Five Myths About The Bible (And How We Got it.) 

Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas or the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are two different books.

@Doris1888 I was using a random allusion to a writing that no one believes is legitimate but seems to get people who know nothing about Biblicall History excited when they first discover it. And while one is superior to the other as a document, neither is accepted as Canon, but I am not going to dialogue about that here. Blessings.

@@Just_a_Reflection Well the Epistle of Barnabas which was probably written late into the first century didn't make it into the Bible but was referred to often by the early church so it's history might be considered legitimate historically but not inspired. However, the Gospel of Barnabas was written about the 15th or 16th century and basically discredits Christianity in favor of the Muslim religion. Hardly a gospel about Jesus Christ.

@Doris1888 You are exactly right. Clement of Alexandria reportedly accepted the Epistle, and it is important because it gives a view of how early Jewish Christians segued from Rabbinical Judaism to Christianity, though it was later investigated and found to not be sound and not inspired, primarily due to it's Gnostic undertones, similar to the Shepherd of Hermas. The Gospel of Barnabas is Gnostic garbage written in the Middle Ages with absolutely no real value. My point is that I was making an offhand allusion, which wasn't central to my offhand comment.

@@Just_a_Reflection Gotcha!👍

The longer, the better!

Apocalypse Apocrypha has a boat load of information on this.

@@andrewbrossman9902 Who Im interested in is Melissa. She clearly has been given Wisdom and an articulate mouth from God. Her view is what I want more of rather than information.

@@circle4962 Nothing against Mellisa. I like her channel. I was mentioning that you want to know more about the deutercannon, there is a RU-vid channel called the apocalypse apocrypha. The New Testament cannon is closed. The Old Testament cannon, not really.

@@andrewbrossman9902 ​ What did I say about the deutercannon or scriptural cannon? I didn't speak about it. Yet you come to me telling me to check out someone I never gave interest for. My focus has been on Melissa, not the content. My focus is on a person, not ideas. Go away and stop being a fool. Come back when Wisdom is on your lips. You do not listen to advice as is clear when you come to me and tell me what to do. You do not care to understand my words, you only care to air your opinion.

😂😂

That's strange as I learned Hebrew and Greek, and my professors edited the ESV. After 28 years and several translations later, it only confirmed of how accurate the King James is.

@@michelleadams5609 you're absolutely full of it😂

I'm sure the KJV onlyists already knew what parbar meant, because they always know everything and they are always right about everything too..... Let me know if you hear one of them admit they were wrong about something. It will be a first and should make news headlines.

😊

There was government in the 1st century church, but there is NEVER a such thing in the Bible as apostolic succession. Idc what the "church fathers" had to say about it. The Bible shows how the early church functioned, and IT is the only reliable source for what the 1st century church believed and practiced.

In the 3rd-century Church Fathers, have you noticed the influx of platonic influence & how how platonism began to influence their theology?

One church had a tendency to take people they didn't like and tie them to a bundle of sticks and fire them..... Probably safe to say they also burned a lot of paper too. So if a lot of church writings seem to support the church that liked burning things and people, there might be a reason why.

@@IndianaJoe0321 Hello! Yeah, I've seen how some were extremely knowledgeable in the philosophy ideas of that time. However, I would like to hear more of your reasoning.

....it didn't take long for Rome to be a problem to the rest of the church. Bishop Stephen in the mid second century was promoting a non-trinitaraian position, and Rome started trying to assert itself as the chief church above all the other Bishops. It would take centuries but it was the last for power that convinced the church in the East to severe ties with the church in Rome.

That would be interesting.

I want to eat!.....Oh no! I forgot, I'm not supposed to want! Now I'm a sinner.....well, I guess I was already a sinner....now I'm a bigger sinner!!!! Seriously though, you pointed out a perfect example for why we need to update Bible translations. Another one I have heard is people reading "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and taking that to mean we shouldn't try to save up enough stuff to last until we are dead....... which is not what that means. Even Tyndale's translation that's 500 years old states this in a more understandable way. Clearly each day has sufficient trouble in itself so we need to stay focused on today and not be worrying about all the stuff that hasn't happened yet. New teachings are being found in the KJV after 413 years because people read it with their 2024 brain and 2024 English, which makes a magical English soup that creates new stuff never before seen!!! So exciting....

Shall not want would mean I won’t want, not a shouldn’t want. In other words, not that we are wrong to desire things, but that our needs will be met. But yes, I was intentionally trying to point out the need to update the language-because people reading archaic language often misconstrue the meaning.

Do some research on "Byzantine Priority", by Robinson. It is a discussion of the texts used by Greek speaking peoples since the time of the Apostles. Paul went to Athens to spread the Gospel.

So I'm not the only one that doesn't trust Tichendorf ? 🤨

I have never heard of it either, as a Protestant.

I agree, KJV is hard to understand. I prefer reading the NIV but can always refer back to the KJV if a passage is controversial etc

Yes, this would a fairly accurate assumption. I come from this background.. KJV-only-ism tends to be linked to conspiracy and mis- trust of institutions.

How can it be comic when there are verses in scripture that reference the book of Enoch and quote from it just like how they also reference the books they decided to take away without proper permission or authority because none of them prayed for guidance from the Holy spirit who inspired the letters and also non of them asked God for confirmation they went based on their own understanding for the sake of peace and destroying the truth in the process

@@adeclipse_sa to suggest that scripture quotes from the book of enoch is to assume that the book of enoch is older than those books in scripture, which is a massive assumption. sure, its written as though it is older and the character is older, but as stated in this interview the oldest compiled book of enoch is from the 15th century. there are also things stated in enoch which are directly against scripture, so theres that

@@junk3996 , it is not scripture. Most scholars think that the first sections of 1 Enoch were written 3 centuries before Jesus ' birth. Scrolls of Enoch were found at Qumra (Dead Sea Scrolls), which are thought to be from 2 centuries BC.

@@adeclipse_sa my point is, that it is like a fantastic work of fiction like a graphic novel we would see in the realm of comic book literature today. I'm not sure to whom you are referring, when you mention books being taken out?

Enoch 🙄

If you're referring to the mention of Enoch, Jude was speaking of a _future_ personality. He was +not_ referring to the Enoch in Genesis. Check the genealogy. He was not the seventh from Adam. Matter of fact, the "Adam" Jude refers to is not the one from Genesis either. He is talking about the second Adam, Jesus Christ(1 Cor. 15:45). "The seventh from Adam" concerns a personality who prophesies about Christ's return in the 7th era of God's Church.

See my point exactly people don’t even know that the Bible directly quotes from the book of Enoch 🤦🏻‍♀️

​​@@OkKo-ux2xvNo, the Bible 'does not quote Enoch' Two writers referenced it. As you might any historic document. That doesn't infer any sort of credibility. And consider Paul's address on Mars Hill. He referenced other documents as well ..

​@@toolegittoquit_001 Wait! Does that make those poets inspired too??? LOST BIBLICAL POEMS CITED BY PAUL FOUND IN ATHENS DUMPSTER OUTSIDE MARS HILL...... Someone will start a whole new denomination from this and retire a millionaire....

Pastor Chris Rosebrough is fluent in both. I myself would start with Koine Greek simply for the reason that's the language used for our new covenant that we're currently under. But there's also starting with Hebrew to better see the poetry involved. There's the interlinear Bible that is in the original language, but has the English equivalent words written above. That has been quite interesting.

Definitely learn Koine Greek! It doesn't take long to read it phonetically and will be rewarding with less time invested into it. I think if a person listened to every single Mike Winger video he's ever made......that has to be equal or better than a bachelor's of theology degree.... I love theological books, but I have expensive taste and I don't have the budget to buy all the ones I want. That said, building a theology library is worth it!!!

In the box below the video she has RESOURCES which links to her recommended books on Amazon.

The KJV New Testament was finished before Jesus was born?..... I don't know what to say. Words fail me.

Sorry. I misread that. I thought it said the KJV was translated before the dead sea scrolls!!!!!😂😂😂😂

@@hayfieldhermit9657 That's ok, lol

There is a danger in looking up some KJV words because the dictionaries don't have the correct definition as it was used by the KJV translators in 1611. It's actually worse than that because the KJV is a revision of the 1568 Bishops Bible, and the KJV left a lot of it the same. And some of it goes back to the 1520's Tyndale New Teatament. So in reality, you need to look up how the words were defined in the early to mid 1500's....... And no Websters dictionary (1828 included) is going to have all the correct definitions. You need something like the massive Oxford dictionary (very expensive) and other expensive resources to really figure put how all the words were used..... You can buy a KJV only cheat sheet to learn some of the definitions, but those are not exhaustive and will still be missing words that you don't know you don't know. Like when "study to be quiet" doesn't mean grab a book and figure out how not to make noise.....

It is interesting to note, @@hayfieldhermit9657 , that in 1833 Webster updated the archaic words of the KJV ("Webster's Bible") translation.

She has some great videos that delve into both.

References for your claims?

@@Wentletrap213 the references you ask for are all the writings of the church fathers themselves along with the council documents of Hippo, Rome, and Carthage. 👍🏻

😂😂😂

Good gracious 😂

The KJVO cult is disturbing! I had no idea such a thing existed until I saw it online. Thankfully have not run into them in person.

No he did not

That is very unfortunate. The Bible version (KJV) was done by a group of over 50 men. Doug Stoliker

What does it signify when a New Testament writer quotes non-biblical sources? Does a quotation always mean the writer agrees with all the themes of the quoted source? In Acts 17 Paul quotes Greek writers, yet he makes very clear that his message differs radically from Greek thinking.

@@gregorytoews8316 Is that a serious question? Would the Son of God - who is the word made flesh reference or teach from anything other than the inspired word? Do you think it unimportant that he and the apostle quoted canonical books? Do you say it is meaningless for them to quote and reference Isaiah?

@@TrustinJC your questions may be valid in and of themselves, but how do they shed light on why Paul quotes Greek writers?

Also he implied that Enoch was not written in Hebrew sorry but he’s is shady on Enoch

@@gregorytoews8316 It is very different to reference or quote Hebrew writings that many Jews outside of the Pharisee bubble considered to be scripture and referencing Greek philosophers. Not the same thing.

There were a lot of non-biblical writings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, such as military letters, commentaries, legal texts, poetry, religious texts that the Jews did not consider inspired (such as Enoch), etc. We know Enoch was not written by Enoch nor was it considered inspired scripture by the Jews. It was written around 300-200BC. While it was quoted in Jude, other non-scriptural sources were also quoted in the NT. For example, Paul quotes from Greek literature and Jesus quotes popular sayings common to his time. It’s certainly an interesting writing and gives us insight into what some Jews believed. For what it is, I think he handled it fairly.

Wrong. If a book isn't in the Bible, it's because (1) it contradicts what is in the Bible and (2) God didn't deem it to be theologically important to include it. There are historical texts mentioned in scripture that were used to compile the records like the Book of the Wars of the Lord and the sayings of Iddo the seer, but the Enoch book isn't one of them. What Heisler says means absolutely nothing. He is just another deceived scholar that intellectually lazy ppl flock to.

Wow, pretty harsh words for someone who isn’t a world renowned scholar like Heiser. I’m not saying historical or other texts should be scripture, just that they are helpful for us to know context of the day and how to interpret scripture that was written around the same time.

Pretty harsh way to speak of someone in the present tense who actually died almost a year and a half ago.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 "What Heiser says means absolutely nothing" - a quote of some dude on a comment thread, who is clearly more superior than someone else.

I like to think this too!

I'm a Calvinist. That is the worst possible way to frame Calvinism, to the point where I disagree that the statement even describes Calvinism. It's simply insulting to say that's what Calvinists believe. We are dead in our sin. Dead. Kaput. Not living. Calvinists believe we are saved when God raises us spiritually from the dead and grants us a saving faith. Saying God would rather we all live, thus it's man's choice to be saved, paints God as rather helpless and trying desperately to get us to choose not being dead in our sins. Like, since when did God turn over his sovereignity? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. If anyone disagrees with that, they are a fruitcake, not a Calvinist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc... Humans want sin. It's our fallen nature, corrupted flesh, that wants it. Pharaoh wanted his slaves. People dying in sin is God turning them over to what they wanted. God is not a tyrant according to Calvinism. I'm not sitting here, sad that God saved me and now I have to go to heaven. I'm grateful. I used to be dead in my sin, unable to save myself. But God, while I was still a rotten sinner, gave me faith. Praise be to God, because the mind that is in the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law, indeed, it cannot. Romans 8:7 God is not capricious or cruel. He's not going to choose people who won't like it. God is sovereign, however, and a puny human can not thwart his plan. God is also good. Got Questions is a great source for Calvinist beliefs, seeing as they are four point Calvivists. No, your wife is not a heretic and it would probably be good for your marriage to stop assuming she's stupid.

Well, this is quite the respectful post 😬

if it isn't canon, what is it useful for? useful for confusing your mind into thinking unbiblical things, or thinking about things in a way which are not spoken about in scripture. just stick with scripture. enoch is interesting, but dangerous more than useful IMO

The Enoch book is neither useful or canon. It is uninspired, Gnostic garbage. The Bible warns us in 1 Cor. 4:6 to not entertain doctrine that isn't explicitly taught or supported in scripture, and the Enoch book fails to meet either requirement. In fact, it's doctrines contradict the Bible in at least half a dozen ways.

Well, then you will have to also differentiate between ALL the Orthodox churches also, since they too are not all in communion with each other yet were part of the original church. 🤷🏽‍♂

@@srich7503 Orthodox is Orthodox. Roman Catholic is very, very different.

@@American-Jello yeah, tell it to my Orthodox friends who cannot commune with each other.

@@srich7503 Still not sure what this has to do with differentiating Roman Catholic from Orthodox though. Most people in the west have no idea there's a difference, which was my entire point.

@@American-Jello when “most” people are looking for unity of the one true church and the Orthodox are not in communion with each other it PROVES disunity…people that are looking for the “unity” tend to notice.