This video is unavailable.
Sorry about that.

Has the Bible been corrupted or changed over time?

  • Published on Mar 27, 2019
  • Here's a link to the rest of my RU-clip Channel:
    Many claim that the Bible has been "corrupted" over time and that through the many translations, there have been many changes so we don't even contain the original text today. Is this true? Do we have the same message today that we had when the books of the Bible were originally written? Let's find out!
    Please leave a comment below or feel free to send me an email so we can talk further! I'd love to share the true Gospel message of the Bible with you and help you come to know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior! I'd also love to help you find a good Bible believing church in your area if you don't already have one. Here's my email address:
    Thanks for watching and God bless you!

Comments • 487

  • Hale Hafa
    Hale Hafa 2 days ago

    “One of the central themes of the gospel of Jesus Christ is unity. The scriptures teach that equality and oneness should prevail among members of the Church.

    “You will recall that on the night of the Last Supper, as the Savior met with his Apostles, he prayed that they might be one with him, as he was one with the Father. He prayed not for them alone, ‘but for them also which [should] believe on [him] through their word;

    “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.’ (John 17:20-21.)”

    In these latter days many believers including myself have approached “Christianity” as though we were approaching a united church of some kind?? In a dangerous state of self deception many will continue to receive and preach spiritual illusions that are far from biblical?? Even when we can see clearly that there is a world of conflict and division amongst denominations and believers?? ..which according to the Bible is not a fruit of the Spirit!??

    “No one was ever injured by the truth; but he who persists in self-deception and ignorance is injured.”
    Marcus Aurelius


    “The words Son of God, mean God”

    “Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not God”

    “The Bible teaches us the one and only Christian doctrine of the trinity”

    "There are major problems with the doctrine of the trinity"

    “Baptism is not required for salvation”

    “If Jesus who was without sin underwent baptism, we who are all sinners surely cannot ignore it”

    “Baptism is optional”

    "real Christians aren't divided"

    “Only the Catholic church posses true unity”

    “Jesus is never called God the Son”

    “Christians maintain Jesus was always God”

    “The Bible teaches that the Father is God”

    “Jesus now sits on the right hand of God in heaven, waiting for the appointed time to return to earth”

    “Don’t ever give up finding (( your own way )) to Jesus…”

    “Going To Church Is Not Necessary”

    “Church attendance is God’s will for believers.”

    “All Christians believe in the trinity”

    “trinitarians distort verses”

    “Christianity is the Truth”

    “Christians do not have the same beliefs”

    “the church is just being a Christian (true follower of Christ)”

    “There is no true church”

    “(I joined the true church) which are the people, the followers of Jesus”

    “If you don’t believe in the trinity you are not a true follower of Jesus”

    “Jesus is not part of any trinity”

    "people are saved without works period"

    “Do our works mean anything? According to Jesus they do (Matthew 25:31-46)”

    “Grace and works are not biblical”

    “We cannot walk in Christ without works”

    "What church you go to doesn't really matter if you just focus on Christ and follow his teachings to the best of your ability you'll be ok"

    “Does it matter what church we attend? ..YES”

    “It is clear that Jesus was not teaching people he was God”

    “If someone rejects the trinity, they are not a Christian”

    “The trinity is a false doctrine”

    “Once saved, always saved”

    “Once saved you are not always saved, it is easy to fall away”



    good … for brethren to dwell together in unity, Ps. 133:1.

    One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4:5.

    Can two walk together, except they be agreed, Amos 3:3.

    them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, Acts 4:32.

    be perfectly joined together, 1 Cor. 1:10.

    Be perfect … of one mind, 2 Cor. 13:11.

    one spirit, with one mind striving together, Philip. 1:27.

    being of one accord, of one mind, Philip. 2:2.

    be ye all of one mind, 1 Pet. 3:8.

  • Phat Urtha
    Phat Urtha 3 days ago

    Good to have a reliable base set of Greek manuscripts, now we just need to concern ourselves with delinquent translations and skewed interpretations. #eternaldamnationisalie

  • Phat Urtha
    Phat Urtha 3 days ago

    There you have it, young men. Grow up and get serious about historical textual criticism, and one day you too could have a beautiful and attentive daughter.

  • Christopher Foote
    Christopher Foote 6 days ago

    The Bible assuredly has changed and been corrupted. There was a concerted effort to bring it back. The Book of Mormon actually testifies of the truth in the Bible.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis 5 days ago

      True! The Book of Mormon plagiarizes 25 chapters from the Bible.
      25 chapters in the Book of Mormon are true.
      I bet Psalm 82 hasn't been corrupted. "YE ARE gODS."

  • Jaci Bledsoe
    Jaci Bledsoe 17 days ago +2

    I love listening to your dad. His research is so detailed. I hope you will have him on for more discussions!!
    Was he a Mormon at one time? How could you accept the Mormon lies or did he help you "wake up" to the truth?
    As well as Mormons, you need to help JWs wake-up to the truth (they sure don't have it) as well as those lost in the Eastern religious cults.
    The fact that there are 25,000 pieces of NT manuscripts that all support each other.

  • Tee Kay
    Tee Kay 20 days ago +1

    Well that was click bait, very bias with an anti Mormon view in the argument. Video didn’t do the title justice the New Testament isn’t the bible and it’s obvious why you chose not to speak on the Old Testament. I think it’s fair to say that based on what you said it is very plausible that corruption through translation errors, misinterpretations could have distorted some of the true textual meanings of both the NT and definitely the OT.

    • Tee Kay
      Tee Kay 16 days ago +1

      Omnipotent yes, Omniscient yes, Omnipresent by definition no, however I believe God can be felt everywhere but is not everywhere. I don’t believe in the trinitarian Doctrine, in the sense that they are one being. Without delving I believe they are 3 seperate beings and make up the Godhead. I believe God is the head of the Godhead and that through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost we are able to feel his presence, and also communicate with him.
      I believe in fore ordination. I believe that while someone may be for ordained to be or accomplish something it is dependent upon the individuals choices as to whether or not they fulfil that purpose.
      The quote you used I’m not familiar with. Though I do believe we existed spiritually before earth. Is this quote supporting my belief?
      I think most religions are predominantly founded on the same idea, hence the many similarities between different beliefs. I think that over thousands of years, corruption, errors, misinterpretation, translations, and by the wickedness of man, some truths have been lost from the bible and that is the crux of why I believe there are so many different views on so many different doctrines.
      I don’t believe knowing doctrine is as critical to our salvation as are the principles found within the word of God and following the saviour by trying to live a Christ like life.

    • Jaci Bledsoe
      Jaci Bledsoe 16 days ago

      @Tee Kay I believe that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. I also believe that those who choose God were chosen from the beginning of time. "Those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be the sons of." I believe He always knew who would choose to follow Christ and who would refuse Him. What do you believe about.
      I have every version ever made including the 1520 Geneva Bible. My latest and probably favorite one so far is "The Complete Jewish Study Bible". Great at challenging me to remember

    • Tee Kay
      Tee Kay 16 days ago

      And that’s where everything goes wayward. I believe in the same God, we just disagree on the very nature of God.
      This argument doesn’t mean my faith is being put in a totally different God, just that our understanding of his nature is different.

    • Jaci Bledsoe
      Jaci Bledsoe 16 days ago +1

      There is only one God. To have faith in another goes against the first commandment and is a sin....

  • R Kimpel
    R Kimpel 23 days ago

    You comment much on early church fathers. These people were the winners of great controversy. It is awesome that you go back as you have, I am simply wondering if you have looked at this and what were your findings?

  • Neil S
    Neil S 27 days ago

    Related to reliability, there are many changes that have occurred in meanings as new translations occur. What is most important is that the Aramaic language of Jesus often is different than the Greek translations. The meaning of the traditions during Jesus' time, for example, may be different than the writers of the new testament that occur two generations or more after the death of Jesus. There are also the lost books of the Bible and manuscript discoveries that have occurred.

  • Shaun Butterfield
    Shaun Butterfield Month ago

    Question, Where are the apocrypha? If they aren’t supposed to be part, of the Bible, then it was corrupted when put in. If they are supposed to be in it (by the way they still are, in other countries) then it was corrupted when taken out. In the NIV there have been complete versus left from 1 Corinthians 15. How under heaven, is that not corruption?

    • Shaun Butterfield
      Shaun Butterfield Month ago

      Faye Lewis thanks, I understand all of that. My point simply put is, the claim is made, often that God’s word is true and exact. While that’s true of His word it’s not true of The Bible. It’s full of contradictions. It was written and compiled by men. God bless, you and I have actually spoken on this topic before.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis Month ago

      The NIV is a bad 'version.' It is not really a translation.
      If you want to know what the Bible really says, you can always read it in Hebrew and Greek using an interlinear Bible.
      There are over 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in three different languages.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis Month ago

      Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Protestant Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.

      The nation of Israel treated the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books with respect, but never accepted them as true books of the Hebrew Bible. The early Christian church debated the status of the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals, but few early Christians believed they belonged in the canon of Scripture. The New Testament quotes from the Old Testament hundreds of times, but nowhere quotes or alludes to any of the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical books. Further, there are many proven errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals. Here are a few websites that demonstrate these errors:

      The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. While many Catholics accepted the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals previously, the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation. The Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals support some of the things that the Roman Catholic Church believes and practices which are not in agreement with the Bible. Examples are praying for the dead, petitioning “saints” in Heaven for their prayers, worshipping angels, and “alms giving” atoning for sins. Some of what the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals say is true and correct. However, due to the historical and theological errors, the books must be viewed as fallible historical and religious documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

  • Randall Layman
    Randall Layman Month ago

    Please stop asserting Christian apologetics as sound historical methodology.

  • Christopher Foote
    Christopher Foote Month ago

    The apostles weren't simply there in Jerusalem. Thars the point you're missing. Why us it so hard to believe the sane minustry to which the people you say were especially called to might not also apply to a group of people who were taken from Israel. The Nephites. I believe were separated from Israel and were given the same divibe calling as those from which they were carried. So many if your claims are unfounded as far as what might have motivated the people who played a part in it's recording of their rendering of the law. It seems fairly simple to me. If there isn't any proof about the people who were asked to leave Jerusalem why are there a record of many ancient people who apparently lived according to a Christian code of law? Why isn't that fairly self-apparent? We use the Holy Bible. It's part of our canon. The problem I have isn't that you do exposes on the L.D S. Church. But that you would present it as evidence if it's inauthebticity. That's not kosher.

  • Christopher Foote
    Christopher Foote Month ago +1

    That actually isn't what I believe. The translation should be valid. I think the problem is how reliable the translation is. Like you are saying. That there are many interpretations. That's the concern. It is interesting (isn't it) how we apply the King James translation to our spiritual canon.
    I haven't read the Bible. I know some of it but not most. My relatively poor understanding tells me there is a fairly close relationship the King James translation to the Book of Mormon.
    I would invite you to compare anything in the Bible and use it in your investigation. I think if you do that you might surprise yourself how closely they compare. Maybe it's a simple coincidence. But in all honesty I think if you dedicate to the mission of Christianity you might surprise his closelu they compare. As best as I can tell my church says the Book of Mormon along with the Holy Bible serve as a way to use the faith in a way nobody can dispute. If you have a problem with any of the doctrine I invite you to use the Bible to compare what you know against what the Book of Mormon says. My own opinion is that there is a strong parallel. I don't think that's accidental. Many of the things you say about the Bible seem to apply against the Book if Mormon. The Book of Mormon isn't one manuscript. It's multiple manuscripts that a person (Mormon) took and compiled together! How weird is that?
    He didn't have a bible to refer to. Therefore any explanation OTHER than it was an ancient record is actually hard to disprove. Do you really think Joseph Smith invented it? The history and the narrative?
    Do you think that's a reasonable explanation? I don't. And I'm not especially smart The title of liberty. You should read about that. That in particular seems Hebraic to me. Maybe I'm alone. But it doesn't really fit with any society other than the Jews. To me. As little as I know. So many of the things you seem to think aren't particular to a religion only seem to fit to me in a society of Jews. That's not knowing their customs. But it's the familiar spirit. I think that's being recognized. I think you will find many things that compare favorable to the Book of Mormon.

    • Christopher Foote
      Christopher Foote Month ago

      Again there isn't much controversy about the text. There is an article of faith that says we believe in the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Also that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I'm not very well educated to the history of the Bible. But I haven't personally ever doubted it being a literal translation. I think the problem might be how there are versions of the Bible that contrast wildly from what I consider to be the most reliable translation. King James. But clearly that isn't necessarily the only or even the most correct possible rendering. There is a reference to the brass plates which I assume occupy the better part of the Old Testament. We don't have any plates to reference. That record is lost. Lehi had the brass plates. Apparently it wasn't necessary to transcribe it. My best guess is it would be Hebraic. Meaning it would necessarily need to be translated into English. For it to make any sense to me. Even though I understand Spanish. And have a bible which was given to me as a missionary. Which approximates closely what's found in the King James version.
      Point being it seems there is a more accurate rendering of the Bible. I believe she asked why the Book of Mormon would read as if it were written in a similar language to the King James bible. Joseph Smith knew English. He wasn't without some education. Clearly he required education sufficient to be a translator. Maybe he was well versed in the Bible. Makes sense to me. Jesus need thirty years if preoaratiin before he began his ministry. Joseph Smith requires years of preparation. Why wouldn't it be translated into a language familiar to him? Why wouldn't it be English that he knew and understood and recognized? Why wouldn't there be a close parallel between the Book if Mormon and the Bible he knew to be the literal word of God? Why wouldn't there be nearly a one-to-one correlation between the Book if Mormon as he understood it abd the Holy Bible which apparently he read and understood from his youth? The lie that Joseph Smith was uneducated abd uncultured is simply something a person who never knew him. Clearly he understood a great deal about the Bible. A person can learn a great deal in twenty four years. I'm guessing those are years of preparation.

  • Mattathias Macabees

    Joseph Smith and Satan both seek to undermine the authenticity of the BIBLE. The kjv is the living word of God. The God of the bible is the one who convicted me of sin and brought me to repentance. Not the book of Mormon or doctrine and covenants or pearl of great price- all of which i read. Joseph Smith is selling a different Christ... So is the Catholic church, the Jehovah witnesses and almost everybody else too. Is the lovely Jessica married?

  • Rhett Willman
    Rhett Willman Month ago

    The Bible is based off other civilizations’ religions. The Bible is false.

  • Mario Abele
    Mario Abele Month ago +3

    This is very important because Mormons do not trust the bible, so they'll believe whatever their false religion tells them. That is the worst thing Joseph Smith did -- getting people not to trust the bible.

    • Shaun Butterfield
      Shaun Butterfield 17 days ago

      Mario Abele I love you too, I’ll read the New Testament no problem. I’ve read it many times. We will just agree to disagree. Like I said I won’t put my experience on the internet. God bless.

    • Mario Abele
      Mario Abele 17 days ago

      Shaun Butterfield I’ve heard Muslim’s make those same claims about miracles through the power of allah, Catholics make those same claims as well. What you saw does not make Mormonism true. You’re right, Shaun. I can’t convince you. I never tried to convince you. My only hope is to plant the seed and let God make it grow in you. Faith and trust in what Jesus has done empowers us, transforms us and gives us the desire to live a life that shows gratitude for salvation. Jesus is enough. Yes, Mormons do say that about Christians. I’ve had mormon missionaries say that to me, even one missionary in my area wrote a song about Christians and the lyrics went like this “I’m born again, I can live in sin, beat my wife”. That is the discussion going around among your Mormon buddies. I know because I’ve said it as a Mormon, and other Mormons I knew also said it. It’s not true, however. Only god can save. Since you claim to trust the bible, I’ll take your word for it then. Please take my challenge to read the New Testament as a child. If you believe in the bible, it shouldn’t be a problem. Jesus is the only high priest and it does say so. I’m a believer in Christ and that makes me apart of the royal priesthood. All Christians are priests. You have no authority. Your baptisms are invalid because they are in the name of a counterfeit godhead. Love you, Shaun. Come to Christ and have life !

    • Shaun Butterfield
      Shaun Butterfield 17 days ago

      Mario Abele I appreciate what you are saying. I know we have to have a change of heart. The church hasn’t taught me anything about “Christians” (in quotes because we will never agree that I’m not one). I’m merely saying it’s more than a belief, just as you have said. How is that different than what Alma 5 teaches? Is not. I find it peculiar that a whole movement spends so much time telling the world that we’re wrong. As far as powerless priesthood, no sir. I’ve witnessed it’s power first hand. I’ve fought Satan’s angles with it and won, brought a lady back from the dead, promised a man, who was comatose, that it wasn’t appointed for him to die, in a hospital. He didn’t, he died at home years later. All through the grace of God and his priesthood. I agree Jesus is the great high priest. I’ve read Hebrews many times and it says nowhere that he’s the last one. It doesn’t matter to me because I’m not one. Say I’m not Christian, not born again, it matters not to me. They’re just words, your words. Again, I’m happy you found the answers you were seeking. Joseph Smith didn’t put the veil back up, you cannot see into heaven, so obviously it’s still there. I cannot be swayed by words, arguments or scriptures because I have seen what I’ve seen. God has changed my heart and I make room for him therein. As John taught we receive grace for grace, it doesn’t happen all at once. I’m still changing as are you but to deny what I’ve seen and know would in fact, be a step backward. I’m not interested.

    • Mario Abele
      Mario Abele 17 days ago

      @Shaun Butterfield It is not a contradiction because I am not telling you to trust your heart. If God changes who you are, there would be the fruit of that. The fruit of that being, believing what is in God's word -- The bible. The reason I know you are not born again is that you believe in false doctrines. I am not telling you to trust in the heart you currently have. God must give you a new heart that confirms to HIS will. It is not about trusting in your current heart. I am saying that only God can change your mind and who you are. If he does that, you will believe what is correct. There's no contradiction. The problem is because you are unsaved, you cannot help but evaluate Christ solely on human terms, for you are only in the flesh. I agree it is not simply professing belief. That is another lie that your church is teaching you about Christians. Christians do not believe that they can just profess faith and do what they want. That is a lie from the pit of hell. To have faith in Jesus by definition is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something", it means to submit your entire life to Jesus. When you do that, that submission to God TRANSFORMS your heart (Gives you a new one), God makes his dwelling in you and gives you a NEW heart and NEw desires". The problem is that you do not understand the transformative power of what Christ did for us and the transformative power that faith has on the believer. - Romans 6:1-2, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" You die to yourself, which means your former life. - Luke 17:33,"Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it." -1 John 4:19,"We love because he first loved us. Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. " -The result of faith is holiness, a changed life, and the rest of our lives we strive to obey God. -Grace is not a license to sin, it's divine empowerment NOT to sin. If someone claims to be in Christ but their lives don’t show it, I would conclude that a person is not a true disciple of Christ. Grace is not a license to sin - 1 John 2:3-6,” we know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God a is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.” How is that going backwards? The bible says that because of what Christ has done we can boldly approach God's throne of Grace. Mormonism is saying that what Jesus did is not enough to have direct access to God, and in order to get to God, you must go through the LDS church system. The bible says we can boldly approach God directly. Because of Jesus. It sounds like Joseph Smith actually set us back. When Jesus died, it says in the bible in Matthew 27:51,¨At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split¨. God tore the veil between HImself and Man. Joseph Smith put the veil back up. Hebrews 4:14-16 is a direct contradiction to what Mormonism stands for, Shaun. It states as follows,¨Therefore since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need¨. Jesus is our highpriest. Your mormon ¨highpriests¨ are powerless.

    • Shaun Butterfield
      Shaun Butterfield 17 days ago

      Mario Abele you’re the one making this about intellectual conversation, I’m not. I’ve told you it’s not about feelings. I know feelings. Quoted the Old Testament scripture about not trusting my heart, then later you said The Lord would need to change my heart. That’s a contradiction. You say not to intellectualize the go about quoting scripture to try and arouse my mind or heart, not sure which one but, either way a contrast to what you are saying. Just because you say I don’t know Jesus and haven’t been born again doesn’t make it true. My testimony is based on facts. We will agree to disagree but, strait is the gate and narrow is the way not wide and just profess your belief. It doesn’t work that way. I don’t know which sacrament meetings you sat in but, if your take away was that it is anything but grace that saves us, you didn’t understand. Of course you are blessed when you do good, you believe that now. After all accepting Christ is good and you are blessed for it. Can’t prove or disprove anything by quoting scripture. Your experience was obviously different than mine, I said before, I’m glad you found Jesus. Again, so have I, you have nothing to offer me but a step backward. Say I’m not Christian all you want, those are hollow words.

  • longnamenocansayy
    longnamenocansayy 2 months ago

    mormon doctrine cannot be found in the bible or the book of mormon. and it really doesn't matter to mormons if the bible is translated correctly.

    but let's talk brass tacks shall we? do we really need a book written by the hand of god himself, to tell us that murder, polygamy, theft and every other ungodly act is not acceptable?

    is it really acceptable to treat your wife like she was just a body, one of the bodies in the house useful for nightly chores? is murder really acceptable? how will you explain mountain meadows massacre? at the time they had no trouble gathering up 100 men for the job of using up a wagon train. they also had no trouble covering up the foul act for 20 years. why? obviously because murder was bill of faire under brigham young. they only stopped because they had to.

    you're going to tell me you didn't know it was wrong because you thought the bible wasn't translated correctly? such is the vast spiritual wasteland called state of desseret.

  • Christopher Emerson
    Christopher Emerson 2 months ago

    This whole thing as full of lies.

    • Phin Al
      Phin Al Month ago +1

      ...said the lying spirit....

  • Christopher Emerson
    Christopher Emerson 2 months ago

    There could be a million manuscripts and it would say nothing about how true it is. And you lied, we don't have anything but scraps till the 4th century other than some of the writings of Paul. And we know we don't have anything contemporary so no cooberation of the text.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis Month ago

      Logic requires that there is only one objective “truth” for any specific claim. Contradictory claims cannot be equally true. For example, the statements “the hamster is in its cage” and “the hamster cage is empty” cannot both be true simultaneously. This evaluation of truth applies to spiritual matters just as well as logical or physical matters. It’s reasonable to claim that the Bible is true in a way that excludes all other statements. Examining the Bible in the same way we would any other text, we can confidently say that it is, in fact, true.

      The Bible not only encourages readers to examine their own beliefs (1 John 4:1), but it also commends those who check spiritual claims for truth (Acts 17:11). The Bible makes claims on the basis of history and eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16), connects belief to visible evidence (John 20:30-31), and ties biblical ideas to the observable world (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1). Jesus overtly claimed to represent an exclusive truth (John 18:37; 14:6). So the Bible is clearly meant to be interpreted as true, and exclusively true (John 17:17).

      Where we can check biblical claims against verifiable truth, the Bible proves itself accurate. History, archaeology, science, and philosophy have shown Scripture to be factual and consistent. This correspondence between various forms of evidence is a major advantage the Bible has over the scriptures of any other faith system. In many cases, it has been the deciding factor in converting skeptics and nonbelievers to faith in Christ.

      More so than with any other religious text, we have assurance that the Bible is true. The combination of internal consistency, connection to evidence, and relevance to our experience makes the Bible unique among books. Like many religious works, the Bible claims to be true (2 Timothy 3:16). Unlike any other religious work, the Bible emphatically supports that assertion.

  • Alli M.
    Alli M. 2 months ago

    Read the footnotes for the last chapter in Mark, and John Chapter 7. Not hating, but u can use a source to prove a source.

  • iDad
    iDad 2 months ago

    If the KJV is so solid, why so many new translations that are political in nature and why there are so many alterations happening today? 2nd Peter 1;19-21. A rather inconvenient fact for your video with daddy-issues hanging out all over the couch. Case in point. The RSV in Mark 6:11 Vs. KJV is half the amount. Dublin Review 1881, look it up "The Critic's Axe". In this article alone there are over 300 missing items. Look at all the books that are missing in the Bible that are mentioned by, what you call, "useless prophets": Ex 24:17, Numbers 21:14, Josh 10:13, 1Kings 11:41, 1Chron 29:29, 2 Chron 9:29, 2Chron 12:15, 2Chron, 20:34, 2Chron 26:22, 2Chron33:19, 1Corin 5:9, Eph 3:3, Colo 4:16, Jude 3, Jude 14... then there are historical facts you need to wrestle with in your daddy issued arguments.
    The Lost Books of the Bible
    Gospel of JamesSyriac Infancy GospelInfancy Gospel of ThomasEpistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of EdessaGospel of NicodemusApostles' CreedEpistle to the LaodiceansEpistle to Seneca the YoungerActs of Paul and TheclaFirst Epistle of ClementSecond Epistle of ClementEpistle of BarnabasEpistle of Ignatius to the EphesiansEpistle of Ignatius to the MagnesiansEpistle of Ignatius to the TralliansEpistle of Ignatius to the RomansEpistle of Ignatius to the PhiladelphiansEpistle of Ignatius to the SmyrneansEpistle of Ignatius to PolycarpThe Shepherd of HermasLetter of Herod To Pilate the GovernorLetter of Pilate to HerodGospel of PeterEpistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
    The Forgotten Books of Eden
    Conflict of Adam and Eve with SatanSecond Book of EnochPsalms of SolomonOdes of SolomonLetter of Aristeas4 MaccabeesStory of AhikarTestaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

  • Christopher Foote
    Christopher Foote 2 months ago

    I'm not sure the issue is necessarily about the reliability of the text. As best as I can tell we accept the Holy Bible as the literal word of God conditional upon the translation. Which clearly isn't universal. We use the King James translation. Joseph Smith tried to revise the Bible to make it closer to the literal translation. Also in the Book of Mormon there are excerpts from Isaiah. Possibly lifted directly from his own copy. Which might mean even the Book of Mormon is only as true as the translation ties together with the literal word of God.
    It strikes me a little odd quite frankly a person woukd object to what amounts to being another version of the Holy Bible.
    We don't consider the gospel particular to one translation. S person can find truth in an alternative translation. Your concern therefirr seems to hinge on whether you choose to include an additional book of scripture.
    But I can assure you there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that will contradict any principle or doctrine you already have as a Christian. Sure they record different events. In different lands. By different people. In different circumstances. Why is that problematic? You think it's more likely a nation wouldn't exist in the Americas? I find that explanation more problematic than the one Joseph Smith says explains the cultursl and ecclesiastical differences as valid. To the condition of being in a foreign culture. In fact the explanation seems to fit pretty well to the condition of a nation removed from the Homeland but given Christian instruction from an elder.
    That's dictrinasl as well as spiritual. An elder in the Hebrew religion was a person sought gur his knowledge and wisdom. You are aware that title also applies to a person of authority in the Indian culture? Elder is a presiding officer. In the culture of the Indian. Do it seems a little strange you would find fault in a religion that reestablishes the same religion that existed prior to the restoration. The point of reliability I don't remember anyone discrediting the Bible. Thars something I think you are putting out. I don't remember anyone telling me about that being a problem. Quite frankly. It hasn't one. I don't have a problem with it.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis Month ago

      @Christopher Foote Grace is the love of God shown to the unlovely; the peace of God given to the restless; the unmerited favor of God.
      All of us have sinned. Romans 3:23; James 2:10;

      The penalty for sin is death. Romans 5:12; 6:23;

      There is nothing you can do to merit everlasting life.
      Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
      Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
      Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

      God loved us so much, He sent Jesus to pay the penalty for our sins, by dying in our place on the cross. I Peter 2:24; Romans 5:8;

      Eternal life is a free gift to all who believe. Romans 3:24; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5;

      God loved you so much that God himself became a man, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Christ humbled himself, shed his blood, died and rose again. He paid the penalty for your sin in full on the cross. All you need to do is humble yourself, repent of your sin and put your faith in Jesus Christ. When are you going to do that?

      Luke 18
      And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt:
      10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
      11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
      12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’

      13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’
      14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

    • Christopher Foote
      Christopher Foote Month ago

      @Faye Lewis I didn't intend to turn this into a debate. I am not convinced that Christ sacrificed himself to the unrepentant. I'm also not sold on the idea that I can take something from Jesus and not be indebted as a consequence. I'm also not very well indoctrinated.
      You might be right. Christ willingly sacrificed himself but I believe there are conditions placed upon his sacrifice. You speak of grace. My poor understanding is that his grace is sufficient to the condition of the repentance. But for justification to the sinner. I'm not suggesting I know the condition to which salvation applies. But I do feel that fir my own personal salvation I require a much better understanding of his mission, duty, abd calling and without that am incapable of meeting the terms he sets to be a recipient of his grace. I think there a better interpretation regardless. Than that m that's required is a simple faith in Jesus Christ? Assuredly that's a condition. But all thars required? No.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis Month ago

      @Christopher Foote To fully understand grace, we need to consider who we were without Christ and who we become with Christ. We were born in sin (Psalm 51:5), and we were guilty of breaking God’s holy laws (Romans 3:9-20, 23; 1 John 1:8-10). We were enemies of God (Romans 5:6, 10; 8:7; Colossians 1:21), deserving of death (Romans 6:23a). We were unrighteous (Romans 3:10) and without means of justifying ourselves (Romans 3:20). Spiritually, we were destitute, blind, unclean, and dead. Our souls were in peril of everlasting punishment.

      But then came grace. God extended His favor to us. Grace is what saves us (Ephesians 2:8). Grace is the essence of the gospel (Acts 20:24). Grace gives us victory over sin (James 4:6). Grace gives us “eternal encouragement and good hope” (2 Thessalonians 2:16). Paul repeatedly identified grace as the basis of his calling as an apostle (Romans 15:15; 1 Corinthians 3:10; Ephesians 3:2, 7). Jesus Christ is the embodiment of grace, coupled with truth (John 1:14).

      The Bible repeatedly calls grace a “gift” (e.g., Ephesians 4:7). You cannot earn a gift. This is an important analogy because it teaches us some key things about grace:

      First, anyone who has ever received a gift understands that a gift is much different from a loan, which requires repayment or return by the recipient. The fact that grace is a gift means that nothing is owed in return.

      Second, there is no cost to the person who receives a gift. A gift is free to the recipient, although it is not free to the giver, who bears the expense. The gift of salvation costs us sinners nothing. But the price of such an extravagant gift came at a great cost for our Lord Jesus, who died in our place.

      Third, once a gift has been given, ownership of the gift has transferred and it is now ours to keep. There is a permanence in a gift that does not exist with loans or advances. When a gift changes hands, the giver permanently relinquishes all rights to renege or take back the gift in future. God’s grace is ours forever.

      Fourth, in the giving of a gift, the giver voluntarily forfeits something he owns, willingly losing what belongs to him so that the recipient will profit from it. The giver becomes poorer so the recipient can become richer. This generous and voluntary exchange from the giver to the recipient is visible in 2 Corinthians 8:9: “You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”

      The Bible teaches that grace is completely unmerited. The gift and the act of giving have nothing at all to do with our merit or innate quality (Romans 4:4; 11:5-6; 2 Timothy 1:9-10). In fact, the Bible says quite clearly that we don’t deserve God’s salvation. Romans 5:8-10 says, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. . . . While we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son.”

      What great thing did you plan on doing to merit everlasting life?

    • Christopher Foote
      Christopher Foote Month ago

      @Faye Lewis I'm not promoting Mormonism an I? Tired of discussing this issue. If works aren't essential to an individual's salvation there LITEEALLY would be no point to being here. Would there? You're misrepresenting the truth, which by the way is found in the Bible INCLUDING a verse you are conveniently leaving out.
      Ephesians 2:10.
      For we are his WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus into good WORKS, which His hath ordained that we should walk in them.
      Now how can a person walk in good works unto which they have been ordained without exercising a measure of faith necessary unto salvation? Grace is a free gift? Maybe to the faithful. Assuredly not into the unreoentant.
      L D.S. doctrine might not be Biblical but your Bilblicsl says you need to walk after Jesus who exercised his faith necessary to fulfill his calling as the creator.
      He did that by grace. We were created by grace? Not by works lest Jesus would boast'? About what? Your creation? You are indebted to God for everything he did which isn't limited to simply your existence which began in a pre-mortal reslm. As a spirit daughter if your heavenly father.
      The reason you are saved by grace us because nothing you SO can bridge that gap. Or I. But you assuredly haven't been saved. You are in a condition whereby you necessarily must work through whatever problems you have until you are brought to meet God face to face. Whereby you will come to know that it is HIS doctrine you are saying is false and malicious.
      Not MINE. You aren't offending me. You might be offending him. I can't speak for him but if I were Gud svd I gave you a mind abd you chose to use that gift against your own condition particular to salvation I might nit be very pleased. Grace isn't a gift. It's a condition that allies AFTER we've done all we can do to meet the condition of salvation which varies from person to person and necessarily required tremendous faith. If you think you are saved by grace alone you are simply WRONG. To whom much is given much is required. The atonement makes it possible to receive God's grace. But it isn't uncinditional..Nobody living gas been saved. Nobody living gas become immortal. There are people apparently who were given immortality so they could minister to the people and not suffer death.
      Which us a result of being human.
      Which you are. Which Jesus was.
      He wasn't born immortal. He became immortal. He isn't just a physical being he's also spiritual.
      And he can exert sufficient grace to those who are faithful. But grace isn't unconditional. Just like the scripture you quoted salvation follows exercising faith into good works. If you aren't doing the necessary work you are unlikely going yo be saved into God's kingdom . Where he lives. Wherever that is.

    • Faye Lewis
      Faye Lewis Month ago

      Mormonism does not reestablish the same religion that existed prior.
      Mormonism is a new religion that mocks God and Jesus Christ.
      Mormonism says God was an exalted man and is out sleeping with his wives.
      Mormonism says Jesus Christ is the brother of Lucifer.
      Mormonism is not Christianity in the least bit.
      If you read the Bible, you would know that.

      We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
      - Article of Faith #3

      Book of Mormon For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
      - 2 Nephi 25:23

      "One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation," (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206).

      Eph. 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
      9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
      Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).

      I John 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another,
      and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.
      Good works are necessary for salvation (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 92).

      Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
      Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,
      There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).

      Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
      - John 14:6
      "This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts," (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).

      Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
      There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

      And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name (Jesus) under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.
      - Acts 4:12

  • Kawehi Bolanos
    Kawehi Bolanos 2 months ago

    I think what is most dangerous about having another book such as the BOM is that when members read scripture from bible like Solomon they’ll automatically think that, what God was talking about when he says “preserve his word” or anything to that effect, that God did it through JS and the BOM. They strongly believe that, it’s very hard to help break down the walls for them, definitely doable with plenty of patience though.

  • Christopher Foote
    Christopher Foote 3 months ago

    The argument toward reliability to the text isn't to take people from the Bible. Not in the slightest. In fact we welcome people to compare the renderings within the Biblical record and make a critical opinion relative go which text suits said person more securely. My in opinion is there is great truth in the Bible. Not yo deter people from reading, learning, and applying the Christian code available to a person through diligent application to the Bibke as well as the other standard works such as the Doctrine and Covenants as well as history through which we can learn of the dealings with people ordained by Jesus and their love of God made manifest by their works. Something I know you think isn't essential to a person's salvation. But I believe works are essential. Clearly faith without works is dead. I believe that's Biblical. Finally I'm not sure anyone necessarily thinks the Bible isn't an official history but I think it might be a question if authority. Which person rendered the record, where, and how might gave some impact on the message being rendered. It isn't yo suggest there are any mistakes. It might simply mean that the message itself might not really matter. Or that the philosophy might have something a transcriber might have thrown the n without proper authority. While they might not be a common event it might nevertheless apply to a transcription .that wasn't authorized. The crux being we can compare what is written . Make critical assessment of what is there and compare it to the Book of Motmon which doesn't require such a critical assessment. The only question might be how Joseph Smith understood how to transcribe s record written in a language he was unfamiliar with into English. It isn't an easy assignment. Might there be some inference a persin might have to follow what is there? Joseph was a descendant of Joseph of Israel. Who was endowed with a gift if translation. It seems his assignment included being able to take something he hadn't read but could learn. It must have required some kniowledge of Hebrew as well as Egyptian writing to decipher it. He also had a method from which he could render a true and faithful record if he had the calling from being a prophet of the Lord. He could take the text and with the proper preparation. He could render a true translation of a history of a people who wrote the Book of Mormon so we as a people could have an additional witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ. I'm not sure anytime be necessarily thinks the text of the Bible isn't a factual record. But it wasn't taken straight from a record similar to how the Book of Mormon was. It came from a record through which we could learn. It's a true record of a fallen people who were trying to give their posterity something to lean on. It shouldn't contradict the Bible . It should effectively say the same thing as the Bible says.

  • realpqleur
    realpqleur 3 months ago

    King James was the first real Communist. He "re"-wrote it twice to bring the world together, which is actually to worship the AntiChrist. The main goal of it is Zionism instead of Glorifying The Creator. Read them all, from Wycliff(?) to the NAS version, which by the way came to America by way of Lucifer's hippy offspring through the book titled "The Way".

  • strjfs
    strjfs 3 months ago

    I've watched several of your videos, and they are all full of inaccuracies. There are not 6000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that date to the 2nd Century. Are you just making this stuff up? What is your source for that claim?

  • Famcore
    Famcore 3 months ago

    Everything about this video is Famcore. Defense of the faith, multiple generations of family, little ones getting in shot during filming... this video has it all. Keep up the good work.

  • Ed Selman
    Ed Selman 3 months ago


  • Ismael
    Ismael 3 months ago +2

    100% Corrupted

  • Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000
    Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000 3 months ago +2

    He didn’t send Paul. People, where did Jesus say he sent Paul? The only record of Paul’s calling is from Paul.

    • Brian el
      Brian el 2 months ago

      @Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000 The Book of Acts is a good biblical source. Also, Apostle Peter affirms Apostle Paul and to not twist his epistles, written in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

    • Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000
      Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000 3 months ago +1

      Who was with him that can testify to his conversion? Don’t defend him, you can’t. You can’t use Paul to prove Paul.

  • Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000
    Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000 3 months ago +1

    Do me a favor, show me where Jesus taught grace through faith. There is not one instance where Jesus even said the word grace.

    • Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000
      Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000 3 months ago +1

      They also met in 1792 and decided that Paul didnt wrote the letter to the Ephesians.

  • Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000
    Yeshua’s Crown: 144,000 3 months ago +1

    First and foremost....
    The words of Yahu, (Jehovah), lord, lord god and god are not in the Hebrew text.
    Second, he did preserve his word. The Dead Sea scrolls were found in the caves of Cumran. As far as the NT goes, we have one tiny little credit card sized scrap that remains from the original which is about how much of the NT is true. This was not a portion of any letter from Paul, or a page from Matthew, Mark, or Luke, it was from John. So going by your comments, John must be the only book in the NT which is HIS words....that was all that was preserved.
    None of the NT is the original. People, there is no original copy of the NT. Don’t listen to these people! Since these things vary so vastly, you simply can not choose which one is true.

  • Suzanne Weisskopf-Biggs
    Suzanne Weisskopf-Biggs 3 months ago +2

    How fantastic and fascinating to listen to both you and your father❣️I’m praying for both of you, that you may reach many Mormons. I’m praying that God will give the LDS church a desire for Truth, and that the counterfeit will lose its power!🙏🏼 I accepted Christ as my Saviour when I was a child. I’ve only recently been reading and listening to information about the church of LDS, because I wanted to know if their Jesus is the same as mine. The more I’ve learned, the more horrified I’ve been. Thank you for your teaching and your witness❣️✝️💜

    • Shaun Butterfield
      Shaun Butterfield Month ago

      If you really believe God’s words in the Bible, then you will believe The Book of Mormon. It’s also Christ’s teachings. Do your own research and don’t believe deceivers.

  • Firefly Supernatural
    Firefly Supernatural 4 months ago

    I think there is an old saying that goes "the man can move his head, but the women controls the neck", I think the Lds church leaders are on a hunt to appeal more to the women in the church, who is considered the more "emotional" structure part of the home. It just seems like, if the leaders appeal more to women, the women are more moved to lead the home "righteously". Plus, this makes total sense since the church has been saying for years that the priesthood men are basically slackers in all that they do 😂😂🤭🤭, however, this is stretching it to the max, they sound a little desperate, but members will say it's "modern revelation", whew, revelation has no limits I guess.

  • blah blah
    blah blah 4 months ago

    Better only say mormons n muslims. Dont you dare mention that J word. I mean, it wasnt them talmudic non new testament jews who crucified christ n have a talmud that says hes burning in excrement ... No.. Never that. Yawn.

  • Michael Hursh
    Michael Hursh 4 months ago

    you are wrong. we (LDS) are not saying the New Testament is wrong come check out the BOM. No we are saying that evil people have changed the word of the Lord and many precious things have been lost. Compare the BOM to the New Testament and see that certain points are true and others have been changed. You of all people should be checking the second witness of Jesus Christ and making sure you are living correct principles. Instead you are picking apart Christ message and if you want to live this way, fine. But we want to live the Gospel to the full extinct and have eternal families. Don't you. We believe in eternal marriage but you believe in till death do you part. Sorry if you love your spouse don't you want to make that covenant eternal.

  • Larry patterson
    Larry patterson 4 months ago +1

    Hi Jessie: I truly understand how you feel! I prayed and asked of God for over 30 years before He sent the Holy Ghost to me while reading first Nephi chapter 13. To be able to feel the merging of the Holy Ghost spirit, with yours, within your own body is a most wonderful experience! I cherish it above all, the greatest experience of my life. I don't know why God took so long to send this Holy Ghost to me as stated in Moroni :10-4. I could of easily have fallen away as you and many others have done! I would then be in the same predicament as you are. Why He did not choose a lovely person such as you, and many others, I do not understand. God finally sending the Holy Ghost to me, has been the most important event in my life. Meant everything to me! I understand how you feel, I hurt for you and others! I can understand how you feel, for there are over a hundred good and justified reasons for you to believe so. But a member of the God Head, the Holy Ghost, has let me know he supports this Book of Mormon. Something I cannot deny. I find giving my testimony to non believers has little if any effect on their line of thinking!
    But this testimony is the most important item I can leave to my children and grandchildren. I pray that if you try again as stated in Moroni :10-4 that God will send this Holy Ghost unto you. But is took over 30 years before God finally answered those prayers for me.
    I don't understand why God is so stingy with this Holy Ghost! But I am an ignorant old man! But very very thankful, appreciative and grateful to God and the Holy Ghost, and many others, for I am nothing important!

  • Jared Faye
    Jared Faye 4 months ago +1

    Go to to find truth....😊

    • BFDT
      BFDT 4 months ago +1

      +Jared - "truth"
      How do you know? Who told you?

  • Kortos Autumn
    Kortos Autumn 5 months ago +2

    What a beautiful family, an insightful father & grandfather, and a model mother and daughter.

    • Dirk Anderson
      Dirk Anderson 3 months ago

      Absolutely, better adjusted than I am, agreed.
      In my old age, I have become skeptical of this tired old status quo Christianity. I've studied it for 40 years.
      This is a pedigree of professional ministers, pastors maybe? I don't make a dime, never have. No agenda here except I include credible history and archaeology in order to reconstruct a plausible history distorted over the course of 2,000 years
      Any monkey can ape the standard Christian line.

  • BFDT
    BFDT 5 months ago +1

    Dear Readers,
    It is clear that George Bauerschmidt is only here to pick fights with those who disagree with him.
    This is the sign of a TRUE christianIST.
    For those who are here to discuss the video topic as it was presented, fine.
    But for those christianISTs who are here to argue.
    What are we to conclude except that they are not within miles of the Lord's Prayer, and are only concerned as it seems to be with a "deal" they made to have their doctrinal guns and ammo out for the "Lard".
    For those WHO GET IT:
    Say the St. Francis Prayer:
    Lord make me an instrument of your peace Where there is hatred let me sow love Where there is injury, pardon Where there is doubt, faith Where there is despair, hope Where there is darkness, light And where there is sadness, joy O divine master grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console to be understood as to understand To be loved as to love For it is in giving that we receive it is in pardoning that we are pardoned And it's in dying that we are born to eternal life Amen
    And for those who would argue with this on the basis that they THINK it's a Catholic song, and that invalidates it, parse it will you please alongside the Lord's Prayer. Betcha you can't do that. It could be some Calvinist arrogance that might prevent doing so.
    christianISTs. Follow the money and remember what Luther said:
    "Sobald der Gülden im Becken klingt im huy die Seel im Himmel springt."
    Das ist echt wahr.

  • BFDT
    BFDT 5 months ago +1

    Why IS IT that when we begin a conversation on the data, some people come here and make a mess of it all by throwing in their faith claims? As far as WE can see, your father is quite on the mark with his discussion of MS reliability from the earliest to the lastest texts we have, and that, owing to knowledge had at the time of translation, the translators did their very best with what they had at the time. But that makes KJV, while still poetic as heck, quite inferior to 21st century translations that use all the tools we have to interpret the UR-texts that still exist. We cannot extrapolate more than there is, and so your Dad's conclusions are that the trend from 2nd century scraps to (maybe) 9th century full texts indicates that, excluding Medieval purposeful and accidental errors, a clean text for centuries. Not so with the BoM, which has at best only the late 1820s printing manuscripts to go by, the 1830 publication and then subsequent "corrections" that have been made by LDS "scholars". NO pre-1800 BoM texts exist. Period.
    Now, between you and US, that's the extent of this video, the examination of the LDS claim that the Bible is riddled with revisions, whereas the BoM is more likely containing much more than 4000 big and little revisions, errors, plagiarisms, etc. Not to mention, the other LDS documents (PoGP, D&C, etc.) are full of --- well to be plain about it --- so many equivocations that it puts to rest the claim that the BoM and the LDS are true to anything except the early founders, the fraud JS and the bigger fraud Briggy.
    So, that's the deal here. Everyone wants to shove their faith claims in a video that discusses MS reliability. Of the faith claims, we're not buying it. Where are you on this? :)

  • GrandPa Je
    GrandPa Je 5 months ago

    To clarefy your misjudgment againts LDS, please watch this video;

    • Shine Brightly
      Shine Brightly 4 months ago

      GrandPa Je The Actual Truth is Mormonism = proven liars of their own history = false gospel, false prophet, and false Jesus. Mormons ignore the very proof God provides for them right in front of their face. Like mana from heaven and they won’t eat, or Moses’s serpent staff, and they refuse to look. So so so sad. Jesus is lord God NOT Satan’s Brother ... wake up!! For the Mormon church to actually be honest ... they should stop stealing the Jesus from the Bible and call their church what it legitimately should be called : “The Church of Satan’s Brother of latter-day Satan’s brothers and sisters”. That way the world would know who the entity Mormons truly believe in ... which is a false Jesus prophesied in the Bible to be taught and deceive even the very elect. That name should not offend any Mormon anywhere because it is in perfect harmony with Mormon doctrine !! Please read my true story at God Bless :) .

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1


  • Bruce Dressel
    Bruce Dressel 5 months ago

    No mention of the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Alexandrian text used by Westcott and Hort ? The Textus Receptus King James Bible is truly God;s preserved word in English

    • BFDT
      BFDT 3 months ago +1

      How do you know that? Who told you?

  • Andrew Pearson
    Andrew Pearson 5 months ago

    Hey yes the Bible has changed in the hands of men a prime example would be when emperor Constantine call the meeting in nicaea to discuss whether God was a Triune God or was it the godhead was separate keep in mind Romans at this time we'll taken and has to Bishop said that he's Triune and half the bishop said the godhead has three distinct persons and he won Lindsay said Jesus and God are one when this is not the case because in John 17 when Jesus prays for the apostles he prays that they would be one just as he in the father was well if Jesus and God were one in the same in the apostles to become one giant being in this case Jesus went 1 in unity like he is with the father some Bishops in the early Church sermon slalom Jesus photo returns meaning they ruled together this is certainly the case because they have equal power

  • אריק לוי עיצוב חנויות

    Hebrew is my language. Only 10 years ago I began to understand its depths. Most Hebrew speakers do not enter its depths. Hebrew is a sacred language, no less. Every word is encoded in essence. The meaning of the "Hebrew " literally is "to convey". Hebrew conveys in every word a variety of potentials. Each word is a kind of divine dictionary and each letter has infinite depths, from the form of the letter to the letters name. The bible is not a collection of children's stories and it has inner depths. These are movements of consciousness. The Bible can not be translated into another language because when you do that you left with a hollow story without most of its true essence. The essence is revealed and changed, as you rise in consciousness. Ten years ago, my wife began to receive direct information about Hebrew, a knowledge that was hidden up until now and is amazing! She wrote a book on the subject. Even the name of Jesus was distorted. Jesus' name in translation to Hebrew is "salvation", "Yeshua "ישוע" that is his Hebrew meaning and in English or Latin, you only get a hollow name. Hebrew validates every word. The combinations that come from every word are ingenious, it is divine complexity...
    The Bible does not deal with religions or who is better Jesus vs Moses, the Bible deals with consciousness and the way to connect to the Divine within ourselves .this is the real meaning of in God's image. Heaven and hell are not what people think, as Hebrew Also demonstrates and validates.
    Religions that hold an external character are to my understanding are just a gate to ourselves. Everything is embodied in us, mountains, seas, plants, animals and also Yeshua and Abraham virtues that are for all mankind. When we leave this world only our virtues will remain with us and virtue have no religion.

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago

      @Glen Culliney -

    • Glen Culliney
      Glen Culliney 5 months ago

      Jesus spoke Aramiac!

  • Jim Olson
    Jim Olson 5 months ago +2

    I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I bear Testimony that is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth, if you take offense to that then take it up with God, he will show you that it is his church for it bears His name. I am curious what are your views are on evolution because "science" avows that evolution is how we came to be and yet your father bases the truthfulness of the bible on "science" and not through the witness of the spirit which the only way we should come unto Christ, or the only way that will bring salvation to our souls (Hebrews 10:15, Matthew 16:15-17) This starts by faith. Faith is a action word. Those act in faith will know if what they do is of God (John 7:17). for the record her is an example of miss translation (Exodus 10:20) "But the lord hardened Pharaohs heart..." Why would the Lord harden Pharaohs heart, when he asked Moses to go and free the children of Israel? The Lord would not because Jesus Christ said "22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
    24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
    26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end."(Mark 2:22-26) You can clear see that this verse in exodus got jumbled up, or God is a lying, but I will let you make up your mind about that.

    • Shine Brightly
      Shine Brightly 4 months ago

      Red Planet your in a cult and you don’t even know it. Please read my true story at God Bless :)

    • Shine Brightly
      Shine Brightly 4 months ago

      Red Planet Mormonism = proven liars of their own history = false gospel, false prophet, and false Jesus. Mormons ignore the very proof God provides for them right in front of their face. Like mana from heaven and they won’t eat, or Moses’s serpent staff, and they refuse to look. So so so sad. Jesus is lord God NOT Satan’s Brother ... wake up!! For the Mormon church to actually be honest ... they should stop stealing the Jesus from the Bible and call their church what it legitimately should be called : “The Church of Satan’s Brother of latter-day Satan’s brothers and sisters”. That way the world would know who the entity Mormons truly believe in ... which is a false Jesus prophesied in the Bible to be taught and deceive even the very elect. That name should not offend any Mormon anywhere because it is in perfect harmony with Mormon doctrine !! Please read my true story at God Bless :) .

    • Shine Brightly
      Shine Brightly 4 months ago

      Jim Olson Mormonism = proven liars of their own history = false gospel, false prophet, and false Jesus. Mormons ignore the very proof God provides for them right in front of their face. Like mana from heaven and they won’t eat, or Moses’s serpent staff, and they refuse to look. So so so sad. Jesus is lord God NOT Satan’s Brother ... wake up!! For the Mormon church to actually be honest ... they should stop stealing the Jesus from the Bible and call their church what it legitimately should be called : “The Church of Satan’s Brother of latter-day Satan’s brothers and sisters”. That way the world would know who the entity Mormons truly believe in ... which is a false Jesus prophesied in the Bible to be taught and deceive even the very elect. That name should not offend any Mormon anywhere because it is in perfect harmony with Mormon doctrine !! Please read my true story at God Bless :) .

    • Red Planet
      Red Planet 5 months ago

      Headless Horseman nothing of what you just said has anything to do with my question to George, which was tell me in the Bible where it says something must FIRST be mentioned in the Bible in order for it to be true. This was George’s assertion. He asserted the Book of Mormon isn’t true because it’s not mentioned in the Bible. So the obvious question is, where in the Bible does it say something is true only if it’s mentioned in the Bible. Tell ya what, why don’t you guys call each other up and noodle on this question and let me know when you have an answer. Take your time.

    • Red Planet
      Red Planet 5 months ago

      George Bauerschmidt I asked a simple question you provided no proof. Zero. Your only response was basically “duh this is a given.”
      This is what we call an illogical axiom. Needless to say, I’m not surprised. Your basing everything on this assumption when the Bible never says it or even asserts it. Wow...Haha. 😳 But I think this is all over your head so never mind.

  • BFDT
    BFDT 5 months ago +1

    Again, you know, this business of the Bible being corrupted or changed over time...
    That's the LDS cult claim. But you never see substantive or incontrovertible evidence from them to that claim.
    Changed? From what to what?
    Anything to show in MSS or even third party pieces that alludes to the "from what". Y'know, like DATA??? ;)
    No. It's just another unsubstantiated claim by the greedy Mish boys et al.

  • Jerry Rocks
    Jerry Rocks 5 months ago +1

    Raise your hand if you have read the Bible cover to cover yourself. I have......It's Batshit CRAZY!!!

    • Shaun Butterfield
      Shaun Butterfield Month ago

      Yes and full of contradictions, right? Don’t lie.

    • BFDT
      BFDT 4 months ago +1

      Read it cover to cover. Twice.
      Used, very likely, this modern translation.
      Currently cite from this version:
      While the KJV is very beautifully written in post-Renaissance English, its MSS sources were reasonably limited due to the time, and in spite of the translators' sincere hope to make a lasting masterpiece of translation. But time marches on, and we have found more about the original MSS, gotten ahold of more authentic MSS and have a better understanding of the process of translating from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and at times Latin.
      The KJV is NOT the exact words of anyone but the authors who wrote those words, typeset them and proofread the proofs. Period.

    JICSAYR 5 months ago +3

    Hey Dad,,,thanks for using the KJV to read Ps. 12:6-7 from!!

  • Nicolás Castaño
    Nicolás Castaño 5 months ago +2

    No entendí casi nada...but doesn't matter, I try to learn more about Jesus and our creator God.
    Gracias por hacer estos hermosos videos....anf please everyone, pray for me, for my life and my faith I don't want to fall down in the sins.
    Sorry for my English...lo siento si no puedo expresar correctamente en inglés. God bless you all-!!

    • Augustine Kirkman
      Augustine Kirkman 3 months ago +1

      @It's Me Jessie he doesn't understand much, but is thankful for the beautiful videos. And that he's sorry he's unable to express that correctly in English.

    • BFDT
      BFDT 4 months ago +2

      @It's Me Jessie
      Seems to me that the writer wrote in Spanish.

    • It's Me Jessie
      It's Me Jessie  5 months ago

      Do you speak Portuguese? I have other listeners who do.. they can help translate!

  • BFDT
    BFDT 5 months ago +1

    Dear Readers,
    WE came here to add our comments to the video regarding the fact that, according to the gentleman who presented in the video, while text reliability is high in the Biblical Canon, that's not a sure-fire proof that the Bible is true, only that it's remarkably well preserved from the earliest scraps that we have to the present day original language and trusty translations. This is in contrast to the fraud BoM, which, while its earliest MSS are from the late 1820s, there are NONE, ZIP, ZERO, ZILCH BoM MSS earlier than 1800. Which brings up a serious charge against the LDS cult's claim for that text being true (as well as other related texts, such as the BoA).
    THEN, we get an interesting post from a Mr. GB, a real text brick, only the first bit reposted here, followed by subsequent insults, qvetching and raging:
    "I'm so confused why so many die-hard atheist search out videos such as this and then invest in their time to try to get people to understand their "religion". Yes, atheism is a religion predicated on 'faith' that there is no God and that 'faith' that everything we see was put together by chance/probability...." (first part of the initial text brick)
    "Let me know what other paranoid mental disorders you have and I'll expand the repertoire."
    "I know people with your kind of behavior are similar to the toxic kids that play Fortnite all day, yelling and rage quitting Ego posturing, self entitlement, self righteous, over evaluating yourself Don't be a drone man"
    Totally unrelated to the topic of the video, this charge that a non-belief is somehow a religion. Well, we don't care what Mr. GB believes, that he projects his own prejudices and that he rages when others reject his faith claims. But we are bewildered that he really has no idea of what he's describing. A better source for what he's trying to describe is:
    (They accept calls from Theists, Agnostics and Atheists, and they treat callers very nice, until the caller becomes difficult, as many do. But it's an interesting forum and call-in show to watch, purely on the depth and clarity of the arguments being presented by the hosts and some callers.)
    Mr. GB has consistently posted and replied in the most, at times, creepy and un-Christian-like manner, throwing insult after insult. We responded originally in a rather heady and defending way, we asked that Mr. GB provide evidence for his faith claims. We asked him to stick with the topic. But all we got back is ridicule and guff and a statement saying he can say anything wants to say. Here is a selection:
    "This means you are basically investing into a dead end which seems counterproductive. The only people that do stuff like that are inmates in prison or those who lack intelligence."
    "I'm still waiting to know if you get a free toaster, a lower interest rate on your credit cards or is it an inherent need to know because deep down there is a God to you but your own arrogance precludes you from accepting it just as your own arrogance +1's your own comments."
    "And yet you can't answer why that is so? I call atheism a religion and you deny it but seem to be calling on others to join with so much invested effort but without reason for this activity. The only logical conclusion is that you are invested in this religion for your own self esteem issues."
    "atheism is a religion and I can see you are triggered and that is sad, but WE reject your faith claims and your claims about those who reject your faith claims. I hope that makes sense, I do hate to explain myself."
    "When you are being tortured by the demons in the extreme heat and darkness, I really hope you remember these comments. It will be so much more satisfying knowing that you put yourself there on purpose."
    " I will continue to reject your atheist faith religion but you answered MY post so you were willing to follow my post, my rules, my question. If you didn't want to abide by MY post, then you could have ignored it and moved on KNOWING that it was not on the topic of the video."
    MY RULES, sez he? ;)
    "After all, anyone that would always +1 their own comments must be mentally disturbed and egocentric. How about you reveal this idolization of being an atheist"
    "Most people that molest or abuse or have child porn children are atheist or non church people."
    "the mental issues and problems with this 'BFDT' who is afraid to reveal his true identity because he is afraid of repercussions of his actions, while those like myself are not afraid to expose ourselves as we have nothing to hide."
    " have you noticed in your delusion no one cares about your post. Not even the one you whine like a sissy boy that I'm here to start fights. / That seems to be your job and your post is obvious when you call it out and no one responds. / Your religion is failing and you are too. When you are crushed in hell as a bug feeding off your own feces just remember your own insecurities drove you there. / Everyone is rejecting you and your false religion. How long before your mental illness causes you to shut down?"
    (Our George today 23 Apr is getting desperate)
    "why will I be sorry? I'm not the one going to hell like you are." (Note, he was putting words into our mouth, and so only the second sentence is of interest here.)
    And until Mr. GB deletes his thread, more examples are below under the top post of George Bauerschmidt. We like to tease George for his Calvinist creepiness, but he just responds with fire and brimstone, near hate speech, and other diatribes much like the Church Ladies and corncob up the patoot Pastors on TV and YT videos. We don't care what he believes, but he keeps attacking and accusing, with little or no evidence to back up those claims. And his words are self-identified as "Christian". WE disagree.
    But the point of this top post is merely to show that the Christian movement does not benefit from such (what we call) christianISTs trolling and bad acting.
    Jessie, if you are the owner of this channel, don't you think that such a person has not helped the argument that your father and you have put up regarding the honest comparison between the Biblical canon and the Mormon "scriptures"?
    What do you say, Jessie? You can post aside from this post or not post at all. But we really wonder why the Christian movement is so tolerant of so-called christianIST trolling.
    Note to George: Please reply here. Please. We need more samples.

    • Dirk Anderson
      Dirk Anderson 3 months ago

      Really? that's what Grand Dad said? Maybe I'll have to watch this video.
      I love the Bible myself, but have become skeptical about certain things.. What did Grandpa offer up as truth? I think I know but I don't want to jump to anymore hasty conclusions.

  • Glen Culliney
    Glen Culliney 5 months ago

    What utter rubbish! First, we do have many manuscripts from the bible, but we don't have the originals. That is according to textual Schollars like Bart Ehrman
    Second, the manuscript changes are, unlike the claim made by your Father, very significant! He tries to maks out that its all about spelling mistakes. No, its all about the last twelve verses of Mark, suddenly appearing and the story of the Woman taken in to Adultery miraculously turning up in later additions of John
    He also claims that all the apostles agreed on what was to be doctrine . Paul and James argued over doctrine and later Schollars argued what was to go in and what was to be left out what became the bible. This is the work of men, pure and simple
    Unless you and your Father speak Greek, you have never read the bible, just translations of translations of translations

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1

      @Glen Culliney - "standards"
      The standards are the condition of the respective MSS collections themselves, and the historical, linguistic, and other analyses capable of being done on the texts. If the Biblical Canon MSS are different than the BoM MSS dating back to no earlier than 1800, then yes, those standards are different.
      While the Biblical Canon Texts and related texts were done by probably well believing writers and editors, it is clear from the history that the fraud JS SET OUT to defraud and use his congregation.
      Blessings have nothing to do with this.

    • Glen Culliney
      Glen Culliney 5 months ago

      @BFDT Still you try to apply different standards! Most experts, archaeological experts, will tell you Moses didn't exist, nor Joshua nor Daniel, nor Abraham. Textual Schollars will tell you based on facts that the Gospels were not written by the Apostles attributed to writing them. There is enough there to worry about, without concerning yourselves with the BOM The bottom line is that whatever spin you try to put on it, it is not considered reliable by Schollars. I read it because it brings me closer to the Christ, on a spiiritual level. You read it, i suspect, because you have nothing else, thus why you try and pretend its weaknesses are not significant

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1

      @Glen Culliney - "criticise"
      The point here is that we don't use the data to criticize nor to defame in an unfair way.
      Rather, the text -- any text -- is the text (or a collection of texts) and they can be critiqued, described and named for what they are. In some cases, due to antiquity and its wholly different way of "doing" history, we are unable to describe what "was" but rather only what "is" or what "remains". In the case of the Bible, the gentleman described (I conclude) what "is" about the Biblical Canon MSS, which is fair.
      On the other hand, we can do the same thing with the BoM MSS dating back to their earliest creation some time in the last part of the 1820s.
      The distinction is easy to see. The Bible has a provenance that is realistically reliable. It is what it purports to be in terms of its textual content.
      So does the BoM. It has a reliable aspect and provenance. But instead of leading to the conclusions that the LDS presumes, the conclusions with just a bit of background lead to startling conclusions as to its unequivocal fraudulence of LDS faith claims.
      God Bless has nothing to do with that.

    • Glen Culliney
      Glen Culliney 5 months ago +1

      @BFDT Hi, thanks for your response.As i understand it, the question of the topic was the reliability of the text, i for my part was brought up on the bible. I was not commenting on it's spirituality or even the truth. of the it.If you want a house building ask a tradesmen, if you want the authenticity of biblical text, ask an expert, like has nothing to do with their personal opinion, its based on factual evidence. It is disingenuous to talk about the bible and make out the changes are minor or that because we have so many copies, it doesn't matter if we don't have the original, which was what the original piece was saying. If you or anyone else think this book is devine, so be it. However don't criticise the BOM for its inaccuracies and ignore the bibles, or don't criticise JS without applying the same standards to biblical Patriarchs
      God bless

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1

      WE must apologize that we are not the swiftest or most agile of debaters on the subject of Biblical truth. In fact, we avoid that topic due to the fact that with the same tools of Biblical faith claims the number of angels on the head of a pin could also be accurately calculated.
      However, we refer those who wish to argue with US to another site, another location. Go here to get a view of what, how and why christianIST attempts to pigeon hole their critics are so vile at times and laughable at others. Matt Dillahunty is he with whom you all should be arguing. And he will talk nicely with you, as well. A particularly clear articulation of the terms of that conversation is to be had here:
      Matt Dillahunty opens up about the toxic words from his own parents:
      The general entry point for conversations and the like is here:
      WE refuse to go further than the comments made about "reliability" and "faith statements" until such critics who know who they are go here and publicly debate Our Matt.

  • Kimberly Jordan
    Kimberly Jordan 5 months ago +1

    Well done dad!! Looking over some of the comments, it has become so apparent to me that the passionate, academic focused, idea exchanging brain is rapidly vacating the building! what can we do to bring them back to the discussion? can they?

    • Red Planet
      Red Planet 5 months ago

      Kimberly Jordan sure. But it’s the LDS that challenge the modern mindset of the Bible and for good reason. Who wrote the book of Hebrews for instance? We know Paul didn’t ... fact is we have no idea who wrote it. Look it up. The LDS will have that discussion... modern Christians ignore that fact and just say God preserved the Bible. They always say that to cover up blatant issues like books that were written by people who weren’t apostles and open forgeries like 1 John 5:7. So let’s have an academic conversation and stop sweeping issues under the rug.

  • Abdurahman Mansoor
    Abdurahman Mansoor 5 months ago +2

    With all respects, but your father is exceptionally WRONG when he implied that the authenticity of Qur'an is not solid, as it is international known that the Qur'an was preserved by hundreds of people straight from Mohammad and then was passed to other people from those who took it by heart from Mohammad, and then going back to compare the end of the chains of different people leads to the same exact text by letter, is without mentioning the book which is identical wherever you go on the face of this earth no matter how old or new and it has been proven by texts that go as old as around year 900 and they were exactly identical to books printed at 2018 ... So sorry to say this but your father's argument is bollocks

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1

      Well, show the same dedication to process, and consider what happened between 609 CE, 632 CE and ~900 CE with regards to the texts of the Qur'an. The history of the MSS between those end dates is not well known, except to Qur'anic scholars. Could you please provide us with, or point us to a quick summary?
      However, WE are not here to comment on the alleged argument by the gentleman of the Qur'an (perhaps that comment of his was unnecessary and somewhat of a sidebar that should have been excluded). Keeping to the point of the video, what do you say about the same argument of process of this fraudulent Book of Mormon? That's the true focus of the video, why the BoM has NO MSS prior to the late 1820s and NOTHING AT ALL before 1800 that we can lay our hands on, contrary to MSS of the Bible, the Qur'an, and a host of other writings, histories and other chronicles that precede the printing press method of publication.
      What do you think? :)

  • Saint Christopher
    Saint Christopher 5 months ago +1

    5:50 the book must be true because it says so in the book

  • Saint Christopher
    Saint Christopher 5 months ago +5

    Apostles never wrote the gospels

    • john doe
      john doe 10 days ago

      @BigAL68xyz Paul was a learned man. He was likely a pharisee or sadducee.

    • BigAL68xyz
      BigAL68xyz Month ago

      The apostles were likely not learned men at the time Christ walked the earth. They relied more on the repetition of oral tradition in those days. This explains why there is about a 20-30 year gap between the death/resurrection of Christ and the writing of the first Gospels.
      Matthew was a tax collector and had regular dealings with Roman officials. Being learned and literate was likely part of his job. John did not write his Gospel until after about, 85 AD when he was one of the few surviving apostles (or he may have been the last one alive.) He had lived for years in Ephesus and no doubt had time to acquire the literacy to write by that time. Luke was Greek himself and was both a historian and a physician. He traveled extensively with Paul, and his Gospel is said to be influenced by Paul's perspective. John Mark traveled with Peter and most likely had his help in assembling the Gospel of Mark. When the missionary travels of the book of Acts began, staying in contact via letters (epistles) became a necessity, so it can be reasonably deduced that the necessary skills would have been learned.

    • BFDT
      BFDT 4 months ago +1

      They would have had to have been literate, or have known someone who was literate in order to have dictated what was written.
      When you look at the texts, no Aramaic speaking Galilean townsmen could have written all that. They were written in Greek. So, correct, the apostles as we know them to have been then very likely did not write these things.

  • Saint Christopher
    Saint Christopher 5 months ago

    Only atheists are qualified to debunk LDS properly

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1

      @Saint Christopher - "Either you believe the claims of an irrational book or not"
      Well, no. One can do a lot of helpful analysis to demonstrate what a text really is without resorting to "faith claims" or "hearsay". So much is there in the BoM itself that shows its true provenance. There are parallel documents, correspondence, church histories, and the public record that demonstrate, without "faith claims" what that text, and therefore what the LDS cult purports is true, really is.

    • Saint Christopher
      Saint Christopher 5 months ago

      Either you believe the claims of an irrational book or not. otherwise you are not searching for truth
      you are hunting heretics.

    • BFDT
      BFDT 5 months ago +1

      Not necessarily. Agnostics would do just as well, and even Christians with a head on their shoulder as to the reality of the faith claims that are consistently made, Mormon, Christian or otherwise, could, with firm grounding in the scientific method, could do as well.

  • DinkiDidog
    DinkiDidog 5 months ago +1

    No Christian every would say that. ( far as it's translated....) there are a few verses that directly disagree with your quote:
    2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    This is how Christians know that those whom speak wrongly of God's words distance themselves from such thoughts. If you want to call that anti-Mormon; call it what you want. Towards His second coming He will send strong delusion ; separating the His sheep from the goats.

    • Red Planet
      Red Planet 5 months ago

      So 1 john 5:7, which is an open forgery from the 17th century is God breathed scripture?

    • It's Me Jessie
      It's Me Jessie  5 months ago +1

      You know I agree with you, right? 🙂

  • phenyl alanine
    phenyl alanine 5 months ago

    You say these variations are innocent and meaningless. How do you explain outright contradictions.
    These are not mere differences in spelling. They are opposing descriptions of major events which can't both be true. Either one is false or they both are. Both can't be true

  • phenyl alanine
    phenyl alanine 5 months ago +2

    Why do the gospels contradict each other. Compare Matthew, Luke, Mark's versions of who discovered the empty tomb and what they said. They differ. And there are many other instances where they contradict each other. Please explain why , which ones got it wrong since all can't be correct? What else might they have gotten wrong?

    • john bircham
      john bircham 4 months ago

      They need their God fantasy but they won't let others have theirs. It sucks.

  • goldrays
    goldrays 5 months ago

    The wisdom of men is foolishness to God. Anyone who knows God, knows that no book can be written before death, as to insult God that does everything for man. It is God who controls everything, even salvation, so I cant even publish a book until I die. The original Church let God do the work from heaven, and those on the earth did the other half, the part that is done on earth. The people who wrote the bible respected the wish's of the Apostles, and did not publish anything until the last one died. Then everyone came forward saying they had the original version, those who knew the Apostles, and wrote their story's. They were even trying to publish things after Christs death, even before the Apostles death, and those involved with the church went into hiding to keep from being killed, the Romans killed everyone, even way after that to ensure non were left. They all knew the original church was destroyed, though the church's that took over were not true. The Apostles fully knowing this, appointed one to write the story, only one book was written, and hidden away to prove that all church's are fake. Everything that was written at the time, they were not supposed to sell to outsiders, but did because it was money. The bible even though it was written about people who served God without the new testament because those story's were still being formed by God himself, and was never meant to be the letter of the law, which was the hole purpose of God to show that.