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.

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.

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 just bought the Case for Catholicism and I'm reading it now, I've been considering conversion and this may be the tipping point.

Shout out to Dr. Brant Pitre

“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 💀

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.

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 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

Waiting on part 2. Enjoyed part 1. Thanks.

This is so great. Thank you. 🙏🏻

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.

As always thank you Trent for your time and deduct on working hard clarifying this kind of fallacies 🙏🏻 👏🏼👏🏼

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 😎

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!

I am surprised that Trent Horn hasn't done a video on Cameron's conversion. This topic is great too!

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.

Thank you for the rebuttal

Two minutes in and I know the original video is gonna be a train wreck

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!

Awesome video!

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.

Good video. Much appreciated.

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'

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.

It legit bugs me how this guy cannot pronounce "Vaticanus" correctly.

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 KZfaqr "Testify" actually has some really excellent videos on the authorship (and early dating) of the Gospels I would recommend.

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?

Trent (and others) what books do u recommend to read that defends reliability of textual manuscripts?

Thank you brother Trent Horn.

There's now a panel from Jojo's Bizarre Adventure in a video by Catholic Answers Speaker and Apologist Trent Horn LMAOOOO

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.

Quote- unquote “Trent Horn”

well-done, Trent!

There’s a part 2 of that video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ob5mZcWDrq2Rf30.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.

One of the best videos of Trent I've ever watched.

20:31 lol the dude really brought out Wikipedia as a source .

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.

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 😂

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.

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.

Best parts. When Trent points out that the church fathers already rebutted Trey. Sheesh.

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

Thanks Trent

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

It annoys me that he kept saying "Codex Vanaticus" even though the texts on his video were correctly spelled "Vaticanus"

"how the bible beats every other ancient book" isn't in the description ☺️

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.

Is there a REBUT video to the part 2? Looks like that too has got more than 1 Million views 😕

The video being rebutted is a guy seemingly learning the basics of textual criticism in realtime and thinking it’s somehow suspicious.

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 ;-)

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).

12:25 I like how you expose his ignorance here

He said "in English mind you" like English was a language 2000 or 5000 years ago, that is definitely on him for thinking so.

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.

Would love to see a debate between you and rabbi singer over his conspiracy theories about the church changing Hebrew text

Love from Croatia ✝️🙏❤️🇭🇷🇭🇷🇭🇷

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 KZfaq Catholic apologists comment on Gavin’s points.

God bless you and your family ✝️🙏

bro theres no way he actually thought it was written in english i stopped taking him serious after that😭😭

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.

Did that video really need a rebuttal? Nothing he said challenged my faith, and everything he said was very sane and reasonable

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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..."

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.

No way the Gravity Falls + Dinosaur Analysis channel Trey the Explainer is now a critical biblical scholar- what happened?

So triggered by how Trey says “Vanaticus”

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

Respect Trent Horn..

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.

At what point does uncharitability turn into dishonesty

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.

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.

Inspiring Philosophy has an *amazing* video series on KZfaq 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.

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.

Will you cover part 2?

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

Is that a painting of St. Ignatius for St. Augustine at 34:14? 😂

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. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bMWDjNeUnp7HhI0.htmlsi=a1Xb1fn5tYgAk10G

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.

Srila Prabhupada: As soon as you interpret or change the scripture, the scripture loses its authority. Then another man will come and interpret things in his own way. Another will come and then another, and in this way the original purport of the scripture is lost.

Examples of insignificant changes The Charlie Brown verse: Peace on earth and good will toward men" or "Peace on earth to men of good will". What about the 'Hank-8' version -- The marriage loop hole: Thou shalt not commit adultery (unless it's 'biblical' whereby infidelity occurs in a marriage). This causes the death of the marriage and then re-marriage and fidelity is permitted -- but in case a poor partner choice was made, it's a simple matter of 'killing the marriage' again (and so on and so forth)... (Approved by the Church of England) reference; 'Tyburn England'. ...yes, there's more... 😇

Blud really thought that pointing out that Goliath wasn't as massively tall as we thought destroys the credibility of the Bible. ☠☠☠

13:50 wait so we’re translating English to English now?

And apparently every country in Europe spoke English aswell hmmm..why is the history chain only from Greek to Latin straight to English translation ignoring all the other languages

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 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.

"Unfortunately, many interpreters have spoiled the God consciousness of society."

Great vid. One thing that would be interesting is to know how many manuscripts didn't survive until the Bible was compiled. Where are John the Baptists writings? Where are the books of Joseph? Where are Paul's other Epistles? It's hard to conceive how much we don't yet know.

Imo the Jonnine Comma is the most substantial change/addition/difference in the NT and it is not at all needed to prove the Trinity. John's gospel alone irrefutably states a binitarian view of the Godhead(though, even it includes trinitarian proofs as well). The only way to come to any other conclusion would require you to throw out at least half of the NT(though, there are many "Christians" that hav no qualms in doing exactly that).

We also can’t say Jesus didn’t know English. Also I just want some to address the reason the ages within the genealogy of the sons of Noah changed.

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.