I am Reformed, and I use the Septuagint. (In particular, I use Brenton for English.) I only count 66 canonical books in the Bible, because that is what our creeds count. Scripture is not all the books that could be included. There is a criterion, and it is not simply “valid prophecy” or the like.
Just because prophecy can be established in a book doesn’t imply that it is canon; after all, prophecy is the word of God, and not necessarily the stuff found in the canon. Paul, for instance, refers to the prophecies spoken over Timothy. They are not in the canon. There is no co-relation between valid prophecy and what is canon.
Furthermore, I see that this whole blog post is entirely confused about “scripture” on the one hand and “the Bible.” Clear up the misunderstanding, and you can have a discussion that approaches usefulness. Otherwise this is just an attempt at scandalising and provoking undue debate and argument. This is one of the things undoing the body of Christ since 1 Timothy was written.
“… here we have a single verse in which it clearly states that it was “the Son of God” who will be tortured and killed.”
You clearly haven’t had to countenance with what calls itself “higher criticism.” Some scoffers will say it is a later inclusion, in light of Christianity; and what will you say then? (Have you checked the original-language artifacts in Wisdom?) You should understand that Wisdow quote correctly, and see that it is not about Christ, since those who killed Christ never called Him “the just one.” The words in that reference could never have occurred from the mouths of those who thought Jesus was transgressing Deuteronomy 13.
You will reap many bitter fruits if you so lightly treat these matters.
“What I first found was that Protestants call the “extra” 7 books “apocryphal” meaning “doubtful”, “not genuine”, or even “not inspired”.”
No; we call them that because in the Greek it means “hidden”. And they are.
“Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul summarizes the issue in the following manner”
Sproul is not the Protestant pope. That is his opinion, not the opinion of Protestants. We don’t have an authoritative figure. But have you, at the very least, checked to see what the canonical confessions say about this? I mean the Three Forms of Unity? Did you honestly, or even fairly, take Sproul’s to be the Protestant position?
Did I mention that I use the Septuagint for my Old Testament? LXX for life.