I'm 72 and came out of Hagen and Copeland revivals. I went to Bethel Redding before Bill Johnson took over. The thing where I got a lost was not feeling worthy to hear from God and when after a long journey the Lord showed me He loved me He died for me and I didn't need an intermediary to let me know what God had for me. The word is the life line He gave me. Praise His Name.❤
Its not so much that he's especially learned or particularly great a scholar, a lot of guys have that much learning. Its that he's so earnest, humble, gentle, and winsome in his approach.
Wow, that was really great. Wesley is way awesome. Thanks for having him on and dialoging around all this, very interesting. I learned much from him during this.
Great respectful way of explaining the KJV! I was a KJV only person until around 2010ish I taught myself Greek to prove the pastor wrong fortunately I learned it's good and other translations are not for the most part wrong! The study turned me to ESV
That's strange as I learned Hebrew and Greek, and my professors edited the ESV. After 28 years and several translations later, it only confirmed of how accurate the King James is.
JESUS LUVS!!! BE CAREFUL OF Bibles that are "paraphrases", that means something is left out! the living Bible is a personal paraphrase not a translation! BE BLESSED!!!
The more versions of the Bible I read, and the more I explore Scripture, the more certain I am that God can - and does - preserve his Word. I offer the words of Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves for we walk about as underlings."
There is no reason we cannot thoughtfully and prayerfully read other Scriptures that were taken out of the Bible Cannon. Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22; woe to those who add to or take from this word!
keep em coming Melissa! I want your long form content! If you could, also give us your full talks! Ive seen your youtube shorts and the speech clip is phenomenal and I want more. Please keep giving us long stuff - whether its conversations/podcasts or just you going on a long speech. 30 minutes to 3 hours is fantastic and keep doing this great stuff!
@@andrewbrossman9902 Who Im interested in is Melissa. She clearly has been given Wisdom and an articulate mouth from God. Her view is what I want more of rather than information.
@@foolish_god Nothing against Mellisa. I like her channel. I was mentioning that you want to know more about the deutercannon, there is a RUclips channel called the apocalypse apocrypha. The New Testament cannon is closed. The Old Testament cannon, not really.
@@andrewbrossman9902 What did I say about the deutercannon or scriptural cannon? I didn't speak about it. Yet you come to me telling me to check out someone I never gave interest for. My focus has been on Melissa, not the content. My focus is on a person, not ideas. Go away and stop being a fool. Come back when Wisdom is on your lips. You do not listen to advice as is clear when you come to me and tell me what to do. You do not care to understand my words, you only care to air your opinion.
As Christians we remain human, and pride can result in resistance to change. We do not like being wrong, or being duped. Loyalty, also can play a role in denial.
If Jesus and the Apostles adopted the Jewish/Protestant canon, then *why do we find so many of citations from the early Church quoting the Deuterocanon explicitly as Scripture or using to confirm doctrine?* Here's a sampling: Epistle of Barnabas (ch 6) - Wis 2:12 Clement of Rome - Wis 12:12 Shepherd of Hermas - 2 Mac 7:28 Athenagoras - Baruch 3:36 Irenaeus - Wis 6:18-19; Baruch generally and specifically 3:39-4:1 Tertullian - Wis 1:6, 2:12; Maccabees generally Clement of Alexandria - Sir 21:7, 20, 23:19, 39:26-27; Wis 3:1-6, 6:17-19, 16:26; Tob 4:15 Hippolytus - Baruch 3:36; Wisdom as a whole; 2 Mac 2:6ff; Tobit; Daniel/Susanna Cyprian - Wisdom at least 3 times; Sirach at least 4 times; Tob 4:5-11, 12:8-9, 12-15; 2 Mac 6:30 Origen - Wisdom at least 9 times; Sirach at least 13 times; 2 Mac 7 and then generally once as "Scripture history"; Susanna (book of Daniel) as part of "divine catalog"; Judith (9:2); Tobit; "they summon the book of Baruch the prophet to bear witness to this assertion" -De Principiis (Book II) ( The whole Deuterocanon apparently! ) Athanasius - Wisdom at least 8 times; Sir 15:9; Judith 8:16; Bar 3:12; Tob 12:7 Source: mostly Michuta's The Case for the Deuterocanon with over 100 pages of such citations/quotations
@@theunstopablegoat bro somehow doesn't realize that the video doesn't address my question at that timestamp. Also, Jerome actually did quote the Deuteros late in life as inspired Scripture, demonstrating a change of heart and ultimate submission to the Catholic Church on the issue. Huff doesn't actually know what he's talking about, just repeating the same old myths and falsehoods. Gary Michuta has thoroughly debunked these Protestant talking points. Check out his books and videos for real primary source analysis.
@@theunstopablegoat So the early Church fathers quoted the Deuteros *_explicitly as inspired/prophetic Scripture/Word of God and/or to confirm doctrine_* because "the Jews knew about these books"?? That's the supposed answer to my question?? So on the canon we should obey the "authority" of 2nd century Jews who rejected Jesus and the New Testament rather than the authority of those the Apostles taught and ordained as their successors and the next generation of apostolic successors?? That's your logic?
We often quote psalm 23, yet even there the archaic language fails people. I shall not want is not clear, because want currently me and desire or crave-it doesn’t mean need. If you said “I shall not be in want,” or even better, “I shall not be in need” or “I shall not be lacking.” We can easily see the shift in the use of the word, but as is the text doesn’t clearly transmit the meaning it intended. Similar to how people misunderstand Shakespeare when he wrote “Romeo, Romeo-wherefore art thou Romeo?” They think she’s saying where are you, where in reality she is saying “Why did you have to be Romeo?” Wherefore is for why, not in what place.
I want to eat!.....Oh no! I forgot, I'm not supposed to want! Now I'm a sinner.....well, I guess I was already a sinner....now I'm a bigger sinner!!!! Seriously though, you pointed out a perfect example for why we need to update Bible translations. Another one I have heard is people reading "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and taking that to mean we shouldn't try to save up enough stuff to last until we are dead....... which is not what that means. Even Tyndale's translation that's 500 years old states this in a more understandable way. Clearly each day has sufficient trouble in itself so we need to stay focused on today and not be worrying about all the stuff that hasn't happened yet. New teachings are being found in the KJV after 413 years because people read it with their 2024 brain and 2024 English, which makes a magical English soup that creates new stuff never before seen!!! So exciting....
Shall not want would mean I won’t want, not a shouldn’t want. In other words, not that we are wrong to desire things, but that our needs will be met. But yes, I was intentionally trying to point out the need to update the language-because people reading archaic language often misconstrue the meaning.
It baffles me that thirty years after I first heard these fallacious arguments, people are still spouting the same nonsense and thinking that they are disproving the authenticity of Scripture. Next, some "smart" guy is going to discover the "secret hidden " gospel of Barnabas, I guess.
@Doris1888 I was using a random allusion to a writing that no one believes is legitimate but seems to get people who know nothing about Biblicall History excited when they first discover it. And while one is superior to the other as a document, neither is accepted as Canon, but I am not going to dialogue about that here. Blessings.
@@Just_a_Reflection Well the Epistle of Barnabas which was probably written late into the first century didn't make it into the Bible but was referred to often by the early church so it's history might be considered legitimate historically but not inspired. However, the Gospel of Barnabas was written about the 15th or 16th century and basically discredits Christianity in favor of the Muslim religion. Hardly a gospel about Jesus Christ.
@Doris1888 You are exactly right. Clement of Alexandria reportedly accepted the Epistle, and it is important because it gives a view of how early Jewish Christians segued from Rabbinical Judaism to Christianity, though it was later investigated and found to not be sound and not inspired, primarily due to it's Gnostic undertones, similar to the Shepherd of Hermas. The Gospel of Barnabas is Gnostic garbage written in the Middle Ages with absolutely no real value. My point is that I was making an offhand allusion, which wasn't central to my offhand comment.
Melissa, I was happy your stance is positive and open-minded toward allowing oneself to read non-canonized, apochryphal books which had failed to make the big bad soccer team cut of canon (thanks for patience with my sense of humour). This is cool and makes me look forward to your future videos, peer-reviewed articles, debates, dissertation(s), and books written after today and especially when you get your next degree as Apologist! Godspeed!
What do you mean non canonized books? Those books were indeed part of the bibles canon. They only stopped being that when the reformation happens. Those books are still canonical even if protestantism rejects them. The majority of Christians in the world accept the deuterocanon.
I've been reading the Church Fathers and how the early Church functioned. I can see how the claim that "the Catholic Church is reading these things into the past" can work. But honestly though, something that seems clear to me is that back then there was apostolic succession. The bishops had authority. Rome had kind of a primacy going on. And the Church was this united church where the bishops were constantly looking after and defending it against heresies. The councils were made to fight them and define important things about the faith. It seems to me that there was an authority going on in the Church...
There was government in the 1st century church, but there is NEVER a such thing in the Bible as apostolic succession. Idc what the "church fathers" had to say about it. The Bible shows how the early church functioned, and IT is the only reliable source for what the 1st century church believed and practiced.
One church had a tendency to take people they didn't like and tie them to a bundle of sticks and fire them..... Probably safe to say they also burned a lot of paper too. So if a lot of church writings seem to support the church that liked burning things and people, there might be a reason why.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Hello! Yeah, I've seen how some were extremely knowledgeable in the philosophy ideas of that time. However, I would like to hear more of your reasoning.
....it didn't take long for Rome to be a problem to the rest of the church. Bishop Stephen in the mid second century was promoting a non-trinitaraian position, and Rome started trying to assert itself as the chief church above all the other Bishops. It would take centuries but it was the last for power that convinced the church in the East to severe ties with the church in Rome.
This is so interesting. I have studied and written papers on all five of these topics. A frustration comes with talking to people about them because most have heard something, but are not well studied. I don't get very deep into converations with those who either have a vague, or no idea, what is in different bibles or how they came about. Some talks devolve into an exchange of talking points. Infrequently, someone gets really mad if you bring scholarly sources into it. I won't carry on a discussion where someone wants to duel with bumper sticker slogans. Pearls before swine.
I'm a devout Roman Catholic. I can't speak for my brethren but personally i have no problem with myth 3. It actually saddens me that christian's have fought over something so insignificant. God bless you all my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Enoch 1 is most likely the first comic book ever written. Ironically, Stan Lee stole a lot of material from the scriptures: The Creator, The Watchers, "With great power, comes great responsibility (to whom much is given, much is required)". I agree that reading Enoch is a good idea because it is referenced by Peter and Jude, but that's about it. Great interview, Little Sister!
How can it be comic when there are verses in scripture that reference the book of Enoch and quote from it just like how they also reference the books they decided to take away without proper permission or authority because none of them prayed for guidance from the Holy spirit who inspired the letters and also non of them asked God for confirmation they went based on their own understanding for the sake of peace and destroying the truth in the process
@@adeclipse_sa to suggest that scripture quotes from the book of enoch is to assume that the book of enoch is older than those books in scripture, which is a massive assumption. sure, its written as though it is older and the character is older, but as stated in this interview the oldest compiled book of enoch is from the 15th century. there are also things stated in enoch which are directly against scripture, so theres that
@@junk3996 , it is not scripture. Most scholars think that the first sections of 1 Enoch were written 3 centuries before Jesus ' birth. Scrolls of Enoch were found at Qumra (Dead Sea Scrolls), which are thought to be from 2 centuries BC.
@@adeclipse_sa my point is, that it is like a fantastic work of fiction like a graphic novel we would see in the realm of comic book literature today. I'm not sure to whom you are referring, when you mention books being taken out?
Oh by the way Melissa I want to complement you on your interviewing skills. You let your guest do most of the talking and had a clear agenda and stayed on topic and asked only clarifying questions that were in the scope of the interview. Rabbit trails can be fun and interesting but they can keep you from achieving your overall goals. Too many RUclipsrs and Podcasters have chaotic interviews and there is way too much cross talk and meandering off topic. 1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
What is highlighted here is how a "story," can be carried over many generations. We see this in families where a story is put forward from one generation to the next. The story is accepted as true. No reason to question our parent's report, or our pastor's report authenticity. The story in our family was our grandfather had brain damage from being stuck by a car, an as a result murdered his wife (our grandmother) However, police investigation documented that the motive for the murder was our grandfather's belief his wife was unfaithful. Evidence revealed there was never an affair. Humans can be motivated to create favorable narratives or to cover up unfavorable narratives. Churches can and do this as well.
Thank you so much for this video! Especially the part about Enoch as well as the very helpful explanation about "there was no more sea" in Revelation. Like his Australian friend, I too hope it doesn't mean what a literal reading means. 😊 Definitely subscribing to his channel also!
This is so good and really encouraging! I’m in Alberta, Canada and the Alberta chapter of Apologetics Canada went way off the rails into Nationalism and Legalism so I stopped following. I used to attend their Be Ready apologetics conference so it was really disappointing and I no longer support them. I’m happy to see sound theology coming from Apologetics Canada!
Can you possibly consider inviting/interviewing qualified representatives from Apostolic churches, Orthodox, Church of the east, Coptic church, Church of Rome (Roman Catholic Church), if possible Armenian Church, Ethiopian Church? There is no rush, it would really be appreciated to hear what the Apostolic churches have to say on the same topic, instead of listening to protestants talking about the Apostolic churches. After all, the Council mentioned was The Church, not just The Church of Rome, representatives from all over came to that Council. Politely suggesting this approach to this topic.
Yes, I would love hearing an apologists rebuttle some of the points he is making here that ought to he rebutted. Especially his point about the Councils merely recognizing scripture. They recognized alot of things but you don't see Protestants accepting them. I feel there is a bit of pick and choose when they agree with the Councils over the Bibles canon. Then ignore other things reached at the Councils consensus like baptismal regeneration.
Yeah, well it taught me lots of propaganda from the reformers. The Church did not merely recognize the Canon as this man tries to assert. If all it was doing was recognizing the canon and he agrees with this supposed "consensus" then why stop there? Why doesn't he accept the consensus of the Councils on apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration and Jesus Christ present in the body and blood of the Mass? The Councils recognized those things too! Yet you don't see him clamoring about how they merely "recognized" those ideas also, do you? It sounds like someone loves the Councils when he agrees with it. Also he also doesn't mention that the council that "recognized" the Bibles canon also recognized the deutercanom as well (known as the apocrypha to protestantism).
Another really good resource dealing with this is Dr. Heiser's interviews with Rick Brannan on TheNakedBiblePodcast episodes 99 and 104. Also episodes 130 and 242 have good conversations concerning Textual Criticism. 😊😊
The Catholic Church tells their people that they can’t possibly understand the Bible or know what’s in it and they have to rely on a priest for translation. This is why they are so misinformed. It’s heartbreaking because God wants a personal relationship with each of us.
Enoch is an important topic right now. i see it everywhere, people wanting to revere this 'book' because it justifies and seemingly confirms their beliefs in "nephilim", what they are and what the person wants them to be and represent. its a very dangerous and deceiving text which steers your mind throughout unscriptural topics and concepts. peoples understanding about what nephilim are will drastically altar how they understand the relationships between humans and created angelic beings. and if i could post a link here i would post one to a comprehensive article absolutely debuking the idea that nephilim are some type of demonic-human demi-god hybrid being that existed before the flood. another thing about enoch, where it says "and he was no more". Wesley says "so theres an indication that he was taken up to heaven". he rightly points out it doesn't explicitly say that, and this is important. Enoch surely died, just like all men who are descendant from Adam, because the bible DOES explicitly say that. Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:22. lets also put a stop to the myth that Enoch and Elijah didn't die. they did.
39:38 is the argument that the “Roman Catholic” church gave the whole Bible? Or that the New Testament came out of the “Church” Part of the process was utilising the Old Testament scripture?
From context it is clear that it is a structure of some kind. The Septuagint says only "gate," but it clearly isn't the same kind of city gate (more like the town square) as we know from, say, Genesis 19:1 or Nehemiah 3:32. NASB says "annex," NIV says "court," others say simply "building." "parbar" also appears in 2 Kings 23:11, and there ESV just says "chamber."
I love this channel, even though I'm a Roman Catholic who thinks Wesley used a bit of linguistic sleight-of-hand to attempt to counter the argument that the books of the Bible came out of the same Catholic Church as exists today... God bless.
On Point 1, its interesting Wes says Constantine didn't play a big role in the Council. I thought Eusebius wrote that Constantine suggested the word homoousian (same substance) be used? Is this refuted elsewhere?
If you're referring to the mention of Enoch, Jude was speaking of a _future_ personality. He was +not_ referring to the Enoch in Genesis. Check the genealogy. He was not the seventh from Adam. Matter of fact, the "Adam" Jude refers to is not the one from Genesis either. He is talking about the second Adam, Jesus Christ(1 Cor. 15:45). "The seventh from Adam" concerns a personality who prophesies about Christ's return in the 7th era of God's Church.
@@OkKo-ux2xvNo, the Bible 'does not quote Enoch' Two writers referenced it. As you might any historic document. That doesn't infer any sort of credibility. And consider Paul's address on Mars Hill. He referenced other documents as well ..
@@toolegittoquit_001 Wait! Does that make those poets inspired too??? LOST BIBLICAL POEMS CITED BY PAUL FOUND IN ATHENS DUMPSTER OUTSIDE MARS HILL...... Someone will start a whole new denomination from this and retire a millionaire....
I watched my pastor make a minor error because ye Olde Englifh doesn't mean what you think it means. I've weighed the cost and benefits of mentioning somethibg and it seems the cost outweighs the benefits, but it still happened, the KJV causing a misunderstanding due to being outdated.
Gregory I, who lived from 540 - March 12, 604, was the first monk to become pope. He was known as Saint Gregory the Great, and was the 64th Bishop of Rome, from September 3, 590 until his death in 604.
😮😮😮Wonderful insight on Enoch! So much there I didn’t know! Historically, linguistically, and culturally-fabulous! Same conclusions I had personally come to, but my own were much less backed by those fields, and much more surface understanding! I do believe that it’s actually fairly clear, if you’re looking for the truth, that Enoch is not scripture-nor any serious historical document that can be trusted-just by reading it and thinking about it a little bit. However, these points he brings up are fantastic!
Hi Melissa, I'm looking to study the Bible in a very serious and disciplined manner but I can't really afford going to school for it and I am wondering if you have tips on any resources where I can start learning apologetics beyond just the basics. I also wanted to learn a biblical language on my own but I'm unsure if I should learn Greek or Hebrew...any tips? You're one of my favorite Bible scholars along with Mike Winger and I just am in love with The Lord and I wanna learn as much as I can...I just wanna be sure I'm learning from the correct sources.
Pastor Chris Rosebrough is fluent in both. I myself would start with Koine Greek simply for the reason that's the language used for our new covenant that we're currently under. But there's also starting with Hebrew to better see the poetry involved. There's the interlinear Bible that is in the original language, but has the English equivalent words written above. That has been quite interesting.
Definitely learn Koine Greek! It doesn't take long to read it phonetically and will be rewarding with less time invested into it. I think if a person listened to every single Mike Winger video he's ever made......that has to be equal or better than a bachelor's of theology degree.... I love theological books, but I have expensive taste and I don't have the budget to buy all the ones I want. That said, building a theology library is worth it!!!
the problem is with any of the "newer" translations they don't seek to update beautifully translated kjv to modern english, they did their own less accurate translation. It was just studied better. Also, some of the differences can make a huge change on prophetic or idiom meanings, I have noticed this in my own study. I don't JUST rely on KJV bc of the old english. However we have access to so many resources it's simple to look up the meanings of words and/or go look into the interlinear, and/or compare to the other translations.
Great discussion. I understand that the scriptures authority was recognized instead of inferred upon but I would like to hear a discussion of how the very early Christians came to recognize the 66 books. This discussion didn’t answer that. Only that it didn’t happen at the Council of Nicea. I assume this guy probably has talked about it elsewhere.
True, he skirts over the Church recognizing books protestantism later rejects. Over 1,000yrs later. Also, saying the Church recognized the canon is one thing, but to insinuate it did not have any authority to set any canon because all it was doing was "recognizing" books is a problem. Why? Well, the Church recognized other things mainstream protestantism rejectted. Those same men on that same note "recognized" baptismal regeneration and Christ present in the Eucharist. If the Church is merely recognizing stuff, then why doesn't he accept those recognized things also?
Time stamp 39:00 He tries to make this flawed analogy from this other guy that "the church merely recognized the books like a child recognized it's mom or Dad" This is an absurd analogy. Parents are easily recognizable by children because they grow with their parents from the beginning. But if you had 200 people are claming to be your parents and they all were around you, then you might find it a bit challenging to figure out who your parents were! This is hardly a great comparison for how the Church just magically "knew the canon by recognizing it" The Church had tons of writings and some were fake all being circulated. The church did in fact have to sort out what was canon. Even the book of revelations itselt was controversial at one point, so no, it did not just "recognize" the canon.
ATTENTION WES HUFF: As an expert in historical languages and biblical manuscripts, your insights are invaluable in addressing Anatoly Fomenko’s controversial claims in his New Chronology. Fomenko argues that much of ancient and medieval history was fabricated or misdated, proposing a drastically shortened historical timeline. Specifically, he suggests: Many historical events and figures are duplicates fabricated during the Renaissance. Ancient manuscripts, including biblical texts, were created or heavily altered in the medieval period. Established historical dating methods, such as linguistic evolution and paleographic analysis, are unreliable. To counter these claims, could you address the following points? Manuscript Evidence: How do textual variations and dating of biblical manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, disprove Fomenko’s assertions? Language Evolution: How does the progression of ancient languages like Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic provide a clear timeline incompatible with Fomenko’s shortened history? Cross-Cultural Validation: Can independent historical records and inscriptions from other civilizations (e.g., Babylonian, Egyptian, or Assyrian) corroborate the traditional biblical chronology? Dating Techniques: How do paleography and codicology independently validate the authenticity and age of ancient texts? Your detailed response would help clarify why Fomenko’s theories are widely regarded as pseudoscientific and unsupported by linguistic and manuscript evidence. Thank you!
I'm 72 and came out of Hagen and Copeland revivals. I went to Bethel Redding before Bill Johnson took over. The thing where I got a lost was not feeling worthy to hear from God and when after a long journey the Lord showed me He loved me He died for me and I didn't need an intermediary to let me know what God had for me. The word is the life line He gave me. Praise His Name.❤
Bible Belt babe here ! Yes 😊
Its not so much that he's especially learned or particularly great a scholar, a lot of guys have that much learning. Its that he's so earnest, humble, gentle, and winsome in his approach.
I'd say it's both. Not sure why you're trying to insinuate he isn't a good scholar. Weird
@@jonathansoko1085 I'd say you need to learn to read English.
Everything Wes Huff is popping up, now that he’s had that debate with Billy Carson.
Because everyone flooded his channel and boosted views. The algorithm is boosting him now. God bless.
Well deserved
Praise God 🙌
Bro is the Jack Reacher of biblical scholarship 😁😂
This was AWFULLY AMAZING! 😂 Thank you both so very much for this excellent discussion and teaching!
I am never disappointed with your content and interviews. This was fascinating and will be watching at least one more time.
I am so excited to see Wesley Huff as your guest! Thank you. His knowledge has always impressed me. I learn so much each time. :)
Thanks for this Melissa and Wesley. This video is super helpful and informative. I'm enjoying watching.
Melissa, this was soooooo good, thank you. I actually will watch it more than once as there is so much info to absorb!!!
Rewatching after his Billy Carson debate. Even better the second time through!
Wes Huff brought me here and I’m glad he did.
Who is here after the Billy Carson Debate 😊
Wow, that was really great. Wesley is way awesome. Thanks for having him on and dialoging around all this, very interesting. I learned much from him during this.
Thank you addressing those myths/points, which I’m sure to hear one mentioned everyday.
Love your content, Melissa! Thanks for this! Always great content to share with my people!
Great respectful way of explaining the KJV! I was a KJV only person until around 2010ish I taught myself Greek to prove the pastor wrong fortunately I learned it's good and other translations are not for the most part wrong! The study turned me to ESV
😂😂
That's strange as I learned Hebrew and Greek, and my professors edited the ESV.
After 28 years and several translations later, it only confirmed of how accurate the King James is.
@@michelleadams5609 you're absolutely full of it😂
Me too. I use the ESV.
JESUS LUVS!!! BE CAREFUL OF Bibles that are "paraphrases", that means something is left out! the living Bible is a personal paraphrase not a translation! BE BLESSED!!!
Wonderful, absolutely engaging discussion through and through! May the Lord bless us with wisdom and understanding and increase our love for His Word
"But..but....the council of Niceaaaa!!?"
Thanks Melissa, another banger of an interview!
That’s not an achievement no one says it came from Nicea, it came from Carthage and Hippo.
The more versions of the Bible I read, and the more I explore Scripture, the more certain I am that God can - and does - preserve his Word. I offer the words of Shakespeare: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves for we walk about as underlings."
What do you know of the New testament?
Nailed it Tim
There is no reason we cannot thoughtfully and prayerfully read other Scriptures that were taken out of the Bible Cannon.
Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22; woe to those who add to or take from this word!
keep em coming Melissa! I want your long form content! If you could, also give us your full talks! Ive seen your youtube shorts and the speech clip is phenomenal and I want more. Please keep giving us long stuff - whether its conversations/podcasts or just you going on a long speech. 30 minutes to 3 hours is fantastic and keep doing this great stuff!
Apocalypse Apocrypha has a boat load of information on this.
@@andrewbrossman9902 Who Im interested in is Melissa. She clearly has been given Wisdom and an articulate mouth from God. Her view is what I want more of rather than information.
@@foolish_god Nothing against Mellisa. I like her channel. I was mentioning that you want to know more about the deutercannon, there is a RUclips channel called the apocalypse apocrypha. The New Testament cannon is closed. The Old Testament cannon, not really.
@@andrewbrossman9902 What did I say about the deutercannon or scriptural cannon? I didn't speak about it. Yet you come to me telling me to check out someone I never gave interest for. My focus has been on Melissa, not the content. My focus is on a person, not ideas.
Go away and stop being a fool. Come back when Wisdom is on your lips. You do not listen to advice as is clear when you come to me and tell me what to do. You do not care to understand my words, you only care to air your opinion.
@@foolish_godYou don’t have to be mean about it. Chill out.
Great interview! May God bless both of your ministries!!
This is so good and so useful! Thanks Melissa and Wes!
Love this topic - thanks for having Wes on again!
One of the best interviews on scripture! Loved it, although I'll need to watch it again and take notes ;p thanks!
Our most important relationship is with God, not our church.
Affiliation and affection can never be more important than the truth.
Great interview. Highly informative
The lds people frequently contend that The Trinity and the Bible both came out of the Counsel of Nicea. I appreciate this clarification . Blessings.
Inviting a Catholic scholar to talk about the canon will be cool too.
Great video!! Let’s do this again real soon 🤓
Thank you for this video. I didn't even know some of these things. God bless you ❤
As Christians we remain human, and pride can result in resistance to change. We do not like being wrong, or being duped. Loyalty, also can play a role in denial.
Thank you so much for having good volume and audio quality.
If Jesus and the Apostles adopted the Jewish/Protestant canon, then *why do we find so many of citations from the early Church quoting the Deuterocanon explicitly as Scripture or using to confirm doctrine?*
Here's a sampling:
Epistle of Barnabas (ch 6) - Wis 2:12
Clement of Rome - Wis 12:12
Shepherd of Hermas - 2 Mac 7:28
Athenagoras - Baruch 3:36
Irenaeus - Wis 6:18-19; Baruch generally and specifically 3:39-4:1
Tertullian - Wis 1:6, 2:12; Maccabees generally
Clement of Alexandria - Sir 21:7, 20, 23:19, 39:26-27; Wis 3:1-6, 6:17-19, 16:26; Tob 4:15
Hippolytus - Baruch 3:36; Wisdom as a whole; 2 Mac 2:6ff; Tobit; Daniel/Susanna
Cyprian - Wisdom at least 3 times; Sirach at least 4 times; Tob 4:5-11, 12:8-9, 12-15; 2 Mac 6:30
Origen - Wisdom at least 9 times; Sirach at least 13 times; 2 Mac 7 and then generally once as "Scripture history"; Susanna (book of Daniel) as part of "divine catalog"; Judith (9:2); Tobit; "they summon the book of Baruch the prophet to bear witness to this assertion" -De Principiis (Book II)
( The whole Deuterocanon apparently! )
Athanasius - Wisdom at least 8 times; Sir 15:9; Judith 8:16; Bar 3:12; Tob 12:7
Source: mostly Michuta's The Case for the Deuterocanon with over 100 pages of such citations/quotations
Facts
Bro did not watch the video 14:00
@@theunstopablegoat bro somehow doesn't realize that the video doesn't address my question at that timestamp. Also, Jerome actually did quote the Deuteros late in life as inspired Scripture, demonstrating a change of heart and ultimate submission to the Catholic Church on the issue. Huff doesn't actually know what he's talking about, just repeating the same old myths and falsehoods. Gary Michuta has thoroughly debunked these Protestant talking points. Check out his books and videos for real primary source analysis.
@tonyl3762 No because if you looked at the timestamp, you would see why a church father would quote it.
@@theunstopablegoat So the early Church fathers quoted the Deuteros *_explicitly as inspired/prophetic Scripture/Word of God and/or to confirm doctrine_* because "the Jews knew about these books"?? That's the supposed answer to my question??
So on the canon we should obey the "authority" of 2nd century Jews who rejected Jesus and the New Testament rather than the authority of those the Apostles taught and ordained as their successors and the next generation of apostolic successors?? That's your logic?
Love this interview! Sooo eye opening ❤ thank you Melissa
We often quote psalm 23, yet even there the archaic language fails people. I shall not want is not clear, because want currently me and desire or crave-it doesn’t mean need. If you said “I shall not be in want,” or even better, “I shall not be in need” or “I shall not be lacking.” We can easily see the shift in the use of the word, but as is the text doesn’t clearly transmit the meaning it intended. Similar to how people misunderstand Shakespeare when he wrote “Romeo, Romeo-wherefore art thou Romeo?” They think she’s saying where are you, where in reality she is saying “Why did you have to be Romeo?” Wherefore is for why, not in what place.
I want to eat!.....Oh no! I forgot, I'm not supposed to want! Now I'm a sinner.....well, I guess I was already a sinner....now I'm a bigger sinner!!!!
Seriously though, you pointed out a perfect example for why we need to update Bible translations. Another one I have heard is people reading "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" and taking that to mean we shouldn't try to save up enough stuff to last until we are dead....... which is not what that means. Even Tyndale's translation that's 500 years old states this in a more understandable way. Clearly each day has sufficient trouble in itself so we need to stay focused on today and not be worrying about all the stuff that hasn't happened yet.
New teachings are being found in the KJV after 413 years because people read it with their 2024 brain and 2024 English, which makes a magical English soup that creates new stuff never before seen!!! So exciting....
Shall not want would mean I won’t want, not a shouldn’t want. In other words, not that we are wrong to desire things, but that our needs will be met. But yes, I was intentionally trying to point out the need to update the language-because people reading archaic language often misconstrue the meaning.
So, so interesting! Thank you both!
Thanks! Wes Huff is great!!!
Thanks for facilitating this! So concise, so helpful, so easy to debunk! Bless you both❤
It baffles me that thirty years after I first heard these fallacious arguments, people are still spouting the same nonsense and thinking that they are disproving the authenticity of Scripture. Next, some "smart" guy is going to discover the "secret hidden " gospel of Barnabas, I guess.
Do you mean the Gospel of Barnabas or the Epistle of Barnabas? Those are two different books.
@Doris1888 I was using a random allusion to a writing that no one believes is legitimate but seems to get people who know nothing about Biblicall History excited when they first discover it. And while one is superior to the other as a document, neither is accepted as Canon, but I am not going to dialogue about that here. Blessings.
@@Just_a_Reflection Well the Epistle of Barnabas which was probably written late into the first century didn't make it into the Bible but was referred to often by the early church so it's history might be considered legitimate historically but not inspired. However, the Gospel of Barnabas was written about the 15th or 16th century and basically discredits Christianity in favor of the Muslim religion. Hardly a gospel about Jesus Christ.
@Doris1888 You are exactly right. Clement of Alexandria reportedly accepted the Epistle, and it is important because it gives a view of how early Jewish Christians segued from Rabbinical Judaism to Christianity, though it was later investigated and found to not be sound and not inspired, primarily due to it's Gnostic undertones, similar to the Shepherd of Hermas. The Gospel of Barnabas is Gnostic garbage written in the Middle Ages with absolutely no real value. My point is that I was making an offhand allusion, which wasn't central to my offhand comment.
@@Just_a_Reflection Gotcha!👍
I love what you do. Thank you. Great show.
So so good you guys. Thank you. 💜
This is a fascinating discussion. Fantastic video!
Melissa, I was happy your stance is positive and open-minded toward allowing oneself to read non-canonized, apochryphal books which had failed to make the big bad soccer team cut of canon (thanks for patience with my sense of humour). This is cool and makes me look forward to your future videos, peer-reviewed articles, debates, dissertation(s), and books written after today and especially when you get your next degree as Apologist! Godspeed!
What do you mean non canonized books? Those books were indeed part of the bibles canon. They only stopped being that when the reformation happens. Those books are still canonical even if protestantism rejects them. The majority of Christians in the world accept the deuterocanon.
Facts, don’t they know that Wisdom is actually Jesus.. The word of God who is God
Melissa, thank you for this information, This was so interesting and eye opening
This was very interesting ❤ thank you for this
Great interview. Very informative!
Look at you, providing links to the other videos mentioned.
You are pretty awesome!
Thank you!
I've been reading the Church Fathers and how the early Church functioned. I can see how the claim that "the Catholic Church is reading these things into the past" can work. But honestly though, something that seems clear to me is that back then there was apostolic succession. The bishops had authority. Rome had kind of a primacy going on. And the Church was this united church where the bishops were constantly looking after and defending it against heresies. The councils were made to fight them and define important things about the faith. It seems to me that there was an authority going on in the Church...
There was government in the 1st century church, but there is NEVER a such thing in the Bible as apostolic succession. Idc what the "church fathers" had to say about it. The Bible shows how the early church functioned, and IT is the only reliable source for what the 1st century church believed and practiced.
In the 3rd-century Church Fathers, have you noticed the influx of platonic influence & how how platonism began to influence their theology?
One church had a tendency to take people they didn't like and tie them to a bundle of sticks and fire them..... Probably safe to say they also burned a lot of paper too. So if a lot of church writings seem to support the church that liked burning things and people, there might be a reason why.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Hello! Yeah, I've seen how some were extremely knowledgeable in the philosophy ideas of that time. However, I would like to hear more of your reasoning.
....it didn't take long for Rome to be a problem to the rest of the church. Bishop Stephen in the mid second century was promoting a non-trinitaraian position, and Rome started trying to assert itself as the chief church above all the other Bishops. It would take centuries but it was the last for power that convinced the church in the East to severe ties with the church in Rome.
My favorite Canadian on RUclips! Next have him debunk the myth that American peanut butter tastes different than Canadian peanut butter.
😊
This is so interesting. I have studied and written papers on all five of these topics.
A frustration comes with talking to people about them because most have heard something, but are not well studied.
I don't get very deep into converations with those who either have a vague, or no idea, what is in different bibles or how they came about.
Some talks devolve into an exchange of talking points. Infrequently, someone gets really mad if you bring scholarly sources into it.
I won't carry on a discussion where someone wants to duel with bumper sticker slogans.
Pearls before swine.
Love having Wes here ❤ awesome 😎
Thank you for this interview! I learned so much information.
I'm a devout Roman Catholic. I can't speak for my brethren but personally i have no problem with myth 3. It actually saddens me that christian's have fought over something so insignificant. God bless you all my brothers and sisters in Christ.
May God bless you 🙏☦️
You should have a problem with it because it’s not true.
@@JMJ.516 Take your bait to the local fishing hole. I have no use for it.
Enoch 1 is most likely the first comic book ever written. Ironically, Stan Lee stole a lot of material from the scriptures: The Creator, The Watchers, "With great power, comes great responsibility (to whom much is given, much is required)". I agree that reading Enoch is a good idea because it is referenced by Peter and Jude, but that's about it. Great interview, Little Sister!
How can it be comic when there are verses in scripture that reference the book of Enoch and quote from it just like how they also reference the books they decided to take away without proper permission or authority because none of them prayed for guidance from the Holy spirit who inspired the letters and also non of them asked God for confirmation they went based on their own understanding for the sake of peace and destroying the truth in the process
@@adeclipse_sa to suggest that scripture quotes from the book of enoch is to assume that the book of enoch is older than those books in scripture, which is a massive assumption. sure, its written as though it is older and the character is older, but as stated in this interview the oldest compiled book of enoch is from the 15th century.
there are also things stated in enoch which are directly against scripture, so theres that
@@junk3996 , it is not scripture. Most scholars think that the first sections of 1 Enoch were written 3 centuries before Jesus ' birth. Scrolls of Enoch were found at Qumra (Dead Sea Scrolls), which are thought to be from 2 centuries BC.
@@adeclipse_sa my point is, that it is like a fantastic work of fiction like a graphic novel we would see in the realm of comic book literature today. I'm not sure to whom you are referring, when you mention books being taken out?
Enoch 🙄
Loved this!
Oh by the way Melissa I want to complement you on your interviewing skills. You let your guest do most of the talking and had a clear agenda and stayed on topic and asked only clarifying questions that were in the scope of the interview. Rabbit trails can be fun and interesting but they can keep you from achieving your overall goals. Too many RUclipsrs and Podcasters have chaotic interviews and there is way too much cross talk and meandering off topic.
1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
What is highlighted here is how a "story," can be carried over many generations. We see this in families where a story is put forward from one generation to the next. The story is accepted as true. No reason to question our parent's report, or our pastor's report authenticity.
The story in our family was our grandfather had brain damage from being stuck by a car, an as a result murdered his wife (our grandmother)
However, police investigation documented that the motive for the murder was our grandfather's belief his wife was unfaithful. Evidence revealed there was never an affair.
Humans can be motivated to create favorable narratives or to cover up unfavorable narratives.
Churches can and do this as well.
Thank you so much for this video! Especially the part about Enoch as well as the very helpful explanation about "there was no more sea" in Revelation. Like his Australian friend, I too hope it doesn't mean what a literal reading means. 😊 Definitely subscribing to his channel also!
This was so informative!
Great video
As an Orthodox Christian ☦️ I have never heard that the Bible was given to us at the Council of Nicea
I have never heard of it either, as a Protestant.
@@andrewbrossman9902 if you do some research you should hear the Catholic Counter arguments to what this man is saying.
@@dman7668 I have a little bit.
Wow these are all things I want to know!! Can’t wait to watch this
God bless you, you bless us with the information you bring.
Excellent content!
Excellent video, very informative!
Thank you, very helpful.
Great vid, thanks.
This is so good and really encouraging!
I’m in Alberta, Canada and the Alberta chapter of Apologetics Canada went way off the rails into Nationalism and Legalism so I stopped following. I used to attend their Be Ready apologetics conference so it was really disappointing and I no longer support them. I’m happy to see sound theology coming from Apologetics Canada!
Can you possibly consider inviting/interviewing qualified representatives from Apostolic churches, Orthodox, Church of the east, Coptic church, Church of Rome (Roman Catholic Church), if possible Armenian Church, Ethiopian Church?
There is no rush, it would really be appreciated to hear what the Apostolic churches have to say on the same topic, instead of listening to protestants talking about the Apostolic churches. After all, the Council mentioned was The Church, not just The Church of Rome, representatives from all over came to that Council.
Politely suggesting this approach to this topic.
That would be interesting.
Yes, I would love hearing an apologists rebuttle some of the points he is making here that ought to he rebutted. Especially his point about the Councils merely recognizing scripture. They recognized alot of things but you don't see Protestants accepting them. I feel there is a bit of pick and choose when they agree with the Councils over the Bibles canon. Then ignore other things reached at the Councils consensus like baptismal regeneration.
That would be good. A topic about the Eucharist would be interesting with her. I’m a Ex JW that turned Catholic 😁
This information really taught me lots of stuff I did not know.
Yeah, well it taught me lots of propaganda from the reformers. The Church did not merely recognize the Canon as this man tries to assert. If all it was doing was recognizing the canon and he agrees with this supposed "consensus" then why stop there? Why doesn't he accept the consensus of the Councils on apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration and Jesus Christ present in the body and blood of the Mass? The Councils recognized those things too!
Yet you don't see him clamoring about how they merely "recognized" those ideas also, do you? It sounds like someone loves the Councils when he agrees with it.
Also he also doesn't mention that the council that "recognized" the Bibles canon also recognized the deutercanom as well (known as the apocrypha to protestantism).
Another really good resource dealing with this is Dr. Heiser's interviews with Rick Brannan on TheNakedBiblePodcast episodes 99 and 104. Also episodes 130 and 242 have good conversations concerning Textual Criticism. 😊😊
Thanks for debunking the myth that the Catholic Church gave Christians the Bible at the Council of Nicea.
True the Catholic Church defined the canon a bit later in the 4th century.
The Catholic Church tells their people that they can’t possibly understand the Bible or know what’s in it and they have to rely on a priest for translation. This is why they are so misinformed. It’s heartbreaking because God wants a personal relationship with each of us.
Misinterpretion.
Fantastic interview from fellow Canadian! ❤
Good content
Thanks Melissa for this.
Enoch is an important topic right now. i see it everywhere, people wanting to revere this 'book' because it justifies and seemingly confirms their beliefs in "nephilim", what they are and what the person wants them to be and represent. its a very dangerous and deceiving text which steers your mind throughout unscriptural topics and concepts.
peoples understanding about what nephilim are will drastically altar how they understand the relationships between humans and created angelic beings. and if i could post a link here i would post one to a comprehensive article absolutely debuking the idea that nephilim are some type of demonic-human demi-god hybrid being that existed before the flood.
another thing about enoch, where it says "and he was no more". Wesley says "so theres an indication that he was taken up to heaven". he rightly points out it doesn't explicitly say that, and this is important. Enoch surely died, just like all men who are descendant from Adam, because the bible DOES explicitly say that. Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:22.
lets also put a stop to the myth that Enoch and Elijah didn't die. they did.
Love learning from Wes Huff ❤
39:38 is the argument that the “Roman Catholic” church gave the whole Bible? Or that the New Testament came out of the “Church”
Part of the process was utilising the Old Testament scripture?
I'm interested to know how the ESV came to translate "parbar" as "collonade" in 1 Chronicles 26:18. The footnote says that the Hebrew is unknown.
From context it is clear that it is a structure of some kind. The Septuagint says only "gate," but it clearly isn't the same kind of city gate (more like the town square) as we know from, say, Genesis 19:1 or Nehemiah 3:32.
NASB says "annex," NIV says "court," others say simply "building."
"parbar" also appears in 2 Kings 23:11, and there ESV just says "chamber."
I love this channel, even though I'm a Roman Catholic who thinks Wesley used a bit of linguistic sleight-of-hand to attempt to counter the argument that the books of the Bible came out of the same Catholic Church as exists today... God bless.
On Point 1, its interesting Wes says Constantine didn't play a big role in the Council. I thought Eusebius wrote that Constantine suggested the word homoousian (same substance) be used? Is this refuted elsewhere?
Before Paul was an apostle and had a conversion he was a scripture scholar 🎉❤ definitely love some facts though❤❤❤
Not fully understanding your point on the first Bibles coming out during Constantines time. The 66 books came long b4 Constantine? Which Bible?
What do we make from the quote from the New Testament The book of Jude?
If you're referring to the mention of Enoch, Jude was speaking of a _future_ personality. He was +not_ referring to the Enoch in Genesis. Check the genealogy. He was not the seventh from Adam. Matter of fact, the "Adam" Jude refers to is not the one from Genesis either. He is talking about the second Adam, Jesus Christ(1 Cor. 15:45). "The seventh from Adam" concerns a personality who prophesies about Christ's return in the 7th era of God's Church.
See my point exactly people don’t even know that the Bible directly quotes from the book of Enoch 🤦🏻♀️
@@OkKo-ux2xvNo, the Bible 'does not quote Enoch' Two writers referenced it. As you might any historic document. That doesn't infer any sort of credibility. And consider Paul's address on Mars Hill. He referenced other documents as well ..
@@toolegittoquit_001 Wait! Does that make those poets inspired too??? LOST BIBLICAL POEMS CITED BY PAUL FOUND IN ATHENS DUMPSTER OUTSIDE MARS HILL...... Someone will start a whole new denomination from this and retire a millionaire....
I watched my pastor make a minor error because ye Olde Englifh doesn't mean what you think it means. I've weighed the cost and benefits of mentioning somethibg and it seems the cost outweighs the benefits, but it still happened, the KJV causing a misunderstanding due to being outdated.
Gregory I, who lived from 540 - March 12, 604, was the first monk to become pope. He was known as Saint Gregory the Great, and was the 64th Bishop of Rome, from September 3, 590 until his death in 604.
😮😮😮Wonderful insight on Enoch! So much there I didn’t know! Historically, linguistically, and culturally-fabulous! Same conclusions I had personally come to, but my own were much less backed by those fields, and much more surface understanding! I do believe that it’s actually fairly clear, if you’re looking for the truth, that Enoch is not scripture-nor any serious historical document that can be trusted-just by reading it and thinking about it a little bit. However, these points he brings up are fantastic!
Hi Melissa, I'm looking to study the Bible in a very serious and disciplined manner but I can't really afford going to school for it and I am wondering if you have tips on any resources where I can start learning apologetics beyond just the basics. I also wanted to learn a biblical language on my own but I'm unsure if I should learn Greek or Hebrew...any tips? You're one of my favorite Bible scholars along with Mike Winger and I just am in love with The Lord and I wanna learn as much as I can...I just wanna be sure I'm learning from the correct sources.
Pastor Chris Rosebrough is fluent in both.
I myself would start with Koine Greek simply for the reason that's the language used for our new covenant that we're currently under. But there's also starting with Hebrew to better see the poetry involved.
There's the interlinear Bible that is in the original language, but has the English equivalent words written above. That has been quite interesting.
Definitely learn Koine Greek! It doesn't take long to read it phonetically and will be rewarding with less time invested into it.
I think if a person listened to every single Mike Winger video he's ever made......that has to be equal or better than a bachelor's of theology degree....
I love theological books, but I have expensive taste and I don't have the budget to buy all the ones I want. That said, building a theology library is worth it!!!
In the box below the video she has RESOURCES which links to her recommended books on Amazon.
Good video, but a little confused at 1:13:45. Something about the Messiah??? Help me out please...
Who wrote John 3:16. It was pasted in my an editor / narrator as it doesn’t fit the tone or context of the verses that came before or after it
the problem is with any of the "newer" translations they don't seek to update beautifully translated kjv to modern english, they did their own less accurate translation. It was just studied better. Also, some of the differences can make a huge change on prophetic or idiom meanings, I have noticed this in my own study. I don't JUST rely on KJV bc of the old english. However we have access to so many resources it's simple to look up the meanings of words and/or go look into the interlinear, and/or compare to the other translations.
What is the Bible (used) quoted by Jesus and the Apostles? If the Septuagint was used, did it contain more than 66 books?
Very interesting video, thank you! Amen.
Great discussion. I understand that the scriptures authority was recognized instead of inferred upon but I would like to hear a discussion of how the very early Christians came to recognize the 66 books. This discussion didn’t answer that. Only that it didn’t happen at the Council of Nicea. I assume this guy probably has talked about it elsewhere.
True, he skirts over the Church recognizing books protestantism later rejects. Over 1,000yrs later. Also, saying the Church recognized the canon is one thing, but to insinuate it did not have any authority to set any canon because all it was doing was "recognizing" books is a problem.
Why? Well, the Church recognized other things mainstream protestantism rejectted. Those same men on that same note "recognized" baptismal regeneration and Christ present in the Eucharist. If the Church is merely recognizing stuff, then why doesn't he accept those recognized things also?
@@dman7668 I take it that you’re probably Catholic. My authority isn’t church fathers but Christ and the apostolic writers.
The Septuagint includes these books and Greek speaking Jews had these books. To say that Jews did not use these books is not accurate.
This was great thanks!
11:08 Interesting, I hope Wes appears in another video and tells us more about the Codex Siniaticus at some point 🤣
Time stamp 39:00
He tries to make this flawed analogy from this other guy that "the church merely recognized the books like a child recognized it's mom or Dad"
This is an absurd analogy. Parents are easily recognizable by children because they grow with their parents from the beginning.
But if you had 200 people are claming to be your parents and they all were around you, then you might find it a bit challenging to figure out who your parents were!
This is hardly a great comparison for how the Church just magically "knew the canon by recognizing it"
The Church had tons of writings and some were fake all being circulated. The church did in fact have to sort out what was canon. Even the book of revelations itselt was controversial at one point, so no, it did not just "recognize" the canon.
There were two Councils of Nicea . First 325 AD and Second 787 AD.
ATTENTION WES HUFF:
As an expert in historical languages and biblical manuscripts, your insights are invaluable in addressing Anatoly Fomenko’s controversial claims in his New Chronology. Fomenko argues that much of ancient and medieval history was fabricated or misdated, proposing a drastically shortened historical timeline. Specifically, he suggests:
Many historical events and figures are duplicates fabricated during the Renaissance.
Ancient manuscripts, including biblical texts, were created or heavily altered in the medieval period.
Established historical dating methods, such as linguistic evolution and paleographic analysis, are unreliable.
To counter these claims, could you address the following points?
Manuscript Evidence: How do textual variations and dating of biblical manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, disprove Fomenko’s assertions?
Language Evolution: How does the progression of ancient languages like Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic provide a clear timeline incompatible with Fomenko’s shortened history?
Cross-Cultural Validation: Can independent historical records and inscriptions from other civilizations (e.g., Babylonian, Egyptian, or Assyrian) corroborate the traditional biblical chronology?
Dating Techniques: How do paleography and codicology independently validate the authenticity and age of ancient texts?
Your detailed response would help clarify why Fomenko’s theories are widely regarded as pseudoscientific and unsupported by linguistic and manuscript evidence. Thank you!
Great video, thank you