Putting this up here for posterity:

Answering Some of the Claim's of "Historical" and "Moral Errors" Found in the Deuterocanonical Books

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

If we check both books, we can locate one time that Antiochus Epiphanes died . But, as it is, there were several Kings in the Maccabees with the title of "Antiochus." Epiphanes was the fourth one to take the name of Antiochus. Hence, we see another misinterpretation of Sacred Scripture.

But even if this were true (which it is not) does it necessarily follow that we must reject the books of the Maccabees? If so than by this same Protestant logic we must reject the First and Second books of  Samuel and First Chronicles as well, for in them we find four very different accounts of how King Saul Died. First Samuel (31:4) says that Saul "Took a Sword, and Fell upon it". Were as Second Samuel (1:2-10) says Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite. Later in Second Samuel (21:12) we read that Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa. then we read in First Chronicles (10:13-14) that Saul was slain by God.

And what of two different accounts of the death of Aaron? The Book of Numbers (33:38) tells us that he died on Mt. Hor, and the Book of Deuteronomy (10:6) tells us that Aaron died in Mosera.

What about the two different accounts of the death of Sisera in the book of Judges? In chapter four (verse 21) Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him and yet chapter five (verses 25-27) tells us that Sisera was standing. does this mean that we must now also discard the sacred this book as well?

Last, we have the interesting case of the death of Ahaziah, Second Kings (9:27) tells us that Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there. and in Second Chronicles (22:9) Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death. Do we now discard these two sacred books as well?

The point is this is exactly what we come to when we try to Judge the sacred texts of the scriptures based on our fallible understanding of them and our mortal understanding, and this is exactly what the Protestant wish us to do to inspired books of the Maccabees.

The obvious historic error in Judith that sates that King Nebuchanezzar was king of the Assyrians reigning in Nineveh (he was actually king of the Babylonians reigning in Babylon).

The Babylonian form of the name is Nabu-kudurri-usur, the second part of which is variously interpreted ("O Nebo, defend my crown", or "tiara", "empire", "landmark", "work"). The original has been more or less defaced in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin transliterations, from which are derived the modern English forms, Nabuchodonosor, Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchednezzar, and Nebuchadrezzar. On the whole, Nabuchodonosor appears to be nearer to the original Babylonian pronunciation than Nebuchadrezzar and especially Nebuchadnezzar (A.V., Ezra, ii, 1) taken from the Massoretic transliteration, and would be still nearer if the "r" were restored to the second element where "n" has crept in. Nabuchodonosor was not a rair name, there two two kings of this name are known to have ruled over Babylon.

Sennacherib (the son of Sargon II)  built a magnificent palace at Nineveh, he ruled both Assyria and Babylon. Some scholars hold Sennacherib and  Nebuchednezzar I to be the same person.

Now there was only one incident in the entire history of the ancient Jews when a massive,  world-conquering Assyrian army almost 200,000-strong had been stopped in its tracks as it marched to conquer Jerusalem. That was the demise of Sennacherib's army in c.700 BC. It has also been suggested by Some scholars that 'Middle' Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar I (c.1000 BC, conventional), was in fact Sargon/Sennacherib as ruler of Babylon. Sennacherib began to rule Babylon in fact even before his rule over Assyria had commenced.

The first verse of the Book of Judith actually needs very little alteration. It can be re-cast as follows:

"It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchednezzar I [Sargon/Sennacherib], who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh....".

"Nineveh", when qualified as the "great city", is a biblical term for a complex of cities, not necessarily just the classical Nineveh alone (cf. Genesis 10:12; Jonah 1:2; 3:3).

Other Biblical accounts of this campaign [Isaiah 37:36; 2.Kings 19] agree much with the Book of Judith on the slaying of a large part of the Assyrian army, albeit the Book of Judith has it happen as the Assyrians fled the area while the Bible in its brevity makes it sound like it happened at the place where they were camped.

It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, ѕυιcιdє, assasination and magical incantation.

In 1 Samuel, chapter 28, Saul has recourse to a witch for help, this witch actually brings back the spirit of the prophet Samuel. through the witch, Samuel prophases the death of Saul's two sons, and his defeat hand of the Philistines.  Does that mean that the book was teaching "immoral practices," such as as the use of witchcraft and magical incantation? Or how about where Saul killed himself with his own sword in 1 Samuel, chapter 31? What about King David's adultery with Bathsheba and the subsequent arranged Murder of her husband Uriah in 2 Samuel Chapters 11,12? In I Kings chapter 11 we find that Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. His wives turned away his heart away from the true God, his wives turned away his heart after other gods such as "Ashtoreth" the goddess of the "Zidonians", and "Milcom" the abomination of the Ammonites. In Hosea ( 1:2) God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry".

The point is, that throughout the Old Testament, immoral practices are to be found. They aren’t to be found in the Deuterocanonical books alone. But, of course, this does not mean that simply because they are in the Bible the books are promoting such practices as ѕυιcιdє, recourse to witches, Murder, adultery, Idolatry and so forth.

The Apocrypha books contradict the scriptures.  

Here we see the Protestant is resorting to circular logic in his "arguments." He says, basically, in order for a book to be Canonical and Biblical, all the doctrines that it teaches must be reconcilable with what is taught elsewhere in the Bible... but how does he know that the books he is referring to are canonical? How does he know that any of the books in the Bible are canonical? Especially if he uses his above-given "reason" as a determining factor.

The danger of circular logic, is that it is not founded on the pillar of evidence or truth. The same arguments are to be made against the other books of the Bible. "No, the other books of the Bible are not true because they do not match what Maccabees says." The point is, where is the starting point? There is no pillar of truth to sit on. The same argument can be used against the other books of the Bible. For example, in Joshua 2:4-6 the woman lied in order to save the lives of some scouts which Joshua sent out to find out the "lay of the land." And when Joshua’s army took over the city, all the houses of everyone but the woman were burned. The woman was rewarded for her actions! Whereas we see in Exodus 20:16 that lying is forbidden! Does that mean that we should discard Exodus? Or Joshua? According to the circular logic of the anonymous author, we must discard one or the other. Which one is it to be? In Genesis (19:30-38) we read that while he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring. In second Peter (2:7) we read that Lot was "just" and "righteous." Does that mean that we should discard 2 Peter ? according to this same circular logic and faulty human reasoning we must discard on of these two books.  

Another example of how throughout the scriptures God prohibits killing (Ex. 20:13, Dt. 5:17, Mk. 10:19, Lk. 18:20, Ro. 13:9, Ja. 2:11)  and yet in many places God actually orders killing (Ex. 32:27, Dt. 7:2, 13:15, 20:1-18) in Second Kings (19:35) we read that An angel of the Lord slaughters 185,000 men. Does this mean we must now reject Exodus and Deuteronomy as well?

The point is, when an ignorant person (with no exterior source of truth to appeal to) attempts to build up his own religion through reading a book, there are bound to be misunderstandings. For example, in the above-given case concerning the book of Joshua. At first glance, they look contradictory. But upon further though/reading, it becomes apparent that the woman was not being rewarded for lying, but for saving the life of the two scouts. Period. Hence, it wasn’t contradicting the book of Exodus at all. The same applies to the other examples given and to the "Apocrypha" books as well. The Protestant allegations of "contradictions" are nothing more than the products of - already blatant - ignorance and circular logic.

The problem is that the Protestant is rejecting the Deuterocanonical books on his own private interpretation of the remainder of Scripture. In his opinion, the Deuterocanonical books contradict the rest of the Bible. In his opinion, the Deuterocanonical books are apocryphal, and non-canonical. In his opinion, what they teach is false. What we have here, is not fact... it is merely fallible human opinion. Which one is not obligated to accept and abide by - despite the opinion of the anonymous author to the contrary -, and which are not guaranteed to be without error.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070422152955/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_157.htm

Dang, didn't work, try it again...