Subscribe to our channel here ➡️ kzread.info/dron/edYGs_lqq1uNet0u7qlSyQ.html

There’s so much amazing literature and scripture from around the world: in Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Sikhi, etc about God. That’s what should be discussed imo. Cause I think Dr. Tureks answer still holds, but it’s so fascinating to cross-compare and have interfaith dialogue. When people are in the proper mindset for having such discussions in aim of learning more and treat them less like debates/competitions, (there’s always gonna be an element of that, but not the main point) that’s the kinda God talk I live for. That’s what changed me and opened my heart and mind personally.

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

God(s)

I view the Biblical cannon as being a book that contains some of the following requirements. - Contains God's words. - Pertains to God's words. - Is a direct result of God's words. The way I see it is that: "the Bible is a collection of books that give us insight into who God is and what plans he has for humanity". Most importantly, many of the books point us to Jesus (i.e. salvation from our sins). Books must be carefully be selected before being integrated into the Bible.

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

How do you know it's a god's word?

@ruminate773

7 ай бұрын

Many extra-biblical texts would fulfill all of these requirements.

Thank you

Thank You!

Yeah, the difference comes when extra-biblical books are quoted AS SCRIPTURE. Then, either the Bible you are reading from is incomplete, or wrong, when it quotes these other books as scripture.

@josephthomasmusic

9 ай бұрын

Extra biblical books quoted as scripture? What exactly do you mean by that?

@theeternalsbeliever1779

9 ай бұрын

The Bible never quotes extra biblical sources as authoritative scripture outside of Num. 21:14-15. Only 1 extra-biblical source is ever quoted(if the source material for the Kings and Chronicles don't count), and only 2 extra biblical sources are specifically mentioned by name.

@joestfrancois

9 ай бұрын

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 wrote "The Bible never quotes extra biblical sources as authoritative scripture outside of Num. 21:14-15. Only 1 extra-biblical source is ever quoted(if the source material for the Kings and Chronicles don't count), and only 2 extra biblical sources are specifically mentioned by name." A search for "Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible" immediately shows you to be incorrect. And for a book that is supposed to be perfect, one messes up the whole claim, and there are many.

@joestfrancois

9 ай бұрын

@@josephthomasmusic wrote "Extra biblical books quoted as scripture? What exactly do you mean by that?" "Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible" is more clear.

@josephthomasmusic

9 ай бұрын

@@joestfrancois 1) the Bible doesn't claim literal perfection in regards to its use of language. The Quran claims that. 2) how does it follow necessarily that the Bible is incomplete or wrong if it quotes other books? You do know there's a difference between quoting another book and then quoting it as if it were scripture, right?

This was such a great question!

GOOD RESPONSE

Amen and God bless

Really needed to see this, as I just ordered the extra-Biblical 54 book Apocrypha! “It could still be the word of God, God just uses other sources.” Nice!

@theeternalsbeliever1779

9 ай бұрын

That sounds good, but it's not true. The scriptures are divinely inspired texts. The extra biblical sources are not. That's why they are not quoted as being scripturally authoritative.

@georgiacap9294

9 ай бұрын

@@theeternalsbeliever17791 and 2 Maccabees are in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, two of the oldest Bibles. The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek called the Septuagint, from 250BC by Greek speaking Jews, for the Jewish diaspora living outside Palestine, who only spoke Greek after Alexander the Great spread Hellenism when he conquered the ancient world. 1 and 2 Maccabees are in the Septuagint therefore they are canonical.

Great video

@jd3jefferson556

9 ай бұрын

Didn't seem like he answered anything. Sounded like Martin Luther there, by saying the books that are Canon are up the conciounse of the individuals... soooo we can't agree on anything, not even on what infallible scripture is....

@garyg7549

9 ай бұрын

​@@jd3jefferson556or perhaps God had a role inputting together the Bible that we have today. God's sovereignty and Providence decided what was included or not. That's what I believe. Bible does say there would be a great falling away and it seems like many many are trying to destroy our faith in the bible. Incorrect books some added some taken out we don't have the word of God today and all of that talk. Fallen right in line with The ecumenical movement based in Rome.

@mattslater2603

9 ай бұрын

What? He didn't even answer the questions... How low are your standards?

Jude quoted directly from the Book of Enoch, and his writing treats The Book of Enoch as scripture and prophesy (inspired).

Thank you CE

@mattslater2603

9 ай бұрын

Rychtuoues!

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

9 ай бұрын

Yes of course you would thank someone for cherry picking the text and ignoring the rest. That's what keeps you in your bubble of lies. So let me ask you, did god murder anyone?

@gi169

9 ай бұрын

Oh no two bigots got me and one can't spell righteous... 😅😂🤣

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

9 ай бұрын

@@gi169 You clearly do not understand what a bigot is. Did god murder anyone according to the scripture?

@mattslater2603

9 ай бұрын

@@gi169 Uhhhh don't you remember your spelling of "richtous" Gil? Do you have brain damage?

The Bible is also a historical record of the authors and peoples lives recorded in it. Not everything someone said or did is a commandment from God or even recommended. Sometimes they're just being who they are which includes the good, the bad and the ugly of their lives.

@Gek1177

9 ай бұрын

Actually the Bible is a mythological history and a legendary biography sandwiched together. Nobody who studies history thinks of the Bible as a historical record.

@festushaggen2563

9 ай бұрын

​@@Gek1177Your opinion.

@Gek1177

9 ай бұрын

@@festushaggen2563 well, you don't need to trust me. Just google "historicity of the Bible" and see what the experts say.

@Bomtombadi1

9 ай бұрын

Kinda disagree with you there, Gek. There are certainly accounts from history which do coincide with the bible. There is historical value to it and you do get insights into the customs and culture of ancient Israelites. Apologists and literalists of course take this to mean the bible is therefore a full, accurate account of ancient history.

@indigofenrir7236

9 ай бұрын

​@@festushaggen2563Persistent as a cockroach, isn't he?

Remember the cannon was written and decided by humans. Perhaps another question one should ask is can their be falsehoods in the cannon?

If I understand from what Frank Turek says, he is limiting the Bible conferring “Biblical truthfulness” to other sources to the portion quoted in Scripture, not the entire source. However he also seems to confer truthfulness to “portions of the Apocrypha” which aren’t quoted in Scripture. The Apocrypha may largely be “true,” but that does not make it lInspired” (God-breathed).

To be honest, I don’t know anything about Biblical history or why councils choose to include certain things and exclude others. It doesn’t really matter to me. It is interesting but I think it distracts from the message of Jesus. And I think Paul writes about it in 2nd Thessalonians. “God will give them delusions”. People will fight and damn each other to prove they are the correct type of worshipers and believe it to their core that they are doing God’s will. I believe that breaks the 3rd Commandment. Don’t use God’s name to justify your sins. We argue about who is right when a council of men vote on the contents of the Bible. A council of MEN. This is why I’m glad that the Word of God isn’t a book whose contents can be voted on by men. I guess what I’m really saying is, “Remember Jesus. His words and teachings. His behavior and how He treated people. Remember that He took everyone’s punishments, willingly. Remember that it’s through Him alone that we receive grace, forgiveness and our place in heaven. Remember to love each other, even if you can’t agree on what the right type of Christian is because Jesus told everyone if they are willing to listen. Please consider these things before you tear each other to shreds in the comments.”

🤔

I just think that the author of the bible merely recognizes and tries to tell us that other cultures exist, other faiths exist. Their stories, their gods, their myths are mentioned in the bible. Just like how baal, asyteroth, beelzebub, etc are mentioned, but doesn't mean they are true gods, we don't have to follow those gods, we should not. It's just that their followers exist. I don't think that when the bible quoting story, or sentences, phrases, from other cultures/books mean that we have to follow other cultures/teachings. It's just that the bible author remember, or knows, or recognizes, that those things exist. That is all.

In other words, the Canon is what we know to be infallible but the others have certain truths and others not that we can’t fully trust as infallible.

@darkeen42

9 ай бұрын

But we know what Canon is is just playing false it says a lot of things that we know are not true. Please care about reality more than what you find comforting

@shadowspector3611

9 ай бұрын

@@darkeen42: When you say “Ken,” do you mean “Canon?” And also I care about reality a great deal. Even in my faith, I am constantly asking questions about everything including consistencies in the Bible, historical context, and who God actually is, and I strive to understand everything so I know what I’m doing rather than just following what I was told. I hope everyone does this no matter which faith they are in because if they strive to find truth, they will find it. That’s how they can know that they’re not just rolling a Skee-Ball and hoping it lands on the hole titled “Truth” and not among the other ones titled “Lies.” And lastly, I don’t find my faith to merely be “comforting.” There are plenty of things in the Bible in which somewhat trouble me such as the doctrine of predestination, the hatred I’ll feel from the world for my faith, as well as the Divine Judgment on those who don’t believe (from which we’re on the cusp of since everything happening on the news you can find in the Bible written 3,000 years in advance). But I still know that it’s all true and that God cares about me and He knows that with me seeking Him out, He will allow me to find Him.

@jakesplace62

9 ай бұрын

​@@darkeen42what in the 66 books of what Protestants call the Holy Scripture isn't true?

@darkeen42

9 ай бұрын

@@jakesplace62 lolol almost all of it. We know Adam and Eve weren't the first humans that's not how biology works we would just be equivalent amount of inbred flesh. We know the sky isn't a solid dome with water on the other side we know the great flood didn't happen there were civilizations recording history at the time that didn't notice. We know there was never a significant population of Jews in Egypt to flee and where they did flee to was just another part of the Egyptian empire. We know wrong never asked anybody to move to take part in the census that's the exact opposite of what a census is designed to do we know Rome didn't crucify thieves like your Bible says pretty much everything we can verify your Bible got wrong.

@somerandom3247

9 ай бұрын

​@@jakesplace62 Genesis, Adam and eve, the garden of Eden, Noah's flood, the talking donkey, the talking bush, the dragons, necromancers, witches, giants, tower of Babel, exodus, all the miracles, the resurrection, almost all of it really.

Scripture was not written in a vacuum, because the people and their behavior in history did not exist in a vacuum. Over time, the Lord guided which ones were to be included in the compilation we call the Bible.

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

Is that why numerous books are known frauds, such as 2 Timothy and 2 Peter?

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

@@Moist._Robot Bold claim. Sources?

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

@@stephenkeen6044 Your own Sean McDowell. Can you tell me what source you will accept other than your own biased Christian sources?

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

@@Moist._Robot 🤣 I seriously doubt that Sean McDowell has either claimed or demonstrated that 2 Timothy and 2 Peter are "frauds"... The authors may not be well-attested, but that doesn't make them fraudulent. I will accept all evidence, regardless of source and attach varying levels of skepticism according to their known biases. So... show me what you got.

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

@@stephenkeen6044 Paulogia cites Sean McDowell’s book of him admitting this in his video, “Did disciples die saying Jesus rose?” (PS. No they didn’t)

Sounds like more knit picky stuff over the cannon. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS and shalt believe in thy heart that GOD raised him from the dead thou shalt be Saved 🙌 for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Repent and give your life to YESHUA

@gi169

9 ай бұрын

Amen.

@larzman651

9 ай бұрын

@@gi169 good afternoon brother , I hope you're having a wonderful day in CHRIST JESUS 🙌

@gi169

9 ай бұрын

@@larzman651 Thank you Brother God Bless.

@mattslater2603

9 ай бұрын

Are you implying that the details don't actually matter?

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

9 ай бұрын

​@@larzman651 How can you give your life to a nonentity? You could think you could give your life to the idea, but can you actually give your life to something that's never been shown to exist?

The majority of Christians do not know it but the verse of John 1:1 (as well as certain verses of Matthew) is taken from the books of Philo Alexandria (Philo of Alexandria) Who is Philo Alexandria? Wiki wrote: Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς Philôn o Alexandreus, Hebrew: ידידיה הכהן Yedidia Hacohen) is a Hellenized Jewish philosopher, contemporary with the beginnings of the Christian era (Alexandria, around -20 - around 45). His abundant work is mainly apologetic, intending to demonstrate the perfect match between the Jewish faith and Hellenic philosophy. It will have little influence on Judaism but will be a fruitful source of inspiration for the Fathers of the Church. Eusebius of Caesarea also quotes him in his Ecclesiastical History when he describes the life of the Therapists of Alexandria. The word made from the pulpit "Now the image of God is the Word, by which everyone was made." Philo, Special Laws I This excerpt does not speak of Jesus, Philo did not know any Jesus, moreover, Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the books of Philo. The ancient Christians plagiarized the writings of Philo (as well as Josephus) and attributed them to Jesus and his followers. Where do they get their ideas from? It's simple, they pull them from here: ""And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word , the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel." - Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues," Because John's gospel is a gospel that was created especially to silence the Gnostics. Philo explained in his books that "The word" was that of God from the burning bush speaking to Moses. And it's clear that reading this: "Now the image of God is the Word, by which all people were made." Philo, Special Laws I We quickly realize the plagiarism. The gospel takes up the words of a philosopher who never knew Jesus and attributed his words to John. Philo is the only philosopher who spoke of the Logos. And no, it is not a universal truth that philosophers have had an intuition of. The most Logical and Rational explanation is that the ancient Christians took over the texts of philosophy to write this verse of John as well as certain verses of Matthew Same for the book of acts which takes up the writings of the books of Flavius Josephus.

@rubber2023

9 ай бұрын

seriously? ONE takeaway proves that 'Christianity is unoriginal!!1!'?? If i say that the car is blue, and you say that the car is blue, and in reality the car is indeed blue, is either of us wrong? John and Philo are repeating the truth. who came first, philo or John, and how would you know who came 1st?? You have yet to prove plagirism. The most Logical and Rational explanation is that the Bible is still inspired, despite man's countless failed attempts to prove otherwise.

@thejackofspadesYT

9 ай бұрын

You have a very interesting view of plagiarism. The Old Testament prophets never knew the name of Jesus but spoke truths of Him. Jesus pointed to these prophecies as proof that He was the Son of God. Philo saying "Now the image of God is the Word, by which all people were made" and John then saying "Jesus is that word and the world was made through Him" Is not plagiarism but a repetition of truth. The Book of Acts covers the life and travels of Paul. Josephues never mentioned Paul in any of his writings. And since there is historical facts that are mentioned in the Book of Acts and other parts of the NT that line up with Josephus writings, maybe it's because it's known historical fact because the writers lived through that portion of history and not that Luke (the writer of Acts) was copying Josephus. That's like me explaining how Covid started because I lived through it and then you claiming that I'm copying a history book written 30 years after Covid happened.

@imraneamoura1027

9 ай бұрын

@@rubber2023 The Bible is always inspired !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A so-called sacred and inspired book cannot contain tons of absurdities, contradictions and errors of all kinds proven by great Christian scholars of great world renown. A small example among several: Your faith, Christian, is based on what is written in your bible that you believe is inspired and preserved. So, for you, the Bible is trustworthy. Jesus said to you, “Search the scriptures, for you think you have eternal life in them, and they are the ones that bear record of me. (John 5:39). And if I tell you that your Bible is not really trustworthy and I will give you an example or two: How old was Ahaziah when he became king? 22 or 42? Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother was called Athaliah, daughter of Omri, king of Israel:” [2 Kings 8:26] Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother was called Athalie, daughter of Omri. [2 Chronicles 22:2] Another implausibility emerges from reading the two preceding verses [2 Chronicles 22:2]: “20 He [Joram, father of Ahaziah] was thirty and two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. He went away without being regretted, and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of kings. 1 The inhabitants of Jerusalem caused Ahaziah his youngest son to reign in his place; for the troops that had come to the camp with the Arabs had killed all the older ones. Thus reigned Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, king of Judah. 2 Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother was called Athalie, daughter of Omri. [2 Chronicles 21:20-22:2] Joram was 32 years old when he became king, he reigned 8 years and died, so he died at the age of 40. But two verses later, we read that his son Ahaziah succeeded him the same year, he was 42 years old. A son can be older than his father by two years?! some Bibles allow themselves to correct this contradiction, while other Bibles remain faithful to the text. Gentlemen translators, by what right do you take the liberty of correcting the “Word of God”? Many Bible publishers have begun to correct this blatant error!!!!!! But Christians, who gave you the authority to play with God's words by changing his words!!!?

@mattslater2603

9 ай бұрын

​@@rubber2023None of you can prove a God exists. So the silly supernatural claims of Christianity are worthless. Right?

@imraneamoura1027

9 ай бұрын

​@@thejackofspadesYT Why did you limit the son of god to Jesus only!!!? God according to the Bible had many sons... Israel is the firstborn. (Exodus 4:22) David is the firstborn. (Psalms 89:27-28) Ephraim is the firstborn. (Jeremiah 31:9) Jesus is the firstborn. (Colossians 1:15) Which is the true firstborn, Israel, David, Ephraim or Jesus!!!? Jesus had several brothers from the same father like Adam his son (Luke 3:38) like David his son (Psalms 2: 7), like Solomon his son (1Chronicles 17-13: 14), like Israel his son (Exodus 4:22), like Ephraim his son (Jeremiah 31: 9), like the peacemakers, his sons (Matthew 5: 9), like the children of Israel, his sons (Job 1: 6), like all believers (John 1:12) ... Israel, "You shall say to Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. »Exodus 4:22 David, "He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me. "2 Samuel 7: 13-14 and" He (David) will call on me, saying: you are my father! My God is the rock of my salvation! And I will make him the firstborn. Psalms, 89: 27-28 Solomon, “He (Solomon) shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to me. " 2 Samuel 7: 13-14 Ephraim, “They come weeping, and I lead them in the midst of their supplications; I lead them to torrents of water, By a level path where they do not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn. Jeremiah 31: 9 So Jesus was not the only begotten son or the only firstborn of God but there were others.

If God quotes other sources does that make the book itself viable like Jude using a verse and mentioning the book of Enoch

@theeternalsbeliever1779

9 ай бұрын

Jude does not mention the book of Enoch. The "Enoch" Jude talks about is NOT the Enoch in Genesis. Look in the genealogy. This "Enoch" is NOT the seventh from the physical Adam. Matter of fact, Jude 14 isn't even about the physical Adam. The "Adam" here is Christ. This passage is about a prophetic work that was supposed to be carried out 7 church eras removed from Christ.

@texanmartialarts

9 ай бұрын

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:8.

@Mavors1099

9 ай бұрын

God didn't quote anything.

@texanmartialarts

9 ай бұрын

@@Mavors1099 I was asking the author of the video. He did say God quotes other sources, plus I also believe the Bible is the word of God whom he uses the Holy Spirit to author the books in the Bible.

Why does time matter when it comes to believing in God (since some say “…but it’s 2023”)?

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

Beliefs in gods should have ended a long time ago as educational systems improved, guess there will always be delusional people

@EdwardRomanOficial

9 ай бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 Why are we still here though? From your perspective.

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

@@EdwardRomanOficial quest to find a theist that can support their claims of god(s) What's wrong with investigating, asking questions, being skeptical??

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

@@EdwardRomanOficial oh I read that wrong... Why are we still here? What do you mean?

@EdwardRomanOficial

9 ай бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 Yes, I meant Christians, believers.

1:54 They don’t quote from every book in the Protestant Old Testament.

"Can We Trust the Bible If It Quotes Extra-Biblical Texts?" That can be shortened to "Can We Trust the Bible ?" Can we? Here is some of what Jesus says in the Bible: For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. (Matthew 17:20) And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. “And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.” (Matthew 21:21-22 ) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 ) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 ) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14) If these passages are true, why haven't Christians eliminated disease, hunger, murder, and rape by praying it away? Is the problem no Christian has as much faith as a mustard seed? Or is the problem no Christian ever thought about praying these things away?

@mattr.1887

9 ай бұрын

"It's all true! See, it says so...right here!" This is phone-scammer logic.

@446redred

9 ай бұрын

You forgot about man's free will

@cnault3244

9 ай бұрын

@@446redred Are you saying if you saw someone being robbed or assaulted you would do nothing to help because of the mugger or rapist's free will?

@bikesrcool_1958

9 ай бұрын

@@cnault3244Are you saying your completely ignoring the final judgement which God uses to tell Christian’s to be patient? The Bible says let the Evil wicked people be wicked and let the good people be good, because if the wicked people are ignorant enough to stay evil they are going to get payed back in full

@bikesrcool_1958

9 ай бұрын

Also you have forgotten that the Bible already shows the plan for the end of evil according to Gods will

Answering the question before seeing the video I would say yes, but it's just not God's truth. After the video I would ask "What's your point?".

The catholic canon is older then the Jewish canon.

You are incorrect. 1st and 2nd Maccabees is in the Septuagint, the Hebrew Scriptures which were translated into Greek by Greek speaking JEWS around 250 BC. They are in the Catholic and Orthodox Bible which date pre-Protestant 66 books Bible.

How can you trust the Bible when the text has been rewritten and translated across every human language? Basic information in the Bible, such as a description of sins differs between published versions. In some cases it refers to "killing" and in others "murder" which are different.

@Spriktor

9 ай бұрын

simple, go back to the original and you see murder, which is a unique case of killing- intensional and planned. Anybody thats biligual can translate just fine. The bible has small changes yes but the core message remains the same nor does it have any significant edits. Murder-killing is a great example tho. Regardless comitting a sin doesnt automaticly mean you'll be sent to hell, nor does it mean we are automaticly forgiven and should just commit sins because it doesnt matter.

@latoyafleming2930

9 ай бұрын

The same way that we are able to trust recipes written and translated from other languages. People are able to learn and understand language. Not everyone is learning by a book but by experience. An example would be someone who grew up speaking two languages. They know what is being said on both sides and can reiterate the message. We trust books on science, mathematics and history and all of these subjects plus many more have been translated to give the same message to allow one to understand the point they are trying to make. Not saying I’m a christian or atheist.

@ronniejamesstepford

9 ай бұрын

@@Spriktor How do you find the original version? Seems to me that 2000 years of translations is going to introduce a lot of edits (both intentional and unintentional). The printing press wasn't developed until the 1440s, so all version prior to that were completely hand copied which is a very tedious and error-prone process.

@ronniejamesstepford

9 ай бұрын

@@latoyafleming2930 Seems like the Bible is more than simply a recipe or science book. Recipes can be tested to see if they taste good. Science can be tested to see if it makes sense. But the Bible? All those parables and commandments that are supposed to be the word of god can't be tested. So you have to rely on the fallibility of people making the edits and translations. Small errors in translation can become big errors over time.

@latoyafleming2930

9 ай бұрын

@@ronniejamesstepford that is definitely true. Though the message is what has been preserved. We are able to say the same thing in many ways. Whether it’s a message of commandments or not wasn’t the point of your initial question. The question was “how can we trust the Bible” being that is has been translated many times. It is best to look into all of this for yourself. If it is true that the Bible is the true word of God then it should be explored for understanding and correction of ourselves and for the safety of all creation.

The book of Enoch is an interesting read.

@zolptjs

9 ай бұрын

Can't apply textual criticism to the translation in circulation since the Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts are not published. This means the Enoch we have today might not be the same as the Enoch they were familiar with in the 1st century. Only small fragments can be verified unless the majority manuscripts are published.

@Hydroverse

9 ай бұрын

@@zolptjs Yeah, I know. I honestly do wonder what Enoch had to say though.

@garyg7549

9 ай бұрын

​@@Hydroverse you'll have to wait until Heaven because the Book of Enoch wasn't written by the Enoch you're referring to.

@TDRR_Gamez

9 ай бұрын

​@@zolptjsThe next best thing is the Greek Book of the Watchers. Sadly even that seems to have some deviations of it's own compared to the Ethiopic text, but supposedly less so. It would be great if some day we did get the text in it's original language.

So basically Enoch etc are accurate/factual (or at least have lots of truth in them), but they aren't God-breathed, and that's why we don't have them in Protestant Bibles?

@Imphx

9 ай бұрын

Humans decided what books of the bible they would include. I don't think they could discern what is godbreathed and what not. I think the other books like enoch simply have too much truth about the dark side in it and that's why they excluded it. Just my thought though

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

@@Imphx Texts are evaluated against other texts when deciding inclusion, scripture interprets scripture and confirms it. Enoch is not included because parts of it contradict known scripture, simple as that. On top of that, we have the Spirit who inspired it in the first place, to confirm the truth in us.

@Mavors1099

9 ай бұрын

​@@stephenkeen6044 Many books that were included contradict other books of the Bible..

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

@@Mavors1099 _"Many books that were included contradict other books of the Bible.."_ Not that contradict fundamental teachings present in other scripture, like you find in Enoch. Interested in what you consider "contradictions", though. So please, describe those present and perhaps I can help correct you on them.

Jesus is The Word of God

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

Wouldn't that be the name of your god?

@JohnCephas

9 ай бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 The Word of God is the name of Jesus. He is my God, yes. Many refer to scripture as such, however, this seems to be highly inappropriate, even by the words of the scriptures. The bible is books about The Word of God. The bible itself is not Him. It is about Him. Frank Turek was perhaps raised in churchianity and thus falls victim to its folly.

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

@@JohnCephas how do you know it's the word of god? Just because it says so? Don't you think that's weak logic?

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

@@JohnCephas good morning btw

@JohnCephas

9 ай бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 It appears that you didn't understand my comment. Perhaps try re-reading it?

The Bible is Godbreathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2Tim 3:16) Doctrine = fundamental teachings of God Reproof = harsh criticism for wrong behavior Correction = clarification for mistaken beliefs Instruction = rules to live by and operate as a Christian The reason 2 Maccabees, Catholics' favorite book, isn't part of Scripture is because it promotes salvific works, a doctrine contrary to Scriptural sola fide and sola gratia. And for those who don't believe in either, look at the following logical explanation (and please use a dry brain, not a washed one): If by grace, then it is no longer of works (Romans 11:6) By grace you have been saved (Ephesians 2:8) Therefore, salvation is no longer of works. And if salvation is not of works, then salvation is by grace alone and through faith alone. Checkmate.

@imraneamoura1027

9 ай бұрын

The majority of Christians do not know it but the verse of John 1:1 (as well as certain verses of Matthew) is taken from the books of Philo Alexandria (Philo of Alexandria) Who is Philo Alexandria? Wiki wrote: Philo of Alexandria (Greek: Φίλων ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς Philôn o Alexandreus, Hebrew: ידידיה הכהן Yedidia Hacohen) is a Hellenized Jewish philosopher, contemporary with the beginnings of the Christian era (Alexandria, around -20 - around 45). His abundant work is mainly apologetic, intending to demonstrate the perfect match between the Jewish faith and Hellenic philosophy. It will have little influence on Judaism but will be a fruitful source of inspiration for the Fathers of the Church. Eusebius of Caesarea also quotes him in his Ecclesiastical History when he describes the life of the Therapists of Alexandria. The word made from the pulpit "Now the image of God is the Word, by which everyone was made." Philo, Special Laws I This excerpt does not speak of Jesus, Philo did not know any Jesus, moreover, Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the books of Philo. The ancient Christians plagiarized the writings of Philo (as well as Josephus) and attributed them to Jesus and his followers. Where do they get their ideas from? It's simple, they pull them from here: ""And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labor earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word , the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel." - Philo, "On the Confusion of Tongues," Because John's gospel is a gospel that was created especially to silence the Gnostics. Philo explained in his books that "The word" was that of God from the burning bush speaking to Moses. And it's clear that reading this: "Now the image of God is the Word, by which all people were made." Philo, Special Laws I We quickly realize the plagiarism. The gospel takes up the words of a philosopher who never knew Jesus and attributed his words to John. Philo is the only philosopher who spoke of the Logos. And no, it is not a universal truth that philosophers have had an intuition of. The most Logical and Rational explanation is that the ancient Christians took over the texts of philosophy to write this verse of John as well as certain verses of Matthew Same for the book of acts which takes up the writings of the books of Flavius Josephus.

@indigofenrir7236

9 ай бұрын

@@imraneamoura1027 Even if what you said is true, that doesn't disprove anything. John either had the revelation from God resemble Philo, or the Holy Spirit quoted Philo to describe Jesus because that's what He's going for here. It's this little thing called a REFERENCE, and Star Wars fans do that all the time. So if in my autobiography, I wrote, "My math teacher asked calmly," does that mean J.K. Rowling who has never met me wrote my biography? Does that mean because I referenced her I technically did not exist and everything I wrote about myself was a lie? Gotta use this 🧠 buddy. If you have a problem with Christianity, you should prove all sources are plagiarized, not just one. Edit: Acts was written before Paul's execution and fall of Jerusalem given Luke didn't write about them. When Josephus was born, I doubt Paul's head was still connected to his body.

@mattr.1887

9 ай бұрын

Does Jesus save you? Or does your faith in Jesus save you?

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

@@mattr.1887 Jesus saves you by His grace through your confirmed faith. What I mean by "confirmed faith" is that your faith is shown true by your works, the first of which is the confession of it (Romans 10). Faith precedes works, works confirm faith, God does all the saving. The choice of faith is an act of submission and acceptance, a "giving up", not a work.

@rubber2023

9 ай бұрын

Faith results in works.

Frank Turek is factually wrong on the Deuterocannon. Jews didn’t have a 66 book canon. Some had that canon and some didn’t. For example the Essenes believed the Deuterocannonical books were scripture.

@bman5257

9 ай бұрын

Also, the deuterocanonical books were contained in the Septuagint, which the NT authors cite from more than the Hebrew rescensions.

Satan seeks to discredit the Book of Mormon by getting people to reject it on the grounds that all truth is contained in the Bible alone. ‘A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible,’ brings forth this severe rebuke from the Lord: ‘Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. … Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?’

@wshurricanes

9 ай бұрын

Or it’s a false gospel and was inspired by Satan. The Book of Mormon preaches works based salvation versus you are not saved by grace. 2 Nephi 25:23. Romans tells us we are saved by grace, otherwise it is owed to us. Romans 11:6

@dawjack480

9 ай бұрын

@@wshurricanes Through the Holy Spirit we can know the truth about everything. This is why I know that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the words of God. Do you think God has been silent for 2000 years? You didn't understand the book passage, read it again!

@wshurricanes

9 ай бұрын

@@dawjack480 The Bible is complete. It was complete with the apostles. If it weren’t we would have a mention of another prophet coming like Joseph Smith. Where are we for told of another prophet that would add to the Bible? And might I also say not just add but contradict the actual gospel? Let’s just take some quick mormon doctrinal teachings: I’ll use KJV since you’re most familiar with it. 1.) LDS church states Jesus is a created being, which contradicts, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” ‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭5‬ ‭KJV‬‬ 2.) salvation is by grace. I’ve already mentioned Nephi and how it states we must work to get salvation. Well that contradicts: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” ‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬-‭9‬ ‭KJV‬‬ 3.) Mediator, Jesus is our mediator contrary to the idea that the LDS church is the mediator “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” ‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭5‬-‭7‬ ‭KJV‬‬ 4.) reading the Book of Mormon and then asking Elohim about the truth and then being gifted/feeling the holy spirit is contradictory to: “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭17‬:‭10‬-‭11‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭KJV‬‬ How can we trust our feelings if: “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he shall direct thy paths.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬-‭6‬ ‭KJV‬‬ “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.” ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭17‬:‭9‬-‭10‬ ‭KJV‬‬ If we can’t trust our own feelings we can’t trust an emotional feeling of joy. Read the Book of Acts and when believers have the Holy Spirt it’s not an emotional feeling. I know this was a long reply but I’d encourage you to read the Bible and realize the issues LDS teachings have versus the Bible. This doesn’t even get into the nature of God and how he achieved godhood as well as Jesus and Lucifer being related. I’d just encourage you to search the Scriptures like the Berean’s and find the truth and you will see that the Mormon teachings are contradictory to scripture and must therefore be false.

@dawjack480

9 ай бұрын

@@wshurricanes LOST SCRIPTURES There are many sacred writings mentioned in the scriptures that we do not have today, among which are these books and writers: the covenant (Ex. 24:7), the wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41), Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29), Nathan the prophet (2 Chr. 9:29), Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chr. 12:15), Iddo the prophet (2 Chr. 13:22), Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34), the sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19), Enoch (Jude 1:14) and epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), from Laodicea (Col. 4:16), and from Jude (Jude 1:3). Isaiah foretold the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, Isa. 29:11-14. Take thee one stick, and write upon it, for Judah, Ezek. 37:15-20.

@wshurricanes

9 ай бұрын

@@dawjack480 none of those are “lost” books. To state they are lost parts of scripture we’d have to first “definitively know” they were in the Bible in the first place. Do you have proof they were in the Hebrew Bible at any point? Of course not… or do you just think because the Bible references a not scriptural book that book must also be scripture? You are aware there are basic truths outside of the Bible correct? Second, you’re aware that Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 and quotes again from poets Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17:28? Does that mean because he quotes from secular sources therefor all of their writings are scripture? Of course not, it would be foolish to suggest so. Ah yes, Isaiah 29:11 if only you were Muslim rather than Mormon you’d be trying to say that it’s talking about Muhammad. Do you know and understand the history thats going on in Isaiah 29? The Assyrian judgement would soon come upon Jerusalem, capital of Judah as mentioned. Did you actually read the passage? It’s a judgement upon Israel for them “worshipping” God with their lips but their hearts being away from Him. Isaiah states that the vision has come to them like someone who can’t read? And even those who can read will say I can’t read because there has become a spirit of blindness upon the nation. This is God judging the nation that because of their hearts they will not be able to know the vision and will be judged. Jesus quotes this against the Pharisees. Mathew 15: 1-9 As for Ezekiel 37:15-20 that’s comical you’d even make that assumption. Did you even bother to read the rest of the passage? The two sticks do not refer to Joseph Smith, or to the Book of Mormon or any other LDS text. The two sticks clearly refer to Judah and the nation of Israel. All you have to do is finish reading the passage… it’s clearly explained in the next 3 verses… “And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.” ‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭37‬:‭21‬-‭23‬ ‭KJV‬‬

So how come Martin Luther quoted from the "apochrypha" and didn't even throw out all of the Deuterocanonical books? He didn't throw out Maccabbees and the other Deuterocanonical books until he lost a debate on purgatory in 1520. Idk man, going to the primary sources in the early Church or to the reformers... the Church Jesus started is Catholic and is led by the Holy Spirit. Our little mustard seed of faith has grown into a beautiful tree stetching up to heaven. Lets all take refuge in her branches. How come for almost 1500 years we had the same Old Testament, until random Protestants took them out in order to separate themselves from Catholics🤔 I've been Christian for 4 years now, and it seems to me that there is One God anf One Church and the Church here on earth is the same as the Church in heaven.

@Spriktor

9 ай бұрын

we are all the body of Christ, idk whats with this generalising of other denominations tho its very silly to infight. If anything the catholic church is sketchy with the pope as high priest- while Jesus is the perfect high priest we dont need another. The whole relic situation is very questionable as well. regardless the books we are missing are sad yes but its not as if we miss any commandsments or the words from Jesus himself

@jd3jefferson556

9 ай бұрын

@Spriktor ok the Pope is not the high priest, please don't straw man your arguments against the Church. Christ is the High Priest and He is Who performs the Sacraments threw His priests whom have there authority threw Apostolic succession. The Pope is only the visible head of the Church until Christ returns. We are called as Christians to be united and the Pope is to unify us under the infallible doctrine of the 2000 year old Catholic Magisterium which preserves and serves scripture. It's really quite beautiful. I just know that the Church in heaven and the Church here on earth are one in the same. Also Christianity without Sacraments is totally foreign to Christianity and is very novel. If books inspired by the Holy Spirit and Christians referenced for 1500 years before are suffenly removed then of course your missing out on God's word. Martin Luther threw out the Deuterocanonical (but not the entire Deuterocanonical) because he hated the idea of purgatory, and this is clearly referenced in Maccabbees. So ya you're missing out. We're so lucky to be Christian! We have a family of saints praying for us, and we have a visible Church that God gave to us. How blessed we truly are. Anyway no one has ever converted anyone in a comment section so God bless! I find protestantism to be incoherent. All the denominations that disagree on basic fundamentals is nonsensical given that we follow the Man that is Truth Himself

@garyg7549

9 ай бұрын

You have to look at what the Roman Catholics teach and what does the bible teach. They are different.

@garyg7549

9 ай бұрын

​@@Spriktor there's many who claim to be Christians but are not. They are adhering to a Works based salvation such as the Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses and mormons. That is not biblical salvation.

@garyg7549

9 ай бұрын

​@@jd3jefferson556 Roman Catholics don't follow Christ they follow the church. It is a horizontal Earthly religion rather than vertical relationship with God himself. That's the major difference. Roman Catholics follow sacraments, I follow God. Jesus Paid or YOU will, end of story.

Manda este poema de amor a todos. The world is at war and i am going to say something that would not let you sleep at night until you understand. To understand you have to read til the end or until you understand. Are you ready? To end all the wars in the world and atheism and religion the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Did you understand? I am talking about knowledge that should not be censored in the first place. The greatest knowledge of all time that saves most lives is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. What are humanity waiting for? When the most severe and devastating censorship in history would end? What is news? I am tired and I need to rest eternally in peace knowing future generations know the atheist logical fallacy. I hope for God's sake to be understood.

Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?

@Spriktor

9 ай бұрын

the man who doesn't see himself as God but follows the creator after seeing creation. There's still a difference between literalists and other christians. Jesus mostly speaks in parables for example so not the entire bible is literal events. But the flood did really happen, to give some more insight.

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

@@Spriktor Thanks for your input but you didn’t answer my question.

@gi169

9 ай бұрын

@@Spriktor Amen.

@larzman651

9 ай бұрын

You asked a random what if question as if it was intelligent 🤣. Then you expected an answer

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

@@larzman651 No I didn’t. I asked who is more humble. And the answer was irrelevant.

Do they have truths in them? Maybe. Same as the Bible... may have some truths, but the Bible as a whole is a big, grim fairytale.

God could just appear and settle all of this. We wouldn't even necessarily need a Bible or a centuries-long debate over what is and is not God's word.

@Spriktor

9 ай бұрын

we got Jesus' words accurately depicted so that's plenty. The rest of the bible is sound as well, with only the new testament applying to us who are under the new covenant. The other books weren't included for political reasons, but missing them is not a huge loss, and its not like they were all just deleted as a whole we can still read them. Its just that they dont add anything very meaningful as in we do not miss any other commandments from God. Some of it is very cool tho

@latoyafleming2930

9 ай бұрын

You think that people could survive in the presence of an all powerful, all knowing, completely sinless being? It would be like standing next to the sun. It aged Moses just to see the back of God. No one can see Him and live. That is a Biblical truth. Also, He came once and people did not receive Him. He worked miracles and for the benefit of others and still He was rejected. Why would He come and do what He has already done in the past again? Unless it be to clear everything up through creating a new world where sin is gone and people can love Him wholeheartedly, and love others as they love themselves. He will return with the power of destruction and rebirth.

@Theo_Skeptomai

9 ай бұрын

You mean IF this 'God' were a reality.

@Theo_Skeptomai

9 ай бұрын

​@Spriktor How have you determined this Jesus was a actual historical figure?

@latoyafleming2930

9 ай бұрын

@@Theo_Skeptomai look into historical scholars and the events that were written about during that time period and you’ll have your answer. It’s no different than knowing that Benjamin Franklin existed. Someone wrote about that person. The same is for Jesus.

Let's keep this simple. I am not aware of ANY evidentiary facts that substantiates the truth of ANY claim asserted in the bible.

I guess the Bible "could still be the word of God" if it quoted from other sources, but one thing we know for sure is that texts made by normal humans like to quote from other sources. If you accept that it was humans who wrote the Bible, and humans who decided which books should be in the Bible, then why would you elevate the words that are in the Bible to a level above that of humans? That seems irrational to me.

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

Agreed

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

Without the existence of God and His interaction with people, I would agree. So, if you don't believe in God, you have no obligation to consider it as anything more than that. The reasons that Christians do, though, is through their interaction with the living God and His Spirit. That's how we know it's more and why we claim it to be more. If you read it, you will find it profound, even evaulated as a purely human text. It self-references more than any other collection of works, is more consistent and tells a complete narrative of the interaction of God and man, from the beginning of the universe to the end and describes effective ways to live and interact with each other. So it has value, even apart from it's religious significance. See Jordan Peterson's series on it to get more perspective.

@logicalatheist1065

9 ай бұрын

@@stephenkeen6044 a god has yet to be demonstrated to exist, the fact there's over 3000 god claims only shows they're man made characters...

@stephenkeen6044

9 ай бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 _"a god has yet to be demonstrated to exist, the fact there's over 3000 god claims only shows they're man made characters..."_ A couple flaws in your argument: 1. A god has not been demonstrated to exist TO YOU. Doesn't rule out the possibility of a god existing in any way. 2. Even if you are able to demonstrate completely the non-existence of all 3000 of those (or that every single one is a man-made character), it STILL doesn't rule out the possibility of a god existing. 3. God has been demonstrated to exist to ME. So my claim and that of millions of others is a point of evidence towards the possibility of a god existing. None of which changes the validity of my prior comment.

@hansdemos6510

9 ай бұрын

​@@stephenkeen6044 Hi Stephen! I hope you have been well. You said: _" Without the existence of God and His interaction with people, I would agree."_ Do you have evidence of the existence and interactions of God? You said: _"So, if you don't believe in God, you have no obligation to consider it as anything more than that."_ I would say that belief in a deity does not release you from your duty of due diligence towards that deity. Belief in God does not mean you have the obligation to throw reason by the wayside. Even though you don't feel you can help what you believe or what you don't believe, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't examine your beliefs critically. You said: _"The reasons that Christians do, though, is through their interaction with the living God and His Spirit. That's how we know it's more and why we claim it to be more."_ Again; do you have any evidence that such interactions are real and exist in any form other than an extended internal monologue? You said: _"If you read it, you will find it profound, even evaulated as a purely human text."_ There are some powerful stories and some poetic passages in the Bible, sure, but there is a lot of dross as well. On the whole, I don't think it is a fascinating document that shows its human origin both in its triumphs and in its flaws. You said: _"It self-references more than any other collection of works,..."_ I don't know if that is true, and I don't know if that is a good thing. What I do know is that it is good evidence of the way in which we know the various books of the Bible were written; not all at the same time, but at different times, by various human authors who were writing within a specific cultural tradition and who had knowledge of what had been written in that tradition before. You said: _" ... is more consistent ..."_ I think Muslims will want to challenge that. Again though, the consistency is of a certain kind; the kind you get when human editors are involved at different stages of compilation. Moreover, the fact that inconsistencies remain is much more indicative of these texts not having a divine origin, and the way some of these inconsistencies develop historically, like God first being a clearly tribal deity only looking out for "his people" and then developing into a deity for all humanity, are also indicative of human origins rather than anything supernatural. You said: _" ...and tells a complete narrative of the interaction of God and man, from the beginning of the universe to the end..."_ Well, the Hebrew Bible didn't, and if Revelation hadn't made it into the canon at the last possible moment in the 4th century because it was reinterpreted as not being primarily against the pagan Romans but against Christian heretics (Arians in particular, if I remember correctly), that colorful, mushroom induced fever dream could not have served as the bookend to this argument. Which just goes to show that this too goes back on the works of man, not on the works of God. You said: _" ... and describes effective ways to live and interact with each other."_ As do so many other human authored books. The Bible also contains a bit too much bad advice to take it into consideration as the only light to guide us. You said: _"So it has value, even apart from it's religious significance."_ No doubt it does. Human value, not divine. You said: _"See Jordan Peterson's series on it to get more perspective."_ I have seen several of his talks, but I fail to see why he is so popular nowadays. He seems to acknowledge that religion is not true, but then seems to ascribe to it such a profound psychological power that it might as well be true, and that it would be better for human beings to pretend it's true even if it really isn't. Very confusing.

Watch the cherry picking begin.

@gi169

9 ай бұрын

We're also watching your bigotry.

@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD

9 ай бұрын

@@gi169 How is pointing out that religious people Cherry pick the biblical texts make me a bigot? I don't have a problem with religious people and their beliefs, be honest and we can move forward, but lie and I will show where you lie. That's not having a problem with Christianity it's having a problem with liars.

@gi169

9 ай бұрын

​@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARDwhere do you see religious people bigot. Come on Sykes, get some new non bigoted material.

Honestly, the non-Canonical books were mostly left out for political reasons. The fact that some Canon references things that aren't Canon just goes to show how arbitrarily ancient priests selected what was "God's word".

@hunterhestekin7420

9 ай бұрын

Council of nicea was a collection of the best scholars of their time. They all collectively agreed on these books and it's more than enough information to show that God was on earth with us. No need for other books. If the Bible was ten times or a hundred times bigger it still wouldn't matter to people who don't care about God. God purposefully hides Himself. Jeremiah 29 13 says to seek God and we will find Him. James 4 8 says that if we draw near to God, He will draw near to us Matthew 16 16-17 says that flesh and blood did not reveal God to Simon, but that The Father in heaven did. If you are having trouble with finding God, sincerely pray to Him for a reach of faith that is undeniable!

@jd3jefferson556

9 ай бұрын

Wow. Some faith you have there. Yes, the Catholic Church threw the power of the Holy Spirit. Put the Bible together for you. They threw out anything that was heretical

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

@@jd3jefferson556 No. They chose which books to put in it according to what they wanted gullible believers like YOU to believe.

@hunterhestekin7420

9 ай бұрын

@@Moist._Robot Dead sea scrolls were written between 300bc - 100ad and they match up almost perfectly with our Kings James Version Bible today. We have tens of thousands of different manuscripts written in different languages all throughout time to compare with. People died horribly and lived persecuted lives for what they believed. They had nothing to gain.

@Moist._Robot

9 ай бұрын

@@hunterhestekin7420 So what? Aren’t they the Old Testament writings anyway? Thy wasn’t even included in the first bible.

The book of Enoch is a Jewish fable, not inspired and a lot of errors, sad so many people believe it.

@theeternalsbeliever1779

9 ай бұрын

Ppl desperately want to know hidden things, but they don't even possess a firm grasp on the basics. That's why they are so deceived by non-biblical fables like the Enoch book and the counterfeit Jasher book. The content sounds fascinating, but they're still unbiblical fables.

@Mavors1099

9 ай бұрын

Most of the old testament is Jewish fables.

I wonder if he believes his own message. For one thing, he twists the man's question at the end - the question doesn't deal as much with whether or not the Bible is the word of God (it definitely is), the question in my mind is more that if Biblical people, including Jesus himself, quote from ancient non-Biblical scripture, how then is the Bible the ONLY word of God? In other places (not this video), Frank is critical of the Book of Mormon; how does that mesh with his closing statement in this video, "It could still be the word of God; God just uses other sources." The answer is, it doesn't mesh - that's why I ask: does he believe his own message? Lastly, wouldn't it be good critical thinking, taking it as a given that truth from whatever source is still truth, to at least consider that truth from Protestantism is still true, even though Protestantism itself may not be a true (or legitimate) source? I'm not trying to fight, I am in a continuing effort to understand what Protestants believe and how they think. Any insight would be welcome.

@Spriktor

9 ай бұрын

the book of the mormons is completely different, opposing the bible as whole. The extra biblical books- especially the onces which are quoted in the bible category we have today are nothing like the mormon 'bible' if you can even call it that. As far as im aware the other biblical books are sound as well but we are not missing anything major such as lost commandments etc. Just nice extra info tho.

@rubber2023

9 ай бұрын

the Bible is the most important & most necessary. have Faith and have a Relationship with JESUS and He Will Likely reveal the rest. im sure He will give you discernment and point out what's right & what's wrong.

@rubber2023

9 ай бұрын

the Bible is the most important & most necessary. have Faith and have a Relationship with JESUS and He Will Likely reveal the rest. im sure He will give you discernment and point out what's right & what's wrong.

@mattr.1887

9 ай бұрын

Can you prove in a court of law that the Bible is the word of God?

@theeternalsbeliever1779

9 ай бұрын

Christ never quoted from non-biblical texts, and a person has to either be a fool or intellectually dishonest to believe that He did. Christ quoted or referenced the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. That's it. He only quoted canonized texts that _He_ authorized as the First Testament God. Show me someone who believes Christ quoted non-biblical sources, and i'll show you someone whose Christ isn't in the Bible.

Now wait a sec, I see this guys logic from another point of view. If the bible is true, and there is truth in other books, then why arn't those other books in the bible? Using the 'faith' reasoning "Because God designed the bible without them." Doesn't hold water IMHO. Who declares what scripture is, and isn't? And whats of God and what isn't of God?

Frank Turek, who gave Martin Luther the right to remove the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible? Stop talking about the seven books as if they're not Scripture, they have been a part of the Cannon ever since it was established, and Luther had no authority to remove them.

@LilKevv

9 ай бұрын

Judaism never considered it canon. Their Bible is our Old Testament. The apocrypha aren't God's word

@baldwinthefourth4098

9 ай бұрын

@@LilKevv Why does that matter? Jews also don't consider the New Testament to be cannon. Jews also don't believe the Trinity. Jews reject our Lord as the Messiah. Will you now reject these three things because the jews reject them? We don't base our beliefs on what the jews think, so that's a terrible argument.

@war13death

9 ай бұрын

Luther did not remove them, he questioned their authenticity. Many prior to Luther questioned the authenticity of the apocrypha. The apocrypha wasn't removed from the Bible until the 1800s. Watch the documentary "The Forbidden Book" for more information.

@garyg7549

9 ай бұрын

Because Roman Catholic Doctrine is in error. Don't read that book. Get a Protestant Bible.

@baldwinthefourth4098

9 ай бұрын

@@garyg7549 Alright, I feel like humiliating a schismatic heretic today, so let's do this. Show me where we are in error so I can put you in your place.

Am I understanding this clown correctly? Scriptures that are considered A Word Of GOD is just humans opinion? well... well... well.. doesnt it ruin his entire narrative?