I've been listening to the Bible in year podcast with Fr Mike...and it has been changing my life. I can feel my heart burning and craving God's word. No other book can do that to you. (Well, at least to me)
Try reading the Book of Mormon. No, really. Put biases aside, and really engage with it, it's on the internet for free and comes with an audio version. Easiest way is probably to download the Gospel Library app. I'm curious to see your first impressions.
@@KnuttyEntertainment it will be extremely hard for me to put my biases aside, for I have extreme bad convictions about mormonism. I used to follow this awesome channel from a former Mormon that explained Mormon faith (as a way to engage some Mormon ladies that used to come to my house). And to be super honest with you, Mormonism is just nuts! I'm sorry if you are a Mormon and this might sound to you as me being offensive or mean. But... From all that I have learned, the case for Mormonism is very weak (at best). God bless you. Thank you for the suggestion though. I know you meant it to be a good one.
@@marianafaria6960 Not at all, no offense taken, we're quite used to these things. There's a lot of disinformation out there about the LDS church. I'm rather well informed on all topics surrounding the subject actually, so why don't you tell me what's holding you up, and I'll give a response. I assure you that the case for the Book of Mormon is much stronger than most people think.
@@daniellevy1703 I believe the precise quote is something more like "As man now is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become." But regardless, yes, this is accurate and part of our doctrine of theosis, which is shared by catholics in some aspects. I can show you quotes and instances from the early church and early church fathers that support this, and other beliefs of ours. We can also go through the various bible verses and why I believe our theory of theosis fits better with the facts (the verses) then the typical catholic theory of theosis. I would also like to say that our doctrine on theosis is heavily misunderstood and not nearly as extreme as most people think. Here's two verses to start you out, I know we both interpret them differently, but I think our interpretation is all around cleaner. (Psalms 82:6) "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Jesus uses this verse to defend his own divinity in John 10. (Romans 8:17) "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Notice it says joint heirs with Christ not deputy heirs to Christ.
For all of Bart Ehrman's negative narratives, the funny part is he has stated unequivocally that Jesus did exist as an historical figure, and as you stated the textual variants have no effect on Christian teachings or beliefs. There is a very nice video on YT of him saying such to a bewildered atheist youtuber.
That's the debate between Ehrman and Richard Price the Jesus Mythicist (not to be confused with Father Richard Price the historian whose book series on councils one ought to have)
@@YovanypadillaJr His reason is because he does not accept miracles. "Because I believe miracles cannot exist, therefore resurrections cannot exist either". That results in circular reasoning and that is NOT a valid reason to reject the resurrection, but that is the reason he gives.
Also, we shouldn't expect almost anything from the 1st century cause that is when it was written. There would be very few copies made during that time as the Church was still small, and the body of manuscripts would grow as the Church would grow. Ultimately, finding any manuscripts in the first century is extremely unlikely.
It's funny that the first clip you shared is from a video trying to argue that the bible isn't true because it's unreliable, and then throws out that standard of evidence immediately for the Origin of Species, stating that's it's reliable because it's true. It seems like his practical "religious belief" is scientism.
I’m going to put a reactionary traditional argument towards traditional understanding of the Bible (and traditional Catholicism as well). I hope Trent can engage with it. In the video Trent speaks on how the Gospel of John was argued (from all these skeptical “intellectuals”) that the Gospel of John was written much later. Then a manuscript of the gospel of John is discovered and blows up in the modernist, skeptics face. These situations occur many times in modern times, (one example being that there was a time when it was in vogue to believe that Jesus never existed), and they all prove wrong. The skeptic and other of our enemies can nitpick or come up with sort of “rational” reason to not believe in some article of faith or something that the tradition has laid down. But since they are consistently wrong over time, and have great incentive to try and disprove the church, it would stand to reason that we side with a more reactionary traditionalism.
I'm surprised you didn't even mention the Dead Sea Scrolls.. Literally serves as a nail in the coffin to the criticism of copies of copies of copies garbage.
Please do a video on the theological virtue of faith. There are very smart people who because they lack faith, squander their gift on anti-christian rhetoric. And this is a deficiency in intellect and reason is it not? Please do a video on this. New subscriber BTW and absolutely loving what you do. Not only do you have the intellect but you have the temperament, which is just as important.
@@TheThreatenedSwan The thing is, we have had such bottlenecks and being so smart and social, the forces that were leading to speciation are largely negated or at least transformed.
Literally facepalmed at Rhino's argument. The point is that they were copied widely, by many hands, over a long period. Creating a massive, un-alterable, record of the book through time.
Many Early Christians lived in Jerusalem. When the Romans conquered Jerusalem two times, many manuscripts were probably lost. Also, the Roman secret police were probably better at hunting down Christian scribes than we can know. The Arabs destroyed the great library of Alexandria. The Arabs also conquered North Africa. Much was lost. Thanks for your information!
Domitian also ordered that all copies of Sacred Christian texts be destroyed and anyone possesing them be excetuted. That is why the earliest of manuscripts are missing. Most weree confiscated and burned by the Romans
The atheist’s arguments sound like a bad Christian argument. You can reverse half of what he said as a case for the Bible to be the Word of God and that argument would still be flawed.
The point of the copies is that they exist near the time of the event AND are unchanged over time. In 100 years, let alone 1500 years, all of the bits on that hard drive will have been corrupted as the medium becomes demagnetized, the data unrecoverable, the moving parts and chips in the device corroded. Even if the people then could replicate all the required hardware and software to read the file system format and properly drive the device (a tall order in itself), there would be nothing to read unless it was stored in a very special environment. From a historical POV, there will be zero copies unless he transmits them forward by making new copies to new technology over time, or printing them out. Modern paper also just doesn't last very long unless it's special "archive paper".
Trent, very good video! I found your discussion on the dating of manuscripts outside of the Bible, and the lack of preserved material, very interesting. Have you written on this in your published works? If so, where could I find the work?
The Bible, is not only the Word of God, it’s also our response to it, our growth and relationship with God and our flaws. So when someone attacks the Bible with; “there’s slavery in the Bible” We can easily respond with, “that was our choice, God provides us with ethical ways to manage our slaves because we already had slaves”
@@TheThreatenedSwan Friend, slaves in America weren't treated well. Read the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington or some other former slave's writings. Slaves were abused regularly and nonchalantly in every respect beyond what we would seem acceptable. Sure, God allowed slavery because of our fallenness as He did many things but Europeans weren't inherently kinder to their slaves than our African or Muslim or Arab counterparts. Just consider Haiti or the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the New World.
@@TheThreatenedSwan Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington weren't just Northern Abolitionists, Booker T. Washington was freed after the implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation, they were both former slaves, man. They both write of the horrible abuses of the system they were born into, and, in the case of Frederick Douglass, his escape from it. I suggest you read their accounts. Whites certainly did commit the acts of violence we consider with the inhumanities of slavery, not only in their implementations but in their perpetuation. We can't pretend otherwise. The slaves were abused for the fortunes of the Europeans and American whites. Sure, they were multi-ethnic culture but the whites were the primary party benefited and the group pushing for the system's perpetuation.
@@TheThreatenedSwan Evil does not view itself as evil," and then you go on about why wouldn't Southerns they say they did what Northerners and ex-slaves! said they did? C'mon, friend. Southerners used black people as chattel. Have you really read any slave accounts at all? In what degree would they lie, and for what malicious purpose, are you saying that they were evil men spouting evil lies? Slave owners were different and some may have been kinder than others but it is an irrefutable fact that slavery for a horrible majority was deplorable and intolerable. If it was not so unkind would you be for bringing it back?
That first video you showed a clip from sounds like 2000’s nu atheist argumentation, like come on we’re in the 2020’s it isn’t 2008 anymore. Always seem to have the same tone of voice
Mister Trent around 18:35 you mention that St. Paul quoted St. Luke in 1 Timothy. Now modern scholars seem not to think that 1 Timothy is an authentic Pauline Epistle. Can you refer me to some source or give the short case yourself somtime that the Epistle IS authentic (and hence your particular argument around 18:40 holds)? Thank you and God bless!
The argument that the letters of the apostles would be haphazardly copied is crazy. If you got a letter from Marie Currie about her experiments with radioactivity, and wanted to preserve the contents, lest the letter be lost or destroyed, would you not diligently copy every word and letter accurately?
Can someone who studied the topic tell me if the expression "where also their Lord was crucified" appears in early manuscripts of Revelation 11, 8? It's in parentheses in my Bible and I don't know what it means. I could built a big theological case upon that.
The way atheist arguments for “history and fact” disregard the process for discerning “history and fact” is just a really funny dichotomy. The lengths people go to in order to make themselves god of their universe blows my mind and it’s tremendously sad
The real problem with those guys is the absurd assumption that the point of trying to show that the New Testament has been accurately preserved is to prove that the New Testament is true...as if only true texts could possibly be preserved
A friend has the question of how can be sure the old testament translation from hebrew still holds true to what we read today? Is there a similar way to look for that? Thanks
Christians get the morals from New Testament since it is part of the New Covenant (NOT the Old Testament, which is part of the Old Covenant). We know that the Old Testament is reliable, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oh, the translation into English. Then I don´t know. Sorry.
Trent Horn is to Apologetics what Ireland's Fr. Brian Kilcoyne's "Machine Gun Theology" (UA-cam) means for daily practical spiritual living. A daily immunity booster.
I would simply argue that i don't have a reason to believe that the other ancient books are reliable either. The difference is that no one really tries to legislate based on these other ancient books, so it doesn't really matter if they are not reliable.
@purplesamurai5373 imagine being this uncharitable. In realiable, i mean the accounts of events or people. The general ideas in those books are indeed very important.
These guys forget their past councils regards the final canon. Imagine the Vatican 2 that the eastern othodox and protestants are no longer schematics and unsaved,but now as separate brethren. The past history of the Roman Catholic church are revised and retrograde back in time.
Please do a video about why Jesus never seems to claim he is God in the synoptic Gospels, also why John is so different from synoptics if talking about the same events
So Jesus does claim to be God in the Synoptics. Any time Jesus says your sins are forgiven, he is claiming to be God. Every time he uses the divine name I Am that God told Moses, he is claiming to be God.
atheists often make "some" good points, but ultimately, they're always way off point despite drawing from The Well and applying gifts that are given to them by God. Hubris is an abominable thing.
I thought we have copies of the individual books of the new testament 20-60 years after Jesus left the earth? Why even bring up the 'complete' version as a defence when it came 300 years later? I definitely would not be Christian if that were the case.
If the Bible is the best preserved book from the ancient world, this speaks more about the deficiency in knowledge we have about the ancient world than it does about the accuracy of the Bible.
But does it beat the Book of Mormon? In some ways, definitely, it's just longer and covers a longer length of time. But just comparing the New Testament to the Book of Mormon, I'd say the Book of Mormon wins in complexity, hebraism, and preservation. (If you belief that it wasn't "written" by Joseph Smith, and therefore preserved.)
@Empyreal It's preserved in the english translation, of which we have maintained the records of every copy. We don't have the original egyptian and hebrew, but last time I checked, we don't have the original firsthand writings of the new testament either. At least with the book of mormon, we know it's the best 2nd hand account we can ask for as it's a direct translation of the best 1st hand account we could ask for.
@Empyreal Yes, it's not the same as an inspired prophet compiling all the personal journals of other inspired prophets, all of whom were under the direct order of God to write what they did, and then another inspired prophet directly translating all of that perfectly into English by the gift and power of God. Definitely not the same as copies of unknown authorship dating to decades if not centuries after the original manuscripts, and could very well be copies of copies before being compiled and possibly edited by non prophets.
One of my biggest concerns about the Book of Mormon is that Mormons can't even agree on where the events took place. At least even non-religious scholars can find many of the sites of the Bible. But I've heard estimates on the Book of Mormon that range from the America's, Central America, to the Great Lakes.
Bible beats every ancient book in falsehood, in contradictions, in plain absurdities and lies! These - none rivals the bible - it is the ultimate masterpiece in these categories. I laugh reading the mass contradictions. I am sure ancient people valued honesty unlike whoever wrote the bible! :D
I've been listening to the Bible in year podcast with Fr Mike...and it has been changing my life. I can feel my heart burning and craving God's word. No other book can do that to you. (Well, at least to me)
Try reading the Book of Mormon. No, really. Put biases aside, and really engage with it, it's on the internet for free and comes with an audio version. Easiest way is probably to download the Gospel Library app.
I'm curious to see your first impressions.
@@KnuttyEntertainment it will be extremely hard for me to put my biases aside, for I have extreme bad convictions about mormonism. I used to follow this awesome channel from a former Mormon that explained Mormon faith (as a way to engage some Mormon ladies that used to come to my house). And to be super honest with you, Mormonism is just nuts! I'm sorry if you are a Mormon and this might sound to you as me being offensive or mean. But... From all that I have learned, the case for Mormonism is very weak (at best). God bless you. Thank you for the suggestion though. I know you meant it to be a good one.
@@marianafaria6960 Not at all, no offense taken, we're quite used to these things. There's a lot of disinformation out there about the LDS church. I'm rather well informed on all topics surrounding the subject actually, so why don't you tell me what's holding you up, and I'll give a response. I assure you that the case for the Book of Mormon is much stronger than most people think.
@@KnuttyEntertainment God was once a man, as God is now, man will one day be.
Is this true?
@@daniellevy1703 I believe the precise quote is something more like "As man now is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become." But regardless, yes, this is accurate and part of our doctrine of theosis, which is shared by catholics in some aspects. I can show you quotes and instances from the early church and early church fathers that support this, and other beliefs of ours. We can also go through the various bible verses and why I believe our theory of theosis fits better with the facts (the verses) then the typical catholic theory of theosis. I would also like to say that our doctrine on theosis is heavily misunderstood and not nearly as extreme as most people think.
Here's two verses to start you out, I know we both interpret them differently, but I think our interpretation is all around cleaner.
(Psalms 82:6) "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Jesus uses this verse to defend his own divinity in John 10.
(Romans 8:17) "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Notice it says joint heirs with Christ not deputy heirs to Christ.
For all of Bart Ehrman's negative narratives, the funny part is he has stated unequivocally that Jesus did exist as an historical figure, and as you stated the textual variants have no effect on Christian teachings or beliefs. There is a very nice video on YT of him saying such to a bewildered atheist youtuber.
What's Ehrman's reason for rejecting the gospels then?
@@YovanypadillaJr That's a good question. I've been wondering the same for years.
That's the debate between Ehrman and Richard Price the Jesus Mythicist (not to be confused with Father Richard Price the historian whose book series on councils one ought to have)
@@Flagrum3 problem of evil is a big one, h wrote a whole book about it. As well a very fundamentalist understanding of the preservation of the bible
@@YovanypadillaJr His reason is because he does not accept miracles.
"Because I believe miracles cannot exist, therefore resurrections cannot exist either".
That results in circular reasoning and that is NOT a valid reason to reject the resurrection, but that is the reason he gives.
Also, we shouldn't expect almost anything from the 1st century cause that is when it was written. There would be very few copies made during that time as the Church was still small, and the body of manuscripts would grow as the Church would grow. Ultimately, finding any manuscripts in the first century is extremely unlikely.
It's funny that the first clip you shared is from a video trying to argue that the bible isn't true because it's unreliable, and then throws out that standard of evidence immediately for the Origin of Species, stating that's it's reliable because it's true. It seems like his practical "religious belief" is scientism.
Evolution is still true
Cicero mentioned a friend who mass produced copies of his works. Which might refute Ehrman's "copies of copies of copies."
When Trent said about Paul spending $2000 on Romans, I just said "Thank you Lord".
Thank you Trent!! Also they forgot “The Didache” also knows as “Didaje” use for the Apostles too.
God bless all catholic apologists, may our Almighty God reward them of eternal life.
God bless you and may the Holy Spirit illuminate you to continue defending the Tradition of the Faith
I’m going to put a reactionary traditional argument towards traditional understanding of the Bible (and traditional Catholicism as well). I hope Trent can engage with it. In the video Trent speaks on how the Gospel of John was argued (from all these skeptical “intellectuals”) that the Gospel of John was written much later. Then a manuscript of the gospel of John is discovered and blows up in the modernist, skeptics face. These situations occur many times in modern times, (one example being that there was a time when it was in vogue to believe that Jesus never existed), and they all prove wrong. The skeptic and other of our enemies can nitpick or come up with sort of “rational” reason to not believe in some article of faith or something that the tradition has laid down. But since they are consistently wrong over time, and have great incentive to try and disprove the church, it would stand to reason that we side with a more reactionary traditionalism.
I'm surprised you didn't even mention the Dead Sea Scrolls.. Literally serves as a nail in the coffin to the criticism of copies of copies of copies garbage.
Yes, you are correct. I forgot all about the Dead Sea Scrolls. :)
Because they are OT copies. Less hotly debated
We do need a video on textual criticism since there is much confusion about it
For anyone interested in modern NT scholarship, I highly recommend the work of Brant Pitre.
Please do a video on the theological virtue of faith. There are very smart people who because they lack faith, squander their gift on anti-christian rhetoric. And this is a deficiency in intellect and reason is it not? Please do a video on this.
New subscriber BTW and absolutely loving what you do. Not only do you have the intellect but you have the temperament, which is just as important.
I will have to go read The name of the rose now with fresh eyes...thanks Trent! Great info!
It would be interesting to compare the Western canon to Eastern texts such as the works of Lao Tzu and Confucius.
Trent do you have a reply to Jay Dyer's "Top 5 Simple Arguments Against Papal Infallibility / Vatican I?"
When someone is blathering on about how wonderful Darwin is, ask them to quote the entire title of _The Origin of Species_ :)
On the Origin of Species: or the survival of favoured races by means of natural selection” or something
@@TheThreatenedSwan Race is an indication of isolation of populations and adaptation.
@@TheThreatenedSwan The thing is, we have had such bottlenecks and being so smart and social, the forces that were leading to speciation are largely negated or at least transformed.
That's no use when you're online. They'll just google and then pretend they knew even if they didn't. 🤷♂️
What is it?
Literally facepalmed at Rhino's argument. The point is that they were copied widely, by many hands, over a long period. Creating a massive, un-alterable, record of the book through time.
Copied widely, but we don't have the originals. Were mistakes made, especially when going from one language to another?
Hey Trent could you do a review on infographics video on Catholics vs orthodox?
I am so glad you’re responding to Viced Rhino!
Thank you Trent! God bless you
Many Early Christians lived in Jerusalem. When the Romans conquered Jerusalem two times, many manuscripts were probably lost. Also, the Roman secret police were probably better at hunting down Christian scribes than we can know. The Arabs destroyed the great library of Alexandria. The Arabs also conquered North Africa. Much was lost. Thanks for your information!
Domitian also ordered that all copies of Sacred Christian texts be destroyed and anyone possesing them be excetuted. That is why the earliest of manuscripts are missing. Most weree confiscated and burned by the Romans
What rubbish. Theodosius destroyed the library. Without the Arabs and Islam, greek philosophy would have been lost to western europe.
absolutely awesome video Trent.
The atheist’s arguments sound like a bad Christian argument. You can reverse half of what he said as a case for the Bible to be the Word of God and that argument would still be flawed.
This is what you get when you ave non scholars & are internet armchair pretend experts think they have credibility and education on the matter.
Would you ever consider doing a video on problematic biblical verses in the deadsea scrolls like Deuteronomy 32:8 and psalm 22?
Modern computer file systems do not actually create 30,000 copies of something when you ask them to create 30,000 copies of something.
The point of the copies is that they exist near the time of the event AND are unchanged over time. In 100 years, let alone 1500 years, all of the bits on that hard drive will have been corrupted as the medium becomes demagnetized, the data unrecoverable, the moving parts and chips in the device corroded. Even if the people then could replicate all the required hardware and software to read the file system format and properly drive the device (a tall order in itself), there would be nothing to read unless it was stored in a very special environment.
From a historical POV, there will be zero copies unless he transmits them forward by making new copies to new technology over time, or printing them out. Modern paper also just doesn't last very long unless it's special "archive paper".
Great, thanks. What about OT reliability? Video about that can be also helpful.
ive seen both those channels. Neither were my favorites.
Thanks much for this video.
Trent, very good video!
I found your discussion on the dating of manuscripts outside of the Bible, and the lack of preserved material, very interesting.
Have you written on this in your published works? If so, where could I find the work?
It´s so true. haha. Trent is fightning the Devil´s insidius wiles with a camera and computer. :)
There should be like emoji that shows “two thumbs up, way up”
The Bible, is not only the Word of God, it’s also our response to it, our growth and relationship with God and our flaws.
So when someone attacks the Bible with; “there’s slavery in the Bible”
We can easily respond with, “that was our choice, God provides us with ethical ways to manage our slaves because we already had slaves”
@@TheThreatenedSwan Friend, slaves in America weren't treated well. Read the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington or some other former slave's writings. Slaves were abused regularly and nonchalantly in every respect beyond what we would seem acceptable.
Sure, God allowed slavery because of our fallenness as He did many things but Europeans weren't inherently kinder to their slaves than our African or Muslim or Arab counterparts. Just consider Haiti or the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the New World.
@@TheThreatenedSwan Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington weren't just Northern Abolitionists, Booker T. Washington was freed after the implementation of the Emancipation Proclamation, they were both former slaves, man. They both write of the horrible abuses of the system they were born into, and, in the case of Frederick Douglass, his escape from it. I suggest you read their accounts.
Whites certainly did commit the acts of violence we consider with the inhumanities of slavery, not only in their implementations but in their perpetuation. We can't pretend otherwise. The slaves were abused for the fortunes of the Europeans and American whites. Sure, they were multi-ethnic culture but the whites were the primary party benefited and the group pushing for the system's perpetuation.
@@TheThreatenedSwan "Former slaves can't be trusted sources about slavery because they don't want it to be legal", is quite the ignorant take.
@@TheThreatenedSwan Evil does not view itself as evil," and then you go on about why wouldn't Southerns they say they did what Northerners and ex-slaves! said they did? C'mon, friend. Southerners used black people as chattel. Have you really read any slave accounts at all? In what degree would they lie, and for what malicious purpose, are you saying that they were evil men spouting evil lies?
Slave owners were different and some may have been kinder than others but it is an irrefutable fact that slavery for a horrible majority was deplorable and intolerable. If it was not so unkind would you be for bringing it back?
@@TheThreatenedSwan Also, the view of slavery as a moral evil, one of humanity's greatest evils, is a thoroughly Republican idea.
That first video you showed a clip from sounds like 2000’s nu atheist argumentation, like come on we’re in the 2020’s it isn’t 2008 anymore. Always seem to have the same tone of voice
Mister Trent around 18:35 you mention that St. Paul quoted St. Luke in 1 Timothy. Now modern scholars seem not to think that 1 Timothy is an authentic Pauline Epistle. Can you refer me to some source or give the short case yourself somtime that the Epistle IS authentic (and hence your particular argument around 18:40 holds)?
Thank you and God bless!
Wonderful! 🙏🙏
The argument that the letters of the apostles would be haphazardly copied is crazy. If you got a letter from Marie Currie about her experiments with radioactivity, and wanted to preserve the contents, lest the letter be lost or destroyed, would you not diligently copy every word and letter accurately?
Can someone who studied the topic tell me if the expression "where also their Lord was crucified" appears in early manuscripts of Revelation 11, 8? It's in parentheses in my Bible and I don't know what it means. I could built a big theological case upon that.
I'll pray for your fight. But I thought, the John-Fragment was dated to the reign of Trajan, who died in 117.
Nobody escapes da trentacles
The way atheist arguments for “history and fact” disregard the process for discerning “history and fact” is just a really funny dichotomy. The lengths people go to in order to make themselves god of their universe blows my mind and it’s tremendously sad
14:10
16:10, 17:33
20:20
The real problem with those guys is the absurd assumption that the point of trying to show that the New Testament has been accurately preserved is to prove that the New Testament is true...as if only true texts could possibly be preserved
Like a rug!
A friend has the question of how can be sure the old testament translation from hebrew still holds true to what we read today? Is there a similar way to look for that? Thanks
Christians get the morals from New Testament since it is part of the New Covenant (NOT the Old Testament, which is part of the Old Covenant).
We know that the Old Testament is reliable, because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Oh, the translation into English. Then I don´t know. Sorry.
Trent Horn is to Apologetics what Ireland's Fr. Brian Kilcoyne's "Machine Gun Theology" (UA-cam) means for daily practical spiritual living. A daily immunity booster.
I would simply argue that i don't have a reason to believe that the other ancient books are reliable either. The difference is that no one really tries to legislate based on these other ancient books, so it doesn't really matter if they are not reliable.
The idea that nobody has tried to legislate based on Greek philosophy is one only a historically ignorant Atheist could make.
@purplesamurai5373 imagine being this uncharitable. In realiable, i mean the accounts of events or people. The general ideas in those books are indeed very important.
These guys forget their past councils regards the final canon. Imagine the Vatican 2 that the eastern othodox and protestants are no longer schematics and unsaved,but now as separate brethren. The past history of the Roman Catholic church are revised and retrograde back in time.
Please do a video about why Jesus never seems to claim he is God in the synoptic Gospels, also why John is so different from synoptics if talking about the same events
So Jesus does claim to be God in the Synoptics. Any time Jesus says your sins are forgiven, he is claiming to be God. Every time he uses the divine name I Am that God told Moses, he is claiming to be God.
blessings
10:10 quotation
Let me guess… with a sword??
I mean, it was written by God AND man, so that already beats everything else
Some Atheist are too hard pressed on the bible being a fairy tale.
atheists often make "some" good points, but ultimately, they're always way off point despite drawing from The Well and applying gifts that are given to them by God. Hubris is an abominable thing.
That’s what the Muslims say about the Quran. You can’t all be right but you can all be wrong.
9:35
The argument usually given is that the claims the Bible makes are so fantastic that more evidence is needed to believe *anything* about them.
LOL!!
Euclid's Elements of Geometry is just as relevant today as when it was originally written. Killing pidgins and sheep was never relevant.
I thought we have copies of the individual books of the new testament 20-60 years after Jesus left the earth? Why even bring up the 'complete' version as a defence when it came 300 years later? I definitely would not be Christian if that were the case.
Trent is referring to the date of the earliest surviving physical text of the New Testament, not the date the New Testament was actually written.
If the Bible is the best preserved book from the ancient world, this speaks more about the deficiency in knowledge we have about the ancient world than it does about the accuracy of the Bible.
But does it beat the Book of Mormon?
In some ways, definitely, it's just longer and covers a longer length of time. But just comparing the New Testament to the Book of Mormon, I'd say the Book of Mormon wins in complexity, hebraism, and preservation. (If you belief that it wasn't "written" by Joseph Smith, and therefore preserved.)
Considering that the Book of Mormon was written over a millennia and a half later…
@@juice2307 Translated a millenia and a half later. The original copy contained all the firsthand accounts too.
@Empyreal It's preserved in the english translation, of which we have maintained the records of every copy. We don't have the original egyptian and hebrew, but last time I checked, we don't have the original firsthand writings of the new testament either. At least with the book of mormon, we know it's the best 2nd hand account we can ask for as it's a direct translation of the best 1st hand account we could ask for.
@Empyreal Yes, it's not the same as an inspired prophet compiling all the personal journals of other inspired prophets, all of whom were under the direct order of God to write what they did, and then another inspired prophet directly translating all of that perfectly into English by the gift and power of God.
Definitely not the same as copies of unknown authorship dating to decades if not centuries after the original manuscripts, and could very well be copies of copies before being compiled and possibly edited by non prophets.
One of my biggest concerns about the Book of Mormon is that Mormons can't even agree on where the events took place. At least even non-religious scholars can find many of the sites of the Bible. But I've heard estimates on the Book of Mormon that range from the America's, Central America, to the Great Lakes.
Nine communist thumb down so far.
Second again
Ha third
Bible beats every ancient book in falsehood, in contradictions, in plain absurdities and lies! These - none rivals the bible - it is the ultimate masterpiece in these categories. I laugh reading the mass contradictions. I am sure ancient people valued honesty unlike whoever wrote the bible! :D
There are no contradictions lol
Give an example at least