p/christianity

How can we be sure the New Testament hasn't been heavily tampered with?

Comment With Your Hardest Questions About Christianity

Online vs Physical Church

Ben Shairo taking over TPUSA

Catholic here...

That’s a great question and one that has been asked for centuries. If the New Testament has been tampered with, then the foundation of Christianity would be shaky. But historical, textual, and logical evidence shows that the New Testament has been preserved with remarkable accuracy. Here’s why we can trust it: 1\. Unmatched Manuscript Evidence The New Testament is the most well-documented ancient text in human history. Over 5,800 Greek manuscripts exist, with more than 25,000 total manuscripts including translations. The earliest copies date within decades of the original writings, while most ancient texts have a 1,000+ year gap. For comparison, Homer’s Iliad (the second-best preserved ancient text) has only 1,800 manuscripts and a 400-year gap between the original and earliest copies. Plato’s writings? Only 7 manuscripts. Julius Caesar’s “Gallic Wars”? 10 manuscripts. New Testament? 25,000+ manuscripts. The sheer number of manuscripts allows scholars to cross-reference and detect any significant changes. And the result? The New Testament is over 99.5% textually pure. 2\. Early Church Fathers Quoted It—A Lot Before the printing press, books were copied by hand. But even if every manuscript were lost, we could reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament just from the writings of the early church fathers (1st-3rd centuries). Clement of Rome (AD 95), Ignatius (AD 108), Polycarp (AD 110), and others quoted extensively from the New Testament. These quotes match the manuscripts we have today. If someone tampered with the text, we’d see contradictions between the early writings and the later manuscripts—but we don’t. 3\. The Dead Sea Scrolls Prove God Preserves His Word Some argue that the Old Testament was changed over time, but then the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered in 1947) shattered that theory. These scrolls, dating from 250 BC to AD 70, contain books of the Old Testament. When compared to later manuscripts (like the Masoretic Text), they are nearly identical, showing 1,000 years of perfect preservation. If God could preserve the Old Testament without major corruption for over a millennium, why wouldn’t He do the same for the New Testament? 4\. The Cost of Fabrication Would Have Been Too High Let’s assume someone wanted to alter the New Testament. They’d need to: Track down and change thousands of manuscripts across multiple continents. Modify quotes in letters and writings from the early church fathers. Destroy all evidence of the original readings. But there’s zero historical record of this happening. And why would the early Christians—who were beaten, imprisoned, and killed for their faith—allow their sacred texts to be corrupted? Would men willing to die for the truth allow deception? 5\. The Message Itself Proves Its Authenticity If the New Testament had been tampered with, we’d expect: A political or financial agenda. Changes that remove hard-to-accept teachings or make Christianity more appealing. Edits that glorify the church leaders. But instead, we see: Honest, raw human failure (even the disciples are constantly messing up). Hard teachings (loving enemies, sacrificing everything for Christ). No glorification of the authors (Peter is called Satan, Paul confesses his sins, and none of the Gospel writers make themselves the hero). Why would fabricators make themselves look bad? That’s not how historical tampering works. 6\. Jesus Promised His Words Would Be Preserved Jesus Himself said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” – Matthew 24:35 I believe Godis real. If God is real (and Jesus is who He says He is), then He is powerful enough to protect His own Word from corruption. The reality is, the Old Testament isn’t just true—it’s essential. It sets the stage for Jesus, who is the fulfillment of its promises. Now, if someone argues, “Well, it’s just stories or mythology,” my response is simple: Then why does history keep proving it right? Archaeology confirms places, kings, and events the Bible recorded before history books did. The prophecies—written hundreds of years in advance—line up with precision. The moral and ethical laws of the Old Testament are the foundation of Western civilization. So, if nothing in the Old Testament is true, then why does reality keep aligning with it? Jesus validated it. History validates it. Reality validates it. Final Thoughts: If It Were Fake, It Would Have Collapsed By Now The New Testament has survived: 2,000 years of attacks, persecution, and attempts to destroy it. Scrutiny from historians, atheists, and critics trying to disprove it. Empires rising and falling—yet it remains unchanged. If the New Testament was heavily altered or corrupted, the evidence would be everywhere. But what we find instead is the most well-preserved, cross-verified, historically accurate document in existence. If God’s Word is still standing after everything, then maybe—just maybe—it was never in human hands to begin with. The real question isn’t whether it’s true—the real question is: Why do some people want so badly for it not to be true?

A very succinct answer, thank you!  How does Jesus saying some of this generation will still be alive before my return, work with us still waiting for him?

This is a great question that has been debated among theologians and scholars for centuries. The key verse you're referring to is Matthew 24:34, where Jesus says: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Some believe that "this generation" refers to the people alive at that time, and Jesus was speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Others believe that "this generation" refers not to Jesus' time but to the generation that will witness the end-time signs leading up to His return.  Some argue that "generation" (Greek: γενεά, genea) could refer to a kind of people rather than a time period.  In this view, Jesus meant that the Jewish people (or believers) would not disappear before His return. Alternatively, some suggest that He meant the wicked generation that rejects God would continue to exist until the end.  Another perspective is that prophecy in the Bible often has dual fulfillment—a near and a far application. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the partial fulfillment. The final fulfillment will happen in the end times before Jesus' ultimate return. Each interpretation has strengths and weaknesses, but the dual fulfillment view makes the most sense for many. It acknowledges that part of Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD, yet much of it remains for the future.  Another key point: Jesus also said in Matthew 24:36, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” We are still waiting for His return, and the exact timeline remains a mystery.

Not sure of the point being made here....my apologies...I know this is in the Christian pocha. Are you suggesting that people of the world should somehow be making allowances for the Jews because they have a close connection to God? If you are okay to look at some plain as day gaslighting...it might give you some perspective on how you might see these patterns quite often in the Bible. *"2. The purpose of this “blinding” was to open salvation to the Gentiles (non-Jews)* *"Paul is explicit about why this happened:* *“Through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”* For the most part, Paul is full on propaganda.....not a believable character in history....horrible person. Only mentioning this as it makes the gaslighting that much more obvious. So if the Jews did not 'trespass'....then no salvation for Gentiles....see how that works? *To make Israel jealous.*...how childish is that?? So instead of just welcoming the Gentile....God had to harden the Jews against Jesus....have Jesus tortured and murdered....then okay...now Gentiles get a shot at salvation.  Completely gaslighting. And this one is pretty obvious *"Christian theology **at its most biblical** says:* *God used Israel’s stumbling to save the world—and will still fulfill His promises to Israel."* This literally means....that God needed an excuse to save the world?  God could save the world?  But doesn't....and didn't even then. Yet here people are thousands of years later....*oh yeah....my boy will keep his promise....proper sure.* This kind of gaslighting is ubiquitous in the Bible....it is literally....brutal. My apologies...as this is quite likely uninvited criticism, and in the Christian pocha. However, I do hope it sheds some light on complex patterns. Peace.😇

(John 6:53-55) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." Novice Christian here i just wanted some understanding of this passage as quite a few disciples left Jesus after he said this. They took him literal and I was curious what is the true meaning of this passage is. Thanks!