Welcome to Bible Mysteries.

What if there are secrets in the Bible the world doesn't want you to know?

You're listening to Episode 281, 400 years of silence,

why God stopped speaking between Malachi and John the Baptist, part one.

Now here are your hosts, Scott and John.

Thank you. Now here are your hosts, Scott and John. Welcome once again to Bible Mysteries podcast. I'm Scott Mitchell.

I'm John Potts, and this is the show that talks about things in the Bible. The world doesn't want you to know.

Welcome back, John. We're going to dive into some really interesting stuff this week.

Yeah, thanks for having me once again. That should get interesting this week. You were letting the cat out of the bag. I think it was on the Seeker's Circle. You were throwing out some teasers out there to people last week. So let us know what you got. We're going to dive into this thing I'm calling the 400 years of silence because we want to explore. Is the Second Temple literature inspired? That's suddenly becoming a pretty hot topic. It has been for some months now, if not longer. And we've covered the book of Enoch, but there's many other books in the

apocrypha, or several, I should say other books in the apocrypha. I came to research some

things about that, and I thought all that literature was written during the time when God was basically

silent to Israel and there was a gap of about 400 years between the book of Malachi which was

the last prophet to speak in the Old Testament and John the Baptist so we're going to dive into

some of that today sounds interesting interesting. I like it.

It's really cool. I should say that it's very timely right now because there's a lot of deception

increasing. In fact, this last episode we just released was my duo cast with Rodney Smith from

Millennial Mustard Seed podcast. And Rodney and I were talking

about how deception is proliferating. I think one of the things that's included in that is the way

the Second Temple literature is being used. It is very significant, I believe, and historically

important. But to accuse the Bible of having specifically rejected it, but it should have been

in the canon of scripture, I think is taking things a bit too far.

Yeah, I would agree with that. And you did a great job, I think, of nailing that point down

...