Was the Bible Changed Over Time? 

Right! This is the type of stuff every Christian should know

This people do it to watch you trip. This guy didn't even cover the fact that we have early records of the Bible that date back to within 100 years of when Jesus resurrected.

What is that?

100%

but the ortodox and chatolic churches do have differences in the bibles...so

I'm not the guy detective on the video but the thing is that oral "documentation" was the way information moved back then, and it had more weight than in this age we're living in. Printing press hasn't been around that long, and printing in masses was not easy prior to that. You could say that if we apply the same speculation people have towards the oral tradition regarding the Bible to all more ancient historical information we have on other events/stories etc., we really don't have much to rely on about anything.

Look at what Paul says about the 500+ persons who saw the risen Jesus: some had passed, but most was still alive. They were eyewitnesses. Their stories was easy to check out. Also remember that in that time, the majority of people were illiterate. They therefore relied on memorizing huge amounts of scripture - their brain was well trained to remember things, much more than we are today (although we can train ourself to do that). If you look at the original language, you will often find that the verses had a rhythm that would make them easy to remember - think of how child rhymes are built up, such as "I'm a little teapot", "humpty-dumpty" and so on. The NT was written down very short time after the cross, with the oldest parts (most scholars agree that revelations was written latest) around year 95-96. That's about 60 years after the cross. The Gospels were written between year 66 and 95, so 30-60 years after the cross. But what's even more interesting is what Paul writes in Galatians, written in 54-56 and is an authentic letter from Paul. There he tells about when he visited Peter, three years after his conversion on the road to Damascus. That most likely happened in year 33-34, but it could have been closer to year 36. Which means that, at the latest, Paul met Peter 6 years after the cross, if we say the cross happened in 33. Now, how reliable is this? While I cannot tell you what I had for dinner two weeks ago, I can tell you the weather, location, the exact spot I was when I watched 911 unfold live on CNN. I can remember a lot of details from that day, because that had such an impact on me - even though I am Norwegian. More locally, I can remember the weather, where I was and what I did when the news about the terrorist attack on Utøya happened here in Norway. Even though some details could have been forgotten, the big picture won't change. I saw the twin towers come down. I heard the shots at Utøya (the video clips on the news later on had the shots edited out to protect the viewers from the horrors). And John, Mary and Mary plus others, saw Jesus being crucified - and they all saw him risen. You don't forget something like that. As for the resurrection: 500 people does not have the same illusion. The jews could easily have debunked it by showing a tomb that was not empty after all, just a short stroll outside Jerusalem. The guards was roman soldiers. If they drank or fell asleep while on duty, they would be severely punished. And they had absolutely NO interest in just another dead jew. Even facing the risk of severe punishment, they told what they experienced at the tomb. There is a LOT of other evidence such as this, but you'll better look up Gary Habermas here on YT for that. We also know that Jesus lived, which is documented by among other sources, Tacitus (google Tacitus on Jesus). No scholars disagree - even Richard Dawkins admit (although it hat do be dragged out of him...) that Jesus lived. As for the authenticity of the Bible, we have thousands upon thousands of documents and fragments that shows us that the Bible today is the same as the earliest manuscripts. Also - of all the persons who lived in ancient times, nobody is as documented as Jesus both within and outside the Bible. Even jewish historians admit that He lived, and they had (and have) all the reasons you could ask for to hide THAT fact. Given all this evidence, what does it point to? I did believe in Jesus before. This just makes me certain, because I cannot overlook the overwhelming amount of evidence. He lived. He died. He rose. He lives. If this was not true, Christianity would be meaningless.

They were written 20 to 50 years after Christs death and compiled from numerous eye witnesses and testimonies

​@vharboe amazing write up, God bless

If you like this, you should read his books. And you should try Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell.

I highly recommend Frank Turek as well.

I agree. There is only one interpretation of Scripture. That interpretation is the original intended meaning that God inspired, not man’s opinion.

Don't just stop with this video, look at this other one. Muslims are usually told that Bibles are corrupted. But the Quran itself defends the Gospel as something trustworthy by the time of Mohammed writing the Quran. Nothing in the Bible has changed since the time of Muhammed to today, therefore it is still just as trustworthy as then ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Giv-C3ipihM.htmlsi=hZokSqKoWxW9zRjD

I just know the one that was written early?

Why don't you just tell us?

First is correct 💯 Irenaeus God bless 🙏🙏🙏

King James Bible 1611 doesn't lose any in translation

@@captainkrajick: Your proof of that is? ☮🔦✝

Are you a christian?

@@amirbarsoum3652: What IS a "Christian"? ☮🔦✝

Nope, Islamic stubbornness on the subject will not change facts 🤷🏻‍♂️

How?

Well without the doctrine of the trinity the man who died on the cross was just that- a man

You just want to deny truth.

Jesus is God. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls which verify.

Facts like?

Been looking in to that. Do you have any help that you could give me or refer me to a source or video that helped you to come to that conclusion. I watched some of Kent hovids videos and saw where other “Bibles” were wrong.

​@@karltiedemann7222check out Truth is Christ. His channel is very helpful on this issue. Another Pastor is Pastor Gene Kim from Real Bible Believers

So you're saying an English translation made some 1,600 years after Christ is more reliable than earlier or later translations? Any reason for this assertion?