Well said Trent. I have a meeting with a priest at a church nearby Tuesday and am seeking baptism into the Church. Please pray for me and thank you for helping catechize me over the past few years.
Julius Caesar, in his books about his military campaigns in Gaul ("De Bello Gallico"), always referred to himself in the third person. It was common throughout the Roman and Hellenic worlds, of which the Holy Land was a part at the time.
Thucydides talks about his own role in the Peloponnesian War with so little comment or emphasis that you can very easily forget it’s THAT Thucydides.
2 роки тому+3
My PE teacher also refers himself in third person when discussing about the exercises me and my classmates will do, but we know it's him because he himself was the one discussing.
@@drkissinger1 It's very common. The closest or most famous Greek analogue and maybe model for Caesar is Xenophon's "Anabasis", also a military report by a commander who always uses the 3rd person for himself.
As a former Protestant, it is biblical skepticism like this video that ROCKED my Protestant faith in Sola Scriptura and ultimately lead me to Catholicism. The Bible cannot stand without Tradition.
@@bandie9101 ok and what, In order to have a tradition you first have to have a doctrine or scriptures in order to base your tradition on. Saying tradition override scripture is a bad understanding of the Biblical teaching. Tradition can be wrong where as the Word of God stand forever.
This is partly the natural consequence of the sort of radical version of inerrancy taught in many churches today. Especially those which are KJVO, but any church with this sort of rigid and hyper-literal understanding of Biblical inerrancy is setting up its members for a fall whenever they encounter information to the contrary.
I've always noticed that the biggest KJVOs and hyper-literalists other than Protestant/non-denom fundamentalists tend to be atheists, and most often those atheists were raised with the former as their background. Christopher Hitchens, for example, was a KJVO to his death; his "When the King Saved God" article for Vanity Fair in April 2011 lays this out quite clearly, as well as shows his ignorance with actual history regarding the transmission and translation of the biblical text.
What's your definition of non-radical, non-hyper-literal inerrancy, and from whence do you derive your definition? I'm also curious about your views on the doctrine of perseverance. Does the Bible teach that God will preserve his word in perpetuity, or that it can be lost and corrupted and in need of restoration? If you're catholic, and you believe God's word has been corrupted throughout history and is now being restored by textual critics, why do you think God preserved his church in every generation, but not his word? Rather strange, don't you think?
@@vindicatedandestablished I'm not Catholic. I'm a Baptist who has spent my entire life in KJVO churches, but also knows a little history. That's why I know what that teaching sets people up for, I went through it. Preservation is incredible, and there is more evidence for the Bible than any other ancient book. But there is no single ancient text we can point to that remains perfectly identical throughout the ages, with no alterations or transcription errors. I assume by your wording that you're a Textus Receptus guy. Well, Erasmus compiled the TR from multiple incomplete manuscripts of the Greek, precisely because a complete Greek New Testament wasn't available. He harmonized the differences, performing an earlier version of what we would call textual criticism. He created multiple versions of his Greek New Testament, with differences in all of them. And Beza and Stephanus made editions with slight changes as well. The KJV takes from all of those, not one single Textus Receptus.
It's also worth noting that in the ancient world, many wrote in order that their works might be heard in community... it's kind of weird for someone to read a book or letter and say "I said X" but that "he said X" so as to be heard more pleasantly to the ears of those listening.
Claiming sexism shows his actual motivation: he's now a part of a competing religion. Not only was running the home economy a full time job, any institution which was equally open to being run by women would be substantially different than one that was not. This is obvious unless you're trying to repeat pc egalitarian line.
Same case at 32:26 with the snarky footnote "these guys wouldn't have looked this white." I wonder, is he going to storm into a church in Tokyo, point at icons, and tell all the congregants that Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles "wouldn't have looked this Japanese" next?
@@marinanguish9928 Actually your problem is you don't read the bible on your own. Ephesians chapter 4:11 is clear and has nothing on gender. Just because Christ chose men only doesn't automatically mean no women can serve on the pulpit. It's the Holy Spirit who choses. Another point is not all men are chosen to be pastors but you fools accept anyone because of gender. You blame protestants like we will be judged according to denomination. Lol. How many Catholic priests worldwide have impregnated nuns over centuries and MOLESTED young church boys via SODOMY over centuries ? Grow up !! Salvation is upto you. Work on yours alone ! Your pope won't be there! He will be judged too ! Those saints you think are in heaven....well your denomination doesn't decide who goes to HEAVEN!!
One area I don't see popular Christian apologists on youtube address a lot is all the laws in Leviticus, Numbers etc that so many atheists use as ammo. Slavery is a good example of ones that have got coverage and make a lot more sense once we see exactly what was going on in what context. I'd love to hear someone go through all the types of laws, their purpose, and focus on all those that can be used by atheists to imply that these are primitive man made laws compared to modern sensibilities.
To give a brief summary. The point of the Old Covenant and the laws associated with it was to preserve the Israelites from further sin and debauchery. They aren't really meant to be the moral standard of God, but rather are compromised agreements between God and the Israelites. Jesus briefly makes light of this when talking about divorce under Moses. Essentially they're laws that acknowledge the Israelites sin, but aim to minimize it. To which the Israelites repeatedly break throughout the entire OT.
@@Cklert Indeed, yes. Some to set apart, some to prepare to be Holy or to understand and receive the Messiah, some to be ritually clean. Still some I can think of possible explanations but I don't like to suppose to know.
@@kevinkelly2162 Can you give me a reference point? I know that it said something about for you were once strangers in Egypt. I don’t recall anything that says “beat your slaves”
With that one manuscript he brought up without a title, it's actually not something we can say was anonymous either. Papyrus 1 has a decent chunk of Matthew's gospel, starting with the first page but if we look at ancient manuscripts, often the title was at the end not the start. Since we don't have the last page, we can't say it didn't have a title. Every manuscript that has a surviving title page, has the title attributing it to the correct author. Great response Trent, just thought I'd add this from my own research!
A second possibility with this manuscript not having a title is that a lot of times, titles were put on a type of book mark or separate page that came with the scroll or codex. This was so the scribe could see what the book was called on the outside. So imagine that title or bookmark getting lost to the tides of time and you just have chapter 1 of Mathew’s gospel. The book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” goes over this kind of thing.
On the Johannine Comma, the Peshitta, which is the standard Bible version for Chaldean/Syriac/Assyrian Christians, has always been without the Johannine Comma, since they were immune from a lot of Greek and Latin influence, and these Christians believed and still do believe in the Trinity. So I think if you look at Christian traditions that are completely isolated from the Johannine Comma, you quickly see that the Trinity does not at all rest on the Johannine Comma. To say that the Trinity was "invented" because of a "mischievous interpolation" that was "inserted" later in Latin/Greek manuscripts, does not at all account for the Syriac tradition.
After I started to take Catholicism serious a few years ago, I really wanted someone to tackle Trey’s videos on religious and moral topics. I like his videos related to paleontology but am really rubbed the wrong way by these kind of videos he makes. Thanks Trent!
Yeah, I was a big fan of his when I was an atheist, and though I still enjoy his older palaeontology videos, I am glad to see one of his videos on this topic rebutted.
@@marinanguish9928 yeah it’s sad he doesn’t do a lot of paleontology stuff anymore. I find really frustrating when these scientific channels make content like this
Turn to Jesus Christ and not the Catholic Church, they are CORRUPT and break Jesus’ commands. Matt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” JESUS SAID FOLLOW HIM NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE NEVER SAID PRAY TO MARY Catholicism isn’t Christianity TURN TO JESUS AND REPENT
I think I know this one: 1. Removing Tobit 2. Removing Judith 3. Removing 1st Maccabees 4. Removing 2nd Maccabees 5. Removing Wisdom 6. Removing Baruch 7. Removing Sirach 8. Removing that one bit of Daniel 9. Removing that bit of Esther 10. When Martin Luther removed the Deuterocanon
“Alright, let’s get down to the specific examples, and see if they’re as nefarious and problematic as Trey makes them out to be!” “Goliath’s height” I couldn’t make that up if I wanted to, that’s just so funny 💀
If we cannot trust the number of units known to have changed over time and been like ng obsolete by the age of the text in question, and ultimately aren't even relevant to the overall narrative, what *can* we trust!
In regards to the authorship of Matthew, it is also true that there are more references to money in that Gospel than the others, which would make sense if he were a tax collector. The Protestant UA-camr "Testify" actually has some really excellent videos on the authorship (and early dating) of the Gospels I would recommend.
@@kevinkelly2162 You do realize that Koine Greek was a “lingua franca” of that time right, especially in that region? So it certainly isn’t out of the question. There is also a hypothesis that has existed since ancient times that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic for a Jewish audience and then translated to Greek afterwards, so even if he didn’t know Greek that wouldn’t necessarily discount his authorship.
This may sound like too fine a point, but it isn't: At around 13:00 the claim is made that the ESV is a translation of the RSV, which is a translation of thr ASV, etc. These are not translations, they're revisions. The only _translations_ come when applying the ancient sources, as Trent points out so ably.
I love when these anti-Christian videos become essentially history channel conspiracy shows. Like anytime there’s textual variance the person jumps to “at the time there was probably all these implicit reasons for such a change to be deliberately made” without offering an iota of evidence towards such an extraordinary claim
@@kevinkelly2162 and there is extraordinary evidence for it being true, I will not bring you the sources as you found your way to this channel so im sure you have heard some of it. The truth of the Bible aside the claim being debunked in the video is that the Bible is remarkably different that the original texts which obviously it is not.
Trey the Explainer’s video didn’t even seem anti-Christian or even anti-inerrancy, I thought of it as simply pointing out the different variants within the Bible that someone may not have known about, while providing a background as to why he, along with other people, may not know about these textual variants or “changes”, namely, the idea of Christian inerrancy for some makes people think the Bible had no textual variants, or in Trey the Explainer’s case, was written in English. It didn’t seem like a “Biblical Inerrancy Debunked” kind of video, nor a “We can’t trust the Bible’s contents because it contains too many errors!” Kind of video either.
I agree. But the one thing Trey has going for him is that he has a voice that could draw you in if you don't listen very closely to what he is saying. And what he is saying is far fetched.
Not sure if you define what is meant by “original” text, I tried to dialog with someone and the word “original” was a huge stumbling block. He seemed to think there were 5000 intact Greek-language Bibles that he referred to as “original” and would not discuss further.
Videos who criticize the Bible and Christianity will always have many views. A great number of people are ready to believe anything critics have to say, as if their word must be the absolute truth on the subject.
@@kevinkelly2162 Nice try, but you missed the point of my comment. There's more people attracted to negative videos than to videos which competently explain the Bible. The video which Trent has rebuked has an incredible amount of views, and yet is clearly made by an individual with extremely poor knowledge of Christianity who's got his information from other equally flawed videos or websites. At least most priest have actually studied the Bible from the most reputable source, and their flaws are of a personal nature.
@@djo-dji6018 Exactly, the author of this video probably thinks that the new translators only translate from older versions that are also English because the author himself gets his information from other videos instead of in depth research
those who believe that the bible was written in English (probably KJV) are numerous, and not to engaged seriously except to point out that the NT was wriiten in Greek, so more to be taught than 'engaged'
First couple of minutes sounds like Islam and the Quran, not Christianity. Yes, the Bible is sacred scripture. Yes, it can be mishandled. That’s what the Church is for 😎
I didn't get the same impression as you did when you said "sounds like Islam and the Quran.". But I acknowledge your comment and I appreciate your views.
A great resource for those interested in delving deeper into the history and theology of Scripture and Inspiration are the works of Fr. Denis Fakasfalvy - "Inspiration and Interpretation" and "A Theology of the Christian Bible". He was on JPII's Biblical Commission and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Biblical scholars in recent times.
Trent, American Family Radio has a video called "A God Who Speaks" which makes many erroneous statements, particularly where the Bible comes from. Please make a video correcting them.
@@tafazzi-on-discord thanks! I also noticed the video had Smiling Friends and Monty Python's Life of Brian. Haven't seen either of those, and they don't really interest me.
First of all, he doesn't know Trey or how he watches his documentaries so this is just a baseless accusation but while I could agree that it is probable, it still is justified in my opinion. Random ancient greek texts about the winemaking process of minoans should not be held to the same standard as a book that billions follow and have died for.
@@bamboo6640 why? If you're going off the assumption that the document is not divinely inspired, then it must be compared to documents of the same age, genre, culture, etc. To hold different standards based on how they are read now would be disingenuous.
Every wikipedia article has to have it's sources provided. It's quite probable that Trey went throught those sources but wanted to have a nice background image, also "You used wikipedia as a source" is a very nice excuse to not have to adress the argument at hand.
Well wikipedia is not at all a bad source of information. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin used it when I was discussing with him on the issue of Abortion.
Trent Horne explains exceptionally well how to rebut specious arguments against the Christian faith and the authority of the Catholic Church. This video is exceptional, because he addresses many misconceptions and deliberate distortions (oft repeated), all of which have little to no scholarship and certainly do not represent what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I particularly like how Trent discusses authors and translations of the Bible, noting how translators can disagree on grammar, spelling, and slight variations of words (aspects to emphasize), but not contradicting the message, dogma, and doctrines. And of course, words take on different connotations over times (see Shakespeare, for example), so there are reasons for changing words to convey the meaning. I spent way too much time commenting on someone else's video about the Masoretic Text (MT), but essentially, in Jesus' time, Jewish sects (especially the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), disagreed about what to include in the Hebrew Bible canon. Indeed, the Essenes' Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (NW shore of the Dead Sea) preserved multiple, different versions of the Hebrew Bible, which were all more modern Hebrew texts (modern at Jesus' time, translated from the original Paleo-Hebrew) and one that was used to by Jewish scholars to translate the Old Testament into Greek, the Septuagint, for millions of Hellenistic Jews to read. The Septuagint was the Old Testament version used by the Apostles to show OT prophetic fulfillment in Jesus (Scriptural references in the Greek NT to the Greek OT) and to evangelize the Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) world, which included the entire Mediterranean and eastward to India. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 AD (the start of the Jewish diaspora, a Jewish naqba), Jewish religious leaders prioritized how to make sense of the devastating defeat, instituting a Jewish orthodoxy, excommunicating and persecuting Jewish Christians, and deciding on a single Hebrew Bible canon. The Pharasaic school won out and determined mainstream Judaism. This canon was debated for centuries and finalized with the Masoretic Text in the 9th Century AD. The MT does agree with a Pharasaic canon in the 1st Century BC, but it does not agree with the other major (Jewish) Hebrew Bible canons before Christ. (Sidenote: Jewish historian Josephus was most closely aligned with the Pharisees.) So, when considering the different Hebrew Bible canons in Jesus' time, notably the Septuagint, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Pharasaic/Masoretic canon is "authentic" and that the other canons are not. And that's why translators of the Bible need to read multiple sources of Biblical texts to find convergence in meaning.
The Catholic Church lost their moral and divine authority when they covered up murders and rapes done within the church and externally. Many covered up murdered children were later Canonized by the Church as a way of saying "sorry." Which sounds good in practice but pretty much annihilates the authority of the Church as the sole governing body of Gospel and Scripture.
Blud really thought that pointing out that Goliath wasn't as massively tall as we thought destroys the credibility of the Bible. ☠☠☠
2 роки тому+5
There’s a part 2 of that video: ua-cam.com/video/kX62bRIG-OI/v-deo.html I initially was interested in his channel because of his What Type of Dinosaur is Godzilla video, but I got turned off when the video being rebutted here was being recommended. Additionally, in his The Archeology Iceberg Explained video, he put the Shroud of Turin on the top tier and used the MeDiEvAl CaRbOn DaTiNg as the reason.
@@TheCounselofTrent it's strange as a believer I have never heard you mention the Holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit live in Catholics? Never heard Catholics mention only when saying He guides their infallible pope and priests ?
@@J_a_s_o_n obviously you have never been to a Catholic Church we mention the only spirit all the time including in the sign of the cross. So much ignorance
As a non-Christian I found your video to be extremely interesting and enlightening. The one part that really lost me though was discussion of the original authors being eyewitnesses for who they claim to be. Can you please do a follow up video diving into this further
Trent, can you respond to Gavin’s response to Cam’s conversion? Not to start the denom wars, but I’d love to see one of the prominent UA-cam Catholic apologists comment on Gavin’s points.
I don't think Gavin is worth responding to. Everytime someone responds to him, he just nitpicks on minor flaws at the start of the video and goes on to say: "I will not be watching the rest of it". And the time and energy spent on addressing him goes to waste. A lot of people including me respect Gavin for his gentle and approachable personality but sometimes catholic apologists should be choosy about who they're debating because sometimes it all falls on deaf ears.
On the Johannine Comma, I still think that the verse may have been expunged by Arians: Saint Jerome said: "...in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.” (Prologue To The Canonical Epistles, Codex Fuldensis).
Trey the Explainer's first problem is he grew up in a church that didn't have a truthful account of how the Bible came to be. This was probably due to ignorance, they didn't know how it developed, but it may also have been due to anti-Catholicism since the development would have to address what existed before the KJV; the Douay-Rheims and Vulgate Bibles. Trey's second problem is that he doesn't admit that other churches did have a truthful account of the Bible's development.
Important note that on whats at 11:40 or so. I believe Bart has said that people misunderstand him when he says that. He thinks that the doctrines SHOULD be affected, but that they arent. As in Christians should doubt but they don't even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That being said, it does make Ehrman look bad i think to say something so vague that it is easily misinterpreted.
(56:11) Trey: "The Trinity or the Christian Godhead is a central Doctrine in most sects of Christianity today, which states God is one but also three distinct beings at the same time: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost." Trey should have said "... God is one _being_ but also three distinct _persons_ at the same time..."
Not a book, but I recommend a survey course (201/203 in a University, 101/103 in a College) in the Classical Studies or Greek and Roman Studies department.
Trent, thank you helping me understand the history of the church. I am only neophyte but you are really helping me with my walk. I am excited to confirmed. But there truly is peace in living(not perfectly) under Gods grace. By grace I mean in the actual sense. Thank you Trent.
I love how he starts out by making an extraordinary straw man, the Bible was originally written in English, we have all the original manuscripts and they used modern punctuation even in ancient Israel 😂
@@kevinkelly2162 you haven't watched the video, have you? He starts by claiming that was what he was taught growing up and that this is what Christians believe
@@sterloinOf course it is wrong that is what makes it a straw man,! Did you actually WATCh the video? He starts by claiming that Christians believe everything I just said.
What is the alternative? We all learn ancient Greek and Hebrew? Even in the same language it can be necessary to update the Bible to communicate the same meaning (which is a matter of interpretation) to contemporary audiences.
Go ahead and read the Bible in English. However, if something doesn't exist in the original text and only arose through translation, it isn't a good place to base understanding of Christianity. For instance, Luther's Bible added "by faith ALONE." Knowing that isn't in the original text is a reason to not assume it conforms to the tradition established by Jesus.
@@Cato229 it’s always entertaining to watch Protestants do they mental gymnastics to justify Luther adding the word alone when it doesn’t exist in the original manuscript. Then their mental gymnastics to justify why that verse with the added word ‘alone’ contradicting the rest of the Bible is acceptable and doesn’t actually contradict the other Gospels
@@kevinkelly2162 You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Things have been added or lost from some manuscripts, that's what the original video was about. What are you trying to hint at and why would it surprise me?
Inspiring Philosophy has an *amazing* video series on UA-cam on the reliability of the New Testament that covers much of this material. I highly recommend you check it out: Inspiring Philosophy - The Reliability of the New Testament.
I am very convinced by the argument at 39:21 "he uses the third persons about his supposed self, so he cannot be the author". You are screwed, supposed Caesar and supposed Plato.
same for Plato in his dialogues. The few times he appeared he never mentioned himself in the first person, the stories were about Socrates and not him of course. But I do find sketchy the authorship attributed for the first two gospels. There are more explanation in the tradition for the authorship of Luke and John.
Does the original video maker ever pronounce "Vaticanus," properly? I can get making a mistake one or two times, but literally every instance of the word is mispronounced.
Pentateuch is made of 3 or 4 different sources. In 1qissa portions of chapter 2 are missing. So bible has developed throughout the centuries. Also variant reading is there. When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the sons of the Gods. Its not that bible has been "changed" its just developed over time.
It’s a little frustrating to encounter these objections to the faith, because it takes arrogance to assume that all Christians are blindly following translations of translations of translations, and making ridiculous claims about them. Just admit that you weren’t raised with a good understanding of the faith and do proper research before jumping into the conversation.
If I remember correctly Jesus and the Apostles read from the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek.
The dude literally thought the Bible was originally written in English. This just goes to reinforce my point that I have never met an intelligent atheist.
Who discoverd the empty tomb? Is it a sign of intelligence to form your worldview on a book that has four endings for the same story? And is lack of intelligence a reason to condemn a soul to everlasting torture?
@@kevinkelly2162 "lack of intelligence" is actually a good reason for God to understand our intentions and beliefs and it would be a very unfair reason " to condemn a soul to everlasting torture.". And that is one reason why I try to respect other people, including atheists, Muslims, Christians, etc. We are all different yet created by the same God. So respect is very important. And respect is a good way to initiate a conversation. So I appreciate your comments. By the way, I see nothing wrong with 4 Gospels because each was written by a different author. So yes my beliefs are based on the historical observations contained within the new Testament and on psychological factors that point to the truth of Jesus Christ. But don't get me wrong. I respect how you feel. Peace to you.
Bruh, he’s talking about when he was a teenager and Christian, he even remarks “because I’m stupid I guess” in regards to why he initially believed that the original Bible was written in English.
@Kevin Kelly Yeah for sure, all those people for 2000 years probably missed that the gospels vary in cosmetic ways in their ending and in the ministry itself. Augustus and Aquinas just missed all that! Wow! You're so brilliant, special, and enlightened. 🤣
45:50 The way it is phrased in latin leaves little to no doubt it is apostle Ioan not another Ioan. Also regarding Junia first is not necessarilly a feminine name and even being one it does not involve the idea that women can teach or have authority ( which until modern times they did not and should not have) over men but rather preaching and evangelizing the word to those around them, family friends. The main point is women holding authority over men which they never had and which is a satanic idea
The saying "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" is an agraphon, i.e., a saying of Christ transmitted outside (?) the Gospels. Nevertheless, Metzger's NT Textual Commentary affirms that it is a genuine saying of Jesus, whether it was originally in Luke's Gospel or not.
30:22 I actually disagree with the modern interpretation that gets him to just aboe 2m . We know people can reach 2.8m so I see no problem him being 3m. In fact the word giant probably refered to people between 2-3m high which is extremely plausible
I hear this excuse a lot from trent and other apologists. "Why do you accept other old texts that have less copies? Or are more separated from the events? Why cant you just believe the bible too???" I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than this. I DO take ancient texts with skepticism. Furthermore, I do NOT believe the outlandish claims made in said documents. And finally, the nature of those books is different. No one is claiming I'll burn forever if I dont believe every word in The Iliad. Yet many believers DO say that about the bible. Which means the standard for proof will be higher
13:00 - Something that always grinds my gears is when people use the excuse of simplicities sake to either be misleading or spread outright falsehood. If he's aware the manuscript traditions are not so linear, and clarify that much, why does he spend the rest of the video assuming that's the case?? It's sheer laziness. Clarifying simplicity is meant to keep things SIMPLE, to provide resources to learn more that clarify, not contradict ones own premise. Clarifying you're simplifying is supposed to keep content flowing, and not run on, but it seems to be used as a tactical deployment of falsehoods so that none might call out their bogus.
There are people who criticized the bible and they are people who try to defend the bible. You have a lot of footage on what both sides are saying. You got to research both side honesty then you determine what's ture to you. It's alot of information to research so take your time.
The guy says serious Bible study is is unavailable to most Christians who haven't been to seminary... Man, I got a New American Bible for confirmation, those notes read like a dissertation in an atheistic historical critical class.
This piece Trent’s responding to sounds like a parody. “Shazaam! The Bible really wasn’t written in English! I was lied to!” The caliber of atheists has really declined.
I’m not sure which video you were watching. He was talking about his own experience, so what? He made a couple of good points to which Trent was responding thoroughly but confined by the Catholic position he has take. I’d be much more concerned about the fact that many books in the Bible are obviously forgeries, or at least attributed to authors who didn’t write them, like in the case of Paul, and ultimately declared to be the word of God.
@@maxmaximus2608 What are you talking about? What letters were falsely attributed to Paul? How many do you think he wrote? I don't think any of them are forged.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I’m not a biblical scholar by any means but fascinated by this subject. I think that the consensus is that 1 Timothy as well as Ephesians was not written by Paul, in fact only 7 of the 13 letters he supposedly wrote can be attributed to him. But again, don’t take my word for it, Ehrmann has two books and an entertaining series of podcasts on this matter.
If you got to 19 thinking that THE BIBLE was writen in your native lenguage there's only two options: 1.- You never even thought about the history of the bible for more than 30 seconds 2.- Your education has failed you to the point that you belive, not only that all of the book authors talked the same lenguage as you, but you also that whatever lenguage you use nowdays was used so many centuries ago
Hey Trent God bless you and I hope you're doing well. I highly recommend you to watch and do a video on the dialogue/debate between Matt Dillahunty and Destiny on the "Bodily Autonomy" argument for abortion. Both of them support abortion but have poor reasons and I think it would be fun if you were to rebut both of them since they make various remarks on why abortion should be legal.
4:21 that's one that sticks in my mind. 9:17 there's even an episode of Star Trek DS9 that repeats this line (referring to the fictional religion of Bajor but obviously meant as a riff on modern "fundamentalist" claims about the Bible... re: "translated and re-translated throughout history" etc). people even get confused about what "bible versions" are! 1:00:31 another good reference. the whole "KJV Onlyism" thing can knock an ordinary layman for a loop until you really start to pick it apart. hopefully by learning the real historical process a person can become less confused. the same could be said for "Zeitgeist" though it seems that influence has waned. then again some of the old claims from the Da Vinci Code still creep up in conversations on occasion even today (claims which predate the novel but were nevertheless popularized by it)
I don't understand the "translated over and over again" objection is even supposed to mean....notice in this video he says the English Standard Version is a "translation" of the Revised Standard Version....what on Earth does that even mean? They are both in English! He later corrects himself and says it's a "revision" which is better, but apparently he thinks this was done without looking at the original languages at all
I don't like how many modern translations go with "the Lord" in Jude 1:5. I've read a scholarship ressource showing that although "the Lord" was the most copied translation and a very ancient one, Jude most likely used "Jesus". The explanation given is that the scribe at the root of the alteration was certainly in disagreement with using "Jesus" to describe something that occured long before the incarnation, so he replaced it with "the Lord". But it doesn't make sense to say "the Lord" is the original only because it was already widely spread early on. It would be strange for Jerome to use "Jesus" if he perceived it as an alteration going against the majority of copies in his time, especially with his zeal for authenticity.
None of these changes are dogma-shattering. It's kind of a waste frankly. He makes it sound like the original Bible had lines that said "yo, Satan is the good guy, bruh" or something
Inerrancy is problematic because there are contradictions in both the Old and New Testaments. And since there are NO copies of the original writings but only copies of copies of copies of copies, most often translations, not even in the original language. The fact that we have thousands of copies does not give us more confidence, most of them were copied after 900 AD by monks. Bart Ehrman is an excellent source for this material and, in fact, has an upcoming webinar on how scribes changed the Bible. Some were honest errors, some passages were changed because the scribe had an agenda. And some passages were added later. The story of the woman taken in adultery was not in the earliest copies of the Gospel and in one later copy, it is literally inserted into the margin. Anyone who is seriously interested in Bible history and what was written in the earliest copies of the New Testament should listen to Bart Ehrman’s videos, blog posts, and online courses. ua-cam.com/video/6_SYtc98cTY/v-deo.htmlsi=a1Xb1fn5tYgAk10G
Well said Trent. I have a meeting with a priest at a church nearby Tuesday and am seeking baptism into the Church. Please pray for me and thank you for helping catechize me over the past few years.
Julius Caesar, in his books about his military campaigns in Gaul ("De Bello Gallico"), always referred to himself in the third person. It was common throughout the Roman and Hellenic worlds, of which the Holy Land was a part at the time.
Thanks for sharing this information.
Thucydides talks about his own role in the Peloponnesian War with so little comment or emphasis that you can very easily forget it’s THAT Thucydides.
My PE teacher also refers himself in third person when discussing about the exercises me and my classmates will do, but we know it's him because he himself was the one discussing.
@@drkissinger1 It's very common. The closest or most famous Greek analogue and maybe model for Caesar is Xenophon's "Anabasis", also a military report by a commander who always uses the 3rd person for himself.
I know, right!
As a former Protestant, it is biblical skepticism like this video that ROCKED my Protestant faith in Sola Scriptura and ultimately lead me to Catholicism. The Bible cannot stand without Tradition.
Same, same.
But I had it easier, I guess, cause I was born catholic and was protestant for over a year, after my conversion😅
Good to hear that. God bless u bro!
Where do you get your tradition without Scripture
@@melvincarter9640 from my local church in communion with the bishop who is in turn in communion with Rome. where else?
@@bandie9101 ok and what, In order to have a tradition you first have to have a doctrine or scriptures in order to base your tradition on. Saying tradition override scripture is a bad understanding of the Biblical teaching. Tradition can be wrong where as the Word of God stand forever.
This is partly the natural consequence of the sort of radical version of inerrancy taught in many churches today. Especially those which are KJVO, but any church with this sort of rigid and hyper-literal understanding of Biblical inerrancy is setting up its members for a fall whenever they encounter information to the contrary.
I love that you properly used the phrase "hyper-literal."
I've always noticed that the biggest KJVOs and hyper-literalists other than Protestant/non-denom fundamentalists tend to be atheists, and most often those atheists were raised with the former as their background. Christopher Hitchens, for example, was a KJVO to his death; his "When the King Saved God" article for Vanity Fair in April 2011 lays this out quite clearly, as well as shows his ignorance with actual history regarding the transmission and translation of the biblical text.
What's your definition of non-radical, non-hyper-literal inerrancy, and from whence do you derive your definition? I'm also curious about your views on the doctrine of perseverance. Does the Bible teach that God will preserve his word in perpetuity, or that it can be lost and corrupted and in need of restoration? If you're catholic, and you believe God's word has been corrupted throughout history and is now being restored by textual critics, why do you think God preserved his church in every generation, but not his word? Rather strange, don't you think?
@@vindicatedandestablished I'm not Catholic. I'm a Baptist who has spent my entire life in KJVO churches, but also knows a little history.
That's why I know what that teaching sets people up for, I went through it.
Preservation is incredible, and there is more evidence for the Bible than any other ancient book. But there is no single ancient text we can point to that remains perfectly identical throughout the ages, with no alterations or transcription errors.
I assume by your wording that you're a Textus Receptus guy. Well, Erasmus compiled the TR from multiple incomplete manuscripts of the Greek, precisely because a complete Greek New Testament wasn't available. He harmonized the differences, performing an earlier version of what we would call textual criticism. He created multiple versions of his Greek New Testament, with differences in all of them. And Beza and Stephanus made editions with slight changes as well. The KJV takes from all of those, not one single Textus Receptus.
@@vindicatedandestablished saying that “God's word has been corrupted and restored by textual critcs” is a straw man
It's also worth noting that in the ancient world, many wrote in order that their works might be heard in community... it's kind of weird for someone to read a book or letter and say "I said X" but that "he said X" so as to be heard more pleasantly to the ears of those listening.
I just bought the Case for Catholicism and I'm reading it now, I've been considering conversion and this may be the tipping point.
Does the book talk about why the Pope was not mentioned in the earlier centuries
@@YovanypadillaJr Whats your subjective cut-off date for "earlier centuries"?
@@MikeyJMJ first century and second century
@@YovanypadillaJr St Irenaeus literally says there were 12 popes since Peter(Against heresies Section 3, 3 if I remember)
@@deusvult8340 really will have to check out.
Shout out to Dr. Brant Pitre
Claiming sexism shows his actual motivation: he's now a part of a competing religion. Not only was running the home economy a full time job, any institution which was equally open to being run by women would be substantially different than one that was not. This is obvious unless you're trying to repeat pc egalitarian line.
Same case at 32:26 with the snarky footnote "these guys wouldn't have looked this white." I wonder, is he going to storm into a church in Tokyo, point at icons, and tell all the congregants that Jesus, Mary, and the Apostles "wouldn't have looked this Japanese" next?
@@marinanguish9928 Actually your problem is you don't read the bible on your own.
Ephesians chapter 4:11 is clear and has nothing on gender.
Just because Christ chose men only doesn't automatically mean no women can serve on the pulpit.
It's the Holy Spirit who choses.
Another point is not all men are chosen to be pastors but you fools accept anyone because of gender.
You blame protestants like we will be judged according to denomination. Lol.
How many Catholic priests worldwide have impregnated nuns over centuries and MOLESTED young church boys via SODOMY over centuries ?
Grow up !!
Salvation is upto you. Work on yours alone ! Your pope won't be there! He will be judged too !
Those saints you think are in heaven....well your denomination doesn't decide who goes to HEAVEN!!
@@treeckoniusconstantinusif he hates the white folk,let him eat the power of the wotan
It is still sexist tho
@@marinanguish9928what happened?
One area I don't see popular Christian apologists on youtube address a lot is all the laws in Leviticus, Numbers etc that so many atheists use as ammo.
Slavery is a good example of ones that have got coverage and make a lot more sense once we see exactly what was going on in what context.
I'd love to hear someone go through all the types of laws, their purpose, and focus on all those that can be used by atheists to imply that these are primitive man made laws compared to modern sensibilities.
Yes! I would love to hear Trent explain away how God instructs his people on how to beat your slaves.
To give a brief summary. The point of the Old Covenant and the laws associated with it was to preserve the Israelites from further sin and debauchery. They aren't really meant to be the moral standard of God, but rather are compromised agreements between God and the Israelites. Jesus briefly makes light of this when talking about divorce under Moses. Essentially they're laws that acknowledge the Israelites sin, but aim to minimize it.
To which the Israelites repeatedly break throughout the entire OT.
@@Cklert Indeed, yes. Some to set apart, some to prepare to be Holy or to understand and receive the Messiah, some to be ritually clean. Still some I can think of possible explanations but I don't like to suppose to know.
@@kevinkelly2162 Can you give me a reference point? I know that it said something about for you were once strangers in Egypt. I don’t recall anything that says “beat your slaves”
@@femaleKCRoyalsFan Exodus 20:20- 21
With that one manuscript he brought up without a title, it's actually not something we can say was anonymous either. Papyrus 1 has a decent chunk of Matthew's gospel, starting with the first page but if we look at ancient manuscripts, often the title was at the end not the start. Since we don't have the last page, we can't say it didn't have a title. Every manuscript that has a surviving title page, has the title attributing it to the correct author.
Great response Trent, just thought I'd add this from my own research!
A second possibility with this manuscript not having a title is that a lot of times, titles were put on a type of book mark or separate page that came with the scroll or codex.
This was so the scribe could see what the book was called on the outside. So imagine that title or bookmark getting lost to the tides of time and you just have chapter 1 of Mathew’s gospel.
The book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” goes over this kind of thing.
On the Johannine Comma, the Peshitta, which is the standard Bible version for Chaldean/Syriac/Assyrian Christians, has always been without the Johannine Comma, since they were immune from a lot of Greek and Latin influence, and these Christians believed and still do believe in the Trinity. So I think if you look at Christian traditions that are completely isolated from the Johannine Comma, you quickly see that the Trinity does not at all rest on the Johannine Comma. To say that the Trinity was "invented" because of a "mischievous interpolation" that was "inserted" later in Latin/Greek manuscripts, does not at all account for the Syriac tradition.
Waiting on part 2. Enjoyed part 1. Thanks.
Thank you for the rebuttal
Oh I would love a whole video devoted to Syriac translations. There's so much history. Trent, is there a book you could recommend on this?
About translations I have no idea. I love lectures of Chorbishop Seely
@@RG-CooperTrooper Thanks for the source. I'll check out his videos.
After I started to take Catholicism serious a few years ago, I really wanted someone to tackle Trey’s videos on religious and moral topics. I like his videos related to paleontology but am really rubbed the wrong way by these kind of videos he makes. Thanks Trent!
Yeah, I was a big fan of his when I was an atheist, and though I still enjoy his older palaeontology videos, I am glad to see one of his videos on this topic rebutted.
@@marinanguish9928 yeah it’s sad he doesn’t do a lot of paleontology stuff anymore. I find really frustrating when these scientific channels make content like this
@@papasmoke2982 100% agree, scientific channels would really be best to stay in their lane.
@@papasmoke2982 why ? What is your motive ?
Turn to Jesus Christ and not the Catholic Church, they are CORRUPT and break Jesus’ commands.
Matt 23:9
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
John 3:3
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
JESUS SAID FOLLOW HIM NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
HE NEVER SAID PRAY TO MARY
Catholicism isn’t Christianity TURN TO JESUS AND REPENT
I think I know this one:
1. Removing Tobit
2. Removing Judith
3. Removing 1st Maccabees
4. Removing 2nd Maccabees
5. Removing Wisdom
6. Removing Baruch
7. Removing Sirach
8. Removing that one bit of Daniel
9. Removing that bit of Esther
10. When Martin Luther removed the Deuterocanon
I am surprised that Trent Horn hasn't done a video on Cameron's conversion. This topic is great too!
“Alright, let’s get down to the specific examples, and see if they’re as nefarious and problematic as Trey makes them out to be!”
“Goliath’s height”
I couldn’t make that up if I wanted to, that’s just so funny 💀
If we cannot trust the number of units known to have changed over time and been like ng obsolete by the age of the text in question, and ultimately aren't even relevant to the overall narrative, what *can* we trust!
@@marvalice3455 Completely unreliable!
All Trey said is that they were "intentional". He didin't say major, evil , nefarious or that they are supposed to invalidate your beliefs.
@@bamboo6640 If you don't think all of those were implied, than Im not sure what to tell you
Sure I'll concede on that but still I would lean towards it being more of a critic of ignorant christians
In regards to the authorship of Matthew, it is also true that there are more references to money in that Gospel than the others, which would make sense if he were a tax collector. The Protestant UA-camr "Testify" actually has some really excellent videos on the authorship (and early dating) of the Gospels I would recommend.
So Matthew, a Jewish tax collector, was also proficient in Greek?
@@kevinkelly2162 You do realize that Koine Greek was a “lingua franca” of that time right, especially in that region? So it certainly isn’t out of the question.
There is also a hypothesis that has existed since ancient times that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic for a Jewish audience and then translated to Greek afterwards, so even if he didn’t know Greek that wouldn’t necessarily discount his authorship.
@@Epiousios18 I like your comments. Thanks for the information.
@@kevinkelly2162 it is probable he knew more than one language so he could deal with foreigners coming into Israel.
@@kevinkelly2162 Yes, Greek was very common in a hellenized ancient Judea
This may sound like too fine a point, but it isn't: At around 13:00 the claim is made that the ESV is a translation of the RSV, which is a translation of thr ASV, etc. These are not translations, they're revisions. The only _translations_ come when applying the ancient sources, as Trent points out so ably.
I love when these anti-Christian videos become essentially history channel conspiracy shows. Like anytime there’s textual variance the person jumps to “at the time there was probably all these implicit reasons for such a change to be deliberately made” without offering an iota of evidence towards such an extraordinary claim
The Bible being true is the extraordinary claim.
@@kevinkelly2162 and there is extraordinary evidence for it being true, I will not bring you the sources as you found your way to this channel so im sure you have heard some of it.
The truth of the Bible aside the claim being debunked in the video is that the Bible is remarkably different that the original texts which obviously it is not.
@@gaiuscassius9439 The Bible has a talking snake and a talking donkey. I have yet to see convincing evidence for this being true.
@@kevinkelly2162 Get this perhaps: Not every book is written to be biographical or an account.
Trey the Explainer’s video didn’t even seem anti-Christian or even anti-inerrancy, I thought of it as simply pointing out the different variants within the Bible that someone may not have known about, while providing a background as to why he, along with other people, may not know about these textual variants or “changes”, namely, the idea of Christian inerrancy for some makes people think the Bible had no textual variants, or in Trey the Explainer’s case, was written in English. It didn’t seem like a “Biblical Inerrancy Debunked” kind of video, nor a “We can’t trust the Bible’s contents because it contains too many errors!” Kind of video either.
Two minutes in and I know the original video is gonna be a train wreck
I agree. But the one thing Trey has going for him is that he has a voice that could draw you in if you don't listen very closely to what he is saying. And what he is saying is far fetched.
"When I was kid raised In my non-denominational southern church"
Yeah, let me just stop you right there, partner.
As always thank you Trent for your time and deduct on working hard clarifying this kind of fallacies 🙏🏻 👏🏼👏🏼
Not sure if you define what is meant by “original” text, I tried to dialog with someone and the word “original” was a huge stumbling block. He seemed to think there were 5000 intact Greek-language Bibles that he referred to as “original” and would not discuss further.
This is so great. Thank you. 🙏🏻
Videos who criticize the Bible and Christianity will always have many views. A great number of people are ready to believe anything critics have to say, as if their word must be the absolute truth on the subject.
I feel like people just wish it were wrong and overestimate trivial matters or elevate misunderstandings to align with that wish.
I can only imagine a lot of the views are solid Christians checking out the shenanigans.
A great number of people are ready to believe anything priests have to say, as if their word must be absolute truth on the subject.
@@kevinkelly2162 Nice try, but you missed the point of my comment. There's more people attracted to negative videos than to videos which competently explain the Bible. The video which Trent has rebuked has an incredible amount of views, and yet is clearly made by an individual with extremely poor knowledge of Christianity who's got his information from other equally flawed videos or websites. At least most priest have actually studied the Bible from the most reputable source, and their flaws are of a personal nature.
@@djo-dji6018 Exactly, the author of this video probably thinks that the new translators only translate from older versions that are also English because the author himself gets his information from other videos instead of in depth research
Awesome video, Trent. Thank you for this well-researched rebuttal...fascinating!!
those who believe that the bible was written in English (probably KJV) are numerous, and not to engaged seriously except to point out that the NT was wriiten in Greek, so more to be taught than 'engaged'
They also probably think the Bible fell out of the sky the day after Pentecost fully bound
First couple of minutes sounds like Islam and the Quran, not Christianity. Yes, the Bible is sacred scripture. Yes, it can be mishandled. That’s what the Church is for 😎
I didn't get the same impression as you did when you said "sounds like Islam and the Quran.". But I acknowledge your comment and I appreciate your views.
Correct. That's the claim muslims make about the Qur'an.
@johnbrzykcy3076 you must not be familiar with the claims they make.
It legit bugs me how this guy cannot pronounce "Vaticanus" correctly.
He also pronounces it very wrongly too, "Vanaticus."
A great resource for those interested in delving deeper into the history and theology of Scripture and Inspiration are the works of Fr. Denis Fakasfalvy - "Inspiration and Interpretation" and "A Theology of the Christian Bible". He was on JPII's Biblical Commission and is considered by many to be one of the greatest Biblical scholars in recent times.
Good video. Much appreciated.
Thank you brother Trent Horn.
Awesome video!
Trent, American Family Radio has a video called "A God Who Speaks" which makes many erroneous statements, particularly where the Bible comes from. Please make a video correcting them.
Yes, there are entire sections of the story either added or removed
There's now a panel from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure in a video by Catholic Answers Speaker and Apologist Trent Horn LMAOOOO
Where? I'm listening right now, so my eyes are elsewhere.
@@supernerd8067 8:57
@@tafazzi-on-discord thanks!
I also noticed the video had Smiling Friends and Monty Python's Life of Brian.
Haven't seen either of those, and they don't really interest me.
Nani?!?!?
I guess I was a weird kid because I never assumed we had some ancient original copy of the Bible and it's not like I was a scholar.
Nah, you're normal cuz I never made such an assumption either.
Love from Croatia ✝️🙏❤️🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷
Trent je najbolji brate 💪🏻
12:25 I like how you expose his ignorance here
First of all, he doesn't know Trey or how he watches his documentaries so this is just a baseless accusation but while I could agree that it is probable, it still is justified in my opinion. Random ancient greek texts about the winemaking process of minoans should not be held to the same standard as a book that billions follow and have died for.
@@bamboo6640 why? If you're going off the assumption that the document is not divinely inspired, then it must be compared to documents of the same age, genre, culture, etc. To hold different standards based on how they are read now would be disingenuous.
20:31 lol the dude really brought out Wikipedia as a source .
Every wikipedia article has to have it's sources provided. It's quite probable that Trey went throught those sources but wanted to have a nice background image, also "You used wikipedia as a source" is a very nice excuse to not have to adress the argument at hand.
Well wikipedia is not at all a bad source of information. Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin used it when I was discussing with him on the issue of Abortion.
Sometimes that’s right. But it’s a heavily liberally biased website so much of it you take with a grain of salt.
Imagine, that you give your life to be a monk, who's whole purpose is copying. How careful would you be with the word of God? One would assume a lot
Trent Horne explains exceptionally well how to rebut specious arguments against the Christian faith and the authority of the Catholic Church. This video is exceptional, because he addresses many misconceptions and deliberate distortions (oft repeated), all of which have little to no scholarship and certainly do not represent what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I particularly like how Trent discusses authors and translations of the Bible, noting how translators can disagree on grammar, spelling, and slight variations of words (aspects to emphasize), but not contradicting the message, dogma, and doctrines. And of course, words take on different connotations over times (see Shakespeare, for example), so there are reasons for changing words to convey the meaning.
I spent way too much time commenting on someone else's video about the Masoretic Text (MT), but essentially, in Jesus' time, Jewish sects (especially the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), disagreed about what to include in the Hebrew Bible canon. Indeed, the Essenes' Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (NW shore of the Dead Sea) preserved multiple, different versions of the Hebrew Bible, which were all more modern Hebrew texts (modern at Jesus' time, translated from the original Paleo-Hebrew) and one that was used to by Jewish scholars to translate the Old Testament into Greek, the Septuagint, for millions of Hellenistic Jews to read. The Septuagint was the Old Testament version used by the Apostles to show OT prophetic fulfillment in Jesus (Scriptural references in the Greek NT to the Greek OT) and to evangelize the Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) world, which included the entire Mediterranean and eastward to India. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 AD (the start of the Jewish diaspora, a Jewish naqba), Jewish religious leaders prioritized how to make sense of the devastating defeat, instituting a Jewish orthodoxy, excommunicating and persecuting Jewish Christians, and deciding on a single Hebrew Bible canon. The Pharasaic school won out and determined mainstream Judaism. This canon was debated for centuries and finalized with the Masoretic Text in the 9th Century AD. The MT does agree with a Pharasaic canon in the 1st Century BC, but it does not agree with the other major (Jewish) Hebrew Bible canons before Christ. (Sidenote: Jewish historian Josephus was most closely aligned with the Pharisees.) So, when considering the different Hebrew Bible canons in Jesus' time, notably the Septuagint, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Pharasaic/Masoretic canon is "authentic" and that the other canons are not. And that's why translators of the Bible need to read multiple sources of Biblical texts to find convergence in meaning.
The Catholic Church lost their moral and divine authority when they covered up murders and rapes done within the church and externally. Many covered up murdered children were later Canonized by the Church as a way of saying "sorry." Which sounds good in practice but pretty much annihilates the authority of the Church as the sole governing body of Gospel and Scripture.
@@renaldoawes2210Where and when?
Blud really thought that pointing out that Goliath wasn't as massively tall as we thought destroys the credibility of the Bible. ☠☠☠
There’s a part 2 of that video: ua-cam.com/video/kX62bRIG-OI/v-deo.html
I initially was interested in his channel because of his What Type of Dinosaur is Godzilla video, but I got turned off when the video being rebutted here was being recommended.
Additionally, in his The Archeology Iceberg Explained video, he put the Shroud of Turin on the top tier and used the MeDiEvAl CaRbOn DaTiNg as the reason.
Best parts. When Trent points out that the church fathers already rebutted Trey. Sheesh.
"how the bible beats every other ancient book" isn't in the description ☺️
Sorry! Just added it. ua-cam.com/video/UcaGdLf8gxU/v-deo.html&t
Jesus is not a BABY to be protected by Mary or St Joseph lol
@@TheCounselofTrent it's strange as a believer I have never heard you mention the Holy Spirit.
Does the Holy Spirit live in Catholics? Never heard Catholics mention only when saying He guides their infallible pope and priests ?
@@J_a_s_o_n May the Holy Spirit enlighten your heart and mind. May he free you from whatever spirits that bind your intellect.
@@J_a_s_o_n obviously you have never been to a Catholic Church we mention the only spirit all the time including in the sign of the cross. So much ignorance
As a non-Christian I found your video to be extremely interesting and enlightening. The one part that really lost me though was discussion of the original authors being eyewitnesses for who they claim to be. Can you please do a follow up video diving into this further
I was also suprised, how many views this video has.
I am very grateful you took the time to rebut it.
By the way: First ;-)
One of the best videos of Trent I've ever watched.
Trent, can you respond to Gavin’s response to Cam’s conversion? Not to start the denom wars, but I’d love to see one of the prominent UA-cam Catholic apologists comment on Gavin’s points.
Trent is the type of guy who probably already is editing video of rebutal of Gavins commentary on Cam😂
I don't think Gavin is worth responding to. Everytime someone responds to him, he just nitpicks on minor flaws at the start of the video and goes on to say: "I will not be watching the rest of it". And the time and energy spent on addressing him goes to waste. A lot of people including me respect Gavin for his gentle and approachable personality but sometimes catholic apologists should be choosy about who they're debating because sometimes it all falls on deaf ears.
On the Johannine Comma, I still think that the verse may have been expunged by Arians:
Saint Jerome said:
"...in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”
(Prologue To The Canonical Epistles, Codex Fuldensis).
The video being rebutted is a guy seemingly learning the basics of textual criticism in realtime and thinking it’s somehow suspicious.
I took a course in Arabic papyrology with a world expert, and let me tell you: the Bible is very well sourced compared to secular texts.
Trey the Explainer's first problem is he grew up in a church that didn't have a truthful account of how the Bible came to be. This was probably due to ignorance, they didn't know how it developed, but it may also have been due to anti-Catholicism since the development would have to address what existed before the KJV; the Douay-Rheims and Vulgate Bibles. Trey's second problem is that he doesn't admit that other churches did have a truthful account of the Bible's development.
Important note that on whats at 11:40 or so. I believe Bart has said that people misunderstand him when he says that. He thinks that the doctrines SHOULD be affected, but that they arent. As in Christians should doubt but they don't even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
That being said, it does make Ehrman look bad i think to say something so vague that it is easily misinterpreted.
well-done, Trent!
Is there a REBUT video to the part 2? Looks like that too has got more than 1 Million views 😕
bro theres no way he actually thought it was written in english i stopped taking him serious after that😭😭
As a child. Do you stop talking to someone if they told you they used to believe in Santa clause?
Quote- unquote “Trent Horn”
(56:11) Trey: "The Trinity or the Christian Godhead is a central Doctrine in most sects of Christianity today, which states God is one but also three distinct beings at the same time: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost."
Trey should have said "... God is one _being_ but also three distinct _persons_ at the same time..."
Trent (and others) what books do u recommend to read that defends reliability of textual manuscripts?
Not a book, but I recommend a survey course (201/203 in a University, 101/103 in a College) in the Classical Studies or Greek and Roman Studies department.
Trent, thank you helping me understand the history of the church. I am only neophyte but you are really helping me with my walk. I am excited to confirmed. But there truly is peace in living(not perfectly) under Gods grace. By grace I mean in the actual sense.
Thank you Trent.
I love how he starts out by making an extraordinary straw man, the Bible was originally written in English, we have all the original manuscripts and they used modern punctuation even in ancient Israel 😂
Where have you all the original manuscripts?
@@kevinkelly2162 you haven't watched the video, have you? He starts by claiming that was what he was taught growing up and that this is what Christians believe
@@Michael-bk5nz Sorry, my bad. Cheers.
Bro everything you said was wrong
@@sterloinOf course it is wrong that is what makes it a straw man,! Did you actually WATCh the video? He starts by claiming that Christians believe everything I just said.
What is the alternative? We all learn ancient Greek and Hebrew? Even in the same language it can be necessary to update the Bible to communicate the same meaning (which is a matter of interpretation) to contemporary audiences.
Go ahead and read the Bible in English. However, if something doesn't exist in the original text and only arose through translation, it isn't a good place to base understanding of Christianity. For instance, Luther's Bible added "by faith ALONE." Knowing that isn't in the original text is a reason to not assume it conforms to the tradition established by Jesus.
@@Cato229 it’s always entertaining to watch Protestants do they mental gymnastics to justify Luther adding the word alone when it doesn’t exist in the original manuscript.
Then their mental gymnastics to justify why that verse with the added word ‘alone’ contradicting the rest of the Bible is acceptable and doesn’t actually contradict the other Gospels
@@Cato229 Look into the original version of Mark. It might surprise you what has been added to 'the word of God'.
@@kevinkelly2162 You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Things have been added or lost from some manuscripts, that's what the original video was about.
What are you trying to hint at and why would it surprise me?
@@Cato229 No conspiracy, this is quite well known. Mark 16: 9-20 were not part of the original gospel. Seems somebody improved the word of God.
Inspiring Philosophy has an *amazing* video series on UA-cam on the reliability of the New Testament that covers much of this material. I highly recommend you check it out: Inspiring Philosophy - The Reliability of the New Testament.
Would love to see a debate between you and rabbi singer over his conspiracy theories about the church changing Hebrew text
I am very convinced by the argument at 39:21 "he uses the third persons about his supposed self, so he cannot be the author". You are screwed, supposed Caesar and supposed Plato.
same for Plato in his dialogues. The few times he appeared he never mentioned himself in the first person, the stories were about Socrates and not him of course. But I do find sketchy the authorship attributed for the first two gospels. There are more explanation in the tradition for the authorship of Luke and John.
nevertheless tradition wins.
Does the original video maker ever pronounce "Vaticanus," properly?
I can get making a mistake one or two times, but literally every instance of the word is mispronounced.
Pentateuch is made of 3 or 4 different sources. In 1qissa portions of chapter 2 are missing. So bible has developed throughout the centuries. Also variant reading is there.
When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the sons of the Gods.
Its not that bible has been "changed" its just developed over time.
God bless you and your family ✝️🙏
54:30 It must be original because St. Steven also prays for forgiveness in the Acts of the Apostles.
Trent, you should debate Rabbi Tovia Singer on the topic of Paul's trustworthyness and Daniel Haqiqatjou on the topic of Biblical Preservation.
It’s a little frustrating to encounter these objections to the faith, because it takes arrogance to assume that all Christians are blindly following translations of translations of translations, and making ridiculous claims about them.
Just admit that you weren’t raised with a good understanding of the faith and do proper research before jumping into the conversation.
If I remember correctly Jesus and the Apostles read from the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek.
Jesus couldn't read or write.
Where was it ever claimed he could?
The dude literally thought the Bible was originally written in English. This just goes to reinforce my point that I have never met an intelligent atheist.
A fool says in his heart "There is no God."
Who discoverd the empty tomb? Is it a sign of intelligence to form your worldview on a book that has four endings for the same story? And is lack of intelligence a reason to condemn a soul to everlasting torture?
@@kevinkelly2162 "lack of intelligence" is actually a good reason for God to understand our intentions and beliefs and it would be a very unfair reason " to condemn a soul to everlasting torture.". And that is one reason why I try to respect other people, including atheists, Muslims, Christians, etc.
We are all different yet created by the same God. So respect is very important. And respect is a good way to initiate a conversation.
So I appreciate your comments. By the way, I see nothing wrong with 4 Gospels because each was written by a different author. So yes my beliefs are based on the historical observations contained within the new Testament and on psychological factors that point to the truth of Jesus Christ.
But don't get me wrong. I respect how you feel. Peace to you.
Bruh, he’s talking about when he was a teenager and Christian, he even remarks “because I’m stupid I guess” in regards to why he initially believed that the original Bible was written in English.
@Kevin Kelly Yeah for sure, all those people for 2000 years probably missed that the gospels vary in cosmetic ways in their ending and in the ministry itself. Augustus and Aquinas just missed all that! Wow!
You're so brilliant, special, and enlightened.
🤣
45:50 The way it is phrased in latin leaves little to no doubt it is apostle Ioan not another Ioan. Also regarding Junia first is not necessarilly a feminine name and even being one it does not involve the idea that women can teach or have authority ( which until modern times they did not and should not have) over men but rather preaching and evangelizing the word to those around them, family friends. The main point is women holding authority over men which they never had and which is a satanic idea
It annoys me that he kept saying "Codex Vanaticus" even though the texts on his video were correctly spelled "Vaticanus"
13:50 wait so we’re translating English to English now?
Thanks Trent
The saying "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do" is an agraphon, i.e., a saying of Christ transmitted outside (?) the Gospels. Nevertheless, Metzger's NT Textual Commentary affirms that it is a genuine saying of Jesus, whether it was originally in Luke's Gospel or not.
Read Luke 23. Either Like is a Gospel, or it's not.
I'm still confused by the word "agraphon". What does it mean by "transmitted outside the Gospels"?
Thanks for any clarification.
@@atrifle8364
What?
30:22 I actually disagree with the modern interpretation that gets him to just aboe 2m . We know people can reach 2.8m so I see no problem him being 3m. In fact the word giant probably refered to people between 2-3m high which is extremely plausible
I hear this excuse a lot from trent and other apologists.
"Why do you accept other old texts that have less copies? Or are more separated from the events? Why cant you just believe the bible too???"
I don't think I can spell it out any clearer than this.
I DO take ancient texts with skepticism. Furthermore, I do NOT believe the outlandish claims made in said documents. And finally, the nature of those books is different. No one is claiming I'll burn forever if I dont believe every word in The Iliad. Yet many believers DO say that about the bible. Which means the standard for proof will be higher
the other text states the husband first before wife??? damn I'll never knew the real mwaning of a verse because of that
13:00 - Something that always grinds my gears is when people use the excuse of simplicities sake to either be misleading or spread outright falsehood. If he's aware the manuscript traditions are not so linear, and clarify that much, why does he spend the rest of the video assuming that's the case?? It's sheer laziness. Clarifying simplicity is meant to keep things SIMPLE, to provide resources to learn more that clarify, not contradict ones own premise.
Clarifying you're simplifying is supposed to keep content flowing, and not run on, but it seems to be used as a tactical deployment of falsehoods so that none might call out their bogus.
There are people who criticized the bible and they are people who try to defend the bible. You have a lot of footage on what both sides are saying. You got to research both side honesty then you determine what's ture to you. It's alot of information to research so take your time.
At what point does uncharitability turn into dishonesty
Is that a painting of St. Ignatius for St. Augustine at 34:14? 😂
Philippe de Champagne says, No.
So triggered by how Trey says “Vanaticus”
Vanitatum Vanaticus :D :D
@@bandie9101please give his head the luger,atheists must not corrupt our souls
@@deutschesvaterlandfankanalGo to confession
The guy says serious Bible study is is unavailable to most Christians who haven't been to seminary... Man, I got a New American Bible for confirmation, those notes read like a dissertation in an atheistic historical critical class.
This piece Trent’s responding to sounds like a parody. “Shazaam! The Bible really wasn’t written in English! I was lied to!”
The caliber of atheists has really declined.
I’m not sure which video you were watching. He was talking about his own experience, so what? He made a couple of good points to which Trent was responding thoroughly but confined by the Catholic position he has take. I’d be much more concerned about the fact that many books in the Bible are obviously forgeries, or at least attributed to authors who didn’t write them, like in the case of Paul, and ultimately declared to be the word of God.
@@maxmaximus2608
What are you talking about? What letters were falsely attributed to Paul? How many do you think he wrote?
I don't think any of them are forged.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I’m not a biblical scholar by any means but fascinated by this subject. I think that the consensus is that 1 Timothy as well as Ephesians was not written by Paul, in fact only 7 of the 13 letters he supposedly wrote can be attributed to him. But again, don’t take my word for it, Ehrmann has two books and an entertaining series of podcasts on this matter.
If you got to 19 thinking that THE BIBLE was writen in your native lenguage there's only two options:
1.- You never even thought about the history of the bible for more than 30 seconds
2.- Your education has failed you to the point that you belive, not only that all of the book authors talked the same lenguage as you, but you also that whatever lenguage you use nowdays was used so many centuries ago
Hey Trent God bless you and I hope you're doing well. I highly recommend you to watch and do a video on the dialogue/debate between Matt Dillahunty and Destiny on the "Bodily Autonomy" argument for abortion. Both of them support abortion but have poor reasons and I think it would be fun if you were to rebut both of them since they make various remarks on why abortion should be legal.
That sounds super cringe-worthy.
Will you cover part 2?
4:21 that's one that sticks in my mind. 9:17 there's even an episode of Star Trek DS9 that repeats this line (referring to the fictional religion of Bajor but obviously meant as a riff on modern "fundamentalist" claims about the Bible... re: "translated and re-translated throughout history" etc). people even get confused about what "bible versions" are! 1:00:31 another good reference. the whole "KJV Onlyism" thing can knock an ordinary layman for a loop until you really start to pick it apart. hopefully by learning the real historical process a person can become less confused. the same could be said for "Zeitgeist" though it seems that influence has waned. then again some of the old claims from the Da Vinci Code still creep up in conversations on occasion even today (claims which predate the novel but were nevertheless popularized by it)
I don't understand the "translated over and over again" objection is even supposed to mean....notice in this video he says the English Standard Version is a "translation" of the Revised Standard Version....what on Earth does that even mean? They are both in English! He later corrects himself and says it's a "revision" which is better, but apparently he thinks this was done without looking at the original languages at all
The major changes to the Bible were made by Luther! And many modern translations are horrible.
I don't like how many modern translations go with "the Lord" in Jude 1:5. I've read a scholarship ressource showing that although "the Lord" was the most copied translation and a very ancient one, Jude most likely used "Jesus". The explanation given is that the scribe at the root of the alteration was certainly in disagreement with using "Jesus" to describe something that occured long before the incarnation, so he replaced it with "the Lord". But it doesn't make sense to say "the Lord" is the original only because it was already widely spread early on. It would be strange for Jerome to use "Jesus" if he perceived it as an alteration going against the majority of copies in his time, especially with his zeal for authenticity.
No way the Gravity Falls + Dinosaur Analysis channel Trey the Explainer is now a critical biblical scholar- what happened?
None of these changes are dogma-shattering. It's kind of a waste frankly.
He makes it sound like the original Bible had lines that said "yo, Satan is the good guy, bruh" or something
Inerrancy is problematic because there are contradictions in both the Old and New Testaments. And since there are NO copies of the original writings but only copies of copies of copies of copies, most often translations, not even in the original language. The fact that we have thousands of copies does not give us more confidence, most of them were copied after 900 AD by monks.
Bart Ehrman is an excellent source for this material and, in fact, has an upcoming webinar on how scribes changed the Bible. Some were honest errors, some passages were changed because the scribe had an agenda. And some passages were added later. The story of the woman taken in adultery was not in the earliest copies of the Gospel and in one later copy, it is literally inserted into the margin.
Anyone who is seriously interested in Bible history and what was written in the earliest copies of the New Testament should listen to Bart Ehrman’s videos, blog posts, and online courses.
ua-cam.com/video/6_SYtc98cTY/v-deo.htmlsi=a1Xb1fn5tYgAk10G
I like how passive aggressive this guy gets because trey just made a video lol