-(Door-to-door salesman to a young girl apparently alone in her backyard--->) "Excuse me, miss, but where is the rest of your family?" -"Oh, they was in, but now they is out." -"Young lady, i'm shocked! Where is your gramer (grammar)?" -"Oh, she's in the kitchen, baking cookies." (^-_-^) Young lady, where's your grammar?? -Oh,
Unfortunately can’t agree. Sure, most of the discrepancies are caused by early Christians being terrible at speling or monks daydreaming. But it isn’t honest to split them into however many categories, while the most important errors - most difficult to detect, to reconcile or to correct - are all waved off as “«Helping» the Bible”, while precisely these ones are the topic of long volumes written by countless scholars over the centuries.
In my high school Homeric Greek class, when my teacher would point out a mistake in the manuscript, she had us credit it to "drunk monks". Great video!
After watching this a few times I finally noticed that your 7th point about layout cues has a different layout than the rest of the list. These little things are some of the many reasons why I love your videos :)
Yes! May I add...there is a secular scholar, (I forgot his name, I would have to look it up), who is a biblical researcher on the accuracy of the bible, with a great RU-vid video. He explains, exactly what these errors are, and that there are really, very few, textual context discrepancies. Another...very well put together video. Keep it up. You have a new subscriber in me. 👍☀️👍
Since I started watching your series, I am pretty certain that you are an honest, open minded individual. What you do bring to the forefront is the number of disputed and disputable scriptural points. When you take into consideration that there are not only scriptural, but historic, etymological, linguistic, theological, liturgical, and canonic arguments as well amongst all who call themselves, "Christians." Although so much emphasis is placed on Biblical authenticity, Christian authenticity becomes lost. When schisms occur, they beget more schisms until every "Christian" has her or his own beliefs that have been so diluted and less Christian. I think that Bible study guides (like Cliff Notes) have taken the place of the Bible in the hands of many people,. I think that even the tiniest change (for whatever reason) in a Newer edition of the Bible, taints the meaning of the most authentic Christian Bible. Due to the deepest of chasms separating denominations get deeper jeopardizing true Christian unity. How does one believe in Christianity when there is confusion and continual schisms?
8:15 and preceding -- there's a set of errors going the other way, too, where the reader accidentally creates the mistake and the scribes write that down because it's their job.
@@MichaelAChristian1 I can see that you BOTH disagree already here... "if the bible was perfect"... "it is perfect"... that´s like the whole debate. This video mentions several times that the bible is NOT perfect. It argues (for most cases) that you can fix the errors (but they are there).Did God add spelling errors into the first original copy? If not, then HE was able to avoid such errors, even if humans wrote the texts. How about the first copies then? At some point God seems to have lost the control over the copies, as they now include errors. What this video don´t even touch are the problems that we can´t "fix" with grammatical errors.
You are being deceived! It is perfect! And so powerful that all they can do is say maybe some man wrote it down wrong! LET THAT SINK IN! The bible that tells past, present and future across thousands of years, is so perfect, they have to try and claim something is lost in translation! LET THAT SINK IN! Have you ever tried writing a book before? How many mistakes and constant editing is needed and it STILL has mistakes! The BIBLE is so perfect THAT thery have to claim it was tampered with my men somehow in translation! LET THAT SINK IN!
@@MichaelAChristian1 Yes I have thought about the things you wish I let them sink in. But as you write yourself (let that sink in) you claim the SAME things this video does and that I do. For example you say "have I tried writing.... how many mistakes and constant editing and it STILL HAS MISTAKES"... there you said it, if it is PERFECT is doesn´t have mistakes, but if it is NOT perfect it DOES have mistakes. The bible has mistakes, just as if I wrote some book... suggesting MEN wrote the bible - NOT GOD - WHO IS PERFECT. Let me tell you, IF the bible was perfect, I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to announce it - that would be GREAT. But it is not, and therefore I have to be honest. While spelling errors occur in man made texts, they are in many cases not the big issue (the text isn´t still perfect though). "He WNT to Jerusalem through the MIN gate" - is NOT a PERFECT text, but the spelling errors do not change the content in this fictional example = (the text HAS ERRORS but the content is understandable). MANY of the biblical errors are of this type. But then we have a little bigger ones, one example, the bible says "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.” Now if you have a bible on the computer, you could try to search Isaiah for that verse, but there isn´t one. Either that text HAS at some point been in ISAIAH, or the quote is wrong, or they confuse the text with some other writer. The conclusion - The bible isn´t perfect (there might be texts missing). In John 7:38 Jesus is quoting the scripture: as the scripture says: "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"... please find that quoted text to me anywhere in the OT and I send you a pizza. (again, the bible is not perfect). As GOD is perfect, and if HE wrote the text, I assume it had NO errors, no false quotations, every verse intended included, maybe we would ALSO have the ORIGINAL text, and could therefore make nearly perfect translations and copies because the originals can be checked. Now we don´t have ANY of the original texts remaining. We have to rely on copies of copies of copies, and as you asked me (with my words... wouldn´t trhere be mistakes if I wrote a text) - LET THAT SINK IN!
I used to adhere to the thinking "scripture self contradicts, it can't be valid." Nowadays I see it more as "Scripture NEVER self contradicts, but translation between languages definitely can lead to contradicting statements." I mean it gets really obvious if you compare a KJV to an ESV both next to the Septuagint.
Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall have everlasting life! Get a king james bible and believe. Read Matthew. Read 1 John chapter 4. Read Hebrews chapter 12!
Of course there are contradictions. Read the NT as well as the OT for contradictions. Compare and contrast the four gospels. It is much easier to see the errors and contradictions in this era of technology and improved communications. I have been asked to act on faith. I may be able to do that. I prefer to act on faith in that with is fact.
@@muthah3013 everything in the ot points is to the nt. As the four gospels go if you and I go to a event and were to write what happened.... would it be exactly the same or some differences?
@@MichaelAChristian1 No. It's a mediocre translation. It's far better to use a SRV Bible that comports with the Septuagint. If you read the Masoretic Bible, it's defective.
I really like the Channel name and the content I have seen so far. Please keep up the good work. I will be praying for you and this ministry. - Michael Troyanosky III
LOL... I was reading the comments and was like... Cape Horn? What the heck is that? Then I forgot all about it, and then you said it I was like whoa what did he just say?! HA :D
This is my first video of yours, Matt, to watch, and I thought it was great 😆 both content-wise and the extras you threw in there, like the music. TBH I go here from the NDQ podcast (another excellent deal, btw). Good stuff man. Keep up the good work.
Just always remember about scripture "God allows the dust, but never the rust". We can always clean up the text without worrying anything has been lost.
Thanks for your great series. For the record, it isn`t entirely fair to speak of misspelled words and bad grammar as if they always had a unified way of writing in Koine. It was, for example, quite common to include the definite article with proper names (for instance, the Jesus said to the Peter). There are quite a lot of textual variants due to some manuscripts including the definite article and the others excluding it. Yet, it doesn`t necessarily have to be a mistake.
It's great that you know so much biblical history and accept it. Bias tempts us to ignore things, for fear of it proving us wrong. You're reasonable, knowledgeable, and I trust your judgement. Searches often find equally biased atheists who repeat memes to ridicule the bible. I'm glad you're so knowledgeable on the topic. Your honesty and willingness to explore errors adds credibility. Science is also denied for fear of challenging faith. Learning science altered my biblical interpretation, but strengthened my faith. Searching online finds atheists like Dawkins ridiculing faith. Most people don't have time to learn the string of extremely unlikely events that brought us here. Its easier to deny science. Again, its great having people like Destin or Aron Wall, a quantum physics and black hole researcher who is a Christian. To have respect and influence, we can't just deny things and play dumb. We can't provide proof of God, only reasonable, informed, respectful discussions like this one.
Andy Jones Most atheist sites are as you say biased and gives a distorted view or leaves out some data to make it appear as their view is closest to science. But what if I told you that this channel has the same problem, by being biased towards (your) view. In other words, one takes some issues that supports the own view, simplifies things where there are problems (to undermine the impact of the problem) and leave things out so that it seems like there is a lot of proof for the own view.
Awesome videos Matt! This and the other videos on the Bible subject. I know I heard some of this info before, but never so well put together. The video with all the info will be quite interesting. Keep it up!
I finally figured out how the spell "necessary" by remembering "recess". Both have one C and two S's. Took me 30 years to get that right. And I still have a bad time remembering if the I or E goes first in Cheif...Chief. And various other words that take me by surprise once in a while, when I suddenly realize I'm not sure how to spell them. I'm one of those lucky people that's just always found spelling effortless, and didn't even have to think about it, but once in a while I surprise myself by stumbling over a word. But there are a few that get me every time; I just can't think of the others right now.
I love your videos and appreciate the facts that you present. What is your educational background and/or where did you learn about biblical history specifically? Also, do a series on apologetics!
Another example of "helping the Bible" is the addition about the angel stirring up the water at the pool in Bethesda. The angel part was apparently a pagan thing that a scribe might have noted to specify exactly what pool it was.
7:22 (and preceding) -- this is amplified a lot by the fact that the original texts were all written in capital letters, with no spaces between the words, and with no or almost no punctuation, and with some words occasionally abbreviated for respect or convenience. (This also amplifies several other technical error types Matt is mentioning.) In that sense, literally every manuscript copy using punctuation, smallercase letters, word breaks, etc., is one hundred percent divergent from the original text and so one hundred percent different in transmission. Text critical scholars keeping track of divergences between manuscripts (mainly in order to historically trace families of manuscripts) just don't carry out their standards of divergence tracking that far, because it would be useless. But that's almost totally the _type_ of "error" sceptics are complaining about in transmission of the texts. Bart Ehrman has to shoulder a lot of blame for the recent popularity of this sceptical criticism, because even though he professionally knows better and doesn't act this way when he's alone with fellow professionals, he intentionally misrepresents the textual transmission situation when arguing to popular or lay audiences against orthodox, or any kind of supernaturalistic, Christianity being true. The mental disjunction is so pronounced in his work that some of his own critics have started to seriously wonder if he has a neurosis. It's weird. But he sells a lot of books that way, and I think that explains the mental disjunction pretty well without bringing neurosis into it. {wry g} (This is a case where those critics are trying to be nice and explain it as not really Dr. E's fault. I appreciate the attempt, but...)
Oh, glad to know that filming a video constitutes as "dynamic workout" ahah! Great video, I loved it and as usual your approach to explaining stuff is great :) Ps: I swear I am not your mom taking on someone's account to comment. Pinky-swear.
Hey Matt, have you considered doing an episode in this series about passages in the Bible that have been somewhat sanitized in our modern English translations? For example, when Elijah taunts the Baal worshippers by suggesting that Baal might be relieving himself - or when Paul says he counts it all as "rubbish" (but a stronger word may have been used in the original language)? I'd be really interested to know why translators picked the translations they did, as they seem to very a fair amount in those passages. Thanks again for all you do on TMBH :)
This is really good. I think it would be great if you gave examples for each of those ways that different readings happen in different manuscripts. (I took a whole class on New Testament Textual Criticism at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis.)
Gramer instead of Grammar. Good illustration. I love your videos btw. I literally or is it figuratively respect you and what you are doing. 😊Keep up the good work.
I thought he was serious about the topics he said he was gonna get off his chest. Lol I was like oh wow this is gonna be good! Scared me for a sec! But a great video nonetheless! Loved it as usual. Nice Breakfast Club ending lol.
Ha Ha! Those Limey Brits ADDED the 'u' to those words in the 19th century to be less French! Gotcha! Haha while true I'm playing with you bro, great job on these amazing videos you're doing great work!
I found myself wishing you'd just be done talking to I could enjoy the 1.5 seconds of amazing 80's music between each point :) Just kidding ...this was a great video!!! Keep 'em coming!
That part about Cape Horn really upset me. That's the most offensive joke I've ever heard! It's so offensive! I can't even remember it was you were talking about before!
Years ago...I was looking for a pumpkin patch....but the search engine must have saw pump and kin and considered it inappropriate content and I was unable to find one. 😒
Wurd bro, I frekeantly have spalling tissues as well :) I thoroughly enjoy Biblical criticism. I have enjoyed people (websites) who claim to know of, say, 400,000 errors in the Bible. However, many times I have found the criticisms to be illogical, dishonest and CHILDISH. I have been very disappointed as I have in the past thought "ah a genuine challenge", "food for thought" - but I was let down by the quality of the oppositions position.
Fantastic clip!!! Thanks for all your hard work brotha!! And............... I hope those two dolls on the shelf behind you are Trump and Reagan!! LOL! :)
True, HUGE projects require planning. And mistakes easily get into there. That is why in the modern days we have management software. Software that keeps track of what you are doing, where you are and what the status is. Useful. But in ye olde days... So it not being perfect is obvious, human hands and minds after all. I can tell you, even writing a book that is lets say 60-70k words requires management!
The errors are one thing. Deliberate translation changes/anomalies made during the English translation from Hebrew and Greek intended to sanitize-out as much of the Jewishness of Scripture and the Gospels as possible is another and a video on that angle would be great.
This is good information, but the video would have been a lot more useful if you had included concrete examples of these errors beyond the brief mention of one of the genealogies.
@@chaplainpaul5326 Differences? So, not errors then? And, is that considered a difference, or an error, in the criticism of the Bible? If the same word is misspelled several times, does that count as one error, or many? And, does any of it make a single bit of difference, anyway? And, what if they made different errors in spelling the same word, differently? OMG! More errors! Or, is that my error for not thinking that it really makes no difference? Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do in making a difference by their spelling errors! Oh, what's the difference? We're all subject to making errors, aren't we? Unless, of course, I'm in error. The fact is, if one wishes to believe, or not to believe, it's not the small errors and discrepancies in the text of the copies of the Bible that are going to make "the" difference.
Doug Overhoff you are correct, every misspelling or even a breathing mark difference is documented. But understand that Greek words are different than English words in that the endings change frequently to show the part of the sentence, case, plural, etc. in English the order of the word determines the subject verb object. In Greek the order determines importance and the subject/verb/object/predicate are determined by word endings. Also even in the same manuscript words aren’t always spelled the same but that’s rare. So yes every detail any detail are all documented. The only real errors are instances where margin notes got copied into the text or phrases were copied into the Greek from the Latin Volgate. But these errors occurred later and are trivial to detect.
@@chaplainpaul5326 Yes, I'm aware of those differences in the Greek, and I agree, and concede that your points are totally germane. I was really trying to be laughably facetious, but in a sort of pedantic way. It seems to me, that the overwhelming number of these assumed "errors" that these critics are so fond of pointing out, are exaggerated, hypothetical, and are, in reality, so inconsequential as to render them as mere peccadilloes and moot. But, it also seems, that those same critics are loathe to overlook, or to let escape, the acute scrutiny of their pedagogic 'discernment,' even the tiniest, most minute eccentricity, catachresis, solecism, or cacography in the Biblical text. And all are cause for their hyperscrutiny. Yet, in their punctilious zeal in attempting to discount the Bible's historicity and authenticity , and in what I perceive as their hope to repudiating its basic veracity, they utterly fail to recognize, much less to credit, any and all of the intrinsic meaningfuness and wisdom of the Bible. It indicates in them a preconceived bias, and an antagonistic meanness of their intent, which shows a complete lack of academic integrity on their parts. And so, it thoroughly vitiates any claims that they may have to any independence of thought, or of a disinterested, academic autonomy in their exegesis. So, I feel it manifestly depreciates any efficacy or validity their criticisms may have had, regardless of the number of "errors" they may have cited. Just sayin', ya know? 😁
Hi Doug, I think if you and I sat down for a coffee, we would be friends. I’m a critical detail person - I’ve published 8 books on software design. To me the details in the Greek increase my faith and increases my confidence that we have accurate Bibles, but it discouraged me to see all the in fighting over translations. I do prison ministry and I don’t care what translation they read. If they’re reading it it’s perfect for them.
I understand this is on an old video, but i would like to point to the fact that standardized spelling hasn't been around for that long of a period. So all of those "spelling and grammatical errors" were not errors when they were written, or transcribed.
One example might be calling both Jesus and satan "morning star", when the correction would be Jesus is the North Star. The morning star is venus which is often referred to as the false north star sense it often will trick people (like satan) into thinking it is the north star. As were the North Star, Polaris, is consistent and can always be counted upon, like Jesus.
You should check out a book called “In defense of the Textus Receptus” by Jim Taylor he’s done a lot of research on the topic and it’s all about manuscripts of the New Testament. It can be found on amazon. Love the videos keep it up!
There's no need to look into 400,000 errors or for that matter 4000 errors or 40 errors... Just look into "God died...?" The whole structure collapses...
Which number or what mistake point number is it when the name of a false deity is placed in the english text instead of its Greek counterpart? Such as EASTER (ISHTAR) instead of Pascha(Passover)
It sounds really bad on the surface that there are more manuscript errors than words in the bible, but when you consider the number of manuscripts, in a weird way the errors actually give more confidence in determining what the original said.
If I recall correctly, Darrel Bock has pointed out that a thorough check of all known ancient texts of RevJohn has reported as many catalogued "errors" in that text alone as commonly cited by sceptics for the whole NT. But this is using a very technically rarified notion of "error" that only applies within text critical studies (like my mis-spelling of "rarified" and "mis-spelling" counting as at least two errors, and maybe also my habitually British instead of American spelling of "skeptics" since I'm American. If someone reprinted my post but spelled out "RevJohn" more thoroughly than my abbreviation, which is a form typical mainly to me and my writing, that would count as an "error" in transmission, too. My mistake of Darrel Bock actually being Daniel Wallace would be a slightly more important mistake. {g})
Not large. 50,000 manuscripts means an average of 8 errors each to get 400,000. Now if I leave out a sentence of 10 words containing 35 letters and one comma, is that one error (the sentence), 11 errors (each word plus the comma), or 36 errors? That would depend on who is counting. Likewise if I transpose 2 numbers, one or two errors? Find a newspaper from today and look for errors. You can read the whole thing in a day but you'll find errors. Hard to read the NT in a day, harder still to transcribe it by hand without making a mistake.
I remember speaking to Muslims about these errors. All of them will dismiss the New Testament due to these errors, which makes absolutely no sense at all.
