10:59
Ancient texts, almost erased from history. Shocking revelations from eyewitnesses and forbidden knowledge that could forever change our notion of God. For billions of believers around the world, the Bible is the most important document in the history of humankind. Its content is believed to be authoritative, infallible, and unquestionable. The word of God. But is it possible that the Bible we have read for thousands of years has been compromised by everything from mistranslations to conflicting religious agendas? Well, that's what we'll try to find out. According to scholars, the book known as the Bible began as a series of stories that were written down thousands of years ago. But given that these stories have been
continually subject to centuries of editing, translation, and reinterpretation, who was the original author of the Bible? And how close are current versions to the original texts? Many people accept on faith that the text they read, the received tradition, is somehow inspired by God. And the Hebrew Bible attributes, at least the Torah portion, to Moses. And then other prophets wrote their prophetic books, but this Old Testament was written over a very long period by many different people. For believers, the Bible was inspired and written not by man, but by God. But even if that's true, is there any way to prove it?
Qumran, British Mandate of Palestine, 1946. In the arid hills along the northwest shores of the Dead Sea, a Bedouin shepherd tending his flock stumbles upon a long-lost cave. Once inside, he makes an incredible discovery. A series of clay pots covered with sand, each containing numerous scrolls of parchment and papyrus written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and each over 2,000 years old. The ancient texts contain fragments of all but one of the 39 books of the Old Testament, and would eventually become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The most significant archaeological discovery of the 20th century, indeed of modern times, has been the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was a collection of writings produced by a group of Jews who lived at almost the same time and in almost the same place as Jesus himself. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars were able to see actual biblical texts, handwritten texts that were a thousand years older than the oldest text we had before. Of the 972 manuscripts that make up the Dead Sea Scrolls. Many contradict what is found in more modern versions of the Bible.
These discrepancies have left generations of scholars and theologians confused and have also led some to question whether the sacred book is the work of God or man. One thing that became clear when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered is that there is no single textual tradition. For example, in Cave One where the Great Isaiah Scroll was discovered, this almost perfectly preserved scroll contains all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah and is virtually identical to the text of Isaiah that we have today in our Bible translations. However, a second Isaiah scroll was found in the same cave, which represents an almost entirely
different edition of the book than the one we have in our Bibles. And today's scholars must analyze these different fragments and say, "Which is more authentic?" Which is a difficult question. One of the reasons the origins of the Bible remain a mystery is not just a question of who or how many people wrote it, but in what language it was originally written. One of the secrets among scholars and those who study ancient languages and translation is that there wasn't much punctuation in Hebrew, and many Greek manuscripts didn't have spaces. So, the classic example is the phrase "God is here now" or "God
is nowhere." If you write all those letters together, you don't know if the text says "God is here now" or "God is nowhere." Depending on how you separate the words "now here" or "nowhere," it says the opposite. In other words, is God here or not? And depending on how you separate that word, it's an important matter. As if the doubts about bad translations weren't confusing enough, we also know that for over a thousand years, the official Bible was one that had been translated into yet another language. A language that most people couldn't even read. Latin.
The Roman Catholic Church wanted the Latin Bible to be the Bible, and the idea of putting the Bible in a vernacular language so that an ordinary person could read it was strictly forbidden. The church wanted to maintain control over the message of the Bible. And so, there was one official translation that was the only one that should be used, and the priests were in charge of performing the interpretation and so on. Even until the 16th century, possession of an unlicensed Bible carried a death sentence. In 1536, the English scholar and linguist William Tyndale was executed for the crime of translating the Bible from the Vulgate, or traditional Latin, into
English. But all this changed when the English monarch, King Henry VIII, became embroiled in a bitter battle with Pope Clement VII over the king's request to annul his marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon. Henry's desire to take a new wife would ultimately lead to a break with Rome and the creation of the Church of England. As different countries and kings came to power, they needed the Pope's blessing at the Vatican to do certain things, such as getting a divorce. And when the Pope said no, there were some, like Henry VIII, who said: "You know what? I'm going to form my own church, we'll have our own clergy and our own hierarchy, we'll use the Bible as our foundation and do our own thing."
In 1539, Henry VIII commissioned the publication of what was then called the Great Bible. Translated into English, it contained much that was almost identical to Tyndale's translation, minus some of the more controversial passages from that version. And in 1539, Henry published, with his image on the cover, a Bible that he had commissioned, and it was called the Great Bible or the King's Bible. It shows the king in what we consider the most privileged place on a cover, at the top and in the center. And he is handing out copies of the translated Bible to his statesmen on one side and to his clergymen on the other, and they are
receiving it, some of them on their knees. So it's definitely a portrait of power. And after him, every monarch wants their own Bible in England. We know that these books have discrepancies and contradictions among themselves. They disagree with each other. They are not an impartial history as we would think today. These authors had one goal in mind. They had an agenda and included only those stories that supported their point of view. There comes a point where you realize that interpretation is nine- tenths of the law. But if you believe that the Bible is inherent, infallible, and the
literal word of God, that causes a problem, because now we have to ask: what did God actually say? While the stories in the Bible may have been divinely inspired, it seems that the book we read today bears more of man's fingerprints than God's. So, if this is the case, how can anyone know what the true word of God is? Perhaps to find the answer, it is better to look not within the pages of the Bible, but outside of them. On the pages of the parts of the Bible that were removed. It is estimated that 100 million Bibles are printed and purchased worldwide each year. But not all Bibles are the same. The most obvious difference, of course, is that Judaism only recognizes what Christians call the Old Testament. But even Christians use different versions of the
Old and New Testaments. These vary not only in language and translation, but also in what is included and what is not. For example, most Protestant Bibles, including the King James Version, contain 66 books. The Catholic Bible includes 73. But the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, a Christian denomination with 36 million followers in Africa, has 81. One of the secrets of early Christianity is that different ethnic and religious groups had different Bibles. There are different groups, such as the Copts or the Ethiopian Church. They do possess some of these inspired books, while other groups do not. Therefore, we should not ask which version of the Bible is correct, but which collection of biblical books is. To be included in the
official version of the Bible, or canon, a book must be considered divinely inspired, the word of God. But who exactly decides? There was a group of men with specific agendas determining what would become canon and what would not. And this agenda was about preserving the power of the church. The agenda here is political and economic. It is not spirituality. It is well known that there are a number of texts that are simply not made available to the public. Some even deny their existence, but most are considered secret knowledge. Why? What 's so secret? What's being hidden?
Until the mid-19th century, many early Bibles, including the King James Version, contained several books that have since been removed. These are known as the Apocrypha. The word apocryphal literally means hidden things. Therefore, these are books that supposedly provided hidden or secret teachings. But the term apocryphal came to mean books that were not accepted as part of the official canon. There was a council that said, "This is the tradition. This is the correct interpretation. This is how you should interpret the scriptures."
Therefore, any book that contradicts what they have already decided to believe is expelled. But, of all the apocryphal or hidden books of the Bible, one in particular, the Book of Enoch, is considered so controversial that many believe it was deliberately omitted because of its strange and scandalous content. Ironically, the character of Enoch does appear in the Old Testament, but only as a devoted follower of God, who lived hundreds of years before the great flood. Who was this Enoch? What is so peculiar about him? Because the Bible says of him that he walked with God and did not appear, because God took him. Where did he take him? Where did he go? The prevailing tradition says that he was taken to heaven.
Enoch is the only one in heaven who is allowed to sit next to God, and he reveals information to humanity. It is believed to have been written sometime between 300 BC and 300 AD. C. and 10 BC. C., the Book of Enoch was traditionally considered to have been written by Enoch himself. In order to share the secret knowledge that God had given him. Enoch was an incredibly popular book in the pre- Christian era. In fact, we know that whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew most likely knew the Book of Enoch, because there is certain language that we see in the Gospel of Matthew and nowhere else in
the New Testament. Of all the secret texts, I believe the Book of Enoch is in many ways the most forbidden. Sometime before the 4th century, the Book of Enoch was excluded from the Hebrew version of the Bible and discredited by all but two of the early Christian churches. But why? Could there be clues in the text itself? Enoch becomes this seer who gives all kinds of later prophecies to the Jews. He predicts the end of the world. He predicts the coming of the Messiah. But one of the things he does is elaborate on this story of the giants. According to the Book of Enoch, the giants or watchers were a group of renegade angels sent to Earth to protect man more than 5,000 years ago. But instead of protecting the
human race, they lusted after women and corrupted humanity. The Watchers mate with human women, but what the Watchers also do is teach the women all kinds of forbidden arts, such as cosmetics. So, makeup comes from evil watchmen who taught women how to put makeup on their faces. The Book of Enoch is a true enigma because this idea that rebel angels have a power that can rival God is very threatening to the traditional church. In the Book of Enoch, the offspring of the Watchers and mortal women are described as giant warriors called Nephilim. The watchers came down and took the daughters of men for themselves and gave birth to a generation of titans.
They are called the fallen ones, the Nephilim. These hybrids between the Watchers and the daughters of men created tremendous chaos in the human race. The Nephilim, these are those grotesque giants. They are neither angels nor people. They are described as monstrous beings and apparently there were thousands of them populating the earth. In fact, there were so many of them that at one point God had to destroy all of humanity to get rid of them. One of the things that people don't understand is that when God sent the flood in the days of Noah, in one version of the story, the reason God decided to destroy the earth
was because these Nephilim were in it Grotesque giants attacking humans. And the giants, in turn, being destroyed by God in the great flood. Was the Book of Enoch purged from standard biblical texts because it was considered too implausible? Too scandalous? Or was it because it portrayed God as a compassionate creator? Someone who forgave instead of punishing humanity for its sins. God is protecting us in the Book of Enoch. He is a very different God from the spiteful and angry God we see in the Genesis story. The church benefits greatly from making us very, very afraid of God and that God will annihilate us all if we are not obedient.
But if the early editors of the Bible intended to purge it of implausible stories containing references to fantastic devices and devastating weapons, why did they leave in what is perhaps the most audacious story of all? One that involves a man named Moses and a device so powerful it can destroy entire armies. The Ark of the Covenant. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He said, " Let there be light." And there was light. Then darkness, the sky, the oceans, the plants and trees, the animals that fly, crawl and swim. And last but not least, man and woman. The Book of Genesis is a good story, of course. One that we are all undoubtedly familiar with. But could it be true? Some people say they
believe there should never be any conflict between science and religion. But if we accept Genesis as historical, which according to faith, of course we do, then we must ask ourselves other realistic questions: how and what really happened. Although mainstream scientists are understandably skeptical that God, as described in the Old Testament book of Genesis, created the earth and everything in it in just six days, there is surprising evidence to suggest that the second book of the Bible, Exodus, is based on historical facts. In the book of Exodus, the children of Israel have been enslaved in Egypt, and God has told Moses to go and free his people. Moses demands that Pharaoh let the people go free. The Pharaoh refuses. And so God gives
Moses the power to send plagues against the Egyptians. And finally, the Pharaoh gives in and lets the people go. The origins of Israel as a slave nation is not something people would make up. That's why even many of the most critical Bible scholars would say, "There is some truth to this." We know from Egyptian history, both from ancient texts and from archaeological evidence from excavations, that around 1700 to 1650 BC. C., there was an influx of foreigners to Egypt. They spoke a dialect very similar to Hebrew. And when Ramses II arrived in the 13th century, he decided to move his base of operations to a new city which he called Ramses, Pi-Ramses, the house of Ramses. And according to the Book of Exodus, that is why
I would place this event in the 13th century, when they finally get fed up with years and years of abuse and being used to build the Pharaoh's projects. But if the Book of Exodus was based on real events and people, shouldn't there be some kind of physical evidence left behind? A relic from their journey out of Egypt that would validate this incredible story? According to some academics, such a relic could actually exist. The Ark of the Covenant. The Ark of the Covenant is probably one of the best-kept mysteries in the world today. We know, according to the biblical description, that the commandments that Moses brought from Mount Sinai were placed inside the Ark. As well as a portion of the
manna they gathered in the desert and Aaron's rod that had blossomed with almonds in the great test of the tribes. It was a gold box that contained a wooden box inside, and then another gold box with a gold cover. God's giving of the Torah at Sinai. It is the most sacred object that has ever existed in the Jewish tradition. And there are people who, because their beliefs need to be tangible and physical, feel that if they could see it, that would prove God's will in this world. But if the Ark of the Covenant were not only real, but still existed, where could it be? According to the Hebrew Bible, the Ark was once housed within a secret inner sanctuary of King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. But, after the
Temple was destroyed around 586 BC C., the whereabouts of the Ark and its precious contents became unknown. One tradition, of course, is that they were simply destroyed by the Babylonians when the Temple was burned and melted, and that's the end of the story. However, since the Ark never reappeared, people have often wondered what really happened to it. For centuries, the search for the Ark of the Covenant has consumed both archaeologists and biblical scholars. If it were ever found, it would not only prove that the biblical accounts in the Book of Exodus were based on historical facts. It could also unleash incredible power. I firmly believe in trying to discover as much as we can archaeologically about what happened in biblical history and how we can
validate it, as long as we are intellectually honest. Some things we can prove, others we can refute, and much we will never know. In recent years, some scholars and theologians have suggested that the Ark is not lost, but was deliberately hidden away from those who might want to exploit its awesome power. For many, finding a relic like the Ark of the Covenant is extremely important. It was seen as the throne of God. And these ideas are most likely connected with the scriptures that refer to the Ark being carried into battle, and the enemies scattering before it. It is energetic. What are we missing here in the biblical understanding of this mysterious box? She was clearly much more than just a
religious icon. There was technology involved, and that's what makes the ark one of the greatest mysteries in our history to this day. If the Ark of the Covenant did indeed possess extraordinary power as described in the Bible, is it simply too dangerous to be possessed by man? And could that be the reason why it has eluded rediscovery for centuries? Maybe. But not all biblical mysteries involve sacred relics. Some concern people, including the man whom billions believe to be the son of God. 2,000 years ago. It was here, according to the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke, that the child Jesus was born to a young woman named Mary and her husband Joseph. But, believe it or not, the actual year of Jesus' birth remains a mystery. For
centuries, the year 1 AD, or Anno Domini, the year of our Lord, was assumed to be correct. But recent historical research suggests otherwise. Jesus was born sometime between 4 and 7 BC, because Herod the Great died in 4 BC. And Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. So, this is one of the secrets that scholars know, but that most people don't think about. Those who created the calendar were wrong. They incorrectly dated the birth of Jesus. And we still live under a calendar in which Jesus was actually born between 4 and 7 years before Christ. But, as you might imagine, the exact year of Jesus' birth is not
the only aspect of his life that has been debated. The New Testament states that Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem, but recently even that has been questioned by both historians and theologians. Virtually the only thing we can be fairly certain about regarding Jesus' childhood is that he was born and raised in the city of Nazareth. It was the only thing on which his supporters and detractors agreed. His name was the Nazarene. The fact is that much of what we know about the life of Jesus comes from the four Gospels of the New Testament. And although they are attributed to the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Gospels could have been written decades after the
death of Jesus. We'd love to know the answers to questions like: What was Jesus like as a teenager? Did Jesus ever have girlfriends? Did he have any kind of relationship, anything like that? The Gospels do n't really want to tell us any of that, because they are only interested in focusing on why Jesus is who he is and what he did. What really happened during the so-called lost years of Jesus? Were the accounts deliberately omitted? And if so, why? Well, it turns out that a closer examination of the little that the Gospels say about the early life of Jesus reveals some surprising facts.
It is one of the best-kept secrets about Jesus that he belongs to a rather large family. We know of at least four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. We know of at least a couple of sisters. It's curious how they disappear, however, and we don't see much of them later on. Perhaps one of the most controversial and profound aspects of the story of Jesus is the belief that his mother, Mary, gave birth to him while still a virgin. And however audacious it may seem, it lies among the very foundations of the Christian faith. But curiously, references to the virgin birth of Jesus are only found in two of the Gospels: Matthew and Luke. Wouldn't such a miraculous event have been recorded by all four evangelists? Or was it, as
some scholars suggest, an attempt by some of Jesus' followers to justify their belief that he was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, the Hebrew Messiah? The New Testament loves to draw on the prophecies of the prophet Isaiah to prove, so to speak, the messiahship of Jesus. One of the prophecies that became very popular was a prophecy during the time of Hezekiah. Jerusalem is under siege , they don't know if they will survive, and Isaiah appears with a prophecy that says: " Look, behold, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and his name will be Emmanuel, which means God with us." Christians come along and
take that prophecy and reinterpret it. And they say that this prophecy is actually a reference to Mary, who is a real virgin. And the son she will give birth to is Jesus. And Jesus will be the savior of all humanity, not just of Jerusalem in the 8th century, but of all humanity forever. Whether you believe that the virgin birth of Jesus was the fulfillment of a prophecy or a story created to establish his divine origins, it is one of the key mysteries of the Christian faith. Just like the question posed by many academics and theologians, did Jesus really think he was the Messiah, the true son of God? The question of how he perceived himself will probably remain a secret forever. Some people argue that Jesus understood himself to be the son of God. He
knew who she was. And others, based on the text, will say: "Well, no." In the Gospel of John, Jesus even uses a term to describe himself that is, I believe, intentionally ambiguous. He refers to himself in the third person as the son of man . Well, the secret about the word son of man is that in Aramaic, it's simply the way you say a person. So when Jesus uses the phrase "son of man" as a self-description, you don't know if he's just referring to himself or if he's actually making a messianic claim. Although many details of Jesus' life remain unverified by history, one fact is certain. He was a charismatic teacher and prophet. If you read the biblical text, Jesus created a large following because he performed
miracles. He performed magic tricks. He made the blind see. He was a healer. At the end of the day, Jesus was kind to those in need. He loved those who needed help, those whom no one else would love. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus turns water into wine. And it doesn't just turn it into any wine, it turns it into the best wine. So, this is Jesus' first public miracle. And once he presents his first miracle, the floodgates truly open. The ministry has begun. Jesus has arrived, and he is the Messiah and the miracle worker. But did the miracles of Jesus really happen as they are recounted in the Gospels? For example, did he really raise a man named Lazarus from the dead and feed 5,000 people with only two
small fish and five loaves of bread? Perhaps the answer can be found by examining what are known as the lost gospels. A collection of writings supposedly written by people who witnessed the life of Jesus firsthand. Nag Hammadi, Egypt, 1945 . A group of farmers working their fields unearthed a clay pot. It contained more than 50 biblical scrolls dating from the 3rd century AD, making them even older than the books of the so-called New Testament. Rather, these texts are purported first-hand accounts written by friends and followers of Jesus, revered as true by a relatively obscure group of early Christians known as the Gnostics.
Gnosticism comes from a direct oral tradition that was passed down from the early Christians and evolved separately from the institutionalized church. And there is a tradition that the Gnostics possess teachings that come directly from Jesus through apostles, followers, and even family members who come from Jesus., which means a personal revelation and experience. And when we look at those texts today, we see secret knowledge, secret teachings. Secret teachings directly from Jesus himself. Passed down through his closest followers and potentially giving us a first-hand account of the life and deeds of Jesus. One might think that such gospels would be held in high esteem by the church. But in fact, it
was quite the opposite. When I first came across what I call the Gnostic Gospels, we were all surprised that there were so many Gospels that were not in the New Testament. The reason many of these books did not make it into the Bible is that they were not consistent with the central message of the books that were included. These texts were declared to be full of errors and capable of leading you astray. A famous bishop calls them an abyss of madness and blasphemy against Christ.
Therefore, these were the enemies of the early church, and Christians thought they must contain horrible things. The penalty for copying or even keeping any of the Gnostic texts would have become increasingly severe. It could have even led to more serious punishments such as torture and death. These lost books of the New Testament include a number of the so-called Gospels, among them the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of the Egyptians, and many others. But what was it about these Gnostic texts that caused many biblical scholars and clergymen to reject them, not only for being too controversial, but also for being too dangerous?
The Gospels of the New Testament tell you how important Jesus is. Jesus is the son of God, the son of man, the king of Israel, the Messiah. I mean, whatever. He is someone very special. And it's not like you and me. However, the Gospels of Thomas or Philip say something very different. They say that Jesus, yes, may be speaking divine truths, but that in reality he is just like you and me. , there is one that many Bible scholars consider more significant and controversial than the rest. The Gospel of Mary. There is much controversy surrounding Mary Magdalene. In the Bible, he is portrayed in a certain way. She is one of
Jesus' followers. She is often described as a prostitute, as someone whom Jesus rescued from darkness and turned into one of his followers. But the Gospel of Mary specifically says that Jesus loved Mary more than the other disciples . In fact, they put those words in the mouth of one of the disciples. So you do n't know that he loved her more than him loved us? Although the actual author of this gospel is unknown and several pages of the original text have never been found , the text seems to reveal amazing details about Mary Magdalene's relationship with Jesus. There are even those who are convinced that Mary was not only one of Jesus' most devoted followers, but also perhaps his lover, or even his wife.
We certainly discovered in the Gnostic texts that there are many, many references to the relationship of Jesus with Mary Magdalene. They refer to her as their beloved. They refer to her in a sexual way in the Gnostic gospels. So, not only was Jesus married, but he was married to Mary Magdalene. Because Jesus was a rabbi, it would have been required that Jesus be married. If Jesus had not been married, this would have been something that would have been pointed out and discussed. And the fact that he wasn't is actually one of the things that proves that Jesus was married, because it would have been very normal for him to have been Gnosticism was seen as a problem because there was a
core belief that had to be upheld, that there were certain non-negotiable truths that were part of the Christian gospel. And so, if something contradicted that, then it had to be suppressed or refuted. So, there is a lot of Gnostic material that tells us that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. Two thousand years of ecclesiastical tradition are overturned by the Gnostic Gospels, because Mary Magdalene emerges as the successor of Jesus. Did Jesus, the son of God, really have a wife, children, and descendants? And if that were the case, would it contradict the faith that billions of people have in him, or would it confirm it? Perhaps the answer can be found by examining how the Bible continues to fascinate
people around the world long after it was written. Although there is sufficient evidence for scholars to conclude that the Bible we read today is very different from the one they read thousands of years ago, it doesn't seem to matter. Despite centuries of human manipulation, or perhaps because of it, the Bible remains the most powerful and influential book the world has ever known. The Bible is, without a doubt, the most important book in the history of Western civilization. People read it. People worship her. People consider it the word of God for humanity. And that God revealed secrets that could give meaning to the true
significance of life and the history of the world. Why is it that, 5,000 years after these stories were written, we still read them and still believe in them? It's not because they are true, although many people believe them to be , it's because they are infinitely malleable. That is the power of scripture: it can mean anything to anyone, depending on the time and context in which they live. One of the reasons I think people keep coming back to the Bible again and again is that it's full of these fascinating mysteries, these fascinating enigmas. We will never know the answers to many of them, but what we do know is that it is a text that
rewards repeated study, rewards returning to it again and again. The Bible says about God himself: "My thoughts are higher than your thoughts. My ways are higher than your ways." This is something that people don't understand because we approach the Bible from a perspective that reads it literally. But when you really look at the bigger picture of all the stories, it transcends the limitations of what we have understood. Look, the Bible is a powerful book, very powerful, and it is revered by millions all over the world, in Judaism and Christianity. It is a book that gives tremendous meaning and identity to millions and billions of people around the world. And in that way, she is alive. It gives life to people. Every time I read the
Bible, I am impressed not only by the beauty and depth of its stories, but by the way it gives me access in my own life to whatever it is that God is. And that's why I read it, not only because it captivates my mind, but because it uplifts my spirit. And I know, because it is still with us and has been read all over the world for thousands of years, that I am not alone in that feeling. Does the Bible continue to inspire billions of people worldwide not because of the answers it provides, but because of the questions it inspires us to ask? Questions about what many believe are his inconsistencies and contradictions. Questions about life and humanity's unique place in the universe. Questions that may remain unanswered forever
