Transcription
The Bible has been rewritten many times, and pieces of it have been excluded and are still being found right now. So what you're saying is that the firsthand source that you're talking about has been used. King James rewrote the Bible for a reason, and before our political systems were able to control the masses, religion controlled the masses. Religion was what was government.
This is a common claim from critics that the Bible has been rewritten many times, and because of this, it must have been corrupted to some degree. They also argue that since King James ordered the translation of the Bible, it must have been adjusted to suit political ambitions. Let's hear Cliff's response.
King James, in the early 1600s, did not translate the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. He didn't know the languages.
I'm not saying he did it himself. He was hired. He told someone.
Hebrew scholars and Greek scholars.
Right? Okay.
They did not change anything.
How do you know? Because I've studied the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament.
Do you know Hebrew?
I had to learn Hebrew and Greek in seminary.
The way that they taught it is that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. You raise a great question, which is why should we trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to give us accurate historical information? Hopefully, you have some tests, sir, that you use to determine historical reliability. Myself, I've got four tests. I use them on Suetonius, Herodotus, US history, Greek history, any history. Nothing sacred about my tests. Come up with your own. My four tests are: internal consistency. Meaning by that, are there contradictions within the text that point to massive confusion? When you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you'll notice a tremendous internal consistency. No contradictions. Different perspectives? Yes. Second test: literary style. "Once upon a time, in the land of Nod, wink and blink and nod took a boat ride." Obviously, that's fairy tale. It's not the literary style of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John use historical narrative like newspaper reportage as literary style. Third test: archaeology. Are we talking about Jesus in the island of Atlantis? No, we're talking about archaeologically verifiable Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Rome, Sea of Galilee. Fourth test. Come on, man. 2,000 years ago, in the first century, these guys write these gospels. I mean, have you ever played telephone? You whisper a secret in the ear of the person next to you. They whisper in the ear of the person next to them. Yes, I played that game. Yes, the secret's totally perverted. That is not how we have the gospels handed down to us. Sir, the gospels that we have today in English are based on over 5,200 Greek manuscripts, all agreeing to an infinitesimal degree. Sir, there is no document from antiquity that can even approach the New Testament gospels in manuscript evidence. So the overwhelming evidence is the gospels are accurate.