History of the WHOLE Bible in 9 minutes I guess… reaction

support the channel by liking and subscribing
Subscribe: kzbin.info?...
Twitter: / cgreaction
Original: • History of the WHOLE B...
More videos:
/ @cgreaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
*NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT INTENDED. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS

[@conqueringflower7466]

No, the books themselves were not changed over the centuries, there was debate about what books to include. Archaeological discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls are important, because they show that the books said the same things two thousand years ago and were not changed over time. For example, scholars of higher criticism argued that some Old Testament prophecies must have been edited in by christians, because they sounded too much like Jesus. But the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a copy of Isaiah dated to over a century before Jesus, which includes those prophecies. Formal oral traditions are handled more seriously than games of telephone. Aboriginal oral traditions recall geological and astronomical events from over 10,000 years ago.

[@gmac6503]

The DSS actually DO show that the Masoretic text was incorrect in many places and the shorter version of Jeremiah, etc. There are other examples also. The LXX also shows differences. Isaiah does not show those prophecies. Those so-called prophecies are *interpretations and they also were changed. Some were changed grammatically and made to point to a messiah named jesus which NEVER occurred to the original author(s) Sheesh

[@conqueringflower7466]

@@gmac6503 The interpretation of Isaiah 7, 52, 53 etc. are, of course, argued endlessly about, but the DSS show that Isaiah existed, in it's full length, and was regarded as a single work (not 3), by the 1st century BCE. Scholars can argue about the theological significance of differences like "grave" vs. "tomb" between the Masoretic and Septuagint, and whether the Septuagint better reflects an older Hebrew text to their hearts content. Which texts are you referring to that are *interpretations that were also changed? Why the hostility?

[@gmac6503]

@@conqueringflower7466 1) I never argued against Isaiah existing. Also the consensus is there were two or three authors. It's fine you go against the consensus but maybe you should read some good commentaries on Isaiah besides E J Young if you've even read that one. Actually that will be a question if you respond. Have you read E J Young's volumes on Isaiah? J A Alexander? Oswalt? Hermeneia or Anchor Bible series on them? 2) The DSS do not show evidence of only one author. That's a ridiculous claim. That's almost as bad as claiming Matthew was written by Matthew or Mark was written by Mark or Luke was written by Luke or the gospel of John was written by John because the manuscripts we have although in fragments show that they were the original authors. See how crazy that sounds? 3) since you're a whiny little whatever and claim I have hostility when all I'm doing is talking about the Bible and where the scholars stand and I haven't even given my own reasons I'm not gonna go into it until you answer my questions to see if you're worth discussing anything with because with that attitude I don't need another apologist crying about hostility when there is no hostility. Besides you really never addressed any of my points except the question the interpretations that were changed. If you don't know the grammar of the Hebrew especially and Isaiah 52 to 53 and see how they changed it I'm afraid you're out of your league. If you don't know the difference between the Jewish interpretations by the rabbis and how Christians changed it then you need to do some studying. I would recommend the _Jewish Study Bible_ by Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler if you want to grow. You need to at least know why and how and if you're asking me to show it to you then you obviously don't know so good luck in your studies if you desire to learn more. If not, I don't care. When another person calls another person hostile because they're giving the consensus and scholarship it doesn't help for the conversation to move forward

[@gmac6503]

@@conqueringflower7466 I never mentioned differences like grave versus tomb. If you know which interpretations have been changed, and why are you asking me which ones have been changed? If you know your Hebrew Bible, you know that the one prophesied about was talking about a person living in that time. You also know that the word virgin being used later is an apologetics move. You do know that the nation of Israel is described as the suffering servant quite a few times before that chapter also, right?

[@gmac6503]

@@conqueringflower7466 1) christians misinterpreting the DSS scrolls is not something hidden in a corner. 2) Jesus is not in the DSS. 3) The Isaiah Scroll is discussed here by Dr Kipp Davis, a scholar of the DSS on his channel. Look for 'The Isaiah Scrolls from Cave 1Q: The Dead Sea Scrolls, Unapologetically 1.2'

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

Those are translations. They are not "different versions " of the bible

[@maozedong8370]

NO, there have been over 30,000 variations and changes to the bible to keep up with modernization and culture and it gets very mistranslated anyway so even if it weren't changed, you might as well call them different versions.

[@anthraxcrab3238]

I would argue the word “variation” is best (besides hilariously bad translations), it’s mostly wording. Although the best would be original script, but most people can’t learn Hebrew or Greek in there spare time

[@RESTITVTOR_TOTIVS_HISPANIAE]

@@maozedong8370 Have you read the entire Bible?

[@OpenEnjoyer]

​@@maozedong8370 all the changes are not essential doctrinal changes so it isnt a problem

[@maozedong8370]

@@OpenEnjoyer Actually that's wrong. In a book like the bible that billions take seriously for some ridiculous reason, EVERY word matters because this is supposedly the "word of god." That means just a single word change could make you misinterpret what your god is telling you. For instance, people think the fruit from the tree Eve took was an apple and if you ask most people, that is what they think it was. However, the real fruit that it was has been lost in translation though it is suspected that it may have been a quince. Now religion is nonsense and there is no such thing as god, but if you believe this nonsense, then mistranslations, misinterpretations and changed words make you misunderstand the story and even your god's intent.

[@Typical-Greek]

To translate the Bible from hebrew to greek it was not a game of ping pong or something, it didnt go from hebrew to greek to latin to romanian to belgian to German back to greek to russian to Spanish and then to english, we translate it from the direct source, and the oldest and earliest bible we have is the greek Septuagint, which is translated from Hebrew into greek So the english Translations are: Hebrew - Greek - English The translation from hebrew into greek is very trusted, considering Luke preached in greek, so lets just say there is no difference or tampering with or additions to the greek bible from the hebrew, so now english translation are translated from the direct source So basically: its not a game of translations, it was from greek, which is the translation from hebrew, the hebrew bible is lost, so we only have the greek one, we use the greek one to translate it into english, our latest bible translations Hell, I myself am greek and I can see no contradictions or inaccuracies within the english Translations and Greek translations

[@LiteralCrimeRave]

My understanding is that there is some issues with contradictions between Hebrew texts that do exist and Greek texts. Especially the whole thing with heaven and hell

[@chrisvibz4753]

@@LiteralCrimeRavebrother are you Christian?

[@Typical-Greek]

@@LiteralCrimeRave Can you clarify what you're talking about specifically? I'm not sure I follow

[@pewdiepietwo6032]

It's like arguing between hafs and warsh and other Qurans, you're getting confused with scribal errors that can go back to codex siniaticus. For instance, KJV is 1600’s meanwhile the ESV is 2000’s which will change the Reader’s social norms. The context never changes

[@JamesM99]

10:19 Well Jesus was a Jew, all the first apostles were Jews, and all the first Christian communities were Jews. Even today there are Messianic Jews who believe in Christ yet carry on their Jewish traditions. The modern day "Jews" are specifically "Rabbinic Jews" who believe in the Talmud, which is series of writings by Rabbis to 'interpret' the Old Testament AKA the Tanak for the Jewish people. This pretty much was in response to Christianity because Christians use the exact same text as the Rabbinic Jews, but they follow the Talmud, AKA the writings of their Rabbis since the fall of the 2nd Temple. But yes, Christians believe that modern Jews are "Holdouts" if you will who have not recognized their messiah. Of course this is from the Christian perspective, but there is no difference in the Hebrew Bible and the Gentile Bible. The words of the books that each contain are the same, and there were enough copies that even when some were different you could draw from the wider pool of texts to find the original text. P.S. Yes, the Hebrew Bible is what Christians call the "Old Testament," and our Bible [word meaning 'Books'] contains the [Hebrew Bible] + [The New Testament] = The Holy Bible. And no, no kings added to the bible. The Church had full authority over that and at the 1st Ecumenical Council, after Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal and the state religion, ALL the bishops of every church assembled at Nicaea. There they all debated over what books were and were not divinely inspired. This council has been affirmed by every church until the Protestant reformation where Protestants rejected 6 books, I believe, from the canon [As Reformed Zoomer mentions this is from the Septuagint]. But Since 325 A.D. there has been a consistent authority on the Biblical canon, and historians and scholars for the most parts all agree that ALL the Gospels were written by 90. A.D at the latest estimate. Every single Bible we have has been translated from an original Greek manuscript for the New Testament writings and an original Hebrew manuscript for the Old Testament writings. There were TRANSLATIONS sanctioned by kings, such as King James, but they translated it FROM original Hebrew and original Greek to their modern [at the time] English. It was traditional for the Bible to be written/read in Latin [in the West] or Greek [in the East], but certain kings wanted their people to be able to hear the Bible/read it in their own language; accurately translated.

[@InitialPC]

Mostly true but there are a couple gripes, Martin Luther did not "remove" the deuterocanon. He did not believe they were canon, but that is different from REMOVING them. Plenty of church fathers before him like Jerome, Cyril, Athanasius and Origen all also rejected it. The deuterocanon has been a controversial issue since the beginning of church history. Even today the Orthodox churches, even though they participated in the same councils concerning the deuterocanon, accept the entirety of the Septuagint works, not just some of them like the Catholics do today. And speaking of the Councils, Nicaea did not determine the canon. This is a common misconception. They met to address the teachings of Arius, who denied the divinity of Jesus. The council ruled Arius is a heretic and affirmed the divinity of Jesus. They also rejected the Gnostics as heretics, which is why the gnostic writings did not end up in the canon.

[@chrisvibz4753]

hey brother those arent actually different versions, theyre translations brother

[@carlose4314]

11:41 John was tasked with taking care of Jesus' mother and was one of the twelve apostles.

[@MatchGrade08]

Their are some issues with the video. It mostly due to the creator of the video being an outsider. Prophets are not gone. A large chunk of the new testament is mostly written by the apostle paul so he figured that the prophet dissappered. The five fold ministry is Apostles, Prophets, Pastors Preacherd and Teachers. They are still there and hear from God. Mainly how people tell if they are a real prophet today is if what they say lines up with the with the bible and what they say will happen again and again. Back in the old testament before Jesus they had to rely a lot more on seeing the signs and wonders like calling fire out of heaven but now its alot easier by just seeing if the person says something that disagrees with Jesus.

[@astrodoops]

When are you talking about the Crusades and all the different prophets, this isn’t Christianity. This is Judaism. They were not on crusade.

[@MatchGrade08]

He is though. He was trying to learn about the Holy Bible. Which is Christian. He wants to know why the Crusades happened if they have the first half of the bible is about Israel. The Answer is Nobles got to read the bible because they could read. They got to realizing something was wrong. Christianity made it to the top despite all the the european government and religions fighting against it. The other Religion that starts with an M showed up and started destroying everything. They started doing a whole lot of killing and called it "holy war" in their tougue. They had just Jerusalem. Which is the Birth place of Christianity. They had to stop it. What that meant was a bunch of uneducated people go to war with governments which are are half Christian in name only so the people who do go over dont know much about anything and go destroy everything inculding Israelites which happened because while people might say their Christian if their not acutally reading the bible, know its the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel and get sent to go fight some one but they dont know much about the enemy it might not work out as well as it should.

[@Typical-Greek]

Ay StarvHarv made two more videos, one about your country

[@LiteralCrimeRave]

In defense of oral tradition, it wasnt preserved by literally anyone, there were special people who memorized everything after years of instruction by another individual who memorized everything Although immediately after this there is a major issue with the video, there was no Israelite community in Egypt.

[@JamesM99]

There was one, but they cannot find evidence they were enslaved or of a mass exodus, but there's no arguing against there being Israelites in Egypt at that time.

[@chrisvibz4753]

there was a israelite community in egypt brother, why do you think they went back to alexandria all those years later? its bc they were familiar with the land brother

[@MatchGrade08]

​@@JamesM99yes there was. In Egypt they found exodus of a buch of high skilled crafts men that was written of. Their whole silly reasoning for it not being Israel was because they were skilled and wealthy which makes so they pretended it that they could not have possibly been enslaved Israel. It pretty obvious it was Israel. They were of course rich because of Josepsh. They were of course only enslaved for a short short time if you paid attention. It was 1 Pharaoh who did it. Israel also acted a lot like Egyptians when they were still with them which was the whole reason they had to put the blood over the door post. The death angel would mistake them for Egyptians and would have went for them too. They acted like Egyptians. Thats why they had to run around in the wilderness until they were all replaced by the next generation. Thats why they had to get weeded out in the wilderness They forgot what God was like and acted like Egyptians.

[@Cody38Super]

Here's the other problem....none of it was written in the time of Jesus, it was written later.

[@jaysonyoungman8772]

The entire old testament was written before the time of Jesus, what do you think the pharsees preached? 😂

[@JamesM99]

It's agreed by most scholars, even atheists, that the ALL the Gospels were written by 90 A.D. You're spreading misinformation

[@spartan066]

​@@JamesM99 which scholars are those? You Christians lie as easily as you Breathe! The oldest manuscript of the new testament that we currently have is the p52 which was written almost a century after the time of Jesus. So neither Jesus nor anyone who knew him personally had anything to do with the new testament. In other words the new testament is written by anonymous men whose names are itself a big mystery😃

[@spartan066]

​@@JamesM99Who authored “Gospel” of Luke? “The identification of Luke as the author is primarily based on the “we” passages in Acts (beginning in Acts 16:10), which indicate that Luke was associated with Paul in his ministry and wrote down the account of his activities. (The Amplified Bible, Page 1153)” The only proof that they have about Luke being the sole author of this gospel is a weak speculation on “we”. So your whole speculation is absurd at best! This speculation shows: The gospel was likely to have been altered or written by others beside Luke. It’s place of documentation is unknown. It’s date of documentation is also unknown. It is also worth mentioning that the author of the book of Acts is also unknown as shown above: “Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1643)” Let us see what the NIV Bible’s theologians said about this book: “The author’s name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1529)” Consider the following forgery in Luke 24: 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, Luke 24:44-48 says that it is written in the Law of Moses (i.e., the Torah) that Jesus will die and resurrect on the third day. Where in the entire Old Testament (not just in the 5 books of Moses that make up the Law of Moses or the Torah) do you have that?! Show me one Old Testament verse that prophesized about Jesus’ third day resurrection? Also, “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)” The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century. Do Christians want us to believe that Luke lived up to 200 years? Consider what the Catholic Encyclopaedia says about preservation: “No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author-all have been in some way altered.“ All have been in some way altered! In view of this blatant admission, how can anyone expect me, or any Muslim, to follow an impure book?

[@medotaku9360]

Yeah, like, a few years later. Any accounts that weren't direct eyewitness testimony were accounts recorded by someone who interviewed an eyewitness. It would be like if you were born after 2001 and had no memory of 9/11. You can ask anyone who was alive at the time what it was like. You should talk to your grandparents. Grandpa lore is lit. Write it down.

[@spartan066]

PROOF OF THE QURAN CORRECTING THE FLAWED BIBLE: The rulers at the times of the prophets Abraham, Joseph, and Moses will be our highlights. The Bible calls the ruler of Egypt during the time of Abraham, Joseph and Moses as “Pharaoh”… ”So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” …” Genesis 12:18. “Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh, king of Egypt…” Genesis 41:46. “When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian...” Exodus 2:15. However, this is a HISTORICAL BLUNDER BY THE BIBLE. The word “Pharaoh” was never used to refer to the ruler of Egypt during the time of Abraham and Joseph. This is verified by the 1799 finding 'Rosetta stone' which is a crucial finding in archaeology. The earliest instance that “Pharaoh” is used to refer to the ruler of Egypt is during the reign of Amenophis IV, hundreds of years into the New Kingdom Period. Both Abraham and Joseph were before the New Kingdom Period. This shows an ignorance of history from the authors of the Bible. What does the Qur’an say about this? In the Qur’an, the term “Pharaoh” is never used to refer to someone before the New Kingdom Period. The ruler of Egypt during the time of Joseph is called a “King” and never a Pharaoh. We can see this in the Quran(12:43). Additionally, the Qur’an calls the ruler of Egypt during the time of Moses “Pharaoh”. We can also see this in the Quran(2:49). This means that the Qur’an is perfectly historically accurate with its usage of this word, unlike the Bible. This proves without a doubt that the QURAN CORRECTED THE MISTAKES OF THE BIBLE

[@InitialPC]

The oldest mention of Pharaoh =/= the word Pharoah was never used before this. You are making a series of assumptions to justify your position. Now tell us about the space whale that the earth sits on the back of in surah 68:1 since were on the topic of the correctness of the quran.

[@MatchGrade08]

Sounds like you know quite a tiny bit. Did you know that to Chrostians that pharaoh refers to a king of egypt and only a king of egypt. You did not correct anything and mohamed is not God. He will never heal your diseases nor will his idoles heal your diseases.

[@Summercamp1sland]

“Jews call Ezra the son of Allah” yeah the Quran is completely bullshit lmao don’t listen to idiots like this guy “As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well. As for those who are pregnant, their waiting period ends with delivery.1 And whoever is mindful of Allah, He will make their matters easy for them.”- surrah 65:4 talks about how to properly have sex with a prepubescent girl 💀