I interviewed Dan McClellan for part of this video. My full, 50-minute discussion with him is available, for free here: www.alexoconnor.com/p/full-interview-with-dan-mcclellan Thanks also to Kipp Davis for his contribution to this response.
@@CosmicSkeptic People have been wanting a video with you and Wes engaging together. He made a response expressing a lack of interest in debates, but open to the idea, if given enough time to prepare. How do you feel about collaborating for RUclips or your Within Reason podcast?
Alex, why don’t you just show us the exact English translation of the variants to see how they read to determine if it really is that much of a difference or not. How many complete phrases or paragraphs are left out or any other non-orthographic differences of the Isaiah dead Sea scroll compared to the Masoretic text with a side-by-side comparison in an English translation to determine if it really is that big of a deal. Give us some actual practical perspective rather than nitpicking the argument from Wes to make it seem like such a big deal
It's not "nitpicking" when it was Wes who insisted that it was "word for word." That phrase, "word for word," has a meaning. Alex is not the one who set the standard whereby a single word off is a failure. Wes did that. He's the one who claimed that not even a single word differed. It's not "nitpicking" to point out that quite a lot more than a single word was off. To claim that it was "nitpicking" is to move the goalposts far away from where Wes had put them.
@somexp12 to me Alex is isolating this specific part of Wes‘s argument to create a red herring to the main point Wes was trying to make which is that the Dead Sea scroll Isaiah text is incredibly similar despite a 1000 year time span. If he is trying to magnify the variant difference among the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea scroll text then he should demonstrate how significant the difference in variants are by showing a comparison in an English translation to let the viewer decide
@ concerning Alex’s conclusion statement that there is nothing significant or amazing about this Isaiah scroll and other biblical writings of antiquity, they downplay biblical writing saying that there are plenty of other writings of antiquity that demonstrate better reliability of transcription than the Bible and are more amazing. Would love to see some actual defense of these claims being made as well as none are demonstrated in this video. Merely unsubstantiated claims. Please show us the works of antiquity that have the sample size of the New Testament manuscripts and the consistency of transcription that they demonstrate. Not sure why that last part was thrown in. Is there really a writing an antiquity that can challenge that of the Bible? would love to see that demonstrated, else the conclusion drawn that there is no wow factor in the Isaiah scroll or any biblical writings of antiquity is baseless.
Hi Alex, Thanks for engaging my video. I’m currently traveling internationally for a while so I don’t have time to do a response (i’m typing this on my iPhone in the London airport) and it’s probably best to not keep going with back-and-forth rebuttals at any rate. But I would love to talk more sometime. In the meantime, here are three brief thoughts. 1. The 1930 figure from Dan McClellan is different from what I’m gathering elsewhere. I’m still trying to get to the bottom of that. I’ll be sure to share my findings if and when I can get to the bottom of why the differing figures, for now I’m just flagging it as a point for review. 2. My omission of that portion of the quote was not an intentional sneaky move. It honestly did not occur to me to include it because I was focused on the point I was intending to make (I’m more interested in the cumulative yield of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including via textual criticism, than the Great Isaiah scroll in isolation). In hindsight, I should have represented your point better, and the way it ultimately aligns with the website you were quoting. I apologize for that (and for potentially cutting off your clip too quickly). 3. My comment about whether Wes was referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls as a whole was an effort at a charitable guess as to what he might’ve *meant.* Yes, I acknowledge he made an error on the specific claim he made. I left that for him to clarify, which he has. Perhaps I am being overly charitable, but on the other hand, when he’s speaking off the cuff for several hours, it’s rather unfortunate for one specific comment to be seized upon so much. I still do think he was essentially right in the larger point of the dialectic between us. In other words, yes, it’s not “word for word” but it’s a remarkable confirmation of prior textual history (and the vast majority of variants, whether 1930 or fewer, are extremely minor). My hope is for the bigger picture to not be lost in technicalities. I’ve typed this out before catching my next flight, so apologies for brevity, and I do hope to talk more sometime. Thanks again for engaging my video and I very much always enjoy watching yours
@@RationalistMHHe has literally just said that he should have represented it better and apologized for it. How is that deceptive? That's the humble response I'd expect from Gavin, and I absolutely think Alex should have a conversation with him.
@@brunoarruda9916 Actions speak louder than words. He intentionally removed an entire sentence that he knew would prove his entire argument wrong had he left his supposed 'piece of evidence' untouched. That is objectively an act of deception and trickery. You do not remove an entire sentence and go out of your word to edit a passage just because. Perhaps Christians will be more convincing when they stop constantly lying to millions of people in order to sell their apologetic slop. Just a word of advice. Not that you'd take it.
@Baset_ I know. :) I just thought it was funny. Looking first to the next rebuttal! Or maybe a concession? I enjoy watching these people go back and forth. Really good learning experience too.
27:28 I find it ironic that Alex has dedicated two entire videos to Wes Huff's off the cuff "Word for Word" comment, then allows his guest to get away with an absolutely outrageously misleading comment abut the Qu'ran which A. Isn't true (there are numerous textual variants of the Qu'ran) and B. Even in so far as it is true there is agreement between the texts is because Uthman burned manuscripts he didn't like/agree with! Yet this gets something of a free pass in this video I feel, and the viewer is allowed to come way with the impression there is better textual attestation of the Qu'ran than the Bible? I
Not only that, but I also feel like Kipp grossly understates biblical manuscript attestation by comparing it with other manuscripts from antiquity. Even non Christian scholars agree that the New Testament is the best attested work of antiquity in the world, by a long shot.
@@lapis_lazuli578 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Hadith 510 I believe, and also in Tarikh al-Tabari - but I'm working from memory there, so I might be off with the Hadith reference.
@@stu1002 you missing the point. The other guy is not saying that it is accurate due to being real. He gave a disclaimer saying there are obvious reasons for it being so “accurate” so he is not disagreeing with the burning thing
Comparing Biblical fidelity to the Quran's fidelity is weird. Uthman literally gathered all the versions of the Quran, created a standardized version, and burned the versions he didn't like. Saying "the circumstances were very different" is a gross understatement. UPDATE: I may have mischaracterized Alex's main point as being about "how accurate is our modern copy compared to the original" (the main apologetical question) as opposed to "how accurately did scribes copy the manuscript over the centuries" (a subcategory of that question). Alex is primarily arguing about the latter (subcategory). I'm primarily arguing about the former (which is why I was annoyed by comparison to the Quran). No amount of consistency over the last several centuries matters if the original manuscript was altered by a central power. We aren't sure what sort of variants existed in early copies of the Quran because Quran variants were actively destroyed by Uthman and a standard Quran was made. In contrast, our early New Testament manuscripts are decentralized and we can follow different "trees" of variants back to the roots of the original, giving us a high confidence in identifying changes in the text. While early Christians did destroy many Gnostic writings, keep in mind that the Gnostic Gospels are clearly inventions after the fact, not eyewitness accounts like the original Gospels. This is evidenced by statements showing unawareness of Israel's geography, the use of names common in second century Egypt rather than first century Israel, scholarly dating of the manuscripts, the legendary development present in those Gnostic Gospels, etc. So the Church was destroying content we have good reason to believe was fake whereas in Islam, Uthman destroyed others' early eyewitness testimony in order to create a unified text. I'd add that it's inaccurate to characterize the early Church as destroying everything they decided was non-canonical. Apocryphal books and books such as The Shepherd of Hermas were often praised by early Church Fathers--while they simultaneously acknowledged such writings were not on par with inspired Scripture. Finally, I'll add that the Old Testament is a far older manuscript than the Quran, and I'll acknowledge it's far harder to trace it's origins. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate the OT was well-preserved, that the theology hasn't changed, and that Isaiah 53's messianic prophecy existed well before Jesus, which is significant. I do apologize I wasn't more fair to Alex's main point, though. I'm arguing a different thread than he is and should have listened more carefully and distinguished that difference in my initial comment. With that said, I do think the Uthman revision is important context many of Alex's viewers may be unfamiliar with and it undermines the applicability of his comparison.
@@HermitsClog The Christian moral code and philosophy is the most ideal and it has led to a better world. Every abolition movement was a Christian movement. Women being respected & granted autonomy increases in correlation w the spread of Christianity through the world. The Christian church build and staffed hospitals, built some of our best schools, and normalized the education of women w nuneries. Christians normalized the concept that land by conquest is wrong. Christian western nations are the least racist on earth. Christianity tore down the divide btwn the rich and poor. Hinduism does not have any of these western concepts & upholds the caste system.
What you described sounds exactly like "the circumstances were very different". I don't see how that's a gross understatement at all. Would you accept "the circumstances were super duper different"?
@@scottgodlewski306 - The points have literally been "The text is well preserved, word for word" "Um, achualy, the text isn't literally the exact same" "Yeah, I meant that in an abstract way, that the text's story and meaning has stayed the exact same. I said that because I had a quote in mind." "Yeah, that means I'm right, it's not word for word, you're a liar." Alex is being the nerd emoji here. Wes clarified that there were differences, but they're irrelevant, Alex is being pedantic.
26:11 - re the "WOW" factor: Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here. Wes is NOT making a claim that there is anything supernatural or miraculous about the fidelity of the transmission of text from the dead sea scrolls to the Masoretic text. That is NOT the point. That would be a silly, superstitious and entirely arbitrary point. The point is this: Isaiah contains numerous references which are held by Christians to be prophecies regarding Jesus Christ. The problem always was that the oldest version of Isaiah we had came from 1000 years AFTER Christ, which thus meant there was always the speculation that the Christological references were later insertions after Christ's birth and death. The absolutely key point of the Dead sea scrolls is that they date from 3rd Century BCE to 1st Century CE and show an (virtually/ 92% / thought for thought / insert your qualifier of choice here) identical version of Isaiah existing BEFORE Christ. I.e. references to the suffering servant, pierced for our transgressions in Isaiah 53 are NOT later "Christianized" versions - they pre-date Christ. THAT is why it is a "WOW" moment - and - unless you can show the Christological references to be among the variations in the dead sea scrolls Isaiah texts (spoiler alert: They aren't) then that point remains. The rest of this discussion seems to be a weird attempt to avoid that central relevant point. Christians interest in Isaiah is primarily its Christological significance. The key point about the dead sea scrolls is they essentially eliminate the possibility this was a later editing of the text.
I really hope someone here takes notice of this, instead of just completely brushing it off because it goes against the assumption that Wes is saying that the fidelity of transmission is supernatural. This take about the key points and prophecies being the same is reasonable, even if it goes against the narrative being thrown around in this sub. If you cannot represent your opponent at their best, you simply aren’t listening, and you are committing the exact same fallacies you accuse Christians of. (Selective listening/filtering) The vast majority of Christians are reasonable and rational people, and many of them have wrestled with the same questions you have and concluded that Christianity (specifically Jesus) is true.
First question: If that's what Wes meant, then why didn't he say that? Second question: The Masoretic text was produced by Jews. Why would they let Christians sneak alleged prophecies into the text? Third question: Why didn't Wes correct Rogan when Rogan clearly misunderstood and thought the transmission was being done orally?
well I'm sure Wes can be demolished on the point about Old Testament prophecies of Jesus as well. I suggest you listen to Bart Ehrman on this, he gives a pretty detailed and lucid account of how Christians over-read Jesus into the Old Testament and that many of the supposed references are actually to other things, which are quite obvious with a critical understanding of the context (rather than with Christocentric blinders)
@ So you'd have to listen to the whole podcast for the wider context. Regarding the fact the Masoretic text was Jewish - well - RIGHT - this is actually one of the really interesting proofs of Christianity: The fact that Jews, who DON'T accept Christ as the messiah, still have a text which has numerous Christological proof texts - and you can't just dismiss it as "Well they are believers so they would say that wouldn't they?" because they DON'T believe Christ was the Messiah. But if you want to be hyper-skeptical (as Alex normally does) you are probably just going to dismiss out of hand any prophecy text which dates from a copy coming from 1000 years AFTER the fulfillment of the prophecy, no matter how strong the case for non-contamination of that text is - so in that sense the Dead Sea scrolls just put the final nail in what is already a very dead argument.
The 'u' is what gives the word the 'ur' sound. Americans spell it as if it sounded like, 'co-lore', but pronounce it the correct way. Noah Webster really screwed them up haha
We put a 'u' in colour in the same way that Americans still put a 'u' in glamour. Try saying 'color' with the first vowel sounding like the following one!
Emperour -> Emperor Doctor/Doctour -> Doctor Tremor/Tremour -> Tremor I'm not sure if these are ever pronounced "-ore" in British English, but I've always heard them pronounced the same way as colour, rigour, etc., so I don't think it's the presence or absence of "u" that's making the difference. Spelling any of these with a "u" is considered obsolete in both American and British English, as far as I know. In the version of American English I speak, unstressed vowels before "r" all get rhotacized the same way into /ɚ/: Glamour, doctor, augur, elixir, polar, ...doesn't matter!
@@Thagnoth Emperor, Doctor, and Tremor don't have the 'ur' sound. They have the 'or' sound, so it works fine as is. I'm talking about words like colour, honour, valour etc these words need an 'ur' sound for the pronunciation to work. You can hear it when you say those words.
@@ChrisR395 That's very interesting to hear! :o When I try and recall anyone saying a -"or" word in British English I think mostly to Movies or TV shows (i.e., one of the various times "Doctor who?" has been asked, or "Professor Dumbledore" has been said). I am not able to perceive a difference in the way they say the "-or" v.s. how they say "-our" as in flavour ("[...] and they *mean* Every Flavour!"), but perhaps it varies? Either way, that's definitely curious-I'm going to pay more attention in the future to see if I can spot the difference!
Just a suggestion for whoever edits your videos, putting clips of previous videos of yours can be confusing if one is listening and not watching. I'm listening to this video with my phone in my pocket, and I have a hard time telling which Alex is the Alex from this video or from the previous video. I've seen other people put some kind of "telephone" EQ effect among other things to make the older clip sound "older" so the listener can distinguish. Maybe doing something like that can help better separate those clips? Not a big deal but something that might help some potential confusion.
I see what u mean but i struggle to think of a way to improve this since I imagine a sound effect could be a bit annoying. Unless it's very subtle. Maybe just a narrative "here is how I responded". Even for viewers, Alex of the past and present look pretty similar with similar backgrounds ;)
@ I've seen other RUclipsrs do a subtle EQ effect to make the audio sound somewhat like it's coming through a telephone. Not extreme to the point where it makes it unintelligible or annoying to the ears, but enough of a difference so it sounds noticeably different to the new audio. Plus they'll often add a black and white filter to the video so we know it's an old clip
It's just like when Jesus said in John 17:3 that the father is the ONLY true God and apologists say he didn't actually mean that, but he was saying the son and holy spirit are also the only true God.
It seems obvious that the text has been painstakingly well preserved in that you could have no greater confidence in nearly any piece of literature in existence that what we possess is of original composition. Arguing over very minor differences in handwritten texts that were scribed in multiple regions, multiple languages, over thousands of years and have very insignificant differences and minor mistakes seems to only speak to its preservation. It’s as if people believed to be transcribing the word of God and wanted to make sure they got it right.
16:50 It's important to remember that The Dead sea scrolls don't just contain Isaiah. They contain parts of virtually all of the old testament books. It is true Wes directly references "The Great Isaiah scroll" but when he says "this isn't true of all the dead sea scrolls", I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest what he was getting at was "The Isaiah scrolls" within the dead sea scrolls, (as opposed to the scrolls of other old testament books). I do think it's important to bear in mind that someone speaking without notes in a 3 hour Joe Rogan interview is going to be simplifying, mis-speaking and summarising. I do think all of this is getting an awfully long way off the central point: That the degree of preservation of Isaiah for over 1000 years is remarkably high - over 90% identical, and the vast majority of the other 10% being identical for meaning, with a tiny fraction of verses - which don't appear to be of great theological significance being the difference. The challenge back is this: Point to one significant doctrinal or theological difference that would be derived from the Isaiah of the Dead sea scrolls and the Isaiah of the Masoretic text a thousand years later.
"The challenge back is this: Point to one significant doctrinal or theological difference that would be derived from the Isaiah of the Dead sea scrolls and the Isaiah of the Masoretic text a thousand years later." But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion and has nothing to do with what Wes said. In fact I'm wondering if you even watched all Alex's video. He addresses this in the video.
The problem lies in, as you said: "The degree of preservation of Isaiah for over 1000 years is remarkably high - over 90% identical" is not true, it's not remarkably high, it's literally true for almost all ancient manuscripts, what would be remarkably high is it was word for word identical, so if Wes was wrong about that statement, which he was, the whole argument falls apart there is nothing bizarre or shocking there. Furthermore we actually do have ancient manuscripts that are word for word identical to current readings, but they come from the Quran, and as Biblical scholar Kipp explains this has it's own reasoning due to the way the Quran was transmitted and preserved. This is of course all addressed in the video itself in the last section titled "Is It Still a WoW Moment?".
Wes already admitted he should’ve worded that point differently. Christians are saying, it doesn’t matter whether he made a mistake in wording or not… this guy laid out in another comment exactly why this is such a big point for Christians, which hasn’t been addressed.
@@whiz1701 I'm sorry - I don't follow. Even if all ancient manuscripts have similar levels of fidelity with their original text, that makes the case stronger not weaker? Why does it need to be bizzare or shocking? I personally do think it'd amazing that hand written documents are preserved so well over a thousand years, but it doesn't really matter whether you find it amazing or not..the fact is they are overwhelmingly reliable copies of the original texts. This eliminates the common criticism of the layperson of "Well it's all just been changed over time hasn't it?". Thats the point? I'm unclear why everyone thinks Wes was trying to claim some sort of miracle? Quite the opposite: if they high fidelity of the text can be believed as a perfectly mundane fact, then one obsticle to rational belief in the scriptures is removed, surely?
Excellent points. No person should expect the Masoretic text to be 100% identical to the Dead Sea scrolls. The fact that it's almost identical 1,000 years apart is remarkable.
So glad Dan gets a shout out on here. Big fan of him and how handles these types of subjects. Even posting when he himself is corrected by someone and reposting to correct his own blunders.
ERM HEY GOOD SIR… YOUR JOKE WAS SO FUNNY ITS ACTUALLY MAKING ME CUM OH IGH UFH UGH UFHHHHHHH AHHHHH IM CUMMING RAHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHH ✊🍆💦 RAHHHHHHH I AN CUMMING ALL OVER YOU
Even if accurate, Gavin's response was basically "well, most of these differences aren't really substantial and don't change the meaning, so there are only a few actual differences." So... pretty close, but NOT WORD FOR WORD. What exactly is so hard to understand here?
If "word for word" as opposed to the cumulative yield of the DSS is all you have to cling to, I would humbly submit that you're already acknowledging you lost the argument and now you're just clinging to any sliver of critique to save face. It's okay to just admit you screwed up and you'll try to do better in the future.
@@cookiescraftscats The 'dishonesty' you reference, again, is simply pointing a finger that there were comparatively minor variants and not a strict "word for word" account and saying effectively "AH HA! Huff's a damn liar, don't trust anything he says" I mean if this is the level of seriousness you're going to have in this conversation, I'm genuinely embarrassed for you.
I get that we want to clarify and state that Wes was not 100% correct in his statements (as all humans get things wrong consistently throughout their lifetime regardless of their status), but a major thing we can glean from this is that it is pretty insane how close documents 1000 years apart actually are. Whether it is 100%, 95%, or even 80% the same, any of those percentages are extremely impressive over a time frame of 1000 years. That's around 50 generations of time. The Quran example is not near as impressive because the manuscripts of the Quran are: Oldest - 568 CE (that's being generous as it ranges up to 648 CE) Next oldest - 650 CE Next 2 - 670 CE Next - early to mid 800 CE Next late 900 to early 1000 CE 1st printed copy - 1537 CE. No gap of anywhere near 1000 years. And this information is without me knowing the % of accuracy the newer versions have between each other.
It’s remarkable from a human life span perspective, not from the all powerful god. This is the same being that created the universe but allows a period of roughly 1800 years before proper modern scholarship existed for his written word (the only way he currently communicates with us) to degrade in original accuracy.
@@iainlitster4624 One must convert to a belief in God for this perspective to actually take hold. Reaching someone at a human level to see how incredible God's revelation through humanity actually is may be a way God opens their eyes to truth, but trying to explain something from a pespective within an already preconceived view is a difficult way to put things to someone who doesn't believe in that perception.
alex is scammer or atheist🤔🤔🤔 who can reach him to invite?🤔 alex, how much dollar you can bet foe your atheism? 🤔🤔🤔 3000$ is there any atheist to ask alex?
Wes has a video on his channel stating he won't debate anyone. Except that Bill grifter guy i guess, he was an easy target i suppose. Edit - He says he doesn't want to debate random skeptics but is willing to debate bigger channels, so it could actually happen. Fingers crossed.
You were hoping Alex would make another terrible video responding to Wes Huff? Alex lost a lot of credibility with how awful and dishonest the first video was and then he just doubled down and made another one. Alex should be embarrassed.
25:57 It still is a "WOW" moment because the standard everyone assumes about ancient scripture fidelity is the "telephone game" (popularized by atheists) which goes completely off message within a few iterations. In comparison, the fidelity of these scriptures are strong, especially given that their main points are all preserved.
not just preserved, majority of the scholars agree that accuracy of textual variants to the oldest manuscripts is ranging from 93 to 95 percent. let that sink in. there is a very good reason why alex and others don't ever show these terrible discrepancies in their videos, it is because there are none
The telephone games are obviously not played by exchanging messages on the pieces of paper. Initially, the early followers of the new Christian religion spread stories about the Messiah through oral tradition. The "telephone game" could have influenced the content of the stories that later became known as the biblical gospels. When the more educated and talented members of the early Christian communities began to write these stories down on pieces of parchment or papyrus and to use letters to communicate, the "telephone game" ended.
@@romulan01 unless you have evidence of this, you're just speculating. And that speculation didn't serve you so well when looking at the other portions of the Bible.
Here's what I've noticed in these online arguments where there a long series of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals: The side with the evidence in it's favor will keep talking about the data, keep a sense of balance, look at the big picture, "steel-man" the opponent's case... The other side will pounce on every mis-statement, psychoanalyze it's opponents, miss the forest for the trees, make mountains out of molehills, never concede when the opponent makes a good point...
@@JMBBrasil But that side is the one that always vastly overstates the evidence. I mean the best case scenario is that the changes that have been made to the text don’t affect your doctrines. But what does that prove? Nothing! It doesn’t mean that anything that the text claims is true and it also doesn’t mean that your interpretation is correct.
@@ramigilneas9274 "It doesn’t mean that anything that the text claims is true and it also doesn’t mean that your interpretation is correct." Did anyone ever make the claim that because the text has been preserved, it must be true?
@@QCMP Exactly. That’s why I really don’t understand why Wes pretends that it is word for word identical. Even if it was it wouldn’t get you one step closer to prove that the stories aren’t made up. But when I read the comments then I see many believers who think that it’s amazing evidence that everything they believe is true. And that’s the real job of Apologists like Wes, overstating irrelevant points to reassure believers that their faith is justified.
As an atheist, this is really sad. Even redditors nowadays dont play the sematic games.Lets say a map like 2000 years apart, Even tho major lansmarks , scales , rivers and every distinct features are still the same but some sheep lanes are changed slightly. That is the level of straw alex is grasping. Is there ANY , i mean any contradiction or even meaningful change. I think alex cannot fanthom himself being wrong. So his mind essentially negates one of the best overwhelmingly crazy preservation of the scroll. Its not that hard to accept even for an atheist.
@@tomasrocha6139 Wes admitted he misspoke, however, this is incredibly pendantic since we're talking about over a 95% accuracy here. It practically IS a word for word transmission. Finding the Great Isaiah Scroll was undoubtedly a wow moment for both scholars and believers. It was an extraordinary discovery, not only because of its age-dating back to around 125 BCE-but also due to its remarkable state of preservation and its alignment with the Masoretic Text, which was copied over a millennium later. You might not see it as remarkable, but those who actually study in the field for living do. These are the minor differences: Isaiah 9:16 (Masoretic Text numbering, or 9:17 in some translations) In the Masoretic Text: "Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will He have pity on the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks folly. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised." In the Great Isaiah Scroll: This verse is omitted. Significance: The omission does not affect the surrounding context about God's judgment on Israel but does slightly shorten the description of God's continued anger. Isaiah 10:4 (Masoretic Text numbering) In the Masoretic Text: "Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised." In the Great Isaiah Scroll: This verse is omitted. Significance: Like Isaiah 9:16, this omission shortens the description of God's judgment, but the overall message of His wrath and punishment remains intact in the broader passage. The omissions in Isaiah 9:16 and 10:4 do not introduce theological differences, as the surrounding text in both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text continues to emphasize God's judgment and justice. Scholars view these differences as typical of ancient manuscript transmission, where scribes occasionally skipped lines (parablepsis) or made intentional edits for readability or emphasis. The Great Isaiah Scroll differs slightly from the Masoretic Text in Isaiah 9 and 10, with notable omissions of Isaiah 9:16 and Isaiah 10:4, but these changes do not alter the core message of the passages. Such differences illustrate the remarkable consistency of the text over time while also showing the natural variations that occur in handwritten manuscripts. This was purposeful deceit on Alex's part. Reply
If you don't want Alex to play the sematic games then how about you don't let Wes created it? He's the one who claimed "it's word for word identically" and he pay the consequences of people correcting him
@@tomasrocha6139but if the argument is for the reliability of the texts, then how does a >95% resemblance mean it's poorly conservated? Would it really affect it even if it were 99.999999% similar? No. This video is just nitpicking and plain arrogance.
You're an undercover Christian (Not an Atheist but Christian, kind of like wolf in sheep or false prophet for us). You don't even get what the whole issue is about. It's just not about semantics, but attribution and interpretation of different words which bring different "understanding" and create different narratives. Even the way you can understand what I'm saying right now is because of the way I'm choosing a certain type of vocabulary in a certain way. In case it would be any other way, then you would get different meaning. We atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pagans, etc have been persecuted by You Christians for 1000s of years, yet you're still trying to make us appear wrong when we're right. We are The Truth, nothing but Truth. We know we are. So, you're just another failed undercover Christian trying to inflict your Fan-Fiction of Jesus and all to other people, stay another day.
I love how civil all of this is, it’s not your typical RUclips drama, it’s knowledgeable peoples engaging in debate and calling each other out on discrepancies whilst admitting their own mistakes Utterly perfect
I don't think wes is experienced enough to handle that, alex has a lot of debate wins under his belt against some very tough competition. wes beat a guy who sells colloidal silver on his griftsite.
Wes is afraid to debate him. He even said he would drop his schedule to debate someone who is big. Well, Alex has a huge channel, and it would be a productive conversation. Yet, he shys away and hides behind his comment section warriors
Wes has a video on his channel stating he won't debate anyone. Except that Bill grifter guy, he was an easy target i suppose. I never watched it so i don't know why, a bit shyte either way.
@26:57 *_So why are we so shocked and so excited when the Bible and biblical manuscripts look like all other ancient manuscripts?_* I think I can answer that enigma. It's people like you that doubt the Bible and insist that it changed and evolved in unprecedented ways that makes the rest of us excited when we have proof that it basically remained the same throughout time.
Having followed Huff already before Joe Rogan I knew he did NOT mean literally 100 % word for word exactly the same words. BUT it is a fact that scholars are amazed how well preserved the Isaiah scroll is.
You are missing the point altogether. People agree that the current version of the quran has not been changed, there is no doubt about it. But there was a lot of people who really believed the bible was rewritten and changed over time. So finding something that is that old and yet doesnt show any difference is in fact very very important, because it dismantles such claims.
I feel like this whole "word for word" thing is one giant red herring for both atheists and Christians. Even if they were (almost) word for word identical, that wouldn't mean anything in terms of convincing someone of either Christianity or atheism. It's just an interesting bit of trivia. That said, it feels like both sides are treating this as some kind of central issue for their world view, which in turn causes responses from the opposite side and makes the issue seemingly even more central, and so on, in a positive feedback loop. I think Alex is correct about this point and I respect him for doing all the research, however I also think that this is a good place to leave this topic and move on to other more interesting conversations.
@@jns8393 no bro. It would make absolute sense if the words were different given the time frame alone. But the overall message or intent is still intact
The only reason Alex finds this important is because these guys are being toted as some great scholars of the Bible when all they barely know anything about the massive claims they’re making.
Is Alex not just reiterating that Wes was admitting error? Wes was just saying this is what was going through his mind to explain his error, not to say he was actually correct
@@Orpheo5 Must be easy to just criticize when you stand for nothing. That is exactly why this Alex guy won't dare address a religion that is actually a current threat to even his ability to express himself. That's why the atheist movement will remain so irrelevant because it cannot inspire. It is just a bunch of people that complain about everything that is wrong but offers no solutions. Christians may not be perfect but don't you dare think for a moment that you can offer a person of faith an alternative that is worth considering. At least not when all you do is belittle the efforts of everyone else and slander them. It's pathetic to say the least.
I think my biggest issue with this, is that youre taking the one sentence wes huff said, and making it out as if he doesnt know what hes talking about, or that hes purposefully misleading folks, when it isnt that deep
@@cookiescraftscatsYou remind me a lot of the people that shouted "crucify him" when they asked to choose between Jesus or a known murderer because what you really want is to paint Wes black and you'll not stop at anything. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Did you not see in the video that Huff has consistently misquoted the scholars he's drawing from, even in his rebuttal video? Firstly, he cares enough to make a rebuttal video, so to him (and the hundred other Christian RUclipsrs reacting to the video) it is that deep, and secondly he's still giving false information, so he must be wrong, or misleading, I don't know how you can dispute it at this point.
I’m not expert, but even if the verses were not found in the great Isaiah scroll, I don’t think necessarily mean that those verses were later additions. From my understanding, most books in the OT were originally just passed down verbally, and not written down. So I think it’s possible, just like in the game of telephone, some things don’t fully get passed down verbally. Just because certain verses weren’t found in the oldest scroll, I’m not sure if it means that it’s inorganically added
I also just want to say that I wish Christian apologists would have more humility on certain topics like this, and admit they are wrong or admit they don’t have a good answer for something. As a Christian I don’t believe we will ever have all the answers to everything. More and more ancient scrolls may be uncovered, but there will always be uncertainty and I don’t think there will ever be a moment where you can be a Christian based on pure logic alone. Faith will always be required when taking a stance on the question of the existence of God, and that goes both ways
Alex O'Conner "Wes huff doesn't make it clear that the people he is talking about is referrring to 1QIsaB." Wes Huff "Granted, both Archer and Tov are talking about 1QisaB" ???
Continue the quote: “and my statement to Rogan was in specifically in context to QIsaA… although there is disagreement across the scholarly spectrum the statements are equally applied across both documents”. He quite clearly (and cleverly) misrepresents the facts to fit his narrative and when called out on it continues to do so, with the expectation that any criticism will be chalked up to pedantry and nitpicking.
"Textual fluidity" is only really a problem if you think Christianity is just a book. Ancient people didn't really care so much about these insertions and omissions. They would have just seen it as the influence of the Holy Spirit.
“Do not give to dogs anything that is holy. And do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and then proceed to tear you to pieces."
I find this video odd when one of your major sources had to issue an apology and stated "The differences do not compromise the theology of the bible at all" and your other major source makes an erroneous implication that the originak manuscripts of The Odyssey were as well kept as the Isaiah scroll.
The original critique was one of my favorite videos you’ve done! Endlessly fascinating! So happy that you have responded yet again. Alex I grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family and your channel has been so enlightening for me. While I still have a ton of respect for the religion, I’m so fascinated by learning about the history of the Bible and your critiques of it! Thanks for all you do and all the best to you.
You did add the "U" from French, actually. British-English uses fewer English spellings and fewer English-rooted vocabulary. It uses more French spelling and French-rooted vocabulary because your nobility are all Frenchmen for the last 1000 years.
Alex, I think your approach comes across as pedantic and leans toward the radical skepticism often associated with Bart Ehrman. Yes, Wes did misspeak, misremember, paraphrase frequently, and at times used hyperbolic language in his interview with Rogan. However, I don't think he's fundamentally wrong, though. Some scholars in the field support Wes's position on this topic, while others align with the views of the two guys you interviewed for this video.
Very charitable of you to ignore the way Huf attributes the “English” language spelling to American conventions, while the British people use the “British” language as way to position his entire argument.
I don't think there has been any discussion from either side, whether believer or unbeliever, regarding any variance of actual doctrinal content between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text. So my question is, considering all the discoveries of textual variances, is any doctrinal proposition at risk in this whole analysis of textual minutiae? Without this important discussion, either side is permitted to fill in the gaps according to their predispositions. We actually need more clarity on this issue.
No, doctrine isn't at risk from the differences. Doctrine is either derived from multiple verses of scripture (in which case it is safe) or it is primarily developed outside the Bible (again, safe). And if a verse contradicted any doctrine, the verse would be reinterpreted anyways. But it does highlight the fact that we don't have the original scriptures, and there were probably all sorts of changes made to scripture as it was copied that we don't know about. That may or may not bother you, depending on what beliefs you already hold.
There might be minor variances in doctrine I think. I remember watching a video (albeit by Paul Williams) where he pointed out that the Septuagint was often translated in order to make the theology easier to comprehend, some people likely thought something was too difficult to understand or explain so they litch just changed it. I think that's why we mainly use the Masoretic Text to make old testament translations. Essentially, it'd just be making stuff "easier to swallow". This is a guess btw, and it doesn't mean the MT has this same problem.
There is basically no doctrinal difference, the sentences added are mostly from different books or clarification points that the scribe thought it would make the text better. The point is that in the original JR fragment Wes Huff was pointing at the "word for word" agreement as a miraculous event, a WOW moment _proving,_ or at least _hinting at,_ that the Biblical text was never altered in medieval times. That is why it is relevant to debunk the "word for word" similarity, as the presence of relevant variations shows exactly the opposite: that we cannot be sure that the texts we are reading today have not been altered. It is like looking at a magician fitting his assistant in a box, and the assistant comes out from another box few seconds later. Noticing that the two people are _not the same_ assistant is relevant per se. If one is thin and the other is not, I am not body shaming them by pointing it out, nor questioning the relevance of a nice figure to be a magician assistant: I am just questioning the trick itself, if the two assistants are not the same person.
@@hevelhevel Exactly. When it comes to doctrine the cart is always before the horse, despite them saying the opposite. Dogma has always the upper hand. When Christians read the biblical text they don't perform a neutral reading, without any lens and see where the text take them. They take the text to where they are. They will reconcile all those different voices in a way to match the doctrine they already have. So, you are right, the doctrine is always safe. There's no text or discovery they won't reconcile with their dogma.
@@bobon123 Well said. The problem they run into is that the "word for word" agreement becomes the conclusion from which they argue backwards which results in misreading, misquoting and omissions.
IMO, the comparison still strongly suggests the trustworthy preservation of the text of Isaiah. The small variants do not hinder that and may even slightly increase the credibility compared to other holy books.
@@tomasrocha6139 Like I said, this was just a few sentences of a 3-hour conversation and he already issued a self-correction. To keep going back to it after a self-correction makes no sense. Alex is milking this when there's no milk left. Other academic sources essentially said what Huff said. To say he "lied," is a joke. Also, these remaining minor differences change nothing in terms of what Isaiah and/or the Bible say. Alex and other critics are holding Isaiah to a standard of inerrancy that only they use and that the Church never claimed. And, the bigger point is that the 20 various Isaiah scrolls found in the Dead Sea collection (when taken as a collection) say what our current Isaiah says (notwithstanding totally insignificant superficial differences in how they were copied). To keep pointing af Huff's few sentences over and over again and acting like that reflects negatively on either Huff or Christianity is the definition of reaching and milking. In contrast, Alex is deliberately ignoring the 99.9% of the rest of the conversation that was much more interesting and informative. He's just milking Huff for views.
@@alexanderlyon Alex is only responding to critics like Gavin Ortlund (you'd know if you watched the video). No academic sources say Isaiah has been 100% preserved word for word as Wes Huff falsely asserted
"Word for word" has particular and well-understood meaning. It is entirely dishonest to employ that phrase when one knows that "similar" is far more accurate.
I agree. People in the comments, however, do not seem to agree, and many people are accusing Alex of being picky for the sake of ”winning” the dispute.
@@IGTKYIYKSM Because in his first video he made it seem like there are many significant differences that do not depend on the meaning of Word for Word.
These responses are the most "missing the point" I've ever seen in a while. I'm not even a believer, but I think it's quite ridiculous to pick on Wes for such measly inaccuracies, when, at the end of the day, he IS right. The smug attitude, especially in the first response, is also unfortunate
Atheists in the real world are respectable. Atheist debators on the internet are mind bogglingly petty. If you miss punctuation while typing on a phone, they'll bring it up two years later as evidence of your lack of education.
Glad to see someone being honest. 95% accuracy is pretty damn close to word for word. We're talking about extremely minor differences here. Finding the Great Isaiah Scroll was undoubtedly a "wow" moment for both scholars and believers alike. It was an extraordinary discovery, not only because of its age-dating back to around 125 BCE-but also due to its remarkable state of preservation and its alignment with the Masoretic Text, which was copied over a millennium later. For Alex to cast doubt on the accuracy of it is very deceitful. This doesn't even touch his false claim in his first video that Jesus doesn't claim to be God in any of the gospels except for John. He's purposely twisting the truth in order to deceive people to fit his agenda. In the Masoretic Text: "Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will He have pity on the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks folly. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised." In the Great Isaiah Scroll: This verse is omitted. Significance: The omission does not affect the surrounding context about God's judgment on Israel but does slightly shorten the description of God's continued anger. Isaiah 10:4 (Masoretic Text numbering) In the Masoretic Text: "Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised." In the Great Isaiah Scroll: This verse is omitted. Significance: Like Isaiah 9:16, this omission shortens the description of God's judgment, but the overall message of His wrath and punishment remains intact in the broader passage. The omissions in Isaiah 9:16 and 10:4 do not introduce theological differences, as the surrounding text in both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text continues to emphasize God's judgment and justice. Scholars view these differences as typical of ancient manuscript transmission, where scribes occasionally skipped lines (parablepsis) or made intentional edits for readability or emphasis. In the Masoretic Text: "Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will He have pity on the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks folly. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised." In the Great Isaiah Scroll: This verse is omitted. Significance: The omission does not affect the surrounding context about God's judgment on Israel but does slightly shorten the description of God's continued anger. Isaiah 10:4 (Masoretic Text numbering) In the Masoretic Text: "Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised." In the Great Isaiah Scroll: This verse is omitted. Significance: Like Isaiah 9:16, this omission shortens the description of God's judgment, but the overall message of His wrath and punishment remains intact in the broader passage. The omissions in Isaiah 9:16 and 10:4 do not introduce theological differences, as the surrounding text in both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text continues to emphasize God's judgment and justice. Scholars view these differences as typical of ancient manuscript transmission, where scribes occasionally skipped lines (parablepsis) or made intentional edits for readability or emphasis. The Great Isaiah Scroll differs slightly from the Masoretic Text in Isaiah 9 and 10, with notable omissions of Isaiah 9:16 and Isaiah 10:4, but these changes do not alter the core message of the passages. Such differences illustrate the remarkable consistency of the text over time while also showing the natural variations that occur in handwritten manuscripts.
1,930 non-spell related textual variance between the isaiah scroll and the mastic text, wes said it's word for word, he is greatly mistaken, you either have the mental capacity to admit you're wrong, or keep coping as a wes fan crying about Alex attitude
For real Alex, coming from a Christian thank you for calling the creators who often act as our representatives online to a higher standard. I think we need this so we’re not trapped in an echo chamber of the same arguments and answers to important questions, and it’ll help us know who we can really rely on for answers.
To me it sounds like Alex is defending his honor. I'll leave this here for fun (YMMV) .... it's a analysis of the two texts from a top LLM: - The high degree of agreement between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT demonstrates that ancient scribes were deeply committed to preserving sacred texts with minimal corruption over centuries. - Variants reflect natural processes of textual transmission rather than deliberate alterations. They provide valuable insights into how texts were copied, corrected, and standardized over time. - The Masoretic Text represents a culmination of this process, achieving an unparalleled level of precision through systematic annotation and codification. The preservation of Isaiah's text across more than a thousand years is a testament to both human diligence and cultural reverence for sacred writings. While minor differences exist between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text, they do not undermine the integrity or meaning of the biblical text. Instead, they enrich our understanding of its transmission history and highlight how ancient scribal cultures worked to safeguard their literary heritage.
@@jamesearl4267 Genuinely curious, or just poking fun? I'd be happy to share, but I think most can come up with an appropriate query that would reveal similar.
It doesn't seem to me like Wes is saying that the 95% correlation between the Isaiah scroll is a "wow" moment because it is a miracle. It feels like he's responding to the pop-atheists and anti-Christian activists like Billy Carson who accuse the modern Bible of going through translation and translation and being COMPLETELY different from the ancient texts. Wes is just pointing out that those people are objectively wrong and that the Christian tradition has remained steady for thousands of years, which, divinely inspired or not, is a "wow" moment because it proves all of those people wrong. All that makes this drama feel a little uninspired. Alex is right that Wes was wrong in his "word for word" statement, but I don't believe Wes was making the claim that Christianity is true *because* the Great Isaiah Scroll is word for word similar to today's versions. So, ultimately, neither Alex's video or Wes' response video are actually attacking the point of the original statement. I'd like to see a long-form discussion on the Within Reason podcast that digs into Wes' points in more detail, because I don't feel like either Wes or Alex are being malicious in their attacks or perspectives. Both are smart guys. Seems like Wes misspoke in a long form context.
@@JD-xz1mx I love Wes, and I actually side with him in all of this. But I don't want to ascribe malice to Alex either. There's clearly a misunderstanding here, but, as a Christian myself, I'm not called to tribalism. I won't assume that Alex is trying to be malicious or a liar, I think he's just not actually rebutting the right thing. Wes did misspeak, as one would reasonably expect in a 3 hour podcast. I would hope that a simple 5 minute conversation could settle all of this.
Isn't it rather ironic that you want to prove that Christian tradition has remained stable for thousands (sic) of years by pointing out how well the Jewish canon has been preserved by Jewish groups?
As a Christian I listen to Alex first over any of these bro-scientists trotting their imprecise whoa moments on Rogan, then failing to be humble about it when corrected. Alex is not your enemy, he is one of your most accurate allies
It would be nice if you showed these variants side by side to truly demonstrate that they have or convey different meanings. I've yet to see this in any of these vids please show some.
The fact that the changes don’t change ones interpretation is pretty amazing. And it’s a far cry from the old idea of this game of telephone where what we have today is totally different in substance than the original. Alex was called out for being overly pedantic. Which really calls into question this persona he’s built that he is a “non resistant” nonbeliever. Sure your are Alex, sure you are. You originally jumped on Wes with gleeful sarcasm, which does betray a bit of the personal.
Oh come on! The text was copied by scribes, not transmitted in a game of telephone! How amazing is it that scribes can copy a text without completely messing it up?
The gospel and the messages that make up the bible and including the parables are life only to those who are truly seeking. Others will not dwell on these things that are only a distraction and actually focus on the heart of the matter. No one that has in fact come to the knowledge of God will be moved by this. It's always cool to see people saying so much but at the end of the day, your faith is something you can keep with you and it will keep you😊❤.
The fact that people hang onto Wes' phrasing, rather than looking at and comparing the actual texts, which are in essence the same, with just slightly different wording at some parts, proves they don't have any real argument. What is more disingenuous? You claiming the texts have "quite a bit of textual fluidity", or Wes using the phrase "word for word" when the text is indeed 99% identical word for word and exactly the same in essence?
Wes DELIBERATELY MISLED millions of people about a mundane and heavily edited document. 🤷♂️ Pretending that didn’t occur is the ONLY disingenuousness.
So, no one disagrees that it is more than 95% similar and Wes did say he got it wrong considering the type of conversation it was in.. So? Christianity proven false? All of this is irrelevant, everyone agreed that even tho it wasn't "word for word" Wes included and Inspiring Philosophy even addressed this in his live stream of the podcast, said Wes got it wrong. I don't really get it, but okay shall we now go back to your old videos and see how many times you've "misinterpreted" and "misrepresented" the bible and beat you over the head with it? Really disappointing.
@ I did watch the video and as I said many Christians immediately responded saying no it's not "word for word" that it ranges from 93% to 98% or something. And Wes himself also said he got it wrong. So what is the issue what responsibility/accountability wasn't taken? Even Alex says Wes is essentially correct and what Ortlund did is indeed scummy, no disagreement about that. I may be biased but I am perfectly able of recognizing it and not letting it influence my thought process. Do you and Alex do the same?
@@reasonablechristianityThe fact is that Wes’s claim of the Isaiah scroll being word for word is what shocked Joe Rogan (and Joe asks to again to make sure that it is word for word). When that claim turns out to be false, and that the accuracy of the Masoretic text is in line with some other texts from antiquity, you shouldn’t be surprised to see some pushback against Wes.
Yours is the only channel about theology I watch, because I’ve watching your videos since you started. Big fan. Normally I don’t get fed apologists by the algorithm. But since I watched your video critique of the rogan interview I’m been bombarded by channels I’ve never heard of all slinging shit at your analysis. It’s like you tube is trying to convert me.
Hey, Alex O’Connor, I really love your work. As a Christian, I think you are one of the most thoughtful and respectful Atheists/Agnostics out there. I like how you agree with some points, or point out where the Scholars may be wrong. But, to clarify, you should have a debate with both Huff and Ortlund, so we can hear information clearly. Maybe invite Macellan too, 🤷.
As a Christian this may be odd to say but I love hearing your side especially when it refutes my own view ,it helps me dive deeper into the truth ,keep up the good work
Seriously nobody should be surprised that a text copied by a scribe matches the original document. That is not a miracle, that is people being good at their jobs.
yeah the point the christians are making is that the biblical texts arent victim of the telephone game theory, because they Jews did a very good job preserving the text.
@@Jayden-zq6fj And that point is incorrect. They did do a good job preserving their texts, but there are still changes- intentional and unintentional- that made it in. And more importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that there are usually centuries between the original compositions and our earliest manuscripts, so there are almost certainly many more changes we will never know about.
Jewish scribes were well known for being meticulous in making copies of their scriptures. Secular scholars are well aware of this. It's kind of a strawman argument for apologists. They proved something everyone knew. The problem for them is the fact that Christians didn't develop this level of attention to detail when copying the NT until the 3rd century (roughly) when professional copyists took over.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fnyou’ve clearly never seen Muslim apologetics against Christianity, this is their go to argument when attacking Christianity because they falsely believe their own scripture was miraculously preserved by God, word for word, letter for letter and try to apply that standard to every other religion. For Christians, the preservation of scripture is evidence of fidelity not divinity. Evidence of divinity is left to the actual message contained within the scriptures.
That’s calling creating a straw man and when the straw man is seemingly toppled the pedantic moron who set it up gets praised by other pedantic morons.
That's the point of this specific video... Wes' claim about it being word for word and then refusing to make good on that claim in his follow up video. Its about integrity
@@nc1906 Mark 2: 5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? 10 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-- He said to the paralytic, 11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." I can pull an example from pretty much every chapter of Mark that shows Jesus trying to teach the people that He is the Son of God the Father while simultaneously being a son of mankind. The manifestation of Jesus is God's ultimate display of self-humbling and self-sacrifice to prove His love and faithfulness.
Dr. Dan McClellan is an excellent biblical scholar, so is Kipp. Love your content Alex! Btw, Huff has been caught putting out more misinformation since that original video. Dan McClellan addressed Huff's latest misinformation today on his channel.
@@amaizenblue44 Hadn't noticed, thanks for pointing it out. The background on Huff's other video could be from 3 or 4 years ago, not really sure about that. Wouldn't it be nice if Huff put a bit more effort in learning the material?
Exactly what I just commented. It’s just debating for debates sake. If someone was reading aloud to me the book of Isaiah and got 93 percent of the words exactly the same, I would definitely say they got it “word for word”😂 and they act like he didn’t take accountability when he literally said “yes, I misspoke”
@Mr47CRO@@BringOutTheLobster. 93 percent just makes the claim so much less significant. It's not really that WOW moment from the Joe Rogan show that really just says something special about Christianity. Especially, when considering those variants DO NOT include the orthographic changes as still stated in the correction video AND we have examples of texts more faithfully preserved over longer periods of time. Is it really that hard to believe scribes copying off each other can stay somewhat faithful to the source material for a long time? I find it pretty strange entire new verses were even able to appear considering those scribes probably revered those texts they were copying quite a bit. Not really the mark of an inerrant and unchanging document, is it?
@@BringOutTheLobster. Nahh if we put it on numbers, most people (very important) would have an understanding of "word for word" which means exactly the same, so it's 100%. He could've said "almost word for word" and that would be 95%,99%, we would have no problem then. The phrase is a rhetorical device used to emphasize on how seemingly miraculous the Bible is, the intentional use by Wes of it may not be malicious but it's misleading. Also, It's not semantic games if the point of contention is the phrase itself, it's word games if you're pretending to dodge the point by pretending to misunderstand something by nitpicking on the meaning of a/some words, which Alex was not doing.
@@artsyrant8931 my point is that this whole thing is overblown. Yes, Wes was wrong in saying word for word. I wouldn’t deny that. But do I think it is relevant to the discussion that Joe and Wes were having? No I do not. I say this because Wes was not claiming that it was a divine miracle that caused these books to be near identical. He was making the point that it is extremely important that we were able to push our understanding of the book back nearly 1000 years and that we now have a deeper insight and understand that the books message wasn’t changed to fit a narrative as some people believe. I just think it’s silly that people keep throwing shade at Wes after he admitted he made a mistake.
@@BringOutTheLobster.I think it is relevant because ‘word for word’ is a claim of 100%, which is an extraordinary claim. It’s important to make clear to everyone that is incorrect.
Both sides are in danger of missing the forrest for the trees. Ok 5% insignificant differences on a text roughly 400 years removed from its original writing. thats impressive not because it's almost 100% but because of the content of the writing and the fulfilled predictions within. Not even mentioning the other dead sea prophetic texts beside Isaiah such as Daniel and their fulfilled prophecy. Confirming these arent just middle age forgeries as scholars were all agreeing upon beforehand but by all the evidence are more likely very very close to their original. THAT'S the woa factor.
The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) is important because it confirms (as the MT and LXX do) that the Messianic prophecies in the Book of Isaiah were already present around 125-100 BC-long before Jesus' time. This shows that these passages were not later Christian alterations but were part of Jewish Scripture well before Christianity.
This discussion proves the Catholic teaching on the importance of Bible AND tradition and refute the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Both the original biblical texts and later insertions ARE part of tradition.
@@Rocky-ur9mn Dan is a Mormon because he worked for them translating some texts for them and he just attends services because he said they improve his life he doesn't consider mormonism some ultimate Christian truth, he's one of the best in the field of scholarship
The real question is, are the texts referring to the same things in writing? If so, it doesn’t really matter if they are not written word for word if the meaning for the sentences is the same.
A lot yes, however the point is Huff’s claim of “word for word” isn’t true as there are literal verses left out, let alone also having significant changes at some stages. I believe the overall point Alex is making is that there is a difference between similarities and a perfect transcript.
Personally, after considering the number of factors that could have resulted in those variances, like individual writing styles, the intricate level of technique required to copy each of them manually(we didn't have copiers), possibility of wears and tears of the older scripts that they were copying(if passage was missing, they probably had to come up with words according to their understanding and memory, any 2 scrolls written by 2 different people over a thousand years apart that are 93-95% similar, would pretty much fit a "word for word identical". But of course, not by today's standard, due to modern technology allowing us to achieve exactly that. Though Alex would seemingly look petty, he'd actually taught Christians a really good lesson here, that we shouldn't take texts too literally as language had evolved and there were even slight variants here and there. Christians should always prioritize in trying to understand the meanings that God wants to convey, not just the literal word for word written by human authors.
"would pretty much fit a "word for word identical"" Pretty much is not synonymous with identical. It can be almost, and not, identical. Nearly perfect does not equal perfect.
He taught me something and still consider him petty to over analyze the usage of “word for word” especially in the context of a thousand year span, is he right sure, does it affect anyone in the faith I would hope not, if anything it seems to show how nitpicky atheists have to be towards Christianity and how much data it has ranging from several hundred years apart, to know how preserved the Isaiah scroll is and to see how hard atheists like Alex have to attack those who acknowledge this shows Satan is hard at work influencing the children of disobedience
@parkerdavis7132 you are correct if you choose to evaluate that terminology while holding it against today's standard. But if you were to adapt to the ancient standard, those slight variances might not have been considered at all. Imagine a time where there were no computers, no copy machines and not even pens and papers, no proper storage unit to preserve the quality of scrolls, no internet to fact-check and the only method of writing is basically carving on either stones or animal skins. The amount of effort, time and skill it takes to write a single letter were significantly harsher as compared to today. There could be some allowances of slight variations to still be deemed as "word for word identical" due to the factors enveloping the ancient times as I've stated above. And keeping those variances for over a thousand years at only 5-7% is pretty much amazing. I do understand where you and Alex are coming from. I think Huff should've relayed it as "pretty much identical" instead of "word for word identical" as it conveyed a slightly different message, albeit the meanings/essences of the different scripts were exact same. I can give you another example. Let's say a police detective brought in 5 key witnesses of a murder to interview them. The 5 witnesses gave similar statements. The police then proceeded to inform on the press conference that the crime was beyond a reasonable doubt because the 5 key witnesses claims were exactly the same. As the public, we know that it's impossible for the claims to be "exactly the same" because different people have different ways of speech, perspectives, or even literacy level. But we do understand that the essences in their claims were exactly the same.
You mean after personally deciding on a vague metric of what "identical" can mean to you in this instance you decided to ignore actual experts saying that it's not just these things?
Alex as a Christian used to be atheist until I encountered the holy spirit when I was 20 (most surreal experience of my life) I do really appreciate how honest and respectful you are. Please ignore all these hateful Christians who let their emotions run rampant calling you names and honestly not being very "Christian" at all.. none of us are perfect however.. of course. But please continue to research even though I'm sure your convinced I truly believe God is leading you ultimately to him one day I prey he can fully encounter you like he did to me because then it's impossible to deny. For me I needed evidence I was a strong atheist and when I hit rock bottom I ultimately desperately preyed not expecting a thing and then BOOM a week later the holy spirit filled me it was so overwhelming it was intense and no I wasn't on drugs I had been completely sober and hadn't taken anything in the past before that point.
The guy exaggerated once in a 3 hour pdocast and we gotta discuss it for the next 2 months is that what were doing here? Seriously close to unsubscribing this is petty and isnt a productive or thought provoking discussion. Its not engaging, its politics at this point. If i wanted this level of triviality id go watch fox or cnn.
"The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ), found in Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), is about 95% identical to the Masoretic Text (MT) of Isaiah. The remaining 5% differences consist mainly of spelling variations, minor grammatical differences, and a few added or omitted words. However, none of these differences significantly change the overall meaning of the text. This high level of similarity confirms the remarkable preservation of the Hebrew Bible over more than 1,000 years, since the Masoretic Text was finalized around 900-1000 AD, while the Isaiah Scroll dates back to circa 125-100 BC." What part of the information above Alex doesn't understand?
He doesn't understand your unfounded conclusion. 1QIsa demonstrates that only Isaiah was preserved well, not that the entire HB was preserved well. You're misleading people with your wording. Compare the text to Jeremiah, a text which is famously very different from the Jeremiah in the MT.
@@eurech what are you talking about? Neither I or Wess were talking about the entire HB, when mentioning the similitude with the MT being over 95%. We were limiting ourselves to the Great Isaiah Scroll.
Dan says it best at the end. Everyone makes mistakes in unscripted situations. How you take accountability for those mistakes is what matters. “I don’t think accountability has been adequately taken here. I think the attempt is still to salvage the apologetic goal of reassuring the audience that their dogmas are safe.”
As a Christian, I’m very appreciative of Alex for his high quality and informative content, I genuinely just care about the absolute truth so this really helps me not live in an echo chamber. Funny enough, it strengthens my faith by making sure I understand the truth and I’m well informed.
Can we not provide notes to areas of your video and instead provide notes on where yours, or your gusts sources come from so we can check this out on our own? As we all know, anyone's word on the interwebz is worthless..
@MrzPicklez s Absolutely! I want to see both sides sources! Remember in school when we had to do bibliogrophies at the end of book reports.... Thats what I want out of everyone...im just gonna start commenting on all these guys posts.... Cite your sources...
Why are you being so disingenuous about the textual variants in the Isaiah dead sea scroll. All variants are none consequential, all the experts so say, i mean even the ones you showed were words like And.
My question is does the theology and themes of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls match the theology of the masoretic Text and LXX? If it does then great, and this wouldn’t be anything more than knit picking.
Yes, the themes and messages are identical and this ultimately comes down to minor details that DO NOT change the overall intelligence of the texts. As you said, this is nitpicking; to the max degree.
@@vdsuai believe you but how do you know this. Do you have a source that confirms that the theological themes are exactly the same between both manuscripts?
@@AngelGarcia-zr8nt Most, if not all, of this is public information by this point. The author Jeff A. Benner did a lot of work on it, and you can look this up. He has references via images of both the texts for your eyes to witness yourself. I appreciate your skepticism, as there is much deceit online, but I assure you the work has been done and we can all look into these works by trusted people. I hope this helps, and may God bless you.
@@AngelGarcia-zr8ntmy replies keep getting deleted but there is a place online where you can go to to see the differences in manuscripts look it up and you should find the english version of DSS and annotations with the MT to show the differences
No. Bc only Christians need be chastised and only Jesus made as a world wide cuss word. Bc we're so wrong, ppl urgently need to prove it. No other religion. Just Christianity. Riddle me that.
Isn't a 93% similarity still comparable to the genetic differences between a chimpanzee and a human? And haven't those arisen as a cumulative iteration of differences?
Can someone lay out a set of comparisons of some of the most drastic or critical differences in meaning? Who cares about textual variants if the meaning is the same?
@@centaur7607not necessarily. The point of the video is to address the claims from Wes and Gavin about the textual differences being minor. Alex is claiming that over 1900 are different in meaningful ways. It’s reasonable to ask to see those meaningful changes
@@ChronoDegeneration False, the point of this video was about there being discrepancies at all. How did you miss this. And then the follow up video still avoiding admission to this.
At 4:27 I looked at the list he displayed and specifically at the entries for variants to the Masoretic version. Every single one was what I would call a spelling difference, like how to spell Hezekiah in 1:1, or Davai vs Davah in 1:5. Anyway, it looks like this list indeed includes spelling variants, but I didn't go through the whole thing, I just happen to be able to read Hebrew and I was curious.
@@AngelGarcia-zr8nt Sure. I meant that every single one of the ones that I chose to look at were spelling variants (in my opinion.) I only looked at about ten, a sort of sample set. From this cursory look, it seemed apparent that this is a pattern that would likely continue through this list of many thousands of cases. Although it is possible that the sample set I chose is not characteristic of the entire manuscript, especially since I only looked at the first chapter, nonetheless, it was clear that the variants I saw in this sample set were what I would deem as spelling variants. Therefore, the assertion that this list does not include spelling or "orthographic" variants is incorrect, as even a single instance would have proved that.
Watching a bunch of Wes stuff, Alex stuff, the gavin response and comments under both from both sides. And maybe it's just my observation, but both Wes and Gavin just act more humble than Alex. That said, I still appreciate Alex' way of arguing compared to many of his atheist companions. Which becomes strikingly obvious in the comments. There is a lot of very nuanced and unaggressive critique under Alex' first video. Compare this to all the aggressiveness here, with brutal disrespectful attacks on Wes Huff and his character. Let's just say: The fruits visible are preeeeetty different here.
Spot on, Alex is still attacking a guy who humbly admitted he should have said it differently, demanding 100% accurate speech from anyone is fruitless and egotistical
O próprio Wes admitiu que sua fala foi um erro,mas ele continua atacando e dizendo que ele está errado,mas pelo que vemos Alex concordou com ele no próprio vídeo.
The same problem exist in Islam too. Muslims claim that Quran has been protected perfectly but when you check deeply, you find versions where there is the same wovel pointing problem. It even goes even further, some letters and number of the verses are also different. Different wovel pointing and letter differences cause different meaning. Overall it doesn't cause major differences in meaning.
Yep difference is muslims believe allahs word cannot be changed period. Christians believe that the ancient Jews did a really good job preserving prophetic texts. Then you also have zaid ben thabit burning all the other variants of the quran so thats why they arent there.
@@Jayden-zq6fjYou are confusing personal copies (notes/diaries) with what the Qur'an is, which is understood to be primarily a multi-oral revelation. Putting pen to paper is a means of capturing what people recited and memorised. Orthography, typography and vowelising are all interesting sciences in textual fidelity, but they come second to what was in the hearts of the faithful who memorised the revelation as their primary vehicle of transmission. The remarkable manuscript fidelity of the Qur'an (27:00) reflects the conscious effort of memorisers and not vice versa.
If the scriptures are corrupt, Islam is corrupt. Because everything in the 7th century and allah saying to refer to the people of the book at the time, well we have the same book. But also, the Quran is the unchanged word and their miracle. That is corrupted and the whole religion is corrupted as allah said he would protect it.. Christians, the Word is Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. Huge difference. "Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples' is a good book to suss that out for regarding preservation. Now, as for the bible. We do not claim such a thing like Muslims do. The overall message, is the same though. And this is what focus needs to be on. The overall message and if it changes. Because it shows someone being prophesised, and someone coming at a particular time in the texts, etc. And our books are written over thousands of years. Additionally, if you want to shock yourself a little. Here is some old English... Here is a sentence as an example of old English is translated to Her is se sæd as an fordeman of eald Englisc. As if this wouldn't change overtime with different words, such as different grammar, etc. Language develops over time.
I interviewed Dan McClellan for part of this video. My full, 50-minute discussion with him is available, for free here: www.alexoconnor.com/p/full-interview-with-dan-mcclellan
Thanks also to Kipp Davis for his contribution to this response.
So glad to see you connect with Dan and Kip - Hope this is the first of many collabs!
The British didn't add a 'u' to 'colour', the American removed it.
Wow, Alex, you really do need to have a one on one discussion with Gavin Ortlund. Perhaps even a debate, if you're daring
@@CosmicSkeptic People have been wanting a video with you and Wes engaging together. He made a response expressing a lack of interest in debates, but open to the idea, if given enough time to prepare. How do you feel about collaborating for RUclips or your Within Reason podcast?
@@ABC-cy6veWes needs a full calendar year to do his homework first.
B- student at best. Ofc he’s a believer so that’s an A on the standard curve.
This is gonna turn into an infinite content loop
wes huff reacts to alex o’conner reacting to reaction videos about wes huff
It already has ever since both billy and wes Got something Wong
I dunno, this video is pretty definitive
@@antonioperkins1927what Billy got wrong is incomparable to what Wes’ hyperbole.
Never listening to Wes huff or any other religions personas they lie they stretch they sell 😂 I don’t trust an evangelical at all
Can‘t wait to see Wes responding to Alex responding to Gavin responding to Alex responding to Wes.
I don't think Wes would do that
Wes already responded to wes
I'm going to respond to your response to that responding
And don’t forget that dopey RuslanKD glomming on for clicks
It's the new era soap opera... stayed tuned for next exciting episode of The Responders!
Alex O' Connor : I was wrong, because I was even more right than I thought
Classic O'Connor'ness.
Accurate 😂 Glad he responded though.
A very Einstein situation here. 😂
@thesalsamanacoustic1944 I don't think just spewing out random words is very helpful.
@@thesalsamanacoustic1944 Yeah being right is kinda darn woke XD
Alex, why don’t you just show us the exact English translation of the variants to see how they read to determine if it really is that much of a difference or not. How many complete phrases or paragraphs are left out or any other non-orthographic differences of the Isaiah dead Sea scroll compared to the Masoretic text with a side-by-side comparison in an English translation to determine if it really is that big of a deal.
Give us some actual practical perspective rather than nitpicking the argument from Wes to make it seem like such a big deal
It's not "nitpicking" when it was Wes who insisted that it was "word for word." That phrase, "word for word," has a meaning. Alex is not the one who set the standard whereby a single word off is a failure. Wes did that. He's the one who claimed that not even a single word differed. It's not "nitpicking" to point out that quite a lot more than a single word was off. To claim that it was "nitpicking" is to move the goalposts far away from where Wes had put them.
@somexp12 to me Alex is isolating this specific part of Wes‘s argument to create a red herring to the main point Wes was trying to make which is that the Dead Sea scroll Isaiah text is incredibly similar despite a 1000 year time span. If he is trying to magnify the variant difference among the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea scroll text then he should demonstrate how significant the difference in variants are by showing a comparison in an English translation to let the viewer decide
Joe rogan has also said he can’t stop thinking about the fact it’s word for word a few times now too. Words matter.
@ concerning Alex’s conclusion statement that there is nothing significant or amazing about this Isaiah scroll and other biblical writings of antiquity, they downplay biblical writing saying that there are plenty of other writings of antiquity that demonstrate better reliability of transcription than the Bible and are more amazing.
Would love to see some actual defense of these claims being made as well as none are demonstrated in this video. Merely unsubstantiated claims. Please show us the works of antiquity that have the sample size of the New Testament manuscripts and the consistency of transcription that they demonstrate. Not sure why that last part was thrown in. Is there really a writing an antiquity that can challenge that of the Bible? would love to see that demonstrated, else the conclusion drawn that there is no wow factor in the Isaiah scroll or any biblical writings of antiquity is baseless.
Thank you! SHOW US THE VARIANTS. don't just say they are different without demonstrating it.
I'm going to have nightmares with people screaming "word for word" at me
Word play night terrors, not great, not terrible.
Kill me again😂
☠️🍿
holy gigachad pfp
And since words have different meaning depending on context next we’ll discuss meaning for meaning based on context
Hi Alex,
Thanks for engaging my video. I’m currently traveling internationally for a while so I don’t have time to do a response (i’m typing this on my iPhone in the London airport) and it’s probably best to not keep going with back-and-forth rebuttals at any rate. But I would love to talk more sometime. In the meantime, here are three brief thoughts.
1. The 1930 figure from Dan McClellan is different from what I’m gathering elsewhere. I’m still trying to get to the bottom of that. I’ll be sure to share my findings if and when I can get to the bottom of why the differing figures, for now I’m just flagging it as a point for review.
2. My omission of that portion of the quote was not an intentional sneaky move. It honestly did not occur to me to include it because I was focused on the point I was intending to make (I’m more interested in the cumulative yield of the Dead Sea Scrolls, including via textual criticism, than the Great Isaiah scroll in isolation). In hindsight, I should have represented your point better, and the way it ultimately aligns with the website you were quoting. I apologize for that (and for potentially cutting off your clip too quickly).
3. My comment about whether Wes was referencing the Dead Sea Scrolls as a whole was an effort at a charitable guess as to what he might’ve *meant.* Yes, I acknowledge he made an error on the specific claim he made. I left that for him to clarify, which he has. Perhaps I am being overly charitable, but on the other hand, when he’s speaking off the cuff for several hours, it’s rather unfortunate for one specific comment to be seized upon so much. I still do think he was essentially right in the larger point of the dialectic between us. In other words, yes, it’s not “word for word” but it’s a remarkable confirmation of prior textual history (and the vast majority of variants, whether 1930 or fewer, are extremely minor). My hope is for the bigger picture to not be lost in technicalities.
I’ve typed this out before catching my next flight, so apologies for brevity, and I do hope to talk more sometime. Thanks again for engaging my video and I very much always enjoy watching yours
@@RationalistMH Probably read his comment before shitting on him for something he clearly explained
Exposed
@@RationalistMHHe has literally just said that he should have represented it better and apologized for it. How is that deceptive?
That's the humble response I'd expect from Gavin, and I absolutely think Alex should have a conversation with him.
@@brunoarruda9916 Actions speak louder than words. He intentionally removed an entire sentence that he knew would prove his entire argument wrong had he left his supposed 'piece of evidence' untouched. That is objectively an act of deception and trickery. You do not remove an entire sentence and go out of your word to edit a passage just because. Perhaps Christians will be more convincing when they stop constantly lying to millions of people in order to sell their apologetic slop. Just a word of advice. Not that you'd take it.
Would you be willing to appear on the within reason podcast after your vacation? (Safe travels btw)
A rebuttal to a rebuttal of a rebuttal that occasionally referrences another rebuttal. :)
😂😂 underated comment 🤣
I saw your comment under Sean Mcdowell's video, what do you have to say for yourself?
i'm just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude
Well to be fair, that is kindof how a conversation works lol. You reply to a reply to a reply
@Baset_ I know. :) I just thought it was funny. Looking first to the next rebuttal! Or maybe a concession? I enjoy watching these people go back and forth. Really good learning experience too.
27:28 I find it ironic that Alex has dedicated two entire videos to Wes Huff's off the cuff "Word for Word" comment, then allows his guest to get away with an absolutely outrageously misleading comment abut the Qu'ran which A. Isn't true (there are numerous textual variants of the Qu'ran) and B. Even in so far as it is true there is agreement between the texts is because Uthman burned manuscripts he didn't like/agree with! Yet this gets something of a free pass in this video I feel, and the viewer is allowed to come way with the impression there is better textual attestation of the Qu'ran than the Bible? I
It is ironic, but i don't think Alex knows all that much about islam because a lot of it is weird and he simply doesn't believe in it
Not only that, but I also feel like Kipp grossly understates biblical manuscript attestation by comparing it with other manuscripts from antiquity. Even non Christian scholars agree that the New Testament is the best attested work of antiquity in the world, by a long shot.
"Uthman burned manuscripts he didn't like/agree with! "
source?
@@lapis_lazuli578 Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Hadith 510 I believe, and also in Tarikh al-Tabari - but I'm working from memory there, so I might be off with the Hadith reference.
@@stu1002 you missing the point. The other guy is not saying that it is accurate due to being real. He gave a disclaimer saying there are obvious reasons for it being so “accurate” so he is not disagreeing with the burning thing
Comparing Biblical fidelity to the Quran's fidelity is weird. Uthman literally gathered all the versions of the Quran, created a standardized version, and burned the versions he didn't like. Saying "the circumstances were very different" is a gross understatement.
UPDATE: I may have mischaracterized Alex's main point as being about "how accurate is our modern copy compared to the original" (the main apologetical question) as opposed to "how accurately did scribes copy the manuscript over the centuries" (a subcategory of that question). Alex is primarily arguing about the latter (subcategory). I'm primarily arguing about the former (which is why I was annoyed by comparison to the Quran). No amount of consistency over the last several centuries matters if the original manuscript was altered by a central power. We aren't sure what sort of variants existed in early copies of the Quran because Quran variants were actively destroyed by Uthman and a standard Quran was made. In contrast, our early New Testament manuscripts are decentralized and we can follow different "trees" of variants back to the roots of the original, giving us a high confidence in identifying changes in the text.
While early Christians did destroy many Gnostic writings, keep in mind that the Gnostic Gospels are clearly inventions after the fact, not eyewitness accounts like the original Gospels. This is evidenced by statements showing unawareness of Israel's geography, the use of names common in second century Egypt rather than first century Israel, scholarly dating of the manuscripts, the legendary development present in those Gnostic Gospels, etc. So the Church was destroying content we have good reason to believe was fake whereas in Islam, Uthman destroyed others' early eyewitness testimony in order to create a unified text. I'd add that it's inaccurate to characterize the early Church as destroying everything they decided was non-canonical. Apocryphal books and books such as The Shepherd of Hermas were often praised by early Church Fathers--while they simultaneously acknowledged such writings were not on par with inspired Scripture. Finally, I'll add that the Old Testament is a far older manuscript than the Quran, and I'll acknowledge it's far harder to trace it's origins. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate the OT was well-preserved, that the theology hasn't changed, and that Isaiah 53's messianic prophecy existed well before Jesus, which is significant.
I do apologize I wasn't more fair to Alex's main point, though. I'm arguing a different thread than he is and should have listened more carefully and distinguished that difference in my initial comment. With that said, I do think the Uthman revision is important context many of Alex's viewers may be unfamiliar with and it undermines the applicability of his comparison.
@@HermitsClogwhat constitutes a "legitimate claim"? What objective criteria would you reference?
@@HermitsClog
The Christian moral code and philosophy is the most ideal and it has led to a better world.
Every abolition movement was a Christian movement. Women being respected & granted autonomy increases in correlation w the spread of Christianity through the world.
The Christian church build and staffed hospitals, built
some of our best schools, and normalized the education of women w nuneries. Christians normalized the concept that land by conquest is wrong.
Christian western nations are the least racist on earth.
Christianity tore down the divide btwn the rich and poor.
Hinduism does not have any of these western concepts & upholds the caste system.
@@timpietz2279I doubt they’re gonna respond 😂😂😂
@@melm295 "Christian western nations are the least racist on earth. " 😂
What you described sounds exactly like "the circumstances were very different". I don't see how that's a gross understatement at all. Would you accept "the circumstances were super duper different"?
Horrible day to be a goalpost
The motion sickness...🤢
Even with the constant moving, apologists still can't score.
@@scottgodlewski306 - The points have literally been
"The text is well preserved, word for word"
"Um, achualy, the text isn't literally the exact same"
"Yeah, I meant that in an abstract way, that the text's story and meaning has stayed the exact same. I said that because I had a quote in mind."
"Yeah, that means I'm right, it's not word for word, you're a liar."
Alex is being the nerd emoji here. Wes clarified that there were differences, but they're irrelevant, Alex is being pedantic.
@@rockweirdo8147 Did Alex ever use the word “liar”?
@ - Lmao, thanks for furthering the pedantic nature of this conversation.
26:11 - re the "WOW" factor: Again, I think there's a misunderstanding here. Wes is NOT making a claim that there is anything supernatural or miraculous about the fidelity of the transmission of text from the dead sea scrolls to the Masoretic text. That is NOT the point. That would be a silly, superstitious and entirely arbitrary point.
The point is this: Isaiah contains numerous references which are held by Christians to be prophecies regarding Jesus Christ.
The problem always was that the oldest version of Isaiah we had came from 1000 years AFTER Christ, which thus meant there was always the speculation that the Christological references were later insertions after Christ's birth and death.
The absolutely key point of the Dead sea scrolls is that they date from 3rd Century BCE to 1st Century CE and show an (virtually/ 92% / thought for thought / insert your qualifier of choice here) identical version of Isaiah existing BEFORE Christ. I.e. references to the suffering servant, pierced for our transgressions in Isaiah 53 are NOT later "Christianized" versions - they pre-date Christ.
THAT is why it is a "WOW" moment - and - unless you can show the Christological references to be among the variations in the dead sea scrolls Isaiah texts (spoiler alert: They aren't) then that point remains.
The rest of this discussion seems to be a weird attempt to avoid that central relevant point. Christians interest in Isaiah is primarily its Christological significance. The key point about the dead sea scrolls is they essentially eliminate the possibility this was a later editing of the text.
Facts
I really hope someone here takes notice of this, instead of just completely brushing it off because it goes against the assumption that Wes is saying that the fidelity of transmission is supernatural. This take about the key points and prophecies being the same is reasonable, even if it goes against the narrative being thrown around in this sub.
If you cannot represent your opponent at their best, you simply aren’t listening, and you are committing the exact same fallacies you accuse Christians of. (Selective listening/filtering) The vast majority of Christians are reasonable and rational people, and many of them have wrestled with the same questions you have and concluded that Christianity (specifically Jesus) is true.
First question: If that's what Wes meant, then why didn't he say that? Second question: The Masoretic text was produced by Jews. Why would they let Christians sneak alleged prophecies into the text? Third question: Why didn't Wes correct Rogan when Rogan clearly misunderstood and thought the transmission was being done orally?
well I'm sure Wes can be demolished on the point about Old Testament prophecies of Jesus as well. I suggest you listen to Bart Ehrman on this, he gives a pretty detailed and lucid account of how Christians over-read Jesus into the Old Testament and that many of the supposed references are actually to other things, which are quite obvious with a critical understanding of the context (rather than with Christocentric blinders)
@ So you'd have to listen to the whole podcast for the wider context.
Regarding the fact the Masoretic text was Jewish - well - RIGHT - this is actually one of the really interesting proofs of Christianity: The fact that Jews, who DON'T accept Christ as the messiah, still have a text which has numerous Christological proof texts - and you can't just dismiss it as "Well they are believers so they would say that wouldn't they?" because they DON'T believe Christ was the Messiah.
But if you want to be hyper-skeptical (as Alex normally does) you are probably just going to dismiss out of hand any prophecy text which dates from a copy coming from 1000 years AFTER the fulfillment of the prophecy, no matter how strong the case for non-contamination of that text is - so in that sense the Dead Sea scrolls just put the final nail in what is already a very dead argument.
“English: color
British: colour”
That’s hilarious, calling American English “English” without further clarification
The 'u' is what gives the word the 'ur' sound. Americans spell it as if it sounded like, 'co-lore', but pronounce it the correct way. Noah Webster really screwed them up haha
We put a 'u' in colour in the same way that Americans still put a 'u' in glamour. Try saying 'color' with the first vowel sounding like the following one!
Emperour -> Emperor
Doctor/Doctour -> Doctor
Tremor/Tremour -> Tremor
I'm not sure if these are ever pronounced "-ore" in British English, but I've always heard them pronounced the same way as colour, rigour, etc., so I don't think it's the presence or absence of "u" that's making the difference. Spelling any of these with a "u" is considered obsolete in both American and British English, as far as I know.
In the version of American English I speak, unstressed vowels before "r" all get rhotacized the same way into /ɚ/:
Glamour, doctor, augur, elixir, polar,
...doesn't matter!
@@Thagnoth Emperor, Doctor, and Tremor don't have the 'ur' sound. They have the 'or' sound, so it works fine as is. I'm talking about words like colour, honour, valour etc these words need an 'ur' sound for the pronunciation to work. You can hear it when you say those words.
@@ChrisR395 That's very interesting to hear! :o
When I try and recall anyone saying a -"or" word in British English I think mostly to Movies or TV shows (i.e., one of the various times "Doctor who?" has been asked, or "Professor Dumbledore" has been said). I am not able to perceive a difference in the way they say the "-or" v.s. how they say "-our" as in flavour ("[...] and they *mean* Every Flavour!"), but perhaps it varies?
Either way, that's definitely curious-I'm going to pay more attention in the future to see if I can spot the difference!
Just a suggestion for whoever edits your videos, putting clips of previous videos of yours can be confusing if one is listening and not watching. I'm listening to this video with my phone in my pocket, and I have a hard time telling which Alex is the Alex from this video or from the previous video. I've seen other people put some kind of "telephone" EQ effect among other things to make the older clip sound "older" so the listener can distinguish. Maybe doing something like that can help better separate those clips? Not a big deal but something that might help some potential confusion.
I see what u mean but i struggle to think of a way to improve this since I imagine a sound effect could be a bit annoying. Unless it's very subtle. Maybe just a narrative "here is how I responded".
Even for viewers, Alex of the past and present look pretty similar with similar backgrounds ;)
@ I've seen other RUclipsrs do a subtle EQ effect to make the audio sound somewhat like it's coming through a telephone. Not extreme to the point where it makes it unintelligible or annoying to the ears, but enough of a difference so it sounds noticeably different to the new audio. Plus they'll often add a black and white filter to the video so we know it's an old clip
Why does it matter? @@cowsaysmoo51
@A_Stereotypical_Heretic causen it makes it hard to distinguish which clip is the response and which clips are what he's responding too
Even when watching, I'm getting massive "Inception" vibes.
And when I say word for word, of course i dont REALLY mean word for word....
🤣💯
You're taking it out of context.
Words in the bible don't mean what they mean 😂
(Unless it fits my narrative then they mean exactly what they say)
Well you see, I already decided my religion is correct so everything else stems from that decision
Wess already explain this. He said word for word because he quoting a someone about it
It's just like when Jesus said in John 17:3 that the father is the ONLY true God and apologists say he didn't actually mean that, but he was saying the son and holy spirit are also the only true God.
well first we must address what you mean by "word", and what you mean by "for" and what you mean by "word"
😂
Golden 😂
Literally all he did in this video 😂
Somebody get Jordan Peterson over here
It seems obvious that the text has been painstakingly well preserved in that you could have no greater confidence in nearly any piece of literature in existence that what we possess is of original composition.
Arguing over very minor differences in handwritten texts that were scribed in multiple regions, multiple languages, over thousands of years and have very insignificant differences and minor mistakes seems to only speak to its preservation. It’s as if people believed to be transcribing the word of God and wanted to make sure they got it right.
not really...there have been other religious texts that have been preserved better
@@azmainfaiak8111 can you give an example?
@@azmainfaiak8111 such as?
@@azmainfaiak8111 Name these "religious texts."
@@azmainfaiak8111 Which ones?
16:50 It's important to remember that The Dead sea scrolls don't just contain Isaiah. They contain parts of virtually all of the old testament books. It is true Wes directly references "The Great Isaiah scroll" but when he says "this isn't true of all the dead sea scrolls", I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest what he was getting at was "The Isaiah scrolls" within the dead sea scrolls, (as opposed to the scrolls of other old testament books). I do think it's important to bear in mind that someone speaking without notes in a 3 hour Joe Rogan interview is going to be simplifying, mis-speaking and summarising.
I do think all of this is getting an awfully long way off the central point: That the degree of preservation of Isaiah for over 1000 years is remarkably high - over 90% identical, and the vast majority of the other 10% being identical for meaning, with a tiny fraction of verses - which don't appear to be of great theological significance being the difference.
The challenge back is this: Point to one significant doctrinal or theological difference that would be derived from the Isaiah of the Dead sea scrolls and the Isaiah of the Masoretic text a thousand years later.
"The challenge back is this: Point to one significant doctrinal or theological difference that would be derived from the Isaiah of the Dead sea scrolls and the Isaiah of the Masoretic text a thousand years later."
But this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discussion and has nothing to do with what Wes said.
In fact I'm wondering if you even watched all Alex's video. He addresses this in the video.
The problem lies in,
as you said: "The degree of preservation of Isaiah for over 1000 years is remarkably high - over 90% identical" is not true, it's not remarkably high, it's literally true for almost all ancient manuscripts, what would be remarkably high is it was word for word identical, so if Wes was wrong about that statement, which he was, the whole argument falls apart there is nothing bizarre or shocking there. Furthermore we actually do have ancient manuscripts that are word for word identical to current readings, but they come from the Quran, and as Biblical scholar Kipp explains this has it's own reasoning due to the way the Quran was transmitted and preserved.
This is of course all addressed in the video itself in the last section titled "Is It Still a WoW Moment?".
Wes already admitted he should’ve worded that point differently. Christians are saying, it doesn’t matter whether he made a mistake in wording or not… this guy laid out in another comment exactly why this is such a big point for Christians, which hasn’t been addressed.
@@whiz1701 I'm sorry - I don't follow. Even if all ancient manuscripts have similar levels of fidelity with their original text, that makes the case stronger not weaker? Why does it need to be bizzare or shocking? I personally do think it'd amazing that hand written documents are preserved so well over a thousand years, but it doesn't really matter whether you find it amazing or not..the fact is they are overwhelmingly reliable copies of the original texts. This eliminates the common criticism of the layperson of "Well it's all just been changed over time hasn't it?". Thats the point? I'm unclear why everyone thinks Wes was trying to claim some sort of miracle? Quite the opposite: if they high fidelity of the text can be believed as a perfectly mundane fact, then one obsticle to rational belief in the scriptures is removed, surely?
Excellent points. No person should expect the Masoretic text to be 100% identical to the Dead Sea scrolls. The fact that it's almost identical 1,000 years apart is remarkable.
So glad Dan gets a shout out on here. Big fan of him and how handles these types of subjects. Even posting when he himself is corrected by someone and reposting to correct his own blunders.
He’s a mormon😂😂😂😂
BUT YOU ARE DAN THAT DOESNT MAKE SENSE
OHHHH I GET IT HAHAHAHAH ITS A JOKE! A JOKE! I CANT BELIEVE IT
ERM HEY GOOD SIR… YOUR JOKE WAS SO FUNNY ITS ACTUALLY MAKING ME CUM OH IGH UFH UGH UFHHHHHHH AHHHHH IM CUMMING RAHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHH ✊🍆💦 RAHHHHHHH I AN CUMMING ALL OVER YOU
🫡 sorry about that I’ve been doing nofap and lost control😅😅😅😅😅
Even if accurate, Gavin's response was basically "well, most of these differences aren't really substantial and don't change the meaning, so there are only a few actual differences." So... pretty close, but NOT WORD FOR WORD. What exactly is so hard to understand here?
If "word for word" as opposed to the cumulative yield of the DSS is all you have to cling to, I would humbly submit that you're already acknowledging you lost the argument and now you're just clinging to any sliver of critique to save face.
It's okay to just admit you screwed up and you'll try to do better in the future.
@@ryanashfyre464 Wes’ dishonesty while addressing his largest audience is the issue, son.
@@cookiescraftscats The 'dishonesty' you reference, again, is simply pointing a finger that there were comparatively minor variants and not a strict "word for word" account and saying effectively "AH HA! Huff's a damn liar, don't trust anything he says"
I mean if this is the level of seriousness you're going to have in this conversation, I'm genuinely embarrassed for you.
@@ryanashfyre464and yet I bet they don’t take atheism criticism to that level of scrutiny
@@cookiescraftscatsit's not like the textual variances talk about Zeus. 95 percent accuracy. Cry about it.
I get that we want to clarify and state that Wes was not 100% correct in his statements (as all humans get things wrong consistently throughout their lifetime regardless of their status), but a major thing we can glean from this is that it is pretty insane how close documents 1000 years apart actually are. Whether it is 100%, 95%, or even 80% the same, any of those percentages are extremely impressive over a time frame of 1000 years. That's around 50 generations of time. The Quran example is not near as impressive because the manuscripts of the Quran are:
Oldest - 568 CE (that's being generous as it ranges up to 648 CE)
Next oldest - 650 CE
Next 2 - 670 CE
Next - early to mid 800 CE
Next late 900 to early 1000 CE
1st printed copy - 1537 CE.
No gap of anywhere near 1000 years.
And this information is without me knowing the % of accuracy the newer versions have between each other.
What about the Vedas?
@Clogmonger I was just highlighting the Quran because they did in the video.
Are you nuts. Do you understand a whole paragraph was missing. I hope you do your own research and realize Christianity today is false
It’s remarkable from a human life span perspective, not from the all powerful god. This is the same being that created the universe but allows a period of roughly 1800 years before proper modern scholarship existed for his written word (the only way he currently communicates with us) to degrade in original accuracy.
@@iainlitster4624 One must convert to a belief in God for this perspective to actually take hold. Reaching someone at a human level to see how incredible God's revelation through humanity actually is may be a way God opens their eyes to truth, but trying to explain something from a pespective within an already preconceived view is a difficult way to put things to someone who doesn't believe in that perception.
Sorry, it’s time for a debate.
alex is scammer or atheist🤔🤔🤔 who can reach him to invite?🤔 alex, how much dollar you can bet foe your atheism? 🤔🤔🤔 3000$ is there any atheist to ask alex?
Wes has a video on his channel stating he won't debate anyone.
Except that Bill grifter guy i guess, he was an easy target i suppose.
Edit - He says he doesn't want to debate random skeptics but is willing to debate bigger channels, so it could actually happen.
Fingers crossed.
There's nothing to debate. Alex has receipts and puts it all out there. Huff is...a con artist apologist grifting as a scholar.
@@OzkanArslann
What are you even saying? Lol
Joe Rogan will be afraid to have Alex on his podcast as many will start to deconstruct.
Was hoping you'd make this video
Didn’t even bother watching the debunking of Alex. Pure rubbish.
You were hoping Alex would make another terrible video responding to Wes Huff? Alex lost a lot of credibility with how awful and dishonest the first video was and then he just doubled down and made another one. Alex should be embarrassed.
25:57 It still is a "WOW" moment because the standard everyone assumes about ancient scripture fidelity is the "telephone game" (popularized by atheists) which goes completely off message within a few iterations. In comparison, the fidelity of these scriptures are strong, especially given that their main points are all preserved.
not just preserved, majority of the scholars agree that accuracy of textual variants to the oldest manuscripts is ranging from 93 to 95 percent. let that sink in. there is a very good reason why alex and others don't ever show these terrible discrepancies in their videos, it is because there are none
Terrible day to be a goalpost lmao
The telephone games are obviously not played by exchanging messages on the pieces of paper. Initially, the early followers of the new Christian religion spread stories about the Messiah through oral tradition. The "telephone game" could have influenced the content of the stories that later became known as the biblical gospels. When the more educated and talented members of the early Christian communities began to write these stories down on pieces of parchment or papyrus and to use letters to communicate, the "telephone game" ended.
@@romulan01 unless you have evidence of this, you're just speculating. And that speculation didn't serve you so well when looking at the other portions of the Bible.
@@Knightfall21 the evidence is in the four gospels.
Here's what I've noticed in these online arguments where there a long series of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals:
The side with the evidence in it's favor will keep talking about the data, keep a sense of balance, look at the big picture, "steel-man" the opponent's case...
The other side will pounce on every mis-statement, psychoanalyze it's opponents, miss the forest for the trees, make mountains out of molehills, never concede when the opponent makes a good point...
I really can’t tell which side you think is the one with the evidence.
@@ramigilneas9274the one that is not nitpicking on simple conversational words…
@@JMBBrasil
But that side is the one that always vastly overstates the evidence.
I mean the best case scenario is that the changes that have been made to the text don’t affect your doctrines.
But what does that prove? Nothing!
It doesn’t mean that anything that the text claims is true and it also doesn’t mean that your interpretation is correct.
@@ramigilneas9274 "It doesn’t mean that anything that the text claims is true and it also doesn’t mean that your interpretation is correct."
Did anyone ever make the claim that because the text has been preserved, it must be true?
@@QCMP
Exactly.
That’s why I really don’t understand why Wes pretends that it is word for word identical.
Even if it was it wouldn’t get you one step closer to prove that the stories aren’t made up.
But when I read the comments then I see many believers who think that it’s amazing evidence that everything they believe is true.
And that’s the real job of Apologists like Wes, overstating irrelevant points to reassure believers that their faith is justified.
As an atheist, this is really sad. Even redditors nowadays dont play the sematic games.Lets say a map like 2000 years apart, Even tho major lansmarks , scales , rivers and every distinct features are still the same but some sheep lanes are changed slightly. That is the level of straw alex is grasping. Is there ANY , i mean any contradiction or even meaningful change. I think alex cannot fanthom himself being wrong. So his mind essentially negates one of the best overwhelmingly crazy preservation of the scroll. Its not that hard to accept even for an atheist.
Wes Huff lied that it was 100% preserved word for word, the real level of preservation is entirely expected and unremarkable
@@tomasrocha6139 Wes admitted he misspoke, however, this is incredibly pendantic since we're talking about over a 95% accuracy here. It practically IS a word for word transmission. Finding the Great Isaiah Scroll was undoubtedly a wow moment for both scholars and believers. It was an extraordinary discovery, not only because of its age-dating back to around 125 BCE-but also due to its remarkable state of preservation and its alignment with the Masoretic Text, which was copied over a millennium later. You might not see it as remarkable, but those who actually study in the field for living do. These are the minor differences:
Isaiah 9:16 (Masoretic Text numbering, or 9:17 in some translations)
In the Masoretic Text:
"Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will He have pity on the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks folly. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised."
In the Great Isaiah Scroll:
This verse is omitted.
Significance: The omission does not affect the surrounding context about God's judgment on Israel but does slightly shorten the description of God's continued anger.
Isaiah 10:4 (Masoretic Text numbering)
In the Masoretic Text:
"Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised."
In the Great Isaiah Scroll:
This verse is omitted.
Significance: Like Isaiah 9:16, this omission shortens the description of God's judgment, but the overall message of His wrath and punishment remains intact in the broader passage.
The omissions in Isaiah 9:16 and 10:4 do not introduce theological differences, as the surrounding text in both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text continues to emphasize God's judgment and justice. Scholars view these differences as typical of ancient manuscript transmission, where scribes occasionally skipped lines (parablepsis) or made intentional edits for readability or emphasis.
The Great Isaiah Scroll differs slightly from the Masoretic Text in Isaiah 9 and 10, with notable omissions of Isaiah 9:16 and Isaiah 10:4, but these changes do not alter the core message of the passages. Such differences illustrate the remarkable consistency of the text over time while also showing the natural variations that occur in handwritten manuscripts. This was purposeful deceit on Alex's part.
Reply
If you don't want Alex to play the sematic games then how about you don't let Wes created it? He's the one who claimed "it's word for word identically" and he pay the consequences of people correcting him
@@tomasrocha6139but if the argument is for the reliability of the texts, then how does a >95% resemblance mean it's poorly conservated?
Would it really affect it even if it were 99.999999% similar? No.
This video is just nitpicking and plain arrogance.
You're an undercover Christian (Not an Atheist but Christian, kind of like wolf in sheep or false prophet for us). You don't even get what the whole issue is about. It's just not about semantics, but attribution and interpretation of different words which bring different "understanding" and create different narratives. Even the way you can understand what I'm saying right now is because of the way I'm choosing a certain type of vocabulary in a certain way. In case it would be any other way, then you would get different meaning. We atheists, agnostics, spiritualists, pagans, etc have been persecuted by You Christians for 1000s of years, yet you're still trying to make us appear wrong when we're right. We are The Truth, nothing but Truth. We know we are. So, you're just another failed undercover Christian trying to inflict your Fan-Fiction of Jesus and all to other people, stay another day.
I love how civil all of this is, it’s not your typical RUclips drama, it’s knowledgeable peoples engaging in debate and calling each other out on discrepancies whilst admitting their own mistakes
Utterly perfect
Enough of these " oh look how civil they are". These christian apologists should be made fun of 😁
Except the apologists aren’t doing that… they’re doubling down and cutting clips short to misrepresent what Alex said.
@@Avogadros_numberWes apologized. Also, Alex cut clips to make his point. So, you're also being exactly like what you accuse the other side of.
It's so manly¡¡!!! I'm tired of men being like cats and scratching each other up. Like hey, "here's some tea/water, take a deep breath"
@@ZeroOne46 No christians do it more and deliberately
Need an Alex and Wes debate
I don't think wes is experienced enough to handle that, alex has a lot of debate wins under his belt against some very tough competition. wes beat a guy who sells colloidal silver on his griftsite.
Wes is afraid to debate him. He even said he would drop his schedule to debate someone who is big. Well, Alex has a huge channel, and it would be a productive conversation. Yet, he shys away and hides behind his comment section warriors
Wes has a video on his channel stating he won't debate anyone. Except that Bill grifter guy, he was an easy target i suppose.
I never watched it so i don't know why, a bit shyte either way.
@@Jono_McK he said he didn’t want to debate random skeptics but that he’d free his schedule for a big channel. Let’s see if he follows his word.
@@innavision1920
Right i see, well here's hoping he's open to it at least.
@26:57 *_So why are we so shocked and so excited when the Bible and biblical manuscripts look like all other ancient manuscripts?_*
I think I can answer that enigma. It's people like you that doubt the Bible and insist that it changed and evolved in unprecedented ways that makes the rest of us excited when we have proof that it basically remained the same throughout time.
I have been waiting for your response, thank you for clarifying. I knew you would!
Having followed Huff already before Joe Rogan I knew he did NOT mean literally 100 % word for word exactly the same words. BUT it is a fact that scholars are amazed how well preserved the Isaiah scroll is.
Dan McClellan? What is this, a crossover episode?
You are missing the point altogether. People agree that the current version of the quran has not been changed, there is no doubt about it. But there was a lot of people who really believed the bible was rewritten and changed over time. So finding something that is that old and yet doesnt show any difference is in fact very very important, because it dismantles such claims.
I feel like this whole "word for word" thing is one giant red herring for both atheists and Christians. Even if they were (almost) word for word identical, that wouldn't mean anything in terms of convincing someone of either Christianity or atheism. It's just an interesting bit of trivia.
That said, it feels like both sides are treating this as some kind of central issue for their world view, which in turn causes responses from the opposite side and makes the issue seemingly even more central, and so on, in a positive feedback loop.
I think Alex is correct about this point and I respect him for doing all the research, however I also think that this is a good place to leave this topic and move on to other more interesting conversations.
'Identical ' especially reinforces the beliefs of evangelists and the inerrant bible literalists.
@@jns8393 no bro. It would make absolute sense if the words were different given the time frame alone. But the overall message or intent is still intact
@@smathlax you're the only one not playing these politics here. I respect you for that
The only reason Alex finds this important is because these guys are being toted as some great scholars of the Bible when all they barely know anything about the massive claims they’re making.
@@matthewneill2444 dan I don't really know but kipp? The dead sea scrolls is why he's a scholar in the first place. He's actually solid on that one
Is Alex not just reiterating that Wes was admitting error? Wes was just saying this is what was going through his mind to explain his error, not to say he was actually correct
It's because he wants to take credit for Wes downfall. That's the effect he was hoping for.
He said false things a second time even when he addressed the errors
@@Orpheo5 believe what you want.
@@wingamwila4113 least I could do
@@Orpheo5 Must be easy to just criticize when you stand for nothing. That is exactly why this Alex guy won't dare address a religion that is actually a current threat to even his ability to express himself. That's why the atheist movement will remain so irrelevant because it cannot inspire. It is just a bunch of people that complain about everything that is wrong but offers no solutions. Christians may not be perfect but don't you dare think for a moment that you can offer a person of faith an alternative that is worth considering. At least not when all you do is belittle the efforts of everyone else and slander them. It's pathetic to say the least.
I think my biggest issue with this, is that youre taking the one sentence wes huff said, and making it out as if he doesnt know what hes talking about, or that hes purposefully misleading folks, when it isnt that deep
Wes PURPOSEFULLY MISINFORMED Joe and Joe’s enormous(ly gullible) audience.
@@cookiescraftscatsYou remind me a lot of the people that shouted "crucify him" when they asked to choose between Jesus or a known murderer because what you really want is to paint Wes black and you'll not stop at anything. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@@wingamwila4113Não adianta argumentar com esse cara,ele já botou na cabeça que ele está certo,e que Wes é uma pessoa horrível.
He has nothing substantial to offer. Why not clutch at a straw man?
Did you not see in the video that Huff has consistently misquoted the scholars he's drawing from, even in his rebuttal video? Firstly, he cares enough to make a rebuttal video, so to him (and the hundred other Christian RUclipsrs reacting to the video) it is that deep, and secondly he's still giving false information, so he must be wrong, or misleading, I don't know how you can dispute it at this point.
I’m not expert, but even if the verses were not found in the great Isaiah scroll, I don’t think necessarily mean that those verses were later additions. From my understanding, most books in the OT were originally just passed down verbally, and not written down. So I think it’s possible, just like in the game of telephone, some things don’t fully get passed down verbally. Just because certain verses weren’t found in the oldest scroll, I’m not sure if it means that it’s inorganically added
I also just want to say that I wish Christian apologists would have more humility on certain topics like this, and admit they are wrong or admit they don’t have a good answer for something. As a Christian I don’t believe we will ever have all the answers to everything. More and more ancient scrolls may be uncovered, but there will always be uncertainty and I don’t think there will ever be a moment where you can be a Christian based on pure logic alone. Faith will always be required when taking a stance on the question of the existence of God, and that goes both ways
I appreciate ur precision Alex. I suspect this will be for the best…since truth shall set us free
Free will doesn’t exist. - Alex O’Connor.
@@MebThemesironic😂
Alex O'Conner "Wes huff doesn't make it clear that the people he is talking about is referrring to 1QIsaB."
Wes Huff "Granted, both Archer and Tov are talking about 1QisaB"
???
Would love a timestamp for Alex's supposed quote above because I can't find that anywhere in the video or the transcript.
@ 21:08 I didn’t quote him exactly, but he claims that Wes Huff doesn’t make it clear that the people he quoted are talking about 1Qisab.
Continue the quote: “and my statement to Rogan was in specifically in context to QIsaA… although there is disagreement across the scholarly spectrum the statements are equally applied across both documents”. He quite clearly (and cleverly) misrepresents the facts to fit his narrative and when called out on it continues to do so, with the expectation that any criticism will be chalked up to pedantry and nitpicking.
"Textual fluidity" is only really a problem if you think Christianity is just a book.
Ancient people didn't really care so much about these insertions and omissions. They would have just seen it as the influence of the Holy Spirit.
“Do not give to dogs anything that is holy. And do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and then proceed to tear you to pieces."
Alex you are my sunshine
my only sunshine
You make me happy!
When skies are gray
You'll never know, dear
How much I love you
I find this video odd when one of your major sources had to issue an apology and stated "The differences do not compromise the theology of the bible at all" and your other major source makes an erroneous implication that the originak manuscripts of The Odyssey were as well kept as the Isaiah scroll.
I can't wait for Gavins reaction of alex reaction to Gavins reaction of Alex reaction to Wes Huff.
Keep it going, guys!
Free money
The original critique was one of my favorite videos you’ve done! Endlessly fascinating! So happy that you have responded yet again.
Alex I grew up in an extremely conservative Catholic family and your channel has been so enlightening for me. While I still have a ton of respect for the religion, I’m so fascinated by learning about the history of the Bible and your critiques of it! Thanks for all you do and all the best to you.
I as a Christian actually appreciate these cause you learn so much about scripture that you wouldn’t as an ordinary Christian.
Thank You Alex💓
Weird, we didn't add an U. The Americans removed the U.
I’m so glad someone else said it. What a dumb-dumb.
Also, calling american english 'english', and english 'british' are fighting words. Haha
You did add the "U" from French, actually. British-English uses fewer English spellings and fewer English-rooted vocabulary. It uses more French spelling and French-rooted vocabulary because your nobility are all Frenchmen for the last 1000 years.
Pretty sure that was a joke. Thought you guys were known for dry humor
@@kcasto-ze3pmdon’t speak our language and make jokes we made you
Alex, I think your approach comes across as pedantic and leans toward the radical skepticism often associated with Bart Ehrman. Yes, Wes did misspeak, misremember, paraphrase frequently, and at times used hyperbolic language in his interview with Rogan. However, I don't think he's fundamentally wrong, though. Some scholars in the field support Wes's position on this topic, while others align with the views of the two guys you interviewed for this video.
Very charitable of you to ignore the way Huf attributes the “English” language spelling to American conventions, while the British people use the “British” language as way to position his entire argument.
I don't think there has been any discussion from either side, whether believer or unbeliever, regarding any variance of actual doctrinal content between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text.
So my question is, considering all the discoveries of textual variances, is any doctrinal proposition at risk in this whole analysis of textual minutiae?
Without this important discussion, either side is permitted to fill in the gaps according to their predispositions.
We actually need more clarity on this issue.
No, doctrine isn't at risk from the differences. Doctrine is either derived from multiple verses of scripture (in which case it is safe) or it is primarily developed outside the Bible (again, safe). And if a verse contradicted any doctrine, the verse would be reinterpreted anyways.
But it does highlight the fact that we don't have the original scriptures, and there were probably all sorts of changes made to scripture as it was copied that we don't know about. That may or may not bother you, depending on what beliefs you already hold.
There might be minor variances in doctrine I think. I remember watching a video (albeit by Paul Williams) where he pointed out that the Septuagint was often translated in order to make the theology easier to comprehend, some people likely thought something was too difficult to understand or explain so they litch just changed it. I think that's why we mainly use the Masoretic Text to make old testament translations. Essentially, it'd just be making stuff "easier to swallow". This is a guess btw, and it doesn't mean the MT has this same problem.
There is basically no doctrinal difference, the sentences added are mostly from different books or clarification points that the scribe thought it would make the text better. The point is that in the original JR fragment Wes Huff was pointing at the "word for word" agreement as a miraculous event, a WOW moment _proving,_ or at least _hinting at,_ that the Biblical text was never altered in medieval times. That is why it is relevant to debunk the "word for word" similarity, as the presence of relevant variations shows exactly the opposite: that we cannot be sure that the texts we are reading today have not been altered.
It is like looking at a magician fitting his assistant in a box, and the assistant comes out from another box few seconds later. Noticing that the two people are _not the same_ assistant is relevant per se. If one is thin and the other is not, I am not body shaming them by pointing it out, nor questioning the relevance of a nice figure to be a magician assistant: I am just questioning the trick itself, if the two assistants are not the same person.
@@hevelhevel Exactly. When it comes to doctrine the cart is always before the horse, despite them saying the opposite. Dogma has always the upper hand. When Christians read the biblical text they don't perform a neutral reading, without any lens and see where the text take them. They take the text to where they are. They will reconcile all those different voices in a way to match the doctrine they already have. So, you are right, the doctrine is always safe. There's no text or discovery they won't reconcile with their dogma.
@@bobon123 Well said. The problem they run into is that the "word for word" agreement becomes the conclusion from which they argue backwards which results in misreading, misquoting and omissions.
IMO, the comparison still strongly suggests the trustworthy preservation of the text of Isaiah. The small variants do not hinder that and may even slightly increase the credibility compared to other holy books.
Wes already addressed this. You need to watch Wes addressing his own mistakes first. This isn’t worth watching at this point.
I am so glad I found you! Never heard of you until this week and now I’m binging like crazy
I hear you loud and clear but 95% identical over 1000 years is still pretty darn impressive
Right? That Wes was compelled lie to Rogan (and Rogan’s enormous audience) about this is just sad.
@@cookiescraftscats - Says the guy who doesn't understand hyperbole 😂
This whole video milked just a few debatable sentences from a 3-hour podcast with Wes Huff. Pretty weak tea.
Not debatable he shamelessly lied that it's been preserved 100% word for word which is just nonsense on stilts
@@tomasrocha6139 Like I said, this was just a few sentences of a 3-hour conversation and he already issued a self-correction. To keep going back to it after a self-correction makes no sense.
Alex is milking this when there's no milk left.
Other academic sources essentially said what Huff said. To say he "lied," is a joke. Also, these remaining minor differences change nothing in terms of what Isaiah and/or the Bible say.
Alex and other critics are holding Isaiah to a standard of inerrancy that only they use and that the Church never claimed.
And, the bigger point is that the 20 various Isaiah scrolls found in the Dead Sea collection (when taken as a collection) say what our current Isaiah says (notwithstanding totally insignificant superficial differences in how they were copied).
To keep pointing af Huff's few sentences over and over again and acting like that reflects negatively on either Huff or Christianity is the definition of reaching and milking. In contrast, Alex is deliberately ignoring the 99.9% of the rest of the conversation that was much more interesting and informative. He's just milking Huff for views.
@@alexanderlyon Alex is only responding to critics like Gavin Ortlund (you'd know if you watched the video). No academic sources say Isaiah has been 100% preserved word for word as Wes Huff falsely asserted
@@tomasrocha6139 Honestly, what is the big takeaway? I'm still waiting for what news is in this video or your comments. The question is, who cares?
@@alexanderlyon About HONESTY?
Not you or Wes.
"Word for word" has particular and well-understood meaning. It is entirely dishonest to employ that phrase when one knows that "similar" is far more accurate.
I agree. People in the comments, however, do not seem to agree, and many people are accusing Alex of being picky for the sake of ”winning” the dispute.
@@IGTKYIYKSM Because in his first video he made it seem like there are many significant differences that do not depend on the meaning of Word for Word.
@amazinghorizon8270There are many significant differences, as he just explained in this video.
And that, my friends, is the difference between genuine investigation, and protecting a narrative.
These responses are the most "missing the point" I've ever seen in a while. I'm not even a believer, but I think it's quite ridiculous to pick on Wes for such measly inaccuracies, when, at the end of the day, he IS right. The smug attitude, especially in the first response, is also unfortunate
Atheists in the real world are respectable.
Atheist debators on the internet are mind bogglingly petty. If you miss punctuation while typing on a phone, they'll bring it up two years later as evidence of your lack of education.
Glad to see someone being honest. 95% accuracy is pretty damn close to word for word. We're talking about extremely minor differences here. Finding the Great Isaiah Scroll was undoubtedly a "wow" moment for both scholars and believers alike. It was an extraordinary discovery, not only because of its age-dating back to around 125 BCE-but also due to its remarkable state of preservation and its alignment with the Masoretic Text, which was copied over a millennium later. For Alex to cast doubt on the accuracy of it is very deceitful. This doesn't even touch his false claim in his first video that Jesus doesn't claim to be God in any of the gospels except for John. He's purposely twisting the truth in order to deceive people to fit his agenda.
In the Masoretic Text:
"Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will He have pity on the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks folly. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised."
In the Great Isaiah Scroll:
This verse is omitted.
Significance: The omission does not affect the surrounding context about God's judgment on Israel but does slightly shorten the description of God's continued anger.
Isaiah 10:4 (Masoretic Text numbering)
In the Masoretic Text:
"Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised."
In the Great Isaiah Scroll:
This verse is omitted.
Significance: Like Isaiah 9:16, this omission shortens the description of God's judgment, but the overall message of His wrath and punishment remains intact in the broader passage.
The omissions in Isaiah 9:16 and 10:4 do not introduce theological differences, as the surrounding text in both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text continues to emphasize God's judgment and justice. Scholars view these differences as typical of ancient manuscript transmission, where scribes occasionally skipped lines (parablepsis) or made intentional edits for readability or emphasis.
In the Masoretic Text:
"Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men, nor will He have pity on the fatherless and widows, for everyone is ungodly and wicked, every mouth speaks folly. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised."
In the Great Isaiah Scroll:
This verse is omitted.
Significance: The omission does not affect the surrounding context about God's judgment on Israel but does slightly shorten the description of God's continued anger.
Isaiah 10:4 (Masoretic Text numbering)
In the Masoretic Text:
"Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain. Yet for all this, His anger is not turned away; His hand is still upraised."
In the Great Isaiah Scroll:
This verse is omitted.
Significance: Like Isaiah 9:16, this omission shortens the description of God's judgment, but the overall message of His wrath and punishment remains intact in the broader passage.
The omissions in Isaiah 9:16 and 10:4 do not introduce theological differences, as the surrounding text in both the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text continues to emphasize God's judgment and justice. Scholars view these differences as typical of ancient manuscript transmission, where scribes occasionally skipped lines (parablepsis) or made intentional edits for readability or emphasis.
The Great Isaiah Scroll differs slightly from the Masoretic Text in Isaiah 9 and 10, with notable omissions of Isaiah 9:16 and Isaiah 10:4, but these changes do not alter the core message of the passages. Such differences illustrate the remarkable consistency of the text over time while also showing the natural variations that occur in handwritten manuscripts.
1,930 non-spell related textual variance between the isaiah scroll and the mastic text, wes said it's word for word, he is greatly mistaken, you either have the mental capacity to admit you're wrong, or keep coping as a wes fan crying about Alex attitude
@@fareseno4 comments defending alex is crazy bro, get a grip
@@risk_ this is your first ever comment on this channel, sounds like a Wes fan who never completed an Alex video, grow a pair
For real Alex, coming from a Christian thank you for calling the creators who often act as our representatives online to a higher standard. I think we need this so we’re not trapped in an echo chamber of the same arguments and answers to important questions, and it’ll help us know who we can really rely on for answers.
To me it sounds like Alex is defending his honor. I'll leave this here for fun (YMMV) .... it's a analysis of the two texts from a top LLM:
- The high degree of agreement between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT demonstrates that ancient scribes were deeply committed to preserving sacred texts with minimal corruption over centuries.
- Variants reflect natural processes of textual transmission rather than deliberate alterations. They provide valuable insights into how texts were copied, corrected, and standardized over time.
- The Masoretic Text represents a culmination of this process, achieving an unparalleled level of precision through systematic annotation and codification.
The preservation of Isaiah's text across more than a thousand years is a testament to both human diligence and cultural reverence for sacred writings. While minor differences exist between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic Text, they do not undermine the integrity or meaning of the biblical text. Instead, they enrich our understanding of its transmission history and highlight how ancient scribal cultures worked to safeguard their literary heritage.
What was your system prompt 😂
“I want to absolve these major fallacies during a conversation I had… … Make me in a good day.”
@@jamesearl4267 Genuinely curious, or just poking fun? I'd be happy to share, but I think most can come up with an appropriate query that would reveal similar.
It doesn't seem to me like Wes is saying that the 95% correlation between the Isaiah scroll is a "wow" moment because it is a miracle. It feels like he's responding to the pop-atheists and anti-Christian activists like Billy Carson who accuse the modern Bible of going through translation and translation and being COMPLETELY different from the ancient texts. Wes is just pointing out that those people are objectively wrong and that the Christian tradition has remained steady for thousands of years, which, divinely inspired or not, is a "wow" moment because it proves all of those people wrong.
All that makes this drama feel a little uninspired. Alex is right that Wes was wrong in his "word for word" statement, but I don't believe Wes was making the claim that Christianity is true *because* the Great Isaiah Scroll is word for word similar to today's versions. So, ultimately, neither Alex's video or Wes' response video are actually attacking the point of the original statement. I'd like to see a long-form discussion on the Within Reason podcast that digs into Wes' points in more detail, because I don't feel like either Wes or Alex are being malicious in their attacks or perspectives. Both are smart guys. Seems like Wes misspoke in a long form context.
It doesn't "feel" that way. That's factually what happened. They're lying about Wes' argument so they can pretend to have a rebuttal.
@@JD-xz1mx I love Wes, and I actually side with him in all of this. But I don't want to ascribe malice to Alex either. There's clearly a misunderstanding here, but, as a Christian myself, I'm not called to tribalism. I won't assume that Alex is trying to be malicious or a liar, I think he's just not actually rebutting the right thing.
Wes did misspeak, as one would reasonably expect in a 3 hour podcast. I would hope that a simple 5 minute conversation could settle all of this.
Isn't it rather ironic that you want to prove that Christian tradition has remained stable for thousands (sic) of years by pointing out how well the Jewish canon has been preserved by Jewish groups?
As a Christian I listen to Alex first over any of these bro-scientists trotting their imprecise whoa moments on Rogan, then failing to be humble about it when corrected. Alex is not your enemy, he is one of your most accurate allies
It would be nice if you showed these variants side by side to truly demonstrate that they have or convey different meanings. I've yet to see this in any of these vids please show some.
Go look it up
@@west2smojoI would prefer he demonstrate his own point rather than making claims absent evidence
The fact that the changes don’t change ones interpretation is pretty amazing. And it’s a far cry from the old idea of this game of telephone where what we have today is totally different in substance than the original.
Alex was called out for being overly pedantic. Which really calls into question this persona he’s built that he is a “non resistant” nonbeliever. Sure your are Alex, sure you are. You originally jumped on Wes with gleeful sarcasm, which does betray a bit of the personal.
Oh come on! The text was copied by scribes, not transmitted in a game of telephone! How amazing is it that scribes can copy a text without completely messing it up?
@@stefanheinzmann7319read my comment again. Who are you even responding too?
@@jellyphase What are you even trying to say?
"It's not that I lied, it's just that I embellished the truth and you're being pedantic by pointing it out!".
Laughable.
@@stefanheinzmann7319 his point agrees with yours. He's saying the game of telephone analogy is inaccurate. You can relax 😂
The gospel and the messages that make up the bible and including the parables are life only to those who are truly seeking. Others will not dwell on these things that are only a distraction and actually focus on the heart of the matter. No one that has in fact come to the knowledge of God will be moved by this. It's always cool to see people saying so much but at the end of the day, your faith is something you can keep with you and it will keep you😊❤.
The fact that people hang onto Wes' phrasing, rather than looking at and comparing the actual texts, which are in essence the same, with just slightly different wording at some parts, proves they don't have any real argument.
What is more disingenuous? You claiming the texts have "quite a bit of textual fluidity", or Wes using the phrase "word for word" when the text is indeed 99% identical word for word and exactly the same in essence?
Wes DELIBERATELY MISLED millions of people about a mundane and heavily edited document. 🤷♂️
Pretending that didn’t occur is the ONLY disingenuousness.
So, no one disagrees that it is more than 95% similar and Wes did say he got it wrong considering the type of conversation it was in.. So? Christianity proven false? All of this is irrelevant, everyone agreed that even tho it wasn't "word for word" Wes included and Inspiring Philosophy even addressed this in his live stream of the podcast, said Wes got it wrong.
I don't really get it, but okay shall we now go back to your old videos and see how many times you've "misinterpreted" and "misrepresented" the bible and beat you over the head with it?
Really disappointing.
You'd know he's responding to critics like Gavin Ortlund if you'd watched the video
You clearly didn't watch the video. Your username makes it obvious what bias is blinding you.
@ I did watch the video and as I said many Christians immediately responded saying no it's not "word for word" that it ranges from 93% to 98% or something. And Wes himself also said he got it wrong. So what is the issue what responsibility/accountability wasn't taken?
Even Alex says Wes is essentially correct and what Ortlund did is indeed scummy, no disagreement about that.
I may be biased but I am perfectly able of recognizing it and not letting it influence my thought process.
Do you and Alex do the same?
@@reasonablechristianityThe fact is that Wes’s claim of the Isaiah scroll being word for word is what shocked Joe Rogan (and Joe asks to again to make sure that it is word for word).
When that claim turns out to be false, and that the accuracy of the Masoretic text is in line with some other texts from antiquity, you shouldn’t be surprised to see some pushback against Wes.
@@fathi573what "other texts" are you referring to?
Yours is the only channel about theology I watch, because I’ve watching your videos since you started. Big fan. Normally I don’t get fed apologists by the algorithm. But since I watched your video critique of the rogan interview I’m been bombarded by channels I’ve never heard of all slinging shit at your analysis. It’s like you tube is trying to convert me.
Hey, Alex O’Connor, I really love your work. As a Christian, I think you are one of the most thoughtful and respectful Atheists/Agnostics out there. I like how you agree with some points, or point out where the Scholars may be wrong. But, to clarify, you should have a debate with both Huff and Ortlund, so we can hear information clearly. Maybe invite Macellan too, 🤷.
As a Christian this may be odd to say but I love hearing your side especially when it refutes my own view ,it helps me dive deeper into the truth ,keep up the good work
What view of yours did Alex's video refute?
Seriously nobody should be surprised that a text copied by a scribe matches the original document. That is not a miracle, that is people being good at their jobs.
yeah the point the christians are making is that the biblical texts arent victim of the telephone game theory, because they Jews did a very good job preserving the text.
@@Jayden-zq6fj The "telephone game theory" is only applicable to oral transmission. Not to texts that are written down and then copied.
@@Jayden-zq6fj And that point is incorrect. They did do a good job preserving their texts, but there are still changes- intentional and unintentional- that made it in. And more importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that there are usually centuries between the original compositions and our earliest manuscripts, so there are almost certainly many more changes we will never know about.
Jewish scribes were well known for being meticulous in making copies of their scriptures. Secular scholars are well aware of this. It's kind of a strawman argument for apologists. They proved something everyone knew. The problem for them is the fact that Christians didn't develop this level of attention to detail when copying the NT until the 3rd century (roughly) when professional copyists took over.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fnyou’ve clearly never seen Muslim apologetics against Christianity, this is their go to argument when attacking Christianity because they falsely believe their own scripture was miraculously preserved by God, word for word, letter for letter and try to apply that standard to every other religion. For Christians, the preservation of scripture is evidence of fidelity not divinity. Evidence of divinity is left to the actual message contained within the scriptures.
Funny how no one is attacking the essence of the scrolls itself, just stupid shit like "word for word identical"😂
That’s calling creating a straw man and when the straw man is seemingly toppled the pedantic moron who set it up gets praised by other pedantic morons.
That's the point of this specific video... Wes' claim about it being word for word and then refusing to make good on that claim in his follow up video. Its about integrity
@@nc1906 Well, Alex lied that Jesus didn't identify as God in Mark. Would he also come out to apologize?
@ jesus did not claim to be god in Mark....so no. Lol that's your response.
@@nc1906 Mark 2:
5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? 10 "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"-- He said to the paralytic, 11 "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."
I can pull an example from pretty much every chapter of Mark that shows Jesus trying to teach the people that He is the Son of God the Father while simultaneously being a son of mankind. The manifestation of Jesus is God's ultimate display of self-humbling and self-sacrifice to prove His love and faithfulness.
This was such a good read 🤣🤣 the replays were sending me 😭💀
Dr. Dan McClellan is an excellent biblical scholar, so is Kipp. Love your content Alex!
Btw, Huff has been caught putting out more misinformation since that original video. Dan McClellan addressed Huff's latest misinformation today on his channel.
To be fair, Wes looks much younger in that video. It was clearly from quite some time ago.
@@amaizenblue44 Hadn't noticed, thanks for pointing it out. The background on Huff's other video could be from 3 or 4 years ago, not really sure about that. Wouldn't it be nice if Huff put a bit more effort in learning the material?
@@deecee10000 he really ought to stick to his expertise, rather than try to be an all-encompassing apologist.
@@deecee10000yah this is the guy to pick on for not knowing his material😂 cmon there’s some lower hanging fruit
So 95% is not word for word but yall attacking Wes for this is ridiculously cherry picking.
Exactly what I just commented. It’s just debating for debates sake. If someone was reading aloud to me the book of Isaiah and got 93 percent of the words exactly the same, I would definitely say they got it “word for word”😂 and they act like he didn’t take accountability when he literally said “yes, I misspoke”
@Mr47CRO@@BringOutTheLobster.
93 percent just makes the claim so much less significant.
It's not really that WOW moment from the Joe Rogan show that really just says something special about Christianity.
Especially, when considering those variants DO NOT include the orthographic changes as still stated in the correction video AND we have examples of texts more faithfully preserved over longer periods of time.
Is it really that hard to believe scribes copying off each other can stay somewhat faithful to the source material for a long time?
I find it pretty strange entire new verses were even able to appear considering those scribes probably revered those texts they were copying quite a bit.
Not really the mark of an inerrant and unchanging document, is it?
@@BringOutTheLobster. Nahh if we put it on numbers, most people (very important) would have an understanding of "word for word" which means exactly the same, so it's 100%. He could've said "almost word for word" and that would be 95%,99%, we would have no problem then.
The phrase is a rhetorical device used to emphasize on how seemingly miraculous the Bible is, the intentional use by Wes of it may not be malicious but it's misleading.
Also, It's not semantic games if the point of contention is the phrase itself, it's word games if you're pretending to dodge the point by pretending to misunderstand something by nitpicking on the meaning of a/some words, which Alex was not doing.
@@artsyrant8931 my point is that this whole thing is overblown. Yes, Wes was wrong in saying word for word. I wouldn’t deny that. But do I think it is relevant to the discussion that Joe and Wes were having? No I do not.
I say this because Wes was not claiming that it was a divine miracle that caused these books to be near identical. He was making the point that it is extremely important that we were able to push our understanding of the book back nearly 1000 years and that we now have a deeper insight and understand that the books message wasn’t changed to fit a narrative as some people believe. I just think it’s silly that people keep throwing shade at Wes after he admitted he made a mistake.
@@BringOutTheLobster.I think it is relevant because ‘word for word’ is a claim of 100%, which is an extraordinary claim. It’s important to make clear to everyone that is incorrect.
Both sides are in danger of missing the forrest for the trees. Ok 5% insignificant differences on a text roughly 400 years removed from its original writing. thats impressive not because it's almost 100% but because of the content of the writing and the fulfilled predictions within. Not even mentioning the other dead sea prophetic texts beside Isaiah such as Daniel and their fulfilled prophecy. Confirming these arent just middle age forgeries as scholars were all agreeing upon beforehand but by all the evidence are more likely very very close to their original. THAT'S the woa factor.
Exactly. Why does it matter if there are only 5% of discrepancies? Its still ONLY 5%
What have predictions, fulfilled or not, to do with accuracy of text transmission?
@@stefanheinzmann7319 and you missed the forest for the trees of what really matter in the conversation.
@@voiceofthefathertv Matter according to whom?
That biblical literalists will ignore everything that contradicts the inerrancy is clear anyway.
@@voiceofthefathertv except the woa factor can be applied to other texts as well. Just as Alex mentioned with the Quran at the end of the video.
The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) is important because it confirms (as the MT and LXX do) that the Messianic prophecies in the Book of Isaiah were already present around 125-100 BC-long before Jesus' time. This shows that these passages were not later Christian alterations but were part of Jewish Scripture well before Christianity.
Nobody said they didn't exist.
Time for a full Dan Mclellan one on one sit down interview about the Bible. Make it so Alex.
This discussion proves the Catholic teaching on the importance of Bible AND tradition and refute the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Both the original biblical texts and later insertions ARE part of tradition.
@@jonatasmachado7217 🤦♂️
@@jonatasmachado7217sky fairy god shut up
That Mormon is the last person to learn the bible from.
@@Rocky-ur9mn Dan is a Mormon because he worked for them translating some texts for them and he just attends services because he said they improve his life he doesn't consider mormonism some ultimate Christian truth, he's one of the best in the field of scholarship
The real question is, are the texts referring to the same things in writing? If so, it doesn’t really matter if they are not written word for word if the meaning for the sentences is the same.
A lot yes, however the point is Huff’s claim of “word for word” isn’t true as there are literal verses left out, let alone also having significant changes at some stages. I believe the overall point Alex is making is that there is a difference between similarities and a perfect transcript.
Cool, but that is not the point of the video
Do you realize there were things added and other things left out?
@@diggie9598 What things were added, left out, and why are they significant?
@ If the claim is "word for word" anything changed, added or left out is significant. 9:26
Personally, after considering the number of factors that could have resulted in those variances, like individual writing styles, the intricate level of technique required to copy each of them manually(we didn't have copiers), possibility of wears and tears of the older scripts that they were copying(if passage was missing, they probably had to come up with words according to their understanding and memory, any 2 scrolls written by 2 different people over a thousand years apart that are 93-95% similar, would pretty much fit a "word for word identical". But of course, not by today's standard, due to modern technology allowing us to achieve exactly that.
Though Alex would seemingly look petty, he'd actually taught Christians a really good lesson here, that we shouldn't take texts too literally as language had evolved and there were even slight variants here and there. Christians should always prioritize in trying to understand the meanings that God wants to convey, not just the literal word for word written by human authors.
"would pretty much fit a "word for word identical"" Pretty much is not synonymous with identical. It can be almost, and not, identical. Nearly perfect does not equal perfect.
He taught me something and still consider him petty to over analyze the usage of “word for word” especially in the context of a thousand year span, is he right sure, does it affect anyone in the faith I would hope not, if anything it seems to show how nitpicky atheists have to be towards Christianity and how much data it has ranging from several hundred years apart, to know how preserved the Isaiah scroll is and to see how hard atheists like Alex have to attack those who acknowledge this shows Satan is hard at work influencing the children of disobedience
@parkerdavis7132 you are correct if you choose to evaluate that terminology while holding it against today's standard. But if you were to adapt to the ancient standard, those slight variances might not have been considered at all.
Imagine a time where there were no computers, no copy machines and not even pens and papers, no proper storage unit to preserve the quality of scrolls, no internet to fact-check and the only method of writing is basically carving on either stones or animal skins. The amount of effort, time and skill it takes to write a single letter were significantly harsher as compared to today. There could be some allowances of slight variations to still be deemed as "word for word identical" due to the factors enveloping the ancient times as I've stated above. And keeping those variances for over a thousand years at only 5-7% is pretty much amazing.
I do understand where you and Alex are coming from. I think Huff should've relayed it as "pretty much identical" instead of "word for word identical" as it conveyed a slightly different message, albeit the meanings/essences of the different scripts were exact same.
I can give you another example. Let's say a police detective brought in 5 key witnesses of a murder to interview them. The 5 witnesses gave similar statements. The police then proceeded to inform on the press conference that the crime was beyond a reasonable doubt because the 5 key witnesses claims were exactly the same. As the public, we know that it's impossible for the claims to be "exactly the same" because different people have different ways of speech, perspectives, or even literacy level. But we do understand that the essences in their claims were exactly the same.
You mean after personally deciding on a vague metric of what "identical" can mean to you in this instance you decided to ignore actual experts saying that it's not just these things?
@@AgryphosYour scratching around
Alex as a Christian used to be atheist until I encountered the holy spirit when I was 20 (most surreal experience of my life) I do really appreciate how honest and respectful you are. Please ignore all these hateful Christians who let their emotions run rampant calling you names and honestly not being very "Christian" at all.. none of us are perfect however.. of course. But please continue to research even though I'm sure your convinced I truly believe God is leading you ultimately to him one day I prey he can fully encounter you like he did to me because then it's impossible to deny. For me I needed evidence I was a strong atheist and when I hit rock bottom I ultimately desperately preyed not expecting a thing and then BOOM a week later the holy spirit filled me it was so overwhelming it was intense and no I wasn't on drugs I had been completely sober and hadn't taken anything in the past before that point.
The guy exaggerated once in a 3 hour pdocast and we gotta discuss it for the next 2 months is that what were doing here? Seriously close to unsubscribing this is petty and isnt a productive or thought provoking discussion. Its not engaging, its politics at this point. If i wanted this level of triviality id go watch fox or cnn.
It’s called having a Big Ego! This entire video was a wash. Complete waste of time! 😂😂
Truly insane that this much ink has been spilled over such a non-issue.
"The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ), found in Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), is about 95% identical to the Masoretic Text (MT) of Isaiah. The remaining 5% differences consist mainly of spelling variations, minor grammatical differences, and a few added or omitted words. However, none of these differences significantly change the overall meaning of the text.
This high level of similarity confirms the remarkable preservation of the Hebrew Bible over more than 1,000 years, since the Masoretic Text was finalized around 900-1000 AD, while the Isaiah Scroll dates back to circa 125-100 BC."
What part of the information above Alex doesn't understand?
What part of his video did you not understand?
@@stefanheinzmann7319 what I just asked
He doesn't understand your unfounded conclusion. 1QIsa demonstrates that only Isaiah was preserved well, not that the entire HB was preserved well. You're misleading people with your wording. Compare the text to Jeremiah, a text which is famously very different from the Jeremiah in the MT.
@@eurech what are you talking about? Neither I or Wess were talking about the entire HB, when mentioning the similitude with the MT being over 95%. We were limiting ourselves to the Great Isaiah Scroll.
Any video that includes Kipp Davis always teaches me something. Interpretive Insertions, that is my learning for today. Thank you.
"Isolated insertions."
@@DrKippDavis Thank you, a correction from a righteous man is like oil running down my head- or something.
Dan says it best at the end. Everyone makes mistakes in unscripted situations. How you take accountability for those mistakes is what matters.
“I don’t think accountability has been adequately taken here. I think the attempt is still to salvage the apologetic goal of reassuring the audience that their dogmas are safe.”
As a Christian, I’m very appreciative of Alex for his high quality and informative content, I genuinely just care about the absolute truth so this really helps me not live in an echo chamber. Funny enough, it strengthens my faith by making sure I understand the truth and I’m well informed.
That’s awesome. Don’t know how this video strengthens your faith, but that’s still cool 👍
Can we not provide notes to areas of your video and instead provide notes on where yours, or your gusts sources come from so we can check this out on our own? As we all know, anyone's word on the interwebz is worthless..
Can you apply that same demand for Wes?
@MrzPicklez s
Absolutely! I want to see both sides sources! Remember in school when we had to do bibliogrophies at the end of book reports.... Thats what I want out of everyone...im just gonna start commenting on all these guys posts.... Cite your sources...
Alex it seems like you are not getting very lucky with the bible lately.
Why don't you try with the quran? It's much shorter and simpler. 🙂
Why are you being so disingenuous about the textual variants in the Isaiah dead sea scroll. All variants are none consequential, all the experts so say, i mean even the ones you showed were words like And.
The guy is just one ignorant and arrogant person.
My question is does the theology and themes of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls match the theology of the masoretic Text and LXX? If it does then great, and this wouldn’t be anything more than knit picking.
Yes, the themes and messages are identical and this ultimately comes down to minor details that DO NOT change the overall intelligence of the texts. As you said, this is nitpicking; to the max degree.
@@vdsuai believe you but how do you know this. Do you have a source that confirms that the theological themes are exactly the same between both manuscripts?
@@AngelGarcia-zr8nt Most, if not all, of this is public information by this point. The author Jeff A. Benner did a lot of work on it, and you can look this up. He has references via images of both the texts for your eyes to witness yourself. I appreciate your skepticism, as there is much deceit online, but I assure you the work has been done and we can all look into these works by trusted people. I hope this helps, and may God bless you.
@@AngelGarcia-zr8ntmy replies keep getting deleted but there is a place online where you can go to to see the differences in manuscripts look it up and you should find the english version of DSS and annotations with the MT to show the differences
"matching theology" is an endlessly shifting goalpost that is entirely subjective and completely unfalsifiable.
Who's gonna rebut alexs rebuttal of gavins rebuttal of alexs rebuttal of wes though?
Perhaps Trent Horn and then Joe Schmid is gonna come for Trent😂
Is Alex gonna talk about the difference on how the Bible and Quran was “preserved”?
No. Bc only Christians need be chastised and only Jesus made as a world wide cuss word. Bc we're so wrong, ppl urgently need to prove it. No other religion. Just Christianity. Riddle me that.
Isn't a 93% similarity still comparable to the genetic differences between a chimpanzee and a human? And haven't those arisen as a cumulative iteration of differences?
I love how they all have a bookshelf behind them
Gonna get myself one too
The whole time I’ve been distracted by that wobbily bookshelf
Bookshelf in the background is as good as a PhD
Can someone lay out a set of comparisons of some of the most drastic or critical differences in meaning? Who cares about textual variants if the meaning is the same?
This is missing the point of the video entirely.
@@centaur7607 No it doesnt. the video at this point is just cock fighting no one will actually provide evidence, or rather examplified evidence.
maybe explain why @@centaur7607
@@centaur7607not necessarily. The point of the video is to address the claims from Wes and Gavin about the textual differences being minor. Alex is claiming that over 1900 are different in meaningful ways. It’s reasonable to ask to see those meaningful changes
@@ChronoDegeneration False, the point of this video was about there being discrepancies at all. How did you miss this. And then the follow up video still avoiding admission to this.
This was awesome. Thank you. Watched the first video too. Appreciate you!!!
At 4:27 I looked at the list he displayed and specifically at the entries for variants to the Masoretic version. Every single one was what I would call a spelling difference, like how to spell Hezekiah in 1:1, or Davai vs Davah in 1:5. Anyway, it looks like this list indeed includes spelling variants, but I didn't go through the whole thing, I just happen to be able to read Hebrew and I was curious.
You just said ever single one was a spelling error and now say you didn't go through the whole thing??? Hmm
Interesting but please clarify. You said every single one was a spelling variant and then said that you didnt go through every single one
@@AngelGarcia-zr8nt Sure. I meant that every single one of the ones that I chose to look at were spelling variants (in my opinion.) I only looked at about ten, a sort of sample set. From this cursory look, it seemed apparent that this is a pattern that would likely continue through this list of many thousands of cases. Although it is possible that the sample set I chose is not characteristic of the entire manuscript, especially since I only looked at the first chapter, nonetheless, it was clear that the variants I saw in this sample set were what I would deem as spelling variants. Therefore, the assertion that this list does not include spelling or "orthographic" variants is incorrect, as even a single instance would have proved that.
@@garrett6076 “I only looked at about ten”, and concluded that the other 2700+ must (in your opinion) be the same..🤦♂️
@@cookiescraftscats what would be a fair sampling size to establish a likely pattern?
How many did you look at?
Yay! I was really hoping you would see Dr. Dan McClellan's response, Alex! It's great to see you speaking with him. 😊
Watching a bunch of Wes stuff, Alex stuff, the gavin response and comments under both from both sides. And maybe it's just my observation, but both Wes and Gavin just act more humble than Alex. That said, I still appreciate Alex' way of arguing compared to many of his atheist companions. Which becomes strikingly obvious in the comments. There is a lot of very nuanced and unaggressive critique under Alex' first video. Compare this to all the aggressiveness here, with brutal disrespectful attacks on Wes Huff and his character.
Let's just say: The fruits visible are preeeeetty different here.
Spot on, Alex is still attacking a guy who humbly admitted he should have said it differently, demanding 100% accurate speech from anyone is fruitless and egotistical
O próprio Wes admitiu que sua fala foi um erro,mas ele continua atacando e dizendo que ele está errado,mas pelo que vemos Alex concordou com ele no próprio vídeo.
The same problem exist in Islam too. Muslims claim that Quran has been protected perfectly but when you check deeply, you find versions where there is the same wovel pointing problem. It even goes even further, some letters and number of the verses are also different. Different wovel pointing and letter differences cause different meaning. Overall it doesn't cause major differences in meaning.
Yep difference is muslims believe allahs word cannot be changed period.
Christians believe that the ancient Jews did a really good job preserving prophetic texts.
Then you also have zaid ben thabit burning all the other variants of the quran so thats why they arent there.
@@Jayden-zq6fjYou are confusing personal copies (notes/diaries) with what the Qur'an is, which is understood to be primarily a multi-oral revelation. Putting pen to paper is a means of capturing what people recited and memorised. Orthography, typography and vowelising are all interesting sciences in textual fidelity, but they come second to what was in the hearts of the faithful who memorised the revelation as their primary vehicle of transmission. The remarkable manuscript fidelity of the Qur'an (27:00) reflects the conscious effort of memorisers and not vice versa.
If the scriptures are corrupt, Islam is corrupt. Because everything in the 7th century and allah saying to refer to the people of the book at the time, well we have the same book.
But also, the Quran is the unchanged word and their miracle. That is corrupted and the whole religion is corrupted as allah said he would protect it.. Christians, the Word is Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. Huge difference.
"Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples' is a good book to suss that out for regarding preservation.
Now, as for the bible. We do not claim such a thing like Muslims do. The overall message, is the same though. And this is what focus needs to be on. The overall message and if it changes. Because it shows someone being prophesised, and someone coming at a particular time in the texts, etc. And our books are written over thousands of years. Additionally, if you want to shock yourself a little. Here is some old English...
Here is a sentence as an example of old English is translated to Her is se sæd as an fordeman of eald Englisc.
As if this wouldn't change overtime with different words, such as different grammar, etc. Language develops over time.
Wrong.
@@Jayden-zq6fjThe Quran was primarily a recited text, and Arabic orthography wasnt standarized in the first few centuries of Islam.