The most interesting books of the apocrypha are not those omitted at Nicaea. As a Christian who has been studying the canonical Bible and the Apocrypha for thirty plus years I find those books to be very unconvincing and obviously don't belong in the Cannon at all. Things like excluding first and second Maccabees are more meh. My proclivity would be to keep them in, but I can see why someone might think they were less important in the cannon. Anti-Christians like to make a big deal out of some of it (like the ridiculous writings of the Gnostics) as if there were some controversy, but these were as rejected and heretical in 325 as they are today. There was never any controversy in rejecting them as completely uninspired and the fodder for fringe cults. That some of it supports the pre-existing opinions of Atheists and anti-Christians is their only utility. When putting the cannon together, clearly these books did not belong, and you don't need to be some Bishop in 325 to easily determine that when reading them.
As far as translations, I'd say that we discuss, compare, and contrast the different ways the Bible is translated at least every other week. Unless you are fluent in Greek and Aramaic it is simply a fact that they have words with specific meanings that don't exist in singular words in English. The most widely known example of this is that in English we only have the word "love", but in Greek there are eight different words for love that have each have specific and unique meanings. They don't translate except into English phrases, which makes it harder to actually understand it. Going back constantly to the Greek or Aramaic is very common and typical in Bible study across the nation and across time. To believe this is some new or esoteric practice is as absurd, as to believe that there is malice or intent to deceive in the translators. To be sure, the deeper you go the more effort it takes, but we are literally commanded to delve ever deeper to understand. The Bible is shallow enough so you won't drown, and deep enough so you will never find the bottom.
What I find far, far, far more interesting are the books that were excluded a thousand years or more before Nicaea. They are the ones that the Rabis kept out of the Torah because of things like they mention or are fully about angels, which is blasphemy to Jews. When I read those books they seem to fit and dovetail perfectly with no major or minor departures from the rest of the Bible. Yet, they are not in our Bibles because they were excluded from Torah as heretical. Yet, the New Testament talks quite a bit about Angels and considers them almost unremarkable and a given, so it seems to me that revisiting some of the books that the Jews rejected is at the very least not a bad idea. They're all available online for free. I found "The Book of Noah", and "The Book of Enoch" both interesting and very thought provoking, especially how they dovetail with so much of the rest of the Old Testament. If you don't believe in angels, I can see why you would discard them. If you do, then they seem to fit right in.
Talking about "religion" as the cause for man's ills, is as silly (ignorant really) as blaming "government" for all man's ills, as if they were all the same thing, and there was no difference between any political ideas/ideologies or different forms of government. In the end it's the ideas that matter, so when one religion tells people to murder unbelievers, or that stealing is a godly act, and another to pray for your enemies; saying that the two are no different is false on its face, and makes you sound really dumb. Also, ascribing all man's proclivities and failings to religion, rather than our central problem (knowing right from wrong and still choosing wrong), also completely misses the mark and makes you sound ignorant like you are simply regurgitating the platitudes of someone with no depth of thought. All religions are an attempt to solve for man's failings through deeds and works by believing in a higher power...except for one. There's only one that says it's the very belief itself that offers a way out, and that actions don't earn you anything if they are not directly a result of that belief... THAT is pretty interesting when you compare and contrast the world's religions as a pure agnostic.
