Farmer1906 said:

---

I am not an expect in ancient manuscripts. I am not trying to play one on TexAgs. But if we're painting the exclusion of Act 15:34 as some one-off mistake on some partial manuscript, then I think we're being somewhat dishonest.

Here are manuscripts that omit Acts 15:34 (thanks, AI):

• (Papyrus 74, 7th century): Omits the verse entirely. As a relatively early papyrus, it's a strong witness for omission.
• (Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century): Omits the verse. This is one of the oldest complete NT manuscripts and a primary Alexandrian witness.
• A (Codex Alexandrinus, 5th century): Omits the verse. Another key Alexandrian uncial.
• B (Codex Vaticanus, 4th century): Omits the verse. Widely regarded as one of the most reliable early witnesses.
• E (Codex Laudianus, 6th century): Omits the verse. This bilingual (Greek-Latin) manuscript is sometimes debated in variants due to its Western/Byzantine influences, but the apparatus consistently places it among omitters for this passage (no inclusion noted in sources like UBS or detailed variant lists).
• (Codex Athous Laurae, 8th/9th century): Omits the verse. A later uncial but aligned with early omission traditions.
• The Majority Text (Byzantine majority): The bulk of Byzantine manuscripts omit the verse, aligning with the overall Majority Text reading here. However, as noted, a minority of later Byzantine minuscules (e.g., some from the 9th century onward) do include variant forms, but these are secondary additions.

From my very basic understanding, these (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, & Alexandrinus) are some of the heaviest hitters when it comes to early manuscripts.

Regardless, I don't think the omission or addition of this verse impacts the reliability of the scripture or the church.

---

Like I mentioned earlier. I feel like this is a tool to create doubt and drive division. It's honestly inconsequential.

The Church is aware of the verses history. I'm sure it's noted.

Your soul does not hang in the balance.

FIDO95 said:

---

There is really nothing else that needs to be said.

---

To be completely transparent, I haven't watched this video.

Trent uses Gavin as a foil quite a bit, but in actual debates, Trent doesn't typically do well against Gavin.

I suspect Huff would wipe the floor with him because of his mastery of languages, which is an area Trent is pretty weak in.

------------

By happenstance (or maybe because X is watching), this popped up on my feed to address what I believe is the context of this video:

Here's a new article exposing an error Trent Horn (@counseloftrent) made in his debate with Anthony Rogers. The article shows why Trent's recent video only reinforces this error and why the error is a fatal flaw in his own Catholic position. https://t.co/Z7kGGd0oGI pic.twitter.com/liH2PK2SXM

— The Protestant Philosopher (@ProtPhilosopher) February 24, 2026

Trent goes down weird rabbit holes looking for new angles and I think this is one of those. It doesn't appear to hold up.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I think it's also most important to focus on the fact that peoples that were much more close to these text and the authors made the conscious decisions to preserve certain versions.

I found the notion ridiculous that we 2000 years later can dig up a random manuscript and say that the people who lived and breathe at this every day got it wrong with zero context as to why there is a difference.

Not to mention the fact you are quibbling over the most minor things.

It seems to be in the service of destroying the Bible as a whole rather than preserving it.

---

You are grossly misrepresenting how ancient manuscripts are viewed, and how they are viewed by different people.

In archaeology, sources are rated for their reliability

How close is the source to its origin?
How many of these agree with each other?
How can the bias of the source affect it's trustworthiness?
Do outside sources agree with this?

When you refer to finding a random manuscript, you're understating the body of knowledge. When you find a single manuscript that says one thing, but you have a dozen contemporaries from other places that say a different thing, you can reasonably conclude that the one is not accurate. The proliferation of the gospel followed a pathway of "spread the word to all", have them copy and spread it further. This free distribution of text actually does a much better job of preserving the original than does a tightly controlled distribution. When 10 copies were made, 5 went to Greece, 5 went to Egypt, the ability to introduce change by a single person is made much more difficult. Somebody in Greece may change something, and that may take root, but the other 4 copies that went to Greece are being copied by others who don't include that change, and the 5 in Egypt are being copied and distributed there as well.

The fact is that we have over 5000 copies of the gospel from the first few hundred years of Christianity, and over 16000 copies that predate the printing press. It isn't a "random manuscript", it's a plethora of contemporary sources that have drawn a consensus. Is it guaranteed accurate? Of course not, but it's certainly more reliable than the output of a relatively small group of decision makers 400 years later.

I'll also point out that the Septuagint, the Orthodox version of the Pentateuch, is the version that forms the cornerstone of every English translation.

Wes Huff discussing the accuracy of the Bible:
Video discussing the various versions of the Bible translations over time:
Video about the great schism. This is interesting because it discusses the theological differences that led to it, highlights the different focal points, the effect of politically founded changes had on theology, and is very relevant to this topic of theological originality: