Yess this would be incredible! Have you seen UsefulCharts' family tree of Bible translations? I'd love a more condensed and approachable version of that from RZ
I think addressing academic Biblical studies and how they contrast with religious orthodoxy (as well as the reasons why to accommodate and/or reject academic takes) would be a good topic too.
I am a new Christian (around 2 weeks) and I've recently started reading the bible. So far, I've made it to Noah's ark and it's a really interesting story. I pray to God each day and ask for forgiveness and for him to protect my friends and my family. Could you make a video about what to do if you're a new Christian and cover topics such as how to study the bible and how to pray to God? I feel like it would be beneficial for new Christians such as myself and even older Christians
I've got some good news for you. One of the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, and he taught them how to pray with the Lord's prayer. The Lord's Prayer appears twice in the Bible. The first is in Matthew 6:9-14, and the second is in Luke 11:2-4. I won't quote the whole prayer here, but the main takeaways are that we ask God to provide for us, we ask God to forgive us for our sins while we forgive others who sin against us, and we ask that God protect us from evil.
I commend you from starting from the beginning, though that's probably not the best course to take for your experience. Wonderful questions, and if I can weigh in a little myself, I have found studying and reading prayers in scripture to teach me a lot. I personally reccomend some prayers of Jesus such as in John 17 or at Gethsemane in Matthew 26
And then they regretted it, thus they were sent judges and then they did the thing they were supposed to do until they began doing the things they were told not to do. Repeat for centuries
It seems so crazy from a historical perspective until you see the analogs to our society and lives and realize how we do exactly the same thing. Quite sad, really.
@@justForFun12371 yes. Gods word is food for the soul:) There is no greater pleasure than spending time with Him😄 Though doing so can take many forms. Drawing while listening to Gospel music or classical hymns is a personal favorite of mine:)
As a non-denominational still working on learning more about my faith, I really appreciate this channel because I get to either learn new things or challenge previously held views and it helps my faith grow as I do more research
Excellent! What the video didn't mention was that the books of the Bible were collected and approved by Catholic bishops at the council of Rome in 392. The Bible was made by the Catholic Church
This is great. Although the so called “Minor Prophets” are not referred to as such because they are less important than the so called “Major Prophets”, but because they are much shorter books.
Small error - the differentiation of minor and major prophets is not due to importance, but length. All the major prophets are long books, while all the minor prophets are short books.
Also the portion about the deuterocanon is largely incorrect - some of them were originally written in Hebrew, there was no unified canon at the time of Christ (or before), and the threefold distinction of the Old Testament was not nearly as clearly defined as you make it seem.
in Polish we use the full name of "the Apocalypse of Saint John" and it's way more badass than revelations. It goes from "I wonder what was revealed and to whom?" to "okay, when and what?"
The apocrypha was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek like the rest of the Old Testament. Rabbinic Jews only excluded the apocrypha when they standardized their canon in the 2nd century AD, before then the canon was disputed. Protestants don’t accept the duetorocanon because they wanted to match the canon of the masoretic text.
Let's not forget that since 4th century BC, Greek culture and language creeped in through Judah by the rule of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period. Tobit might've been originally written in Aramaic due to the geographical lingua franca. Wisdom of Solomon & 2 Maccabees are originally Greek and reflect Hellenistic culture. BTW, this doesn't discount them at all - they're still scripture. The rest are likely originally Hebrew, especially Judith and Baruch by style. If I may rant... It's not surprising at all that 2nd century Jews rejected everything after Daniel (chronologically, or Malachi categorically) since Rabbinic Judaism is not the same thing as Judaism at the time of Christ. Furthermore, we can see through the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts that they reject Hellenistic ideals for more "traditional" principles that establish a lens for bias against the scripture in question.
I love the constructive dialogue between all the posters! One thing I'd like to point out, though, even though the Bible is all scripture it does not contain ALL truth. This is why we NEED Holy Spirits leading because the Bible is Finite, whereas the truth of God is infinite.
You're right. Everything in the Bible is true, but not all truth is in the Bible. Another aspect of God's revelation is creation itself; the moral code, nature, science, mathematics. The heavens declare the glory of God!
I just realised that you can hear a keyboard getting tapped whenever the image changes, meaning that RZ is unironically making slideshow content. Never change, my guy
I love this video. Id really love it if you did a longer version where you showed all the research and sources for all your claims. God bless you and your ministry.
Catholics use the 7 books because 1: they were included in the canon used by some groups of Jews. there was no set canon at that time, and different groups used different canons. the only agreed upon scrolls were the scrolls of moses. one scroll is one book to us. in the varying canons, however, there wasn't one that eliminated all 7 of those scrolls, but still had all of the other books as canon. 2: because in 385 they set the canon with those books. 3. luther declared them questionable, and moved them to the appendix of the old testament. he did so after lossing multiple debates with Catholic Theologians who were able to destroy his theology with these books. He also questioned the validity of James and Revelation, becuase they also got in the way of the traditions he wanted to make. printers removed them all together in the 1800s to cut cost.
@@sohnijaankapoorHe could be just more mature than a regular six6 year old because he could be homeschooled or anything else besides governmentally 'public' schooled.
5:24 Martin Luther originally said yes to deuterocanonical book even though he moved them to their own section at the end of the Bible. But years later The British and Foreign Bible Sosiety decided in 1826 to remove the deuterocanonical books from the Bible because it saved money on paper and ink costs. Because of this change, the Lutheran Church has to regularly remind us that the deuterocanonical books belong to the Lutheran Bible, even though they are not included in most Protestant Bibles. Or at least our Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland reminds us about this while simping the Book of Sirach.
The fact your in college to be a mathematician (if i remember correctly) really reflects on the fact that you like to simplify things to it simplest and easiest to understand form
It would be interesting if you made a video explaining the gnostic gospels and why they didn’t make the cut, or gnosticism more generally. i read that valentinius, a gnostic, nearly became the bishop of rome so gnosticism wasn’t some fringe cult but had real popularity and influence.
@@bobsbobbsWendigoon has a video on that, also a lot of those gnostic gospels made it into the Qur'an which is hilarious to me (Jesus kills kids and blinds people in those) 😂
it had popularity and influence the same way arianism did, just because it was popular and influential doesnt make it not a fringe belief within overall christiandom
@@InitialPCFirst it survivorship bias - because it was marginalised over time doesn't mean it was always fringe. Second, gnostic influence lingered in Christianity until the late middle ages in the form of sects such as the Cathars and the Bogomils, which were important to the discourses of the time, since many institutions and ideas were developed to counter them.
I wasn't expecting that, but very satisfied with the clarity at which you teach is on point. It's a huge disfavor when you aren't taught this earlier on. I understand anti-intellectualists might disagree. That's where we need more debate and ministry. You're doing that splendidly in the plot he's given you. Thank you for the inspiration and encouragement, God Bless, Richard 💪📖🔥🙏
This is the best synopsis of how the Bible was assembled into the canon practiced today. Now I have to look for a video explaining the different compilations and translations. I am sure there is both a historical and theological context for that, too.
It's a good video, but you were wrong to say that the difference between major and minor prophets is their importance. In fact, it's just the size of the books. Another point is that you missed the opportunity to substantiate that, Jesus being the Word of God itself, is the basis on which we consider the writings of the prophets and apostles to be inspired and that because he was a Palestinian Jew, he was probably referring to the Canon Hebrew when he stated that scripture is inspired by God. Finally, you could have said that the Apostles already referred to each other's writings as scripture and the Word of God (2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13), before the church later defined the Canon of the Bible, which shows that its definition was not a determination, but a recognition.
@Bible43 Why? Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, the Apostles claimed to speak inspiredly from God and referred to their writings as Scripture. No problems here.
@@pedroguimaraes6094then why did'nt most of the apostles contribute a single word to te Bible? Are they the useless servants? (No, they built The Church which had and has a divine mission)
@@martonpluzsik5627 "No, they built The Church which had and has a divine mission" - I don't understand why you think I would disagree with you about that.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Do you have any evidence of this Hebrew Canon existing before Christ? Josephus doesn’t count, he doesn’t even explain what books are in his “22 books”, and he represents just Pharisaic Judaism. What was the Essene Canon?
5:46 check out Joe heshmeyer shameless popery about the deuterocanon referenced in the New testament. Not all protocannon books are mentioned or quoted in the New testament including Ruth and Chronicles, where there are some references to Tobit and Maccabees in the New testament. Off the top of my head, the seven Angels that Sir Minister to God in Revelation are mentioned more explicitly in Tobit. Also, the festival of lights, Hanukkah, is mentioned in the New testament which is from Maccabees 1. There's also a litany in Hebrews that is very similar to the litany in 2 Maccabees
Also on Scripture Catholic we have full list of deuterocanocial quotations and 300 out of 350 references to the Old Testament are compatible with Septuagint, not Masoretes. Also theory of two canons is outdated and debunked. Deuterocanonical books weren't writtn in Greek by Egyptian diaspora. They were originally hebrew/aramaic (with exclusion of 2 Machabees and Wisdom) and used in Judea in times of Jesus. We know it from Qumran.
1) Origin of Old Testament isn't that simple. Linguistic analysis shows that the oldest text isn't anything in Torah, but probably Song of Deborah in Judges (Nevi'im). And the beginning of Genesis might be created after the Exile as it looks like a polemic with Enuma Elish. Also difference between parts caused three hypotheses about composition of the Torah: Documentary, Supplementary and Fragmentary. So it's unlikely that Moses is the direct author of the Pentateuch. And it isn't written anywhere it's otherwise. It's a part of an oral tradition. And here's a question to you: Why treating oral tradition of Jews as a fact and rejecting oral tradition of early Christians? 2) First Temple was destroyed, but the Second One was build like... 50 years later. and it stood for 600 years. So in theory you had your central authority and the post-temple judaism was formed after 70 AD. Alongside the final canon of Tanach. As in times of Jesus we had whole spectrum of believes what counts and what doesn't. Sadducees believed only in Torah while Pharisees used bigger canon, but didn't have work out any consensus. Even in times of Rabbi Akiva there were several ongoing discussions. And there are Essenes. As findings from Qumran showed us, they have the biggest catalogue and even were using books we're didn't know before. 3) Theory of two canons is outdated and debunked. As stated in previous point, there was none or whole spectrum. Depends on definition. Also now we know that Tobit, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, Judith and the rest were originally written in hebrew/aramaic. We even posses fragments. From mentioned by me Qumran which also proofs that those texts were used in Judea in time of Jesus. They never were something unique to diaspora in Egypt. However to be honest, Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees were created in Greek. 4) So Rabbinic Jews doesn't include Deuterocanonical Books, because they're not a part of Hebrew Canon and Protestants do the same, because Jesus and Apostles didn't quote them while Catholics have opposite opinion, because *insert random and internal reasoning* XD This argument is so Protestant. Always wondering why are you doing this? Because if you'll go into details, viewers might conclude that Catholics could be right? First of all, there was no Hebrew Canon when paths of Christians and Rabbinic Jews split apart. Also all Churches were recognizing most Deuterocanonical Books. Only Luther changed it. And 300 out of 350 quotations of Old Testament in New Testament are compatible with Septuagint, not Masoretes. Also books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted either. Yet no Protestant has a problem with including them in their canon. And where did you got that Deuterocanonical Books aren't quoted? You have a full list on Scripture Catholic.
*History of the Bible in 2 minutes* -1st century: The apostles and disciples of Jesus wrote the Gospels, Acts, and epistles to guide early Christian communities. -2nd century: The Septuagint and some books of the New Testament were circulating among early Christians. Church Father Irenaeus identified the 4 Gospels in his writings. -3rd century: Origen of Alexandria made a list of New Testament books containing most of the current New Testament books except for James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. -4th century: The Synod of Hippo (393) approved a Biblical canon of 73 books, containing 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books, pending approval by the See of Rome. In 397, the Council of Carthage again approved the same list. -5th century: St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (Vulgate). Pope Innocent I names all the 73 books of the current Catholic Bible as canon in his Letter written to a Galican bishop in 405 AD. -15th century: The Council of Florence (1442) accepted the 73 books of the Bible as inspired by God. -16th century: Martin Luther started to question the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. He moved the 7 Deuterocanonicals to the appendix of his Bible translation. In response to Luther, the Catholic Church officially approved and canonized the list of 73 books that had previously been approved by the 4th-century Church councils.
Me if I didn't know history: As if the deuterocanonicals weren't in another section already, you cite Jerome, but guess, even him questioned their canonicity, and you didn't cite all the other who did too because they are holes in your narrative, this type of one-sided history is very bad faith.
@@qwerty_L Correct, St. Jerome questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals (mostly because he lived most of his life in Palestine with Jews). But he included them in his Vulgate. The point is that, since the compilation of the Bible, it had 73 books despite of some opposition. Also, most of the Church Father's who did questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals included at least one Deuterocanonicl book in their lists of canonical books.
@@anycyclopedia yet you didn't mention it the first time did you? You had to be confronted before giving a full picture? Why don't you also say how the deuterocanonicals were not considering full canonicals, and had a second kind of inspiration for most of the early church fathers? They were included but they didn't have the same authority as the normal canon? The name "deuterocanonicals" is literally the point, it's a second canon, not the same as the first canon
@@qwerty_L The names "Deuterocanonical" and "Protocanonical" were first used in the 16th century by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, a Jewish convert to Catholicism. So, that name doesn't prove anything. Deutercanonical books accepted by Church Fathers who rejected the canonicity of some other Deuterocanonical books: Origen of Alexandria: Baruch and 2 Maccabees St. Athanasius of Alexandria: Baruch (excludes Esther from canon) St. Hilary of Polties: Tobit and Judith St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Baruch (excludes Esther) St. Basil the Great: Sirach St. Gregory of Nazianzen: NONE (excludes Esther) So you can see that none of the Church Fathers rejected all the Deuterocanonical books. And in your logic we'll have to remove Esther from the canon.
So I’m a protestant, I still read from the apocrypha. There’s wisdom in it, but it’s always good to read carefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Even if you dont believe it is part of the Bible (which it is, but thats not the point here), its still useful to read it not as scripture, but rather as historical documents.
Couple corrections. 1. Dead sea scrolls and septuigent is older than mesoretic. But mesoretic wasnt liked by rabbanic jews because it attacks pharisees and line of priests. Yet it was recorded in talmud that septuigent is still inspired. 2. The bible does use deutrocanon but sometimes even more polemics and isnt called out persay as scripure when use or inspired minus book of Enoch where it calls the prophecy prophetic but that isnt in the book of enoch.
Can u make a whole video about how we got the gospels from a historical pov, like what manuscripts were used for particular which part of the bible, and then give some arguments to support their authenticity, make it just about the new testament please
"what manuscripts were used for particular which part of the bible," other way around, the stories of the gospels existed as oral traditions and eyewitness testimony before being recorded in written form as the gospels we (mostly) know today
There's a RUclipsr named Testify! Don't expect too much from RZ since he's more into theology and not apologetics! Not in any way to undermine his importance to the Kingdom, but it's good to have other RUclipsrs to cross check!
As you probably know, Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. They are called the 'Deuterocanonicals' by Catholics and 'Apocrypha' by Protestants. Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether. Please be mindful of the fact that those seven books had been in Bibles used by all Christians from the very foundation of Christianity.😊😊 Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings. For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church. Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books. ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED. "THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
@bibleman8010 I would rather say the Septuagint (LXX) was written in Hellenistic Greek, the classical Attic, while Koine Greek was the one that took over as a lingua franca dialect, and with which the NT was written. The LXX dates as far back as to the 3rd century BC, and over 15 years ago I had all my files saved on another computer and knew the exact story of its translation, which unfortunately I don't have at hand right now. I kind of remember though, that for its translation the Egyptian King Ptolemy II seems to have chosen six members of each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which multiplied gives 72. Just for the record, the Apocrypha consist of a variety of other newer writings, incl. gospels and apocalyptic texts, while the Deuterocanonical refer only to the 7 books of the OT. St. Jerome was indeed a skilled translator and philologist, who added lots of commentary notes in his translations, and he seems to have later suggested a more accurate translation which could do justice to certain Hebrew terms used in the OT. However, the discovery of the Qumran scroll has also permitted to revise and correct certain terms and thus render even more faithfully the meaning of certain terms as the sacred authors intended them. Nowadays all the previous is already history. What is most important is to have a Bible that is as reliable as possible and doesn't contain unnecessary disambiguation.
the church believed all of the books of the septuagint were inspired, catholics removed some like 3 and 4 maccabees luther did not remove the books, he was not the only catholic to reject the deuterocanon as canon there are other examples, jerome is another at the top of my head he also did not refer to the deuterocanon as apocrypha he referred to it as deuterocanon, in his words the books were good to read but were not the word of god, a sentiment I share (I really like tobit)
@@InitialPC There are no 3 and 4 Maccabees that have been removed. It's just the division of the same books 1 and 2 that is made in 4 books. Done is done. Read the Maccabees yourself and realize that the entire Bible would be more complete.
Where is the documented evidence that the seven deuterocanonical books were written in Hebrew? And if you accept those, why not also accept 3Maccabees, 4Maccabees, Psalm 151 which are in the LXX Greek Bible?
We're starting a ministry to teach the first steps for Christians at our church and the second class will be about the Bible, this vid will be a good resource to draw stuff from, ty! God bless your work RZ
Timeline 450 BC - Tanach (Tanahk). 24 books, 3 sections 300-100BC - Septuagint (contains WoS, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus) 85 - Marcion of Sinope attempts a canon. much hearesy in his ideology, ex-commed from early church. forced church to respond with a canon. 155 - Polycarp’s letter (to the Philippians) indicates that the early church already considered the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles as inspired Scripture. 180 - Muratorian Canon. 22 of 27 books. did not include Hebrews, James, Peter 1 & 2, 2 John 3 John, it did include Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. 313 - Christianity Decriminalized by Constantine. 313 - Eusebius disputes James. 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation. 636 - Council of Laodicea affirmed 26 NT books. Rejected Revelation 367 - Athanasius makes list of accepted 27 books 384/382 - (Council of Rome ) St. Jerome did not want to include additional books, compelled by church to include them anyway 393 - Synod of Hippo (Hippo Canon) 27 book NT, Recognized by early church. New 33 book + OT canon. 1st "Official" church canon. Regional canons exist. 397 - Counsel of Carthage - Hippo canon confirmed and binding by the church 1054 - Great schism 1522 - Martin Luther canon moved OT (WoS, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Maccabees) books to Apocrypha. Considered Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation as disputed 1545 - Council of Trent. Added back books Luther removed and gave them new title "Deuterocanonical" 1820s - Paper cost increases lead to publishers removing Deuterocanonical books. 73 to 66 books.
I think you left missing the fact that The Septuagint was the Bible quoted from, by Jesus, and those books were removed by Jews like 700 years later, and they were ALWAYS in Christian Bibles, until Protestants removed them. Even the original Protestant Bibles included them, including the KJV (though by that time i think they started putting them in the Appendix.
To say that the apostles didn’t quote from the sepuagint is a blatant lie. There are several verses in the NT that are scholarly proven to quote from the Septuagint and not the TaNaKh
I think it's fair to say there is more complication than that. Composition of the Pentateuch really is a fiercely discussed issue and for good reason. To just bring a simple thing regarding say Deuteronomy, different book, fair enough. But there, we have accounts of Moses and his reaching to Israelites, "and then Moses died" and the text continues on, suggesting a non-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy. Really getting into the other of the five gets a lot more technical in discussion of language used and contradictions in the text. By any chance are you familiar with the JEPD theory?
@@faboomkomapper It's been the most common scholastic view of the Pentateuch for quite a while. Comes from German of course, and stands for Jahwist (as in Yahweh in a more anglo form, the tetragrammaton/ The LORD), Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomy. These refer to 4 basic sources that are viewed as being used to create what we call the books of Moses. According to the theory, Deuteronomy comes from the Deuteronomist source of course, a lot of material in places like Leviticus comes from the Priestly, and most of the stories come from the Jahwist or Elohist sources, the specific means in the theory to distinguish depends on the name used for God in a passage. Essentially, each source is viewed as coming from different places, usually the J source being viewed as the oldest at around the 10th century bc, E source at 9th centure, P source in the 5th century, and D 6th century I do believe. There is a lot of reasons why people subscribe to such ideas, and a lot of things it deals with well. Personally, I do not believe in the theory's accuracy and find it unable to successfully interpret what happens in a number of passages, such as Genesis chapter 6. Sorry for the long text wall, I just hope to explain accurately, as relatively few I know are familiar with stuff like this. TL;DR 4 different sources from different time periods are believed by some to be used to compile the pentateuch post exile
@@faboomkomapper the theory that Pentateuch has been composed, mixing four sources written in different times of Israel's History the Yahwhist "J" and Elohist "E" sources written in early time of Monarchy, the Deuteronomist "D" source written mostly during time of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah and later expanded, and the Priestly "P" source written after the babilonian exile With Genesis, Exodus and Numbers based in J, E and P, Leviticus written based only in P and Deuteronomy as the name says based on Deuteronomist source, for more look at Useful Charts Channel or search for that in other sources
I’m just like this rn🤯 this gives a lot of context when explaining the audiences they wrote too and you can really see the cultural biases behind it as well, but from my view I would read the other books just because honestly to have more information to talk about😂😂 The center point of the Bible is Jesus and I keep that at my forefront that everything stimulates from, and leads to Jesus in The Bible
What makes you think your faith is "unpure"? Is there something you struggle with? Read scripture daily, be constant in prayer and if you have not yet a church home, go out and seek for it. But be assure that the church you attend is also a faithful with sound and healthy doctrine. If you need help, don't hesitate to ask.
@@redeemedzoomer6053u missed the part where the Assyrian church of the east and Assyrian churches play a part in Christianity and how Aramaic was the first language the bible was written in the Greeks were the second
THANK YOU for pointing out that vast parts of Genesis are oral traditions Moses wrote down. The ammount of people who believe he had all of Genesis as some revelation or something is scary. The further back in the timeline, the messier and fuzzier the story gets, but it's more figurative and actually transports a deep message. The younger the plot is, the more historically accurate it gets.
So, basically, the bible is divided in two parts: law and gospel As a lutheran, it's a big yes from me Also, the canon protestants use today, the "Masoretic text" was used by the Pharisees and Jesus when clashing againts them, however Matthew and Luke clearly used the Septuagint And in John, Jesus said to the Pharisees that their sceipture (their cannon) And in John 5:39 : " You study the Scriptures (with the Pharisees' cannon) diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures (with the Pharisees' cannon)that testify about me" Jesus didn't say the Pharisees' cannon was wrong
Careful, Jesus did quote from those books and the Septuagint was the prevailing scriptural corpus of his day. You’re injecting Protestant bias into this.
Correction. After the kingdom split Only the southern tribes know as Jews returned to the land. The upper 10 tribes assimilated into the nations. But it was prophecied throughout the Bible that they would be reunited. Hasn’t happened yet but many people from around the world are now waking up and returning to the Law of God.
Moses also learned from his father in law, Jethro, who was a descendant of both Abraham through Keturah, and Bethuel, father of Rebekah and grandfather of Leah and Rachel. He also would have had access to the historical documents of Egypt. Moses created a new written language with the Torah. Its implied that Daniel collated the Deuteronomistic history during the time of exile.
Hi are we still supposed to keep the Sabbath since it is part of the Ten Commandments? And Our Lord Jesus said ,"If you love me keep my commandments." Even if it is not reiterated in the New Testament, many people would argue that the Law was unchangeable.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Need a part 2 - History of the Bible till today. Talk about manuscripts, early translations, first printed editions, etc.
Yess this would be incredible!
Have you seen UsefulCharts' family tree of Bible translations?
I'd love a more condensed and approachable version of that from RZ
Bump😊
Yuo
yes]
I think addressing academic Biblical studies and how they contrast with religious orthodoxy (as well as the reasons why to accommodate and/or reject academic takes) would be a good topic too.
I am a new Christian (around 2 weeks) and I've recently started reading the bible. So far, I've made it to Noah's ark and it's a really interesting story. I pray to God each day and ask for forgiveness and for him to protect my friends and my family. Could you make a video about what to do if you're a new Christian and cover topics such as how to study the bible and how to pray to God? I feel like it would be beneficial for new Christians such as myself and even older Christians
I've got some good news for you. One of the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, and he taught them how to pray with the Lord's prayer. The Lord's Prayer appears twice in the Bible. The first is in Matthew 6:9-14, and the second is in Luke 11:2-4. I won't quote the whole prayer here, but the main takeaways are that we ask God to provide for us, we ask God to forgive us for our sins while we forgive others who sin against us, and we ask that God protect us from evil.
I commend you from starting from the beginning, though that's probably not the best course to take for your experience. Wonderful questions, and if I can weigh in a little myself, I have found studying and reading prayers in scripture to teach me a lot. I personally reccomend some prayers of Jesus such as in John 17 or at Gethsemane in Matthew 26
@@Plaazzzz as an atheist, I agree the stories are very interesting.
You should watch the bible project! It’s a great place to get a grip on how to read the Bible
I recommend you the series UNLOCKING THE BIBLE BY DAVID PAWSON. (You can find it here on RUclips or in a book.) @davidpawson
"Hey guys don't do this or you'll be destroyed"
Narrator: "But they did do the thing. They did it several times in fact."
"and then were destroyed on every occasion"
And then they regretted it, thus they were sent judges and then they did the thing they were supposed to do until they began doing the things they were told not to do.
Repeat for centuries
@ExtraAin lol
It seems so crazy from a historical perspective until you see the analogs to our society and lives and realize how we do exactly the same thing. Quite sad, really.
Christianity has so much paganism mixed into it. Something we are commanded not to do. People have a problem following commandments. Always have.
The Bible is my post-dinner and pre-breakfast book.
Nice👌
Same!
Is it yummy?
@@justForFun12371 yes. Gods word is food for the soul:) There is no greater pleasure than spending time with Him😄 Though doing so can take many forms. Drawing while listening to Gospel music or classical hymns is a personal favorite of mine:)
As a non-denominational still working on learning more about my faith, I really appreciate this channel because I get to either learn new things or challenge previously held views and it helps my faith grow as I do more research
OH Lord Jesus, may we ALL have this heart! To read, study, meditate, and most of all seek Holy Spirit's guidance into ALL truth!
Careful on this page you don’t get groomed into Calvinism or faith by works
Excellent! What the video didn't mention was that the books of the Bible were collected and approved by Catholic bishops at the council of Rome in 392. The Bible was made by the Catholic Church
@@aaaaaaa7697 No, Catholic.
@@kobe8124 No, Orthodox.
This is great. Although the so called “Minor Prophets” are not referred to as such because they are less important than the so called “Major Prophets”, but because they are much shorter books.
Also Daniel wasn’t categorized with the Prophets, his book was put within the Writings.
Thank you! I came down here to post this.
Why don’t you make more of these types of videos. They are the best to binge watch
Because the most funny and fun videos of his to watch ironically take the most time to draw all the scenes for
@@DruckerYTAthe stickman animations 😂
Small error - the differentiation of minor and major prophets is not due to importance, but length. All the major prophets are long books, while all the minor prophets are short books.
Also the portion about the deuterocanon is largely incorrect - some of them were originally written in Hebrew, there was no unified canon at the time of Christ (or before), and the threefold distinction of the Old Testament was not nearly as clearly defined as you make it seem.
As a Southerner, I laugh 😂 whenever you mimic our accent when talking about Baptists or Fundamentalist KJV only types!
Thank you RZ, I have been waiting for another one of these oversimplified explanation videos. GREAT WORK IS GOD'S WORK AMEN AND HALLELUJAH 🙏✝️❤️
LOL the dig at it being oversimplified. True
I was a little confused about the "apocalypse of john" but then i figured that it is probably revelation.
Yup, it is!
And apocalypse simply means unveiling, which was a term related to a wedding in Jewish culture at the time.
in Polish we use the full name of "the Apocalypse of Saint John" and it's way more badass than revelations. It goes from "I wonder what was revealed and to whom?" to "okay, when and what?"
apokalupis (apocalypse) is the Greek word for revelation
The apocrypha was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek like the rest of the Old Testament. Rabbinic Jews only excluded the apocrypha when they standardized their canon in the 2nd century AD, before then the canon was disputed.
Protestants don’t accept the duetorocanon because they wanted to match the canon of the masoretic text.
W pfp
Protestants don't accept the deuterocanonical books because they prefer Hebrew sources rather then Greek. This is a heresy, but its just how they are.
@@INVAILDNAME L pfp, people like this are why nobody likes you guys
Let's not forget that since 4th century BC, Greek culture and language creeped in through Judah by the rule of Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic period.
Tobit might've been originally written in Aramaic due to the geographical lingua franca.
Wisdom of Solomon & 2 Maccabees are originally Greek and reflect Hellenistic culture. BTW, this doesn't discount them at all - they're still scripture.
The rest are likely originally Hebrew, especially Judith and Baruch by style.
If I may rant... It's not surprising at all that 2nd century Jews rejected everything after Daniel (chronologically, or Malachi categorically) since Rabbinic Judaism is not the same thing as Judaism at the time of Christ. Furthermore, we can see through the Talmud and other Rabbinic texts that they reject Hellenistic ideals for more "traditional" principles that establish a lens for bias against the scripture in question.
? only 1 Mac, Tobit and Sirach were written in hebrew so you could include them I guess...
Your work is great, please keep it coming! My understanding of Christ and Christianity has been greatly improved by you.
I enjoyed this, thank you for preparing and sharing it with us ❤
I love the constructive dialogue between all the posters! One thing I'd like to point out, though, even though the Bible is all scripture it does not contain ALL truth. This is why we NEED Holy Spirits leading because the Bible is Finite, whereas the truth of God is infinite.
You're right. Everything in the Bible is true, but not all truth is in the Bible. Another aspect of God's revelation is creation itself; the moral code, nature, science, mathematics. The heavens declare the glory of God!
I just realised that you can hear a keyboard getting tapped whenever the image changes, meaning that RZ is unironically making slideshow content. Never change, my guy
I love this video.
Id really love it if you did a longer version where you showed all the research and sources for all your claims.
God bless you and your ministry.
an 8 minute RUclips video taught me more than Ive ever learned in my 19 years spent going to church since birth
Catholics use the 7 books because
1: they were included in the canon used by some groups of Jews. there was no set canon at that time, and different groups used different canons. the only agreed upon scrolls were the scrolls of moses. one scroll is one book to us. in the varying canons, however, there wasn't one that eliminated all 7 of those scrolls, but still had all of the other books as canon.
2: because in 385 they set the canon with those books.
3. luther declared them questionable, and moved them to the appendix of the old testament. he did so after lossing multiple debates with Catholic Theologians who were able to destroy his theology with these books. He also questioned the validity of James and Revelation, becuase they also got in the way of the traditions he wanted to make. printers removed them all together in the 1800s to cut cost.
No Catholics use it because the Apostles used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew old testament.
@@cherubin7th where is this list of the Hebrew canon?
This is great stuff, it's gonna really help a lot of people navigate the Bible which is obviously so hard to do. Big stuff going on.
I love how easily you break it down. You make it so that even I, a 6 year old, can understand it!
if your six, I applaud you for watching this instead of skibidi toilet.
@@PloFilms Kinda crazy that the reply is more liked than the comment.
You're not 6 dude
@@sohnijaankapoorHe could be just more mature than a regular six6 year old because he could be homeschooled or anything else besides governmentally 'public' schooled.
Thank you so much for this video, I really appreciate these explanation videos that help me understand the Bible more.
Great video!! This cleared up some things I used to be confused about
May > Brandon
@@colin0516 What?
5:24 Martin Luther originally said yes to deuterocanonical book even though he moved them to their own section at the end of the Bible. But years later The British and Foreign Bible Sosiety decided in 1826 to remove the deuterocanonical books from the Bible because it saved money on paper and ink costs. Because of this change, the Lutheran Church has to regularly remind us that the deuterocanonical books belong to the Lutheran Bible, even though they are not included in most Protestant Bibles. Or at least our Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland reminds us about this while simping the Book of Sirach.
The fact your in college to be a mathematician (if i remember correctly) really reflects on the fact that you like to simplify things to it simplest and easiest to understand form
Incredible work, RZ! 🙏💕
I wish there was a channel like yours for every world religion...
Another Great Video
Dude, Thank you so much for all of the effort you put into every video!!
excellent video 👏👏
It would be interesting if you made a video explaining the gnostic gospels and why they didn’t make the cut, or gnosticism more generally. i read that valentinius, a gnostic, nearly became the bishop of rome so gnosticism wasn’t some fringe cult but had real popularity and influence.
i know you went over it in the video but it was very brief
@@bobsbobbsWendigoon has a video on that, also a lot of those gnostic gospels made it into the Qur'an which is hilarious to me (Jesus kills kids and blinds people in those) 😂
@@aaronconvery Lol, i knew that jewish rabbinical writings made it into the quran but not gnostic teachings
it had popularity and influence the same way arianism did, just because it was popular and influential doesnt make it not a fringe belief within overall christiandom
@@InitialPCFirst it survivorship bias - because it was marginalised over time doesn't mean it was always fringe. Second, gnostic influence lingered in Christianity until the late middle ages in the form of sects such as the Cathars and the Bogomils, which were important to the discourses of the time, since many institutions and ideas were developed to counter them.
One of your best videos 👌
"We can make a religion out of this"
I wasn't expecting that, but very satisfied with the clarity at which you teach is on point. It's a huge disfavor when you aren't taught this earlier on. I understand anti-intellectualists might disagree. That's where we need more debate and ministry. You're doing that splendidly in the plot he's given you. Thank you for the inspiration and encouragement, God Bless, Richard 💪📖🔥🙏
Hey zomer, how can you join your minecraft server?
Love your videos btw
Very informative. Thank You. Keep'em coming. May the Lord reward You.
This is the best synopsis of how the Bible was assembled into the canon practiced today. Now I have to look for a video explaining the different compilations and translations. I am sure there is both a historical and theological context for that, too.
The problem with that is the bible is not historical.
It's a good video, but you were wrong to say that the difference between major and minor prophets is their importance. In fact, it's just the size of the books. Another point is that you missed the opportunity to substantiate that, Jesus being the Word of God itself, is the basis on which we consider the writings of the prophets and apostles to be inspired and that because he was a Palestinian Jew, he was probably referring to the Canon Hebrew when he stated that scripture is inspired by God. Finally, you could have said that the Apostles already referred to each other's writings as scripture and the Word of God (2 Peter 3:15-16, 1 Timothy 5:18 and 1 Thessalonians 2:13), before the church later defined the Canon of the Bible, which shows that its definition was not a determination, but a recognition.
@Bible43 Why? Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, the Apostles claimed to speak inspiredly from God and referred to their writings as Scripture. No problems here.
@@pedroguimaraes6094then why did'nt most of the apostles contribute a single word to te Bible?
Are they the useless servants?
(No, they built The Church which had and has a divine mission)
@@martonpluzsik5627 "No, they built The Church which had and has a divine mission" - I don't understand why you think I would disagree with you about that.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Do you have any evidence of this Hebrew Canon existing before Christ? Josephus doesn’t count, he doesn’t even explain what books are in his “22 books”, and he represents just Pharisaic Judaism. What was the Essene Canon?
5:46 check out Joe heshmeyer shameless popery about the deuterocanon referenced in the New testament. Not all protocannon books are mentioned or quoted in the New testament including Ruth and Chronicles, where there are some references to Tobit and Maccabees in the New testament. Off the top of my head, the seven Angels that Sir Minister to God in Revelation are mentioned more explicitly in Tobit. Also, the festival of lights, Hanukkah, is mentioned in the New testament which is from Maccabees 1. There's also a litany in Hebrews that is very similar to the litany in 2 Maccabees
Also on Scripture Catholic we have full list of deuterocanocial quotations and 300 out of 350 references to the Old Testament are compatible with Septuagint, not Masoretes. Also theory of two canons is outdated and debunked. Deuterocanonical books weren't writtn in Greek by Egyptian diaspora. They were originally hebrew/aramaic (with exclusion of 2 Machabees and Wisdom) and used in Judea in times of Jesus. We know it from Qumran.
Thank you!!!❤ amazing video
This a really good and concise video my friend ❤
1) Origin of Old Testament isn't that simple. Linguistic analysis shows that the oldest text isn't anything in Torah, but probably Song of Deborah in Judges (Nevi'im). And the beginning of Genesis might be created after the Exile as it looks like a polemic with Enuma Elish. Also difference between parts caused three hypotheses about composition of the Torah: Documentary, Supplementary and Fragmentary. So it's unlikely that Moses is the direct author of the Pentateuch. And it isn't written anywhere it's otherwise. It's a part of an oral tradition. And here's a question to you: Why treating oral tradition of Jews as a fact and rejecting oral tradition of early Christians?
2) First Temple was destroyed, but the Second One was build like... 50 years later. and it stood for 600 years. So in theory you had your central authority and the post-temple judaism was formed after 70 AD. Alongside the final canon of Tanach. As in times of Jesus we had whole spectrum of believes what counts and what doesn't. Sadducees believed only in Torah while Pharisees used bigger canon, but didn't have work out any consensus. Even in times of Rabbi Akiva there were several ongoing discussions. And there are Essenes. As findings from Qumran showed us, they have the biggest catalogue and even were using books we're didn't know before.
3) Theory of two canons is outdated and debunked. As stated in previous point, there was none or whole spectrum. Depends on definition. Also now we know that Tobit, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, Judith and the rest were originally written in hebrew/aramaic. We even posses fragments. From mentioned by me Qumran which also proofs that those texts were used in Judea in time of Jesus. They never were something unique to diaspora in Egypt. However to be honest, Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees were created in Greek.
4) So Rabbinic Jews doesn't include Deuterocanonical Books, because they're not a part of Hebrew Canon and Protestants do the same, because Jesus and Apostles didn't quote them while Catholics have opposite opinion, because *insert random and internal reasoning* XD This argument is so Protestant. Always wondering why are you doing this? Because if you'll go into details, viewers might conclude that Catholics could be right? First of all, there was no Hebrew Canon when paths of Christians and Rabbinic Jews split apart. Also all Churches were recognizing most Deuterocanonical Books. Only Luther changed it. And 300 out of 350 quotations of Old Testament in New Testament are compatible with Septuagint, not Masoretes. Also books of Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Zephaniah, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, and Esther are not quoted either. Yet no Protestant has a problem with including them in their canon. And where did you got that Deuterocanonical Books aren't quoted? You have a full list on Scripture Catholic.
*History of the Bible in 2 minutes*
-1st century: The apostles and disciples of Jesus wrote the Gospels, Acts, and epistles to guide early Christian communities.
-2nd century: The Septuagint and some books of the New Testament were circulating among early Christians. Church Father Irenaeus identified the 4 Gospels in his writings.
-3rd century: Origen of Alexandria made a list of New Testament books containing most of the current New Testament books except for James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
-4th century: The Synod of Hippo (393) approved a Biblical canon of 73 books, containing 46 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books, pending approval by the See of Rome. In 397, the Council of Carthage again approved the same list.
-5th century: St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (Vulgate). Pope Innocent I names all the 73 books of the current Catholic Bible as canon in his Letter written to a Galican bishop in 405 AD.
-15th century: The Council of Florence (1442) accepted the 73 books of the Bible as inspired by God.
-16th century: Martin Luther started to question the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. He moved the 7 Deuterocanonicals to the appendix of his Bible translation. In response to Luther, the Catholic Church officially approved and canonized the list of 73 books that had previously been approved by the 4th-century Church councils.
W dedication (unless its a copy paste)
Me if I didn't know history:
As if the deuterocanonicals weren't in another section already, you cite Jerome, but guess, even him questioned their canonicity, and you didn't cite all the other who did too because they are holes in your narrative, this type of one-sided history is very bad faith.
@@qwerty_L Correct, St. Jerome questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals (mostly because he lived most of his life in Palestine with Jews). But he included them in his Vulgate.
The point is that, since the compilation of the Bible, it had 73 books despite of some opposition.
Also, most of the Church Father's who did questioned the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals included at least one Deuterocanonicl book in their lists of canonical books.
@@anycyclopedia yet you didn't mention it the first time did you? You had to be confronted before giving a full picture?
Why don't you also say how the deuterocanonicals were not considering full canonicals, and had a second kind of inspiration for most of the early church fathers? They were included but they didn't have the same authority as the normal canon?
The name "deuterocanonicals" is literally the point, it's a second canon, not the same as the first canon
@@qwerty_L The names "Deuterocanonical" and "Protocanonical" were first used in the 16th century by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, a Jewish convert to Catholicism. So, that name doesn't prove anything.
Deutercanonical books accepted by Church Fathers who rejected the canonicity of some other Deuterocanonical books:
Origen of Alexandria: Baruch and 2 Maccabees
St. Athanasius of Alexandria: Baruch (excludes Esther from canon)
St. Hilary of Polties: Tobit and Judith
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Baruch (excludes Esther)
St. Basil the Great: Sirach
St. Gregory of Nazianzen: NONE (excludes Esther)
So you can see that none of the Church Fathers rejected all the Deuterocanonical books. And in your logic we'll have to remove Esther from the canon.
I was litereally just thinking through this issue myself. What a co-incidence!
Dear sir, do you have any recimmended readings on this topic?
Love your humor
This is a great video. Thanks.
This is a very precise, accurate, interesting and wonderful video. Keep it up, bro. God bless.
So I’m a protestant, I still read from the apocrypha. There’s wisdom in it, but it’s always good to read carefully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Even if you dont believe it is part of the Bible (which it is, but thats not the point here), its still useful to read it not as scripture, but rather as historical documents.
Catholics will tell you only their pope is allowed access to the holy spirit to tell you what the Bible meant
That's the historic view of the apocrypha.
Same here, I love the wisdom of Solomon and Bel and the dragon, even though I don't accept them as fully canonical, still some great stuff in there.
It also helps you to understand what the majority of Jews believed at the time of Jesus
Couple corrections.
1. Dead sea scrolls and septuigent is older than mesoretic. But mesoretic wasnt liked by rabbanic jews because it attacks pharisees and line of priests. Yet it was recorded in talmud that septuigent is still inspired.
2. The bible does use deutrocanon but sometimes even more polemics and isnt called out persay as scripure when use or inspired minus book of Enoch where it calls the prophecy prophetic but that isnt in the book of enoch.
Can u make a whole video about how we got the gospels from a historical pov, like what manuscripts were used for particular which part of the bible, and then give some arguments to support their authenticity, make it just about the new testament please
"what manuscripts were used for particular which part of the bible,"
other way around, the stories of the gospels existed as oral traditions and eyewitness testimony before being recorded in written form as the gospels we (mostly) know today
There's a RUclipsr named Testify!
Don't expect too much from RZ since he's more into theology and not apologetics!
Not in any way to undermine his importance to the Kingdom, but it's good to have other RUclipsrs to cross check!
This channel is amazing
BEAUTIFUL!!!! Well done work.
As you probably know, Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel. They are called the 'Deuterocanonicals' by Catholics and 'Apocrypha' by Protestants. Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether.
Please be mindful of the fact that those seven books had been in Bibles used by all Christians from the very foundation of Christianity.😊😊
Hellenistic Greek was the language of the day during the time of Christ. This was due to the fact that Alexander the Great had conquered the region several hundred years before. The Hebrew language was on its way out, and there was a critical need for a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament for dispersed Greek speaking Jews. This translation, called the Septuagint, or LXX, was completed by Jewish scholars in about 148 B.C. and it had all of the books, including the seven removed by Martin Luther over 1650 years later. The New Testament has about 350 references to Old Testament verses. By careful examination, scholars have determined that 300 of these are from the Septuagint and the rest are from the Hebrew Old Testament*. They have shown that Jesus Christ Himself, quoted from the Septuagint. Early Christians used the Septuagint to support Christian teachings.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.
Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.
"THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
@bibleman8010
I would rather say the Septuagint (LXX) was written in Hellenistic Greek, the classical Attic, while Koine Greek was the one that took over as a lingua franca dialect, and with which the NT was written.
The LXX dates as far back as to the 3rd century BC, and over 15 years ago I had all my files saved on another computer and knew the exact story of its translation, which unfortunately I don't have at hand right now.
I kind of remember though, that for its translation the Egyptian King Ptolemy II seems to have chosen six members of each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, which multiplied gives 72.
Just for the record, the Apocrypha consist of a variety of other newer writings, incl. gospels and apocalyptic texts, while the Deuterocanonical refer only to the 7 books of the OT.
St. Jerome was indeed a skilled translator and philologist, who added lots of commentary notes in his translations, and he seems to have later suggested a more accurate translation which could do justice to certain Hebrew terms used in the OT. However, the discovery of the Qumran scroll has also permitted to revise and correct certain terms and thus render even more faithfully the meaning of certain terms as the sacred authors intended them.
Nowadays all the previous is already history. What is most important is to have a Bible that is as reliable as possible and doesn't contain unnecessary disambiguation.
the church believed all of the books of the septuagint were inspired, catholics removed some like 3 and 4 maccabees
luther did not remove the books, he was not the only catholic to reject the deuterocanon as canon there are other examples, jerome is another at the top of my head
he also did not refer to the deuterocanon as apocrypha he referred to it as deuterocanon, in his words the books were good to read but were not the word of god, a sentiment I share (I really like tobit)
@@InitialPC
There are no 3 and 4 Maccabees that have been removed. It's just the division of the same books 1 and 2 that is made in 4 books.
Done is done. Read the Maccabees yourself and realize that the entire Bible would be more complete.
@@therealong "There are no 3 and 4 Maccabees"
Yes there are. You are wrong.
Where is the documented evidence that the seven deuterocanonical books were written in Hebrew? And if you accept those, why not also accept 3Maccabees, 4Maccabees, Psalm 151 which are in the LXX Greek Bible?
Great video! Keep the good work 👍
totally agree!! Keep em coming RZ
We're starting a ministry to teach the first steps for Christians at our church and the second class will be about the Bible, this vid will be a good resource to draw stuff from, ty!
God bless your work RZ
This is superbly great. Thank you so much
So Constantine dictated the KJV, got it.
ETA: Obvious joke should be obvious.
Nope, Constantine was dead by the time KJV existed because KJV was written in 1610. Constantine already died 1273 years before that time.
@@Theophoruz Or is that just what the Masons want you to think?
@@jdotoz Nope, Constantine died in 337 AD, that pretty much settles it.
@@Theophoruz Sounds like something the Illuminati would say.
@@jdotoz lol
Succinct and informative. Very good. Thank you
ye
Very interesting, thank you for making this video!
I love how you couldn’t animate the parting of the Red Sea
Thank you for your excellent work, I really don't understand why there are so many dislikes
Timeline
450 BC - Tanach (Tanahk). 24 books, 3 sections
300-100BC - Septuagint (contains WoS, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, 1,2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus)
85 - Marcion of Sinope attempts a canon. much hearesy in his ideology, ex-commed from early church. forced church to respond with a canon.
155 - Polycarp’s letter (to the Philippians) indicates that the early church already considered the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles as inspired Scripture.
180 - Muratorian Canon. 22 of 27 books. did not include Hebrews, James, Peter 1 & 2, 2 John 3 John, it did include Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.
313 - Christianity Decriminalized by Constantine.
313 - Eusebius disputes James. 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude, Revelation.
636 - Council of Laodicea affirmed 26 NT books. Rejected Revelation
367 - Athanasius makes list of accepted 27 books
384/382 - (Council of Rome ) St. Jerome did not want to include additional books, compelled by church to include them anyway
393 - Synod of Hippo (Hippo Canon) 27 book NT, Recognized by early church. New 33 book + OT canon. 1st "Official" church canon. Regional canons exist.
397 - Counsel of Carthage - Hippo canon confirmed and binding by the church
1054 - Great schism
1522 - Martin Luther canon moved OT (WoS, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Maccabees) books to Apocrypha. Considered Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation as disputed
1545 - Council of Trent. Added back books Luther removed and gave them new title "Deuterocanonical"
1820s - Paper cost increases lead to publishers removing Deuterocanonical books. 73 to 66 books.
Finally an accurate comment about Bible History!
Hey Zoomer, where can I find the sacred music you used in the background? I caught bits of it and I want to find full recordings.
3:00 aren't the terms "major" and "minor" more about length than importance?
Oh wow. This is the perfect crash course on the bible. Thank you so much!
Imcmust waitinf for the Jay Dyer 3 hour response 😂
Video idea: every king of israel explained in 8 minutes.
(Based on the book of samuel and the book of kings)
I think you left missing the fact that The Septuagint was the Bible quoted from, by Jesus, and those books were removed by Jews like 700 years later, and they were ALWAYS in Christian Bibles, until Protestants removed them. Even the original Protestant Bibles included them, including the KJV (though by that time i think they started putting them in the Appendix.
To say that the apostles didn’t quote from the sepuagint is a blatant lie. There are several verses in the NT that are scholarly proven to quote from the Septuagint and not the TaNaKh
The Catholic Church canonized it
Make a video about stories of famous saints after the Bible.
awesome video thank you so so much!
Fantastic video.
Popped Quiz:
1. The ________ are the prophets of the new covenant
2. How did the synoptic gospels differ in terms of their target audience?
Or better yet, what is the best word in Greek to represent what we translate as "prophet" from hebrew
Apostles
Excellent work. This was very helpful.
You omited that Pope Damasus I called the Council of Rome in 382 and established the cannon of scripture New and Old Testament.
I noticed that too
@@richlopez5896 Protestants tend to omit history because it doesn't favor them.
1:45 I think the Lord saying Moses wrote it is pretty clear
I think it's fair to say there is more complication than that. Composition of the Pentateuch really is a fiercely discussed issue and for good reason. To just bring a simple thing regarding say Deuteronomy, different book, fair enough. But there, we have accounts of Moses and his reaching to Israelites, "and then Moses died" and the text continues on, suggesting a non-Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy.
Really getting into the other of the five gets a lot more technical in discussion of language used and contradictions in the text. By any chance are you familiar with the JEPD theory?
@@ProbeScout what is jepd theory?
@@faboomkomapper It's been the most common scholastic view of the Pentateuch for quite a while. Comes from German of course, and stands for Jahwist (as in Yahweh in a more anglo form, the tetragrammaton/ The LORD), Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomy. These refer to 4 basic sources that are viewed as being used to create what we call the books of Moses. According to the theory, Deuteronomy comes from the Deuteronomist source of course, a lot of material in places like Leviticus comes from the Priestly, and most of the stories come from the Jahwist or Elohist sources, the specific means in the theory to distinguish depends on the name used for God in a passage.
Essentially, each source is viewed as coming from different places, usually the J source being viewed as the oldest at around the 10th century bc, E source at 9th centure, P source in the 5th century, and D 6th century I do believe.
There is a lot of reasons why people subscribe to such ideas, and a lot of things it deals with well. Personally, I do not believe in the theory's accuracy and find it unable to successfully interpret what happens in a number of passages, such as Genesis chapter 6.
Sorry for the long text wall, I just hope to explain accurately, as relatively few I know are familiar with stuff like this.
TL;DR 4 different sources from different time periods are believed by some to be used to compile the pentateuch post exile
@@faboomkomapper the theory that Pentateuch has been composed, mixing four sources written in different times of Israel's History the Yahwhist "J" and Elohist "E" sources written in early time of Monarchy, the Deuteronomist "D" source written mostly during time of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah and later expanded, and the Priestly "P" source written after the babilonian exile With Genesis, Exodus and Numbers based in J, E and P, Leviticus written based only in P and Deuteronomy as the name says based on Deuteronomist source, for more look at Useful Charts Channel or search for that in other sources
I’m just like this rn🤯 this gives a lot of context when explaining the audiences they wrote too and you can really see the cultural biases behind it as well, but from my view I would read the other books just because honestly to have more information to talk about😂😂 The center point of the Bible is Jesus and I keep that at my forefront that everything stimulates from, and leads to Jesus in The Bible
Hello there! Thank you for turning me to Christ. But i need help. I feel my faith is unpure... How do i trust Jesus?
None of us have pure faith. go to church every week. do you do that?
What makes you think your faith is "unpure"? Is there something you struggle with?
Read scripture daily, be constant in prayer and if you have not yet a church home, go out and seek for it.
But be assure that the church you attend is also a faithful with sound and healthy doctrine.
If you need help, don't hesitate to ask.
@@redeemedzoomer6053u missed the part where the Assyrian church of the east and Assyrian churches play a part in Christianity and how Aramaic was the first language the bible was written in the Greeks were the second
4:51 thank you
I grew up with BC I don't know where they got this BCE from
1:45 is giving the soundtrack from AOT when reiner revealed he was the armor titan
Thank you for spreading the Gospel!
Really good, thank you 😁
5:13 Tobit and Sirach have been found in Hebrew and Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And Aramaic was the language the first bible was written in look it up the Greeks only wrote the second
@@sarausage no, it was not. Are you refering to Papias' statement about Matthew?
Can you make a video explaining Christianity to someone who has never heard of it
THANK YOU for pointing out that vast parts of Genesis are oral traditions Moses wrote down. The ammount of people who believe he had all of Genesis as some revelation or something is scary. The further back in the timeline, the messier and fuzzier the story gets, but it's more figurative and actually transports a deep message. The younger the plot is, the more historically accurate it gets.
This is a fair summary of the religious view of the bible.
So, basically, the bible is divided in two parts: law and gospel
As a lutheran, it's a big yes from me
Also, the canon protestants use today, the "Masoretic text" was used by the Pharisees and Jesus when clashing againts them, however Matthew and Luke clearly used the Septuagint
And in John, Jesus said to the Pharisees that their sceipture (their cannon)
And in John 5:39 :
" You study the Scriptures (with the Pharisees' cannon) diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures (with the Pharisees' cannon)that testify about me"
Jesus didn't say the Pharisees' cannon was wrong
Really appreciate this video.
Careful, Jesus did quote from those books and the Septuagint was the prevailing scriptural corpus of his day. You’re injecting Protestant bias into this.
Correction. After the kingdom split Only the southern tribes know as Jews returned to the land. The upper 10 tribes assimilated into the nations. But it was prophecied throughout the Bible that they would be reunited. Hasn’t happened yet but many people from around the world are now waking up and returning to the Law of God.
The problem with that is, YOU CAN'T USE THE BIBLE TO PROVE THE BIBLE!🤔
Wait is that the dune soundtrack when you mentioned oral tradition at 0:30 ? 😂
So good 👏🏽.
Wow I didn't know that thank you for explaining the holy Bibel
So, where did you get this information? No Hate, No Atheism, just very very curious
Moses also learned from his father in law, Jethro, who was a descendant of both Abraham through Keturah, and Bethuel, father of Rebekah and grandfather of Leah and Rachel. He also would have had access to the historical documents of Egypt.
Moses created a new written language with the Torah.
Its implied that Daniel collated the Deuteronomistic history during the time of exile.
0:08 why is the fundamentalist flipping us off-
Nah he ain't.
Hi are we still supposed to keep the Sabbath since it is part of the Ten Commandments? And Our Lord Jesus said ,"If you love me keep my commandments." Even if it is not reiterated in the New Testament, many people would argue that the Law was unchangeable.
I have a question: where did you learn all of this stuff? did you go to school