they were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that those calamities that God sent to his Church were according to his providence, who had both so threatened by his prophets, and so brought it to pass, for the destruction of their enemies and for the trial of his children."

Decree of the Council of Trent (1546). "The holy ecumenical and general Council of Trent . . . following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates all the books of the Old and New Testament . . . and also the traditions pertaining to faith and conduct . . . with an equal sense of devotion and reverence . . . If, however, any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have by custom been read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed."

Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1563). Sixth Article: "In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. . . And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

Westminster Confession (1647). Chapter 1 § 3: "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

 

I thought I stated this in an above post. For go back and read it. Jerome for example didnt accept the deuterocanonical books and only reluctantly put them in his latin Bible.

It seems like you are only going to believe what you want to believe.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

 

Including the apocrypha into the Bible isnt necessarily accepting them as inspired as was stated before. They were included in the AV1611 for reference purposes. Matt if you want to accept these books as inspirational and read them for your own benefit I guess that is your business. Maybe you can tell us how youve been blessed by reading those particular books.