Subscribe to our channel here ➡️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCedYGs_lqq1uNet0u7qlSyQ?sub_confirmation=1
@monkkeygawd Says:
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.
@THISWEEKINHUMANdotcom Says:
Jude quoted directly from the Book of Enoch, and his writing treats The Book of Enoch as scripture and prophesy (inspired).
@olivieryeung398 Says:
The great thing about the Bible is that it is verified by true history from multiple unconnected reliable independent sources
@dawjack480 Says:
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?’
@briendoyle4680 Says:
The Bible book is 'a book' hahah!...!
and that is the total extent of your evidence to prove your god?
The Bible is Fiction..!
a Historical novel - ie a Fictional story using Historical events and peoples:
This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence for gods...!
It is a 'historical Novel', It is not proof for any god(s)
Historical novel: The fables are intertwined within historical places and people....
eg
Egypt and the Pharaohs existed,
whereas
Moses did NOT exist,
and the Exodus did not happen... !
A 'global' flood never occurred on Earth!
An 'Adam and Eve' is a nonsense fable from the Stone Ages!!
That David/Solomon are 'tribal' fables...!
Jonah swallowed by a fish.....!
'Burning bush'? Those 'fasting' shamans were hallucinating, and usually on the local drugs...
@Theo_Skeptomai Says:
Let's keep this simple. I am not aware of ANY evidentiary facts that substantiates the truth of ANY claim asserted in the bible.
@bman5257 Says:
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 Says:
1:54 They don’t quote from every book in the Protestant Old Testament.
@RangerRyke Says:
Remember the cannon was written and decided by humans. Perhaps another question one should ask is can their be falsehoods in the cannon?
@thatomofolo452 Says:
🤔
@msmd3295 Says:
If something is TRUE then why isn’t it included in the Bible? Not including all truths is a method of manipulation, spreading ideas according to one’s biases. TRUTHS are relative to ALL knowledge and provides a foundation to the acquisition of new “truths”. Thus the absence of truths, especially a tome claimed to be god’s word and creates an expectation that “everyone” should adhere to, if it doesn’t include all relative truths it makes the Bible unreliable. One has to go elsewhere for other truths. And the most reliable source of truths is something called Science and the scientific method.
@ecuador9911 Says:
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).
@ajgibson1307 Says:
Amen and God bless
@VectorMonz Says:
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.
@JohnCephas Says:
Jesus is The Word of God
@phoenixanimations5233 Says:
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?
@georgiacap9294 Says:
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.
@hansdemos6510 Says:
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.
@Chromwel-A Says:
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.
@jamesw4250 Says:
Can't trust the bible at all to begin with. It's scientifically inaccurate as well as historically inaccurate.
@somerandom3247 Says:
The bible has proven itself untrustworthy time and time again when it tries to pass off clearly fictional stories as the truth.
@daveconner9520 Says:
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?
@MinnesotanMysticism Says:
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.
@rocketscientisttoo Says:
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?".
@Bible_Guy.Genesis2Revalation Says:
The book of Enoch is a Jewish fable, not inspired and a lot of errors, sad so many people believe it.
@autumnblueberry Says:
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?
@texanmartialarts Says:
If God quotes other sources does that make the book itself viable like Jude using a verse and mentioning the book of Enoch
@joshuacarrero5360 Says:
This was such a great question!
@EdwardRomanOficial Says:
Why does time matter when it comes to believing in God (since some say “…but it’s 2023”)?
@logicalatheist1065 Says:
The bible is historically unreliable where the truth is concerned
@cnault3244 Says:
"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?
@psyck Says:
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.”
@shadowspector3611 Says:
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.
@thierry860 Says:
The Bible is not a truth worthy book either, it's fiction, grow up !
@larzman651 Says:
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
@Hydroverse Says:
The book of Enoch is an interesting read.
@mattr.1887 Says:
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.
@joestfrancois Says:
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.
@baldwinthefourth4098 Says:
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.
@CrinkledPankerSociety Says:
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.
@kalepeacock Says:
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.
@Moist._Robot Says:
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?
@royceguy2282 Says:
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!
@suzanneflowers2230 Says:
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.
@imraneamoura1027 Says:
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.
@jd3jefferson556 Says:
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.
@mosesking2923 Says:
Frank made an incorrect statement. The Jews DID have the 7 deuterocanonicals in their Old Testament. They were included in the Greek Septuagint and were part of the Dead Sea scrolls collection. The 7 books were found in the oldest compilations of the Bible’s including Codex Sinaiticus and the Muratorian Fragment. Why did the Protestants seek to emulate Jews who threw them out of their Bible AFTER the advent of Christianity? That’s the question to be asked.
@dannyc9903 Says:
There's very very little you can trust in the bible, as its basically a group of fictional shorties- as as to living your life to it, well that's even more ridiculous!
@indigofenrir7236 Says:
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.
LATEST COMMENTS