Original subtitles

Ancient texts nearly erased from history.

Shocking revelations from eyewitness accounts.

And forbidden knowledge that could forever change

our very notion of god.

To billions of faithful around the world,

the bible is the single most important document

in human history.

Its contents are believed to be authoritative,

infallible and unquestionable.

The word of god.

But is it possible that the bible we've been reading

for thousands of years has been compromised

by everything from flawed translations

to conflicting religious agendas?

Well, that is what we'll try and find out.

According to scholars, the book known as the bible

began as a series of stories that were first written down

thousands of years ago.

But given the fact that these stories

have been continuing,

subjected to centuries of editing, translation

and reinterpretation,

just who was the bible's original author,

and how close are today's versions of it

to the original texts?

Many people would take it on faith

that the text that they're reading,

the received tradition

is actually somehow inspired by god.

And the hebrew bible is ascribed...

At least the torah portion...

Is ascribed to moses.

And then other prophets wrote their prophetic books,

but this old testament was written over a very

long period of time by multiple different people.

As far as the faithful are concerned,

the bible was inspired and authored

not by man, but by god.

But even if that's true,

is there any way to prove it?

Qumran. The 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 number of sand-covered clay jars, each containing

numerous scrolls of parchment and papyrus written in hebrew,

aramaic and greek,

and each more than 2,000 years old.

The ancient texts contain fragments of all but one

of the 39 books of the old testament,

and eventually come to be known as the dead sea scrolls.

The most significant archeological discovery

of the 20th century, in fact of modern times,

has been the dead sea scrolls.

This was a collection of writings that was produced

by a group of jews living in about the same time

and about the same place as jesus himself.

With the discovery of the dead sea scrolls,

scholars got a glimpse of actual biblical texts...

Hand-written texts that were a thousand years older

than the previously oldest text that we had.

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 scratching their heads,

and have also invited some to question whether the holy book

is the work of god or man.

One thing that came clear

when the dead sea scrolls were discovered is

there is not just one textual tradition.

For example, in cave 1, 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 in our english translations of the bible today.

However, there was a second scroll of isaiah

found in the same cave that represents almost

an entirely different edition of the book

than what we have in our bibles.

And scholars today have to look at these little fragments

and say, "which one is more authentic?"

which is a hard question.

One of the reasons the bible's origins

remain a mystery isn't merely a matter of who

or how many people wrote it,

but what language it was originally written in.

One of the secrets among scholars and those who do

the study of ancient language and the translation

is that there wasn't a lot of punctuation in hebrew,

and many greek manuscripts, there weren't spaces.

So the classic example is the phrase,

"god is now here," or "god is nowhere."

if you write all those letters together,

you don't know whether the text is saying "god is now here"

or "god is nowhere."

depending on how you break up the word "now here"

or "nowhere," that says the opposite.

I mean it's, is god here, or is he not?

And depending on how you break that word up, it's a big deal.

As if questions of mistranslation

aren't confusing enough,

we also know that for more than 1,000 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

into a vernacular language so an average person could read it

was strictly forbidden.

The church wanted to keep control

over the message of the bible.

And so there was an official translation

that was the only one that was to be used,

and the priests were the ones that were to do

the interpretation and so forth.

Even as late as 16th century,

possession of an unlicensed bible carried a death sentence.

In 1536, english scholar and linguist william tyndale

was executed for the crime of translating the bible

from the vulgate, or the 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

for an annulment to the king's marriage

to queen catherine of aragon.

Henry's desire to take on a new wife

would eventually lead to a break with rome

and the creation of the church of England.

As different countries, different kings came to power,

they needed the blessing of the pope at the vatican

to do certain things, like, for instance, get divorced.

And when the pope said no, there were some,

like henry viii, who said, "you know what?

"I'm gonna form my own church,

"and we're gonna have our own clergy

"and our own hierarchy, and we're gonna use the bible

as the foundation of it, and we're gonna 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 nearly identical to the tyndale translation,

minus some of that version's more controversial passages.

And in 1539, henry brings out,

with his picture on the title page, a bible

that has been commissioned by him,

and it's called the great bible, or the king's bible.

It shows the king in what we think of

as the prime real estate place of a title page:

Top and center.

And he is holding out copies of the translated bible

to his statesmen on one side and his churchmen on the other.

And they are receiving it, some of them on their knees.

So it is definitely a portrait of power.

And after him, all monarchs want their own bible in England.

We know these books have discrepancies in them

and contradictions among themselves.

They are at odds with one another.

They're not disinterested history

the way we would think of it today.

These authors had a goal in mind.

They had an agenda.

And they included only those stories

that made their point.

There comes a point when you realize

that interpretation is nine-tenths of the law.

But if you believe that the bible is inerrant,

infallible, the verbatim word of god,

that causes a problem.

Because now we have to ask what did god really say?

While the stories of the bible may have been divinely inspired,

it seems that the book we read today has more of

man's fingerprints on it than god's.

So, if this is the case,

how can one know which is the true word of god?

Perhaps for the answer, it's best to search

not within the pages of the bible,

but outside of them, in the pages

of the parts of the bible that were edited out.

It is estimated that 100 million bibles

are printed and purchased every year,

all across the world.

But not all bibles are the same.

The most obvious difference, of course,

is that judaism only recognizes what christians refer to

as the old testament.

But even christians use different versions

of the old and new testaments.

These vary not only in language and translation,

but in terms of 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 of 36 million followers in africa,

has 81.

One of the secrets of ancient christianity

is that different ethnic and religious groups

had different bibles.

So, there are different groups, like the coptics

or the ethiopian church.

They actually have some of these inspired books,

whereas other groups do not.

So we shouldn't just ask which version of the bible is correct,

but it's which collection of biblical books is correct.

To be included in the official version of the bible,

or canon,

a book must be considered to be divinely inspired.

The word of god.

But just who decides?

There were a group of men with specific agendas

determining what would and what would not become canon.

And this agenda was about preserving

the power of the church.

The agenda here is politics and economics.

It's not spirituality.

It is well-known

that there's certain numbers of texts

which are just not made available to the public.

Some are actually denied to even exist,

but most are said to be secret knowledge.

Why? What is so secret?

What is being concealed?

Until the mid-1800s,

many early bibles... Even the king james version...

Contained a number of books that have since been edited out.

These are known as the apocrypha.

The word "apocrypha" literally means

"hidden things."

and so, these are books that allegedly were providing

hidden or secret teachings.

But the term "apocrypha" came to mean books

that were not accepted as part of the official canon.

There was a council that would say, "this is the tradition,

this is the proper interpretation, this is how

you should interpret the scripture."

so any book that contradicts

what they've already decided to believe gets cast out.

But of all the apocrypha

or hidden books of the bible,

one book in particular... The book of enoch...

Is considered so controversial

that many believe it was deliberately omitted

because of its bizarre and outrageous contents.

Ironically, the character of enoch

does appear in the old testament,

but only as a devoted follower of god,

one who lived hundreds of years before the great flood.

Who was this enoch?

What's so peculiar about him?

Because the bible says about him,

"that he walked with god and was not,

for god had taken him."

taken him where? Where did he go?

The majority of traditions say he was taken to heaven.

Enoch is the only one in heaven allowed to sit along with god,

and he reveals information to humanity.

Believed to have been written

sometime between 300 bc and 10 bc,

the book of enoch was traditionally thought

to have been authored by enoch himself,

in order to share secret knowledge

given to him by god.

Enoch was an incredibly popular book

in the time leading up to the formation of christianity.

In fact, we know that whoever wrote the gospel of matthew

very likely knew about the book of enoch

because there are certain languages

that we see in the gospel of matthew

and nowhere else in the new testament.

Of all the secret texts, I think that the book of enoch

in many ways is the most forbidden.

At some time before the fourth century,

the book of enoch was excluded from the hebrew version

of the bible, and became discredited

by all but two 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 jews.

He predicts the end of the world.

He predicts the coming of the messiah.

But one of the things he does is he elaborates

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 guard man more than 5,000 years ago.

But instead of protecting the human race,

they lusted after women and corrupted mankind.

The watchers mate with human women.

But also what the watchers do is they teach women

all kinds of forbidden arts, such as cosmetics.

So, makeup comes from the evil watchers

who taught women how to make up their faces.

The book of enoch is a real conundrum

because this idea that the rebellious angels

have a power that can rival god is something

that is very threatening to 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 for themselves

the daughters of men and give birth

to a generation of titans

called the fallen ones, nephilim.

These hybrid between the watchers

and the daughters of men

created tremendous havoc in the human race.

The nephilim...

These are these grotesque giants.

They are neither angels nor people.

They are described as monstrous beings.

And there were apparently thousands of them

that populated the earth.

In fact, there were so many of them,

that at a certain point, god had to destroy

all of humanity in order to get rid of them.

One of the things that people don't realize is that

when god sends the flood during the days of noah,

that in one version of the story,

is that the reason god decides to destroy the earth

is because these nephilim were on the earth.

Grotesque giants attacking humans?

And the giants, in turn, being destroyed by god

in the great flood?

Was the book of enoch purged from the standard biblical texts

because it was considered too far-fetched?

Too outrageous?

Or was it because it portrayed god

as a compassionate creator,

one who forgave

rather than punished mankind for its sins?

God is protecting us in the book of enoch.

It is a very different god than the spiteful, wrathful god

that we see in the genesis account.

The church derives great benefit from having us

be very, very afraid of god

and of god wiping us all out if we're not obedient.

But if the early editors of the bible

intended to purge it of far-fetched tales

containing references to fantastical devices

and devastating weapons, then why did they leave in

what is perhaps the most audacious story of all?

One which 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 firmament, the oceans. Plants and trees.

Animals that fly and slither and swim.

And last but not least,

male and female.

The book of genesis. It's a nice story, of course.

One that we're all undoubtedly familiar with.

But could it be true?

Some people say that they believe

that there should never ever be any conflict

between science and religion.

But if we accept genesis as being historical,

which according to faith, of course we do,

then we need to ask the other realistic questions:

How and what really happened?

While mainstream scientists are understandably skeptical

that god, as described in the old testament book of genesis,

created the earth and everything on it in only six days,

there is surprising evidence to suggest that

the second book of the bible, exodus,

is based on historical fact.

In the book of exodus,

the, uh, children of israel have been enslaved in egypt

and god has told moses to go and set his people free.

Moses demands that pharaoh lets the people free.

Pharaoh refuses,

and so god empowers moses to do plagues against the egyptians,

and finally the pharaoh relents, lets the people go.

Israel's origins as a slave nation

is not the sort of thing people would make up.

So even many of the most critical,

historical scholars of the bible would say,

"there's something to this."

we do know from egyptian history, both from ancient texts

and archaeological evidence through excavations,

that somewhere around 1700 to 1650 bc,

there was an influx of foreigners into egypt.

They spoke a dialect very similar to hebrew.

And when ramesses ii comes along in the 13th century,

he decided to move his base of operations

to a new city that he named ramesses,

pi-ramesses, the house of ramesses.

And according to the book of exodus,

that's why I would place this event in the 13th century,

sort of as they finally get fed up with years and years

of being abused and used to build pharaoh's projects.

But if the book of exodus

was based on real events and people,

then wouldn't there be some kind

of physical evidence left behind...

A relic of their journey out of egypt...

That would validate this incredible story?

According to some scholars,

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 which moses brought down

from mount sinai were placed inside the ark.

As well as a portion of the manna,

which they collected in the desert,

and aaron's rod, which had blossomed with almonds

in the great test of the tribes.

It was a box of gold which had inside it a box of wood.

And then another box of gold with a golden cover.

The ark of the covenant represents

the giving of the torah at sinai from god.

It's the holiest object

that ever existed in the jewish tradition.

And there are people who, because their belief

somehow needs to be palpable and physical,

feel as though if they could see it,

that would prove god's will in this world.

But if the ark of the covenant was not only real

but still exists, where could it be?

According to the hebrew bible, the ark was once housed

inside a secret inner sanctuary

of king solomon's temple in jerusalem.

But after the temple was destroyed around 586 bc,

the whereabouts of the ark

and its precious contents became unknown.

One tradition, of course, is that

it was simply destroyed by the babylonians

when the temple was burnt and melted and that's the end of it.

However, because the ark never showed up again,

people have often wondered what really did happen to the ark.

For centuries, the search for the ark of the covenant

has consumed both archaeologists and bible scholars.

If it were ever found, it would not only prove

that the biblical accounts in the book of exodus

were based on historical events,

it could also unleash incredible power.

I'm a great believer in trying to find out

as much as we can archaeologically

about what happened in biblical history,

and the way in which we can validate it,

as long as we're intellectually honest.

Some things we'll be able to prove,

some things we will disprove. And much we will never know.

In recent years, some scholars and theologians have suggested

that the ark isn't lost,

but was deliberately hidden.

Kept away from those who might wish to exploit

its awesome power.

For many, to find a relic like the ark of the covenant

is extremely important.

It was viewed as god's throne,

and these ideas are most likely connected to scriptures

that refer to the ark being carried into battle

and the enemies are scattering before them.

It is said that the ark housed kavod,

or glory of god.

Now, this in quote "glory of god"

was not something symbolic, it was something actual,

something tangible,

something energetic.

What are we missing here in the biblical understanding

of this mysterious box?

It was clearly far more than just a religious icon.

There was a technology involved,

and that is what makes the ark, to this day,

one of the greatest mysteries of our history.

If the ark of the covenant did, in fact,

have extraordinary power,

as described in the bible,

is it simply too dangerous to be possessed by man?

And could that be why

it has eluded rediscovery for centuries?

Perhaps.

But not all bible mysteries involve holy relics.

Some concern people,

including the man who billions believe

is the son of god.

The ancient kingdom of judah,

more than 2,000 years ago.

It was here,

according to the new testament gospels of matthew and luke,

that the infant 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 is born somewhere between 4 and 7 bce,

because herod the great died in 4 bc

and jesus was born during herod the great.

So this is one of the secrets that scholars know

but most people don't think about.

Those who made the calendar screwed it up.

They dated the birth of jesus incorrectly.

And we still live on a calendar where jesus is actually born

four to seven years bc.

But as one can 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.

Pretty much the only thing that we can be fairly certain of

about jesus' childhood

is that he was born and raised in the city of nazareth.

It was the only thing that his followers

and detractors agreed about.

His name was the nazarene.

The fact is, much of what we know about the life of jesus

comes from the four gospels of the new testament.

And even though they are credited to the evangelists

matthew, mark, luke and john,

the gospels may actually have been written

decades after jesus' death.

We would love to know answers to, like,

what was jesus like as a teenager?

And did jesus ever have any girlfriends?

Did he ever have any relationships,

anything like that?

The gospels don't really want to tell us any of that stuff

because they're really interested in just focusing

on why jesus is who he is and what he did.

What really happened during jesus' so-called lost years?

Were the accounts omitted deliberately?

And if so, why?

Well, as it turns out, closer examination

of the little that the gospels do say about jesus' early life

reveals some surprising facts.

It's one of the biggest-kept secrets about jesus,

that he's one of quite a large family.

We know of at least four brothers:

James, joses, simon and judas.

We know of at least a couple of sisters.

It's curious how they disappear, though.

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 as audacious as that may seem,

it is among the very foundations of the christian faith.

But curiously, the references to jesus being born of a virgin

can only be found in two of the gospels:

Matthew and luke.

Wouldn't such a miraculous event

have been recorded by all four of the 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 the old testament prophecies,

the hebrew messiah?

The new testament loves to rely on the prophecies

of-of the prophet isaiah,

uh, for proof, if you will,

of jesus', uh, messiah-ship.

One of the prophecies that became very popular

was a prophecy during the-the time of hezekiah.

Jerusalem's under siege, they don't know

if they're gonna survive, and isaiah comes up with

a prophecy that says, "look, behold there's a virgin,

and she will bear a son and his name will be emmanuel,"

which is "god with us."

the christians come along

and-and take that prophecy

and they reinterpret it.

And they say this prophecy is actually a reference to mary,

who's a real virgin.

And the son that she's going to bear is jesus.

And jesus will be the savior of all mankind,

not just of jerusalem in the eighth century,

but of all mankind for all time.

Whether you believe that jesus' virgin birth

was the fulfillment of a prophecy

or a story created to help 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 actual son of god?

The question of how jesus perceived himself

will likely remain a secret for all time.

Some people argue that jesus understood himself

to be the son of god.

He knew who he 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's, I think,

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 just the way that you say "a person."

so when jesus uses the phrase "son of man"

as a self-description,

you don't know whether he's just saying himself

or whether 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 we read the biblical text,

jesus created a great following

because he performed miracles.

He did magic deeds.

He caused the blind to see.

He was a healer.

At the end of the day, jesus was kind to those in need.

He loved those who needed help,

who no one else would love.

At the wedding of cana, jesus turns the water into wine.

And he doesn't just turn it into any wine.

He turns it into the best wine.

So this is jesus' first public miracle.

And once he comes forward with his first miracle,

the floodgates really open.

The ministry has begun.

Jesus has arrived and he is the messiah

and the miracle worker.

But did the miracles of jesus,

as reported in the gospels, really happen?

For instance, did he really raise

a man called 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 referred to as the lost gospels,

a collection of writings that were supposedly authored

by people who witnessed jesus' life firsthand.

A group of farmers tilling their fields

unearth a clay jar.

It contains more than 50 biblical scrolls

dating back to the third century ad,

making them even older

than the books of the so-called new testament.

Instead, these texts are supposedly firsthand accounts

written by friends and followers of jesus,

and were worshipped as fact by a relatively obscure group

of ancient christians known as the gnostics.

Gnosticism comes from a direct oral tradition

that is passed down from the early christians

and evolves separately from the institutionalized church.

And there's the tradition that the gnostics have teachings

that come directly from jesus

through apostles, followers, even family,

who come from jesus.

"gnostic" comes from the word "gnosis,"

which means a personal revelation and experience.

And when we look at those texts today,

we see secret learning,

secret teachings.

Secret teachings,

directly from jesus himself,

passed down through his closest followers

and potentially giving us a firsthand account

of jesus' life and deeds?

One might think such gospels

would be held in high regard by the church.

But, in fact, it was quite the opposite.

When I first encountered what are called the gnostic gospels,

we were all surprised that there were so many gospels

that weren't in the new testament.

The reason that a lot of these books

didn't make it into the bible is that they weren't congruent

with the core message of the books that did make it in.

These texts were declared to be

sort of full of errors and they'll lead you astray.

One famous bishop calls them an abyss of madness

and blasphemy against christ.

So these were the enemies of the early church.

And christians thought they must have horrible things in them.

The penalty for copying and... Or even keeping

any of the gnostic texts

would have been increasingly severe.

It could have even led to more severe punishment,

like torture and death.

These lost books of the new testament

include a number of so-called gospels,

including the gospel of thomas, the gospel of philip,

the gospel of the egyptians and many others.

But just what was it in these gnostic texts

that made many bible scholars and clerics reject them

as being not only too controversial but too dangerous?

The gospels of the new testament

all tell you how important jesus is.

Jesus is the son of god, the son of man,

the king of israel, the messiah.

I mean, you name it, he's somebody very special.

And he's not like you and me.

Now, the gospels of thomas or phillip,

they say something quite different.

They say jesus, yes, he may be speaking divine truth,

but he's really like you and me.

But of all the gnostic gospels,

there is one that many biblical scholars believe

to be more significant and more controversial than the rest:

The gospel of mary.

There's a lot of controversy about mary magdalene.

In the bible, she's portrayed a certain way.

She's-she's one of the followers of jesus.

Oftentimes she's described as a prostitute,

as one who jesus kind of picked up from obscurity

and made her one of his followers.

But the gospel of mary specifically says

that jesus loved mary more than the other disciples.

In fact, they actually put that in the mouths

"so don't you know

that he loved her, uh, more than 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 astonishing 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.

Certainly we discover in the gnostic text

that are many, many references

to jesus' relationship to mary magdalene.

She is referred to as his "beloved."

she is referred to in a sexual manner

in the gnostic gospels.

So not only was jesus married,

but jesus was married to mary magdalene.

Because jesus was a rabbi, it would have been required

for jesus to be married.

If jesus were not married, this would have been something

that would have been remarked upon and talked about.

And the fact that it is not is actually one of the things

that proves that jesus was married,

because it would have been very normal for him to have been so.

Gnosticism was seen as a problem

because there was a core belief that had to be maintained,

that there were certain non-negotiable truths

that were part of the christian gospel.

And so if anything was contradictory to that,

then it needed to be suppressed or refuted.

There is a lot of gnostic material

that tells us jesus was married to mary magdalene.

2,000 years of church tradition is overturned

by the gnostic gospels because mary magdalene emerges

as a successor of jesus.

Did jesus, the son of god,

really have a wife, children and descendants?

And if so, would that 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 first written.

Although there is sufficient evidence

for scholars to conclude that the bible we read today

is quite different than the bible people were reading

thousands of years ago, it doesn't seem to matter.

In spite of centuries of human tampering,

or perhaps because of it,

the bible is still the most powerful

and influential book the world has ever known.

The bible, without a doubt, is the most important book

in the history of western civilization.

People read it, people revere it.

People think of it as god's word to humankind.

And god had revealed the secrets that could make sense

of the real meaning of life and the history of the world.

Why is it that 5,000 years

after these stories were written

we still read them, we still believe in them?

It's not because they are true,

though many people believe them as true.

It's because they are infinitely malleable.

That's the power of scripture,

that it can mean anything to anyone

depending on the time in which they live,

depending on the context in which they live.

One of the reasons that I think people just

keep going back to the bible over and over again

is that it's just so full of these fascinating mysteries,

these fascinating enigmas.

We will never know the answers to lots of them,

but what we do know is that it really is a text

that rewards repeated study,

rewards going back to over and over again.

The bible says about god himself,

"my thoughts are higher than your thoughts.

My ways are higher than your ways."

this is something people don't understand,

because we come to the bible from a point of view,

which reads the bible in a literal way.

But when you actually look at the greater whole

of all of the stories,

it is so beyond the limitations

of that of which we've understood.

Look, the bible is a powerful, powerful book,

and it's revered by millions around the world

in judaism and christianity.

It's a book that gives tremendous meaning

and tremendous identity

to millions and billions of people around the world.

In that way, it's alive.

It-it gives life to people.

Every time I read the bible, I'm struck not only

by the beauty and the depth of its stories,

but by the way that it gives me access,

in my own life,

to whatever it is that god is.

And so, I read it not only 'cause it captivates my mind,

but it elevates my spirit.

And I know from the fact that it is still with us,

and has been read all over the world for thousands of years,

that in that feeling, I am not alone.

Does the bible continue to inspire billions of people

around the world not because of the answers it provides

but because of the questions it inspires us to ask?

Questions about what many believe to be

its inconsistencies and contradictions.

Questions about life

and humankind's unique place in the universe.

Questions that may forever remain unexplained.

>>>>oakislandtk www.opensubtitles.org