Is the Bible reliable?

[KubernetePirata]

Yes, let's not forget on how there are bible salesmen & how they sell different brands of the bible. Also, each churches of each branches uses different brands. When they come together, lots of "we" and "them" are being used.

[PeaksMuzic]

I hear that Jesus's Greatest teaching was removed and declared "Herracy" or something by the catholic church. Maybe this is something to research. Also i found that a few words were mistranslated etc plus there are contradictions within the bible. I do believe in God i just think we knw right from wrong rather then having to rely on an Unreliable book and i do believe JESUS was maybe a MAN of god bu not GOD lol ?

[Darusdei]

oh just 99,9% :D

[sgtguy1]

a lot of spam

[gsschoenfeld]

News Flash: There can be a tremendous difference between what a preacher claims about the bible in his hand, and what the publisher claims about that same book. In the relentless pursuit of profit the publishers are willing to add and remove verses, chapters and entire books of the bible depending on the audience they are trying to sell their bible to. Basically if you've got enough money they'll print a "bible" which says just about anything you want.

[k12rising]

@gsschoenfeld News Flash: Buy a King James Bible, and you can't go wrong!

[gsschoenfeld]

@k12rising "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?" -Job 39:9 KJV

[k12rising]

@gsschoenfeld Unicorn could mean a multitude of things, one explanation is rhino. Are you really going to dismiss the whole bible just because of one word? Seem's strange to me. Oh I forgot how some people like to cherry pick verses instead of actually read the book themselvs.

[saintpine]

I think matt has chosen a clever tactic, he doesn't filter or block negative or bad behaviour, because in the end this people are here listining to his words anyway.

[GahdeMalprigi1488x]

wwwdotExposingChristianitydotc­om

[soondooboo1]

lol his methods of argument are so mediocre. No details.

[PetterStrom1]

It is as reliable as my flatulence...which is, not at all...

[Gail940]

derhammerman

Exactly you got it right PEOPLE cannot walk on water, But "Jesus" was not people he was devine and of Holy Spirit, the fact that you are blinded at best, and at worst a agent of d-evil one shows where you are from and your detination, (self selection) you dont have to believe in GOD or Christ,

but D-evil one believes in you, are you willing to bet your Life and soul on it, because thats what you have done, think about it?

[LDSfaithDefender]

the oldest Bible available, the Codex Sinaiticus, contradicts today's manuscripts of the Bible. But the worst part is that the Codex Sinaiticus itself isn't even the original manuscripts: so one can imagine how much more different the original manuscripts were

[OneFabFisher]

@LDSfaithDefender - you are trying to defend a false religion. The reason why lds claim the bible today is inaccurate is because it exposes the lds doctrine for what it is, twisted scripture and lies. You have an agenda here on youtube and that is to go against the truth and you claim to be a defender of the lds faith but it is clear you know very little about its core doctrines. I can tell you have not been through the ceremonies in the temple, which exposes the true god of the lds church.

[ageofgrace]

@LDSfaithDefender Nice try....Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest COMPLETE manuscript. There are much older fragments.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@ageofgrace You still didn't answer the problematic I raised, because the fact remains that Codex Sinaiticus is NOT the original manuscripts of the Bible. Neither photocopy nor printing existed in Antiquity: therefore, Codex Sinaiticus could NOT have been a word-for-word replicate of what the original manuscripts said

[ageofgrace]

@LDSfaithDefender The Codex sinaiticus has vaiations to our modern day bible YES. But using it and the other manuscripts it is fairly easy to get a very accurate version of the origonal. Tell me,....does the Codex Sinaiticus say Jesus is NOT God, That God did not create the universe, that Jesus is not Gods son? Does the Codex say that there wasnt 12 apostles or that Jesus did not rise from the dead? I think your criticism may be a little simplistic. Where is the REAL criticism?.

[ageofgrace]

A fairly reliable text of an inspired original is still far better than an exact replica of a made up story, or a fraudulent translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics that has been proven archeologically and historically bogus. Dont forget the LDS church is founded on the single principal that Joseph Smith is a reliable translator, both in Egyptian hieroglyphics (Book of Abraham) and the Moroni sacred records. We know that his translation of the Book of Abraham is a fraud.

[ageofgrace]

Word for Word ? That is not the issue.

Jesus is Gods son....God is Jesus father......Jesus is the son of God.........Jesus is Gods begotten son...

All different words that mean exactly the same thing!

[IExposeMormonism]

@LDSfaithDefender Apply your argument to the BofM and you'll soon be Christian. You have Squat for the BofM. A non existent "Reformed Egyptian". Or interpret the Anthon glyphs for us. We do have Joes Absurd and obscene "Book of Abraham" in Joes' writing and it's 100% in Error. And his date is 1700 yrs in error! Believe it or not those glyphs changed in 1700yrs! Thus, using the Abe papyrus as a criterion of comparison as you would the Codex Sinaticus, you are dead in the water

[ageofgrace]

@LDSfaithDefender If one can imagine how different the manuscripts were as they were being copied in public and scrutinized by thousands of people some of who had met Christ and his apostles ....just imagine how unreliable the book of Mormon must be translated in secret by a unskilled translator who has proven himself to be a fraud.

[ageofgrace]

Perhaps you can respond to the changes in LDS doctrine that have happened even in our lifetime, let alone over 1000s of years? 

[Shulamitefire]

@LDSfaithDefender Do you want to discuss the 3900 + changes in the 1830 edition of Book of Mormon with later editions, in its very brief history of less than two centuries, including many major changes, changes as imperative as to the identity of Deity, whether Father or Son?

[BenAliGtor]

What Matty fails to mention here is that among the extant manuscripts of the books of the Bible (completed or fragments thereof) in the original languages, there are over 200,000 textual variations: more than the total number of verses IN the entire Bible.

Just one of many reasons that this self-proclaimed "Christian apologist" will never enter a neutral academic forum to debate someone who could call his bluff..such as Bart Ehrmann, Ph.D.

[ageofgrace]

Correct...and what you fail to mention is.....The errors you speak of are almost entirely spelling , punctuation and grammar errors. there are virtually NO errors in substance. Bart Ehrman was once a fundementalist. Now he is a fundamentalist scholar. His books are of little real value to the person asking REAL questions. I find Bart Ehrman silly and thoughly silly in his scholarship conclusions. Bart Ehrman should have been an accountant not a theologian.

[BenAliGtor]

@ageofgrace "The errors you speak of are almost entirely spelling , punctuation and grammar errors. there are virtually NO errors in substance."

Whose conclusion? Yours--or that of your local Rev. Billy Bob (graduate of the Bugtussle Alabama School of Theology and Transmission Repair)?

[ageofgrace]

@BenAliGtor That would be the opinion of the late Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrmans mentor. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament and Old Testament. Bruce Metzger was a superior scholar and a much wiser man. Bart Ehrman dedicated his book "Misquoting Jesus "to Bruce Metzger. Even though Metzger was a critic of NT text, he was a believer who said that his faith in Christ was"'well placed.....very well placed".

[zestyguy87]

You guys that dont believe in god or the bible dont want to admit or believe there is a god, bible, Jesus because if you did, you would be held accountable for all the bad things that youve done in your life. Pretty much gives you a ticket to sin all you want and not have to answer for it. You can deny it, but ultimately deep down you know its true

[mcsmay]

Reliable is too broad. This video should be titled, Is the Text Between Different Copies of the Bible Reliable, the answer is no. There are many variations in the English versions alone, now consider Hebrew > x > y > z > English translations.

[Hufflewaffle]

I think the real question here is more whether Matt Slick is reliable and trustworthy.

The answer is simple...

[mccfowler]

@Hufflewaffle The answer is yes.

[ClamCrunchy]

Much of Genesis is not historical, e.g., Adam and Eve, creation week, Noah's Ark, etc., as science and historical investigation have made a literal reading very much impossible. One must abandon large portions of biology, geology, astronomy, archeology and linguistics to believe in a literal Genesis. The Exodus as described in the book of Exodus almost certainly did not happen and has no evidence to support it.

[omgimgfut]

no one who wrote about jesus ever met him

[Derouin91]

@omgimgfut Except for Matthew and John. they were two of the twelve disciples of Jesus.

[Phage0070]

@Derouin91

Actually, no. Matthew was written by an unknown author who relied on sources such as Mark and an unknown author commonly called "Q". John is similarly not authored by John the Apostle; in fact modern scholars think that Johannine works were not all written by the same person.

[DemyanLavor]

for me Bible is 100% RELIABLE !!! 

[cachimadrid]

God has not been proven by scientists...but Christians have. Hilarious!!!

[AKAwisher1]

@cachimadrid - What is hilarious is to "think" we know it all and to stand in this position as if the Bible or Science is the dominating authority. It really makes a pathetic argument guided by our primitive ego. I can also say, science is reliable but it is man and his omissions and his interpretations that are unreliable. It's works both ways and it’s all the same to me. The one fact I do know for certain is that we are limited in our understanding which why we seek.

[cachimadrid]

@AKAwisher1 What is hilarious is putting a God where there is no answer yet...that is primitive!!!

[AKAwisher1]

@cachimadrid - Okay, sure. Can't put logic aside for God sake! ROFLOL

[AKAwisher1]

The Bible is reliable - it is man and his omissions and his interpretations that are unreliable. 

[boootts]

You can make the Bible true and correct just by stating it is true and correct?????? I can't understand how Matt, if he is half as clever as he thinks he is, cannot see how he constantly strays from logic in his arguments.

[mrbillsykes]

discarding homers witeing as not correct is just stupid becuase they are fictional. onbody thinks that the iliad is ilteraly true, and nobody make impotant life disisions on them.

[aretlev]

@mrbillsykes

You're taking one example in isolation. There are no writings from antiquity that are as well documented. well corroborated, and so close in proximity to the original events as the New Testament scriptures.

[Serpent0fEden]

Could you fit any more misinformation into 2:55 of video?

[confucious91]

look back on the day of this comment and say oh God if only i would have got over my selfish pride and accepted you as lord and saviour over my life that hammerman is the harsh reality now ponder on this a tad i respect what you believe but give us the same respect and not try to disprove something we know is truth

[confucious91]

untill you lay down your life for the cause of Jesus Christ okay now with that said if your right and im wrong who cares we both die and stay in the ground but if im right and your wrong i will live in heaven with God whom loves me dearly and has created a perfect place for those who accept his love and you will be in hell a place of continual termoil a place where you will die for all of eternity and will

[zestyguy87]

@confucious91 I use this arguement with other people too... forces them to at least consider there is a god and a afterlife that they will be held accountable for.

[confucious91]

umm yeah hammerman little info for you they actually found a city in rubble called jericho and it fits the story historically in the bible of where it would be according to the bible even secular scholars that are worth there salt know that its a legitimate historical piece of literature now lets go on a journey hammerman im guessing you dont believe in God and decide that its so important that we shouldnt believe in somthing that takes faith now why is that is it because you cant accept a

[derhammerman]

It doesn't matter how accurate the Bible is with regard to this city or that event. People can't walk on water and donkeys can't talk. If the Bible is reliable when it says that there actually was a city called Jericho, does that also mean that Jesus rose from the dead? No. It is contrary to reality.

[mccfowler]

@derhammerman That's why theses events are called miracles. It is perfectly logical to believe that the creator of all things could perform lesser miracles. The miracles that Jesus performed by the power of the Holy Spirit were a sign of His divinity. What is amazing is that even when certain unbelievers saw miraculous signs and wonders they still did not believe. This is because like all unbelievers they are slaves to sin and cannot receive the things of God.

[Imaginefree69]

Where is the archaeological or historical evidence

for the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt?

Or for the much more recent slaughter of baby boys

in Judea, under Herod?

Isn't it odd that Josephus and his peers

could tell us what kind of cup Herod drank from,

but didn't notice the wholesale government slaughter of babies?

The Bible is a book of bronze-age myth.

Nothing more.

[lizazoon]

If your drivers manual were written like the bible, you would never get of your driveway without an accident

[MrDrareve]

ok but did GOD say to write the bible???

[Cherubaby]

YES! How else would we KNOW GOD's Word?

[YDOAPS]

effective transmission ≠ reliable document

The NT has no eyewitness accounts(you should know this), unless you count Paul's "vision".

[loveme2122]

Why is your basis for saying that the NT has no eyewitness accounts?

[YDOAPS]

The gospels were written anonymously 40+ years after the fact.

[derhammerman]

Probably because there are none. It's that simple. Provide examples and we'll discuss them.