So, Scribe A MISSED 1 Chronicles 19:18, chapters 20 through 29, 2 Chronicles in its entirety, and Ezra chapters 1 through 8 and began mid sentence in verse 9? Wow! And this is considered "trustworthy"? Did Scribe A have a Seeing Eye Dog?
What drivel. The Sinaiticus was written on parchment leaves and discovered not as a whole but as pieces (apparently in a waste basket). The discoverers of the Parchment didn't find the complete Old Testament so of course there are going to be missing parts of books
Wow very well done. I didn't know the scribe was that perverse as to leave out parts of the Bible like that! In the ancient Jewish scribe tradition, if a scribe made just a few mistakes, they had to start over again!
+Trisha Hamrick Hi, Trisha! Good questions. While 1 John 5:7 is an actual ancient change that was done, regarding the "Christological controversy" (who Jesus is), Mark 16:9-20 is different. Out of 620 Greek manuscripts with the passage, ONLY Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit those crucial words of the resurrection, concluding Mark's gospel. I may actually do a vlog just on that, to show you some really interesting stuff on the Codex Sinaiticus itself. My point on the second is this: If you are able to set aside Sinaiticus as not actually an ancient document, then the ONLY Greek "evidence" for removing Mark 16:9-20 is the Vaticanus. And that has been modified over the years, in addition (but I can't talk about that now). Again, excellent questions. Please, keep asking them!
+Truth Cries Out And there is more to that story, than even this. I hope to put this extra information in one or more videos, presented very simply. And I appreciate all prayer that I will handle this subject carefully, politely and properly, with actual regard to the evidence, wherever it goes. God bless you!
+David Daniels Please DO CONTINUE to show us "really interesting stuff" on your multiple points for presentation. It's like a breath of fresh air to someone like myself. I don't have the needed background to do this type of analysis. Plus having to wade through floods of repetitions of the same old refuted accusations swirling around the mention of any aspect of the KJB. Thank you for what you do. May God Bless.
I'm familiar with the kjv and I'm currently using the nkjv & esv primarily. Nothing against the kjv but I really appreciate this video series from this perspective. Most pro kjv just parrot abusive words rather than give some concrete reasoning when defending their position. God bless
Try the fact that the KJV took out all references to Tyrants, changed references to poisoners to witches and changed the seventh commandment from “thou shalt not take slaves” to “thou shalt not take (steal)”.
@@EdwinDekker71 Translation is a question of choices. Translators bring their own preconceptions to any text they translate and unfortunately “sanitisation” is very common in modern American translations where the original text was deliberately much cruder. The KJV had the same issues with sweeping the biblical condemnation of slavery under the carpet, hiding condemnation of tyranny and inserting witchcraft into texts where it wasn’t before (poisoner was translated as witch). All of those changes were directed by the patron of the translation, James I, who found the concepts “uncomfortable”. The only biblical author who was actually literate in Greek was Paul. Every other book is a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew which have issues with concepts that simply don’t translate well into Greek. That was one of the problems with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (along with a patron who didn’t want some things included - the earlier version of the King James problem). The Bible was significantly “massaged” between the first and third centuries with substantial additions and modifications to suit the “orthodoxy” of the time with a strong influence on the content by the Pauline community.
@@EdwinDekker71this shows your spirit. We aren’t saying we would do a better job than the translators. But it doesn’t mean we can’t call out mistakes when we see it.
Explaining the Godhead (Trinity) in basic terms: God is One. This One God is composed of three co-eternal persons. One God, Three Persons. And each Person is 100% God. Imagine a flower with three petals; imagine that if you remove one petal, that one petal is still fully the entire flower. That is the Trinity. One God, Three Persons. A Triune deity. The three persons of the Trinity are: God the Father: Righteous, Powerful, Impersonal. The first in the chain of command within the Trinity. The Abba/Adonai. He made himself understood to man through His Son. God the Word: The second person of the Trinity. Love, Peace and Reconciliation. He is the spoken Truth of God. The Voice (Memra or Logos) of God. In Genesis 3: 8 it is mentioned that Adam and Eve "...heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." Note this. They HEARD the VOICE of God WALKING in the garden. They heard the Word, the second person of the Trinity. The Word appears many times in the Old Testament in the form of christophonies (pre-Christ manifestations of the Word). He appears as Melchizedek/Melchisedec [[ (Hebrew: 'מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶֿק', "Malkī-ṣeḏeq"; Amharic: 'መልከ ጼዴቅ', "Malkīṣeḏeq"; Armenian: 'Մելքիսեդեք', "Melkisetek") the High Priest of God, who has "...no father or mother..." It is interesting to note that Melchizedek/Melchisedec is called the King of Salem. Now, Salem means Peace, "Shalom". So "King of Salem" is literally "King of Shalom/Peace". Jesus Christ is called the Prince of Peace. Also, Melchizedek/Melchisedec broke bread and drank wine with Abram in the OT. Jesus did the same thing in the New Testament. Also, "Melchizedek" means "King of Righteousness" (Hebrew: מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶֿק "Malkī-ṣeḏeq", "King of Righteousness"), a title of Christ ]]. In Genesis 14:18, he appeared as the Captain of the LORD's armies in the book of Joshua 5:13-14, and as the Angel of the LORD who appeared throughout the Bible [NOTE: when the Bible says "AN angel of the LORD", it is referring to a normal angelic being; either a Rav-Malakh (Archangel), Cherubim (a Cherub), Ophanim (Wheel), Chayot-HaKodesh (Living Creature), Erelim (Mighty One/Warrior), Elim (Heroes/Divine Council), Hashmallim (Heavenly Body), Seraphim (also called Ikisat, a Serpent. Satan was of this group), Malakim (Messenger), Bene-Elohim (Sons of God), Grigori (Watcher), Shinnanim (Angel of Mercy/Ministering), Tarshishim (Fiery Angel), Memitim (Destroyer/Angel of Death) or Ishim (a lesser angel akin to a divine human, known as Manlike Beings or Strangers). When it says "THE Angel of the LORD", it is referring to the christophony of the Word.] Note that the term "angel" can also mean "messenger". The Word also came in the form of the Burning Bush to speak to Moses, and as God Almighty (El-Shaddai) (since our God is "Esh-Okhla-El-Qanna", a "Raging Fire, Jealous God"). So, the Word came in many christophonies. But why did He, the glorious God, choose to come in these lesser lower forms? Simple. If He had come in the force of His true glory, he would have annihilated all living beings in his vicinity by the power of his sinless perfect righteousness; no living being can withstand his righteousness in full force. Hence, he came in lesser christophonies. His final form on the earth was in the form of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. The Word of God has two natures: a divine nature (Son of God/Lion) and a human nature (Son of Man/Lamb). The Four Cherubs (seen in Ezekiel 1: 5-11 and in Revelation 4: 6) that serve God each represent the four directions (North, South, East, West) and the Four Elements (Lion= Fire, Ox= Earth, Man= Water, Eagle= Air). The Four Cherubs also represent the four Spirits of the Spaces: Lamas (the South Wind. The half-man half-lion Guardian of the constellation Leo, associated with the month of August), Sed (the East Wind. Guardian of the constellation Taurus who takes the form of a bull with a man's head, associated with the month of May), Nattig (the West Wind. Guardian of the constellation Scorpio who takes the form of a man with the face, claws and wings of an eagle, associated with the month of November) and Ustur (the North Wind. Guardian of the constellation Aquarius who takes the form of a man, associated with the month of February. He is the oldest of the four). The Four Cherubs are also sometimes used as symbols for the Four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). The Four Cherubs also represent the various Families of the animal kingdom: the Lion (Wild Animals), the Ox/Calf/Cherub (Domesticated Animals), the Eagle (Birds) and the Man (Humans and Angels). One Family of animals (Reptiles, Insects and Aquatic Creatures) is missing. This is because the one that represented that group was cast down (the Covering Cherub/Anointed Cherub who is Satan). This is why Satan/Lucifer/Abaddon/Belial/Apollyon/Nephi/Aiwass/Moroni/Behemoth/Leviathan/Samyaza/Beelzebub/Metatron/Raziel/Mephistopheles is repeatedly called a dragon, serpent of the sea, beast of the land and "Lord of the Flies". The Four Cherubs also represent aspects of their Creator, Jesus Christ: as a King (the Lion, Gospel of Matthew), as a Servant (the Ox/Calf/Cherub, Gospel of Mark), as a Human (the Man, Gospel of Luke) and as a Deity (the Eagle, Gospel of John). God the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost: the third person of the Trinity. Comfort, Strength and Hope. He is sevenfold, being composed of seven spirits: the Spirit of the LORD, the Spirit of Wisdom, the Spirit of Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel, the Spirit of Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and the Spirit of The Fear of The LORD. (Isaiah 11: 2 and Revelation 3 as well as Revelation 5: 6) The sevenfold Holy Spirit rested on Jesus Christ (the Word made flesh) and is available to us if we seek God in the name of JESUS CHRIST. And this is the Trinity. One God, Three Persons. (Also, I find it interesting that the word "Godhead" appears 3 times in the Bible, and there are 3 Persons in the Godhead/Trinity.) The Three are One, and the One is Three. God is Triune, and the One True God. He always has been. Now, I will only ask you three questions: was Jesus lying when he said "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (John 14: 9)? Of course not! Jesus cannot lie! He is God! This statement (that Jesus is the Father) proves the concept of the Trinity (Godhead). Now, I want to draw your attention to one particular event: Jesus is in the Garden. He is praying to the Father. This moment is so beautiful and intimate, as it gives us a glimpse into the personal life of Jehovah God (the interactions within the Persons of the Godhead) since before time, space, matter or creation itself. If you are a follower of Oneness (Modalism), this entire event is a joke to you. It is just God changing "modes" or "forms", like a clown or pulcinella switching masks. This scene in the eyes of the Oneness Pentecostalist is a silly puppet-show, with God talking to himself like a madman as if trying to entertain the reader like a circus-bimbo. When you see this through the concept of the Trinity, this beautiful and intimate moment makes so much more sense. You cannot deny that God is One. But to say he is just "transitioning" to different modes or forms is to limit God into a little box of human understanding. Oneness doctrine was started because the followers of such doctrine could not understand the concept of One God who is Tripersonal. They could not understand it, so they attacked it and called it "polytheism!!!" And said things like "you're worshipping three gods!!!" Because they could not understand the unique plurality of the One True God (Jesus Christ). Believers in Oneness would rather follow the Monad of Islam than try to understand that "...there are Three that bear witness." You cannot deny the scriptures that confirm the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 8:6 2 Corinthians 3:17 2 Corinthians 13:14 Colossians 2:9 Isaiah 9:6 Isaiah 44:6 John 1:14 John 10:30 Luke 1:35 Matthew 1:23 Matthew 28:19 Matthew 3:16-17 John 14:16-17 Romans 14:17-18 Luke 3:21-22 Genesis 1:1-2 1 John 5:7-8 1 Peter 1:1-2 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 Ephesians 4:4-6 Colossians 1:15-17 John 14:9-11 Philippians 2:5-8 John 10:30-36 Jesus Christ was the Trinity (Godhead) in bodily form. So the third and final question would be: do you believe that God contradicts himself? "Let Us make Man in Our own image." May the peace and love of Jesus Christ (the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in bodily form) be with you always. God bless.
Maybe you shouldn't trust some guy making a video who doesn't know what he's talking about. He apparently doesn't know that the Sinaiticus doesn't contain the full Old Testament
Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/BurgonAlexandrian
@@jamessheffield4173 we assume it was put together for use in church services. This is the "best" explanation that KJVO's have and it's a rather weak argument.
Interesting video. If what you are saying is true, it would make the Codex Sinaiticus questionable. But the question is how questionable? How much does the manuscript alter the life of Jesus Christ to influence what a person would believe about him? In other words, what essential doctrine has been altered by scribe A's work that would change the readers understanding of who Jesus Christ is?
This guy won't take into consideration what was in front of the scribes to be translated, or what had possibly been lost from the complete text over the centuries.
I have a question for anyone, who can render an honest, true answer: Consider hypothetically that the Codex Sinaiticus is genuine, how would we know that the written order of the KJV scripture is not incorrect?
Honestly? Okay here it is: unless you did it yourself , you cannot %100 be sure of or know the truth about anything. Religious materials are in the top ten I think. That's why faith is so important. I two bibles actually but do I believe that it is % 100 accurate, nope. Lukely for me, I have solid 🪨 faith. 🙏
Rationalism leads to skepticism. Can you prove to me your even real?if you lead down that path you will end up like a silly atheist who believes everything came from nothing and evoloution which means things improve better out of nothing. Christians are the only ones who can believe in science or even do science because we believe God gives us laws like induction or the second law of thermodynamics. Read 1 corinthians 15 : 1-4 if you want to go to heaven after death. Otherwise its eternal hellfire for you.
"This is not the same as mine, therefore is not true" The thing about ancient manuscripts is that they help us to understand how religions form and adopt beliefs. Even if this is Incomplete, it is a good representation of what people in those ages related to when talking about religion. People looking for ways to reconciliate The Bible with The Codex Sinauticus are ignoring how much we know about the formation of religions, and just throwing aside important insight into their religion just because it makes them doubt what they believe to be the "true word of god"
Nah, it's just a bunch of malarkey. The guy is leaving out the fact that only fragments of some books of the Old Testament were discovered that made up the Sinaiticus
Is there any particular reason why you never posted the actual errors & transcribed them from the Koine Greek they’re written in to English? I’m supposed to just trust your word??? Nope, sorry, don’t work like that.
@@sylvaindorais-rr1yz Because warning signs use a red triangle. The Global Warning message inside the triangle says "God's wrath ahead, to avoid, follow Jesus.". You asked.
I dont know how i got here!!! I was searching for Sinusitis in youtube.. But i watch all the vídeo. I have a question what version of bible more trust?
I’m just looking for Bible that has ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek with both old and new testament with both Greek and Hebrew ancient texts combined into one initial book untainted by a misinterpretation or anything like that
Surely the Sinaiticus is famous for having only relatively few sheets of a probable 750 sheets as a copy of other very early manuscripts? It is well known that there are only a few pages of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, and the bifolios are mostly the work of two scribes. Modern translations are not based solely on the Sinaiticus…many other early manuscripts and texts are used, most of which are much older than the dark ages translations, and thus more reliable in determining what was originally written.
8 років тому
Apart from the KJV, I occasionally read the Geneva Bible (on my Android, not a physical copy). It is good for comparative study against the KJV, but I can see some of its flaws (Geneva Bible). The KJV is clearly the winner. There is a good video on UA-cam that explains how the KJV came into being. It was a documentary created by the BBC. Worth watching.
Okay, theres a few issues with your aruments here: 1. Your first point about the scribe missing out 24 chapters. Your assuming that those 24 chapters were present in the first place. What if they were later addtions in later bibles. Or they werent be in the copy he had, they weren't there. 2. Your trying to disprove earlier manuscripts based on later manuscript translations. That makes no sense. If anything the older ones would be more correct. You can't say the laters ones got this so the first one is wrong for not having it. 3. For example, you say Scribe A, is the guy that left out the story of the adultress woman and the guy who took away Joseph and changed it to his father. The only reason you believe it was there in the first place is because of texts much later containing it. Again that backwards. These manuscripts are much closer to the sources, so if they don't have it. It means later scribes added it. 4. You then cast aspersions, could he even read greek etc This is just blantant attempts at character assassination. Personally, I believe sinaiticus, vaticanus and others have major errors too. But later bibles had even more errors and interpolations. Sinaiticus and vaticanus don't even agree with themselves. We date Mark to around 70 AD but we don't have his text from 70 AD, we have copies of copies, centuries later translated to Greek. We have 50,000 manuscript fragments and no two agree. Its got to the point where i have to ask, just what the fcuik is this religion based on?
i guess that it goes to show that the Bible was not protected by God and that his so called WORD could be changed (since it obviously was) ..or we have to change the meaning to say that his WORD is what came out of His mouth and that we are left to play the whispering something to somebody in a circle game to end up with something that might be a bit different from what was originally spoken..if so..the the world needs a prophet that is close to God and has contact with Him to clarify the original word..and then lets consider the new testament where the original copiers were probably people that could not read or write (as they didnt have public education then as we know it)..and to take the documents to a government educated scribe meant death in the arena..and when brought to a Jewish scribe was rejected..
He is right. Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus too I might add) are not to be trusted on their own. If you read the writings of Augustine and Jerome who were alive roughly at the time that Sinaiticus is thought to have been produced you will see that they are constantly complaining about all of the bad copies of Scripture floating around in those days. For all we know Saint Jerome held Sinaiticus in his hands and said 'What the h*** is this?!" People need to understand that the main reason this thing probably survived is that no one ever used it because it was so badly done; and it just sat on a shelf for only God knows how long until it found its way to Saint Catherine's monastery where Tischendorf stumbled upon the monks using it for kindling.
So the KJVonliests are going a LITTLE wonky by claiming the Sinaiticus "changed" words from the KJV that was translated 1251 years later. First KJV 1611 AD. Codex sinaiticus was finished in 360 AD. ... Kinda seems more plausible that LATER versions added words rather than earlier versions like the Sinaiticus and Syrian texts "subtracting words that appeared later."
I don't really trust most people who teach anything about the Bible because they condone things from what I've seen. Their ears itch like mine have at times in my life, and I know that if I can't trust my flesh, no one else can except for Christ. Why do I believe in Christ? Because I've felt the Holy Ghost.
Interesting points, it's worth noting that the Sinaiticus is used for a broader textual criticism. Not to take that single codex as authoritative. That's what I would think anyway, wonder what scholars say about it
Not really that interesting. The guy is leaving out the fact that Sinaiticus is the largest complete collection of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Many of the leaves of the OT that Tischendorf (the guy who discovered them) went back for were either thrown out or burnt if memory serves me correct.
@@celestialworshipmx7480 it's possible. It's the ostrich head in the sand kind of thing that bothers me because the narrator didn't even mention that Sinaiticus doesn't claim to contain the entire OT
+COMB0RICO Great question! I didn't do any of that research. That is the researchers themselves. They use a form of handwriting analysis. They look for the particular ways they make the A (Alpha), D (Delta), L (Lamda), and other letters. They also look at the way they space the letters, the consistency of the size, shape, location, ... maybe size of the columns and how carefully they follow their margins. Handwriting experts today classify writing by the same method. Sometimes it is hard, and there are scholarly discussions of "who wrote what." But when the overall pattern is really consistent, they generally attribute that writing to a single person. Even a counterfeiter has a "signature" way of writing that is different from other people, if we know where to look. I hope this helps!
+David Daniels Sorry for the typo. I'm glad you could read through it. (I corrected it.) Thanks for your time. It would be interesting to see a chart outlining and color coding who the "experts" think wrote what. Just to get a visual of how many people worked on the Sinaiticus. Do you know if it is common for multiple scribes to share penmanship of Bibles? or books? or chapters? If so, what is the most common unit of an individual scribe workload, a book?
jhenningkelloggia You seriously need to study history and follow the behavior of the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11. They would not even accept the word of the Apostle Paul, but they went back and examined the scriptures to see if what he said was true. You should do the same! David Daniels may have sincere intentions, but he is sincerely deceived! Read my most recent post to this video. Chick publications has a track record of warped or embellished history.
+Lorral333 It is a so called "newly discovered" ancient manuscript of the Bible that overturned many scholars across the world to consider alternative readings that were formerly considered fallacious and untrue to the received biblical text. Because of the "discovery" of the Sinaiticus, newly translated bibles look completely different from older Bibles such as the KJV, the Dutch state translation, Luther's translation and practically anything from the old days. The reality the world is facing today is the fact that what people are using are not really Bibles. They are based on something completely different from what Christians have used for centuries.
+Hendrik @ the Dutch state translation. Sir it (Staten-Generaal van de Verenigde Nederlanden) is also a corrupt version (perversion) of Gods pure words.. Many Dutch bible believers (though there are very few to say the least) say it is the same as the KJV and even go further to state that it IS the KJV in Dutch which is a complete lie based on the (everyone Knows game) If you read the Dutch state bible you will clearly see the serious corruption which is why all Dutch speaking churches in our country are now COMPLETELY corrupt!.; Thank you
Yes I agree, what I said in my post was that the new Bibles take on a completely different form because of the Sinaiticus. The Dutch state Bible from the 1600's still avoided some Sinaiticus readings and therefore contained some receptus verses that all modern bibles would throw out today. I know that it changes Lucifer into morning star and a few other mistranslations, but it sounds like you know more than I do: PLESE DO TELL! I am very interested in this topic!
If you can't trust your own oldest original sources, then where do you draw your religion from? From your own preconceived idea of it? That's what the video sounded like
Sinaiticus is the oldest gospel. It means if it have any differences compare to the new one, it was later added up to the new gospel version. very simple.
+reg reja Sinaiticus is the reason we have that note in almost every Bible about Mark 16:9-20 not belonging in the Bible. You know, the part about Jesus appearing to His disciples, the Great Commission and His ascension into Heaven. That's 12 whole verses in the Gospel of Mark -the ending. Sinaiticus is not the "oldest" and it certainly is not the "best" manuscript. ua-cam.com/video/CInEMRgUcZ8/v-deo.html
All of the examples given in the video are from the gospels. But Westcott and Hort took the gospels from Vaticanus, not from Siniaticus. The reliability of Vaticanus is confirmed by the Bodmer Papyrus, which was found in 1952. This is a New Testament text consistent with Vaticanus, but written over a century earlier. I assume Daniels knows all of this since I'm getting it from the Metzger book that he claims to have read in Bible college.
You said->"All of the examples given in this video are from the gospels"? What exactly are you taking about? The 1st 3 min example of a teacher & student? Because nether 1.Chro.19:17 Nor Ezra.9:9 to end are Gospels, they aren't even N.T. material! This video was referencing the inattentive & more than likely deliberate negligent behavior of 'Scribe A' who is responsible for the 'vast majority of Sin Manuscript'. Not only "mindless carelessness in skipping" from 1.Chro.19:19 straight to Ezra.9:9 "while he was copying" it, but also negligent in "leaving out verses" like the adulterous woman, 1.Jn.5:7 & "adding" Joseph as the father of Jesus etc. All very important Biblical words & teachings, as "All Scripture is Inspired by God". The multitude of errors are clear proofs that 'Scribe A' was far from a professional, properly educated, & trained scribe, & was most likely a fraudulent scam artist.. Please re•watch & pay attention, or better yet watch the whole of the playlist, especially if your own biblical book is dependant on Sin Manuscript.
By "examples" I mean examples of modern translations corrupted by overreliance on Sinaiticus. The scholars who put together Nestle-Aland are of course aware of the carelessness of Scribe A. For this reason, a reading from Sinaiticus is very much second choice compared to a reading from Vaticanus. Sinaiticus as it exists today is not the work of one man. Over the past 2,000 years, Scribe A was corrected by a series of nine correctors.
Mr. Daniels you need to be more professional when presenting your case. Amateurish effort detracts from your credibilty. Good example is Chris Pinto's work. And you need not interject your name into every video. Makes you appear narcissistic. Other than that, good work.
@@ElCineHefe you're correct, in the original Greek, it literally translates word for word to..."God was the word"... because the Greek language is spoken slightly differently oh, and the people who translated it understood., nonetheless, no matter how you read it, it still has the same meaning..... What translation do you use? If it doesn't say something like that, then it doesn't resemble the original text
@@gospelslive1280 The simple, unmistakable ellipsis spans from John 1:1 to 1:2. The only grammatically correct reading of the third clause of 1:1 is, "And [with] God was the word." by its deliberate correspondence to the second clause immediately before it. Any other translation clashes with the ellipsis, emphasized within the parallelism formed by the first clause and verse 1:2.
Codex Sinaiticus predates everything by 1,000 years. That's your real Bible. It was read alongside Codex Sassoon, and Leningrad Codex. These are Greek speaking Jews. You've forgotten your heritage. The Jewish Codexs weren't even put together until late. The scribe was probably still using the Scrolls. Anything that's not included in the new testament onwards. I'm sorry. That's the real new testament. This is your link to Abraham. Least you break your people's covenant with G!d. Islam doesn't have this link. Be bless and praise the G!d of Abraham as he gave you this blessing. Just as he blessed Abraham.
Thanks for naming names so that everyone is on notice about the work of SIL, UBS and Wycliffe.
Jack McElroy keep tabs on them !
So, Scribe A MISSED 1 Chronicles 19:18, chapters 20 through 29, 2 Chronicles in its entirety, and Ezra chapters 1 through 8 and began mid sentence in verse 9? Wow! And this is considered "trustworthy"? Did Scribe A have a Seeing Eye Dog?
What drivel. The Sinaiticus was written on parchment leaves and discovered not as a whole but as pieces (apparently in a waste basket). The discoverers of the Parchment didn't find the complete Old Testament so of course there are going to be missing parts of books
I enjoy your videos, they are very educational. Thank you
Randy Eckman so many scholars I confronted on this...you can easily refute them if you go through this series and a playlist I have on it
Wow u cant mess with the OT!
Thanks for this information. Great Video!
Bottom line is they want us to think Jesus is less than our very Creator!
Great Stuff ! Brother , Keep Sounding the Alarm! on these perversion version Bibles!
I Love you Brother for Speaking the truth!
Fernando Screnci amen !
Excellent Information. Thank you for sharing this important news.
Wow very well done. I didn't know the scribe was that perverse as to leave out parts of the Bible like that! In the ancient Jewish scribe tradition, if a scribe made just a few mistakes, they had to start over again!
What I find interesting is *what* they cut out. For example, why cut out 1 John 5:7? And Mark 16:9 - 20? What's the logic behind that?
+Trisha Hamrick Hi, Trisha! Good questions. While 1 John 5:7 is an actual ancient change that was done, regarding the "Christological controversy" (who Jesus is), Mark 16:9-20 is different. Out of 620 Greek manuscripts with the passage, ONLY Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit those crucial words of the resurrection, concluding Mark's gospel. I may actually do a vlog just on that, to show you some really interesting stuff on the Codex Sinaiticus itself. My point on the second is this: If you are able to set aside Sinaiticus as not actually an ancient document, then the ONLY Greek "evidence" for removing Mark 16:9-20 is the Vaticanus. And that has been modified over the years, in addition (but I can't talk about that now).
Again, excellent questions. Please, keep asking them!
+Truth Cries Out And there is more to that story, than even this. I hope to put this extra information in one or more videos, presented very simply. And I appreciate all prayer that I will handle this subject carefully, politely and properly, with actual regard to the evidence, wherever it goes. God bless you!
+David Daniels Please DO CONTINUE to show us "really interesting stuff" on your multiple points for presentation. It's like a breath of fresh air to someone like myself. I don't have the needed background to do this type of analysis. Plus having to wade through floods of repetitions of the same old refuted accusations swirling around the mention of any aspect of the KJB.
Thank you for what you do. May God Bless.
Satan runs 90% of Christian scholarship. Daniels is clearing away the fog.
Daniels?
I will not change the doctrine of my savior !
I'm familiar with the kjv and I'm currently using the nkjv & esv primarily. Nothing against the kjv but I really appreciate this video series from this perspective. Most pro kjv just parrot abusive words rather than give some concrete reasoning when defending their position. God bless
Try the fact that the KJV took out all references to Tyrants, changed references to poisoners to witches and changed the seventh commandment from “thou shalt not take slaves” to “thou shalt not take (steal)”.
Nkjv uses alexandrian readings of certain verses. It's corrupt. Use AV/KJV
@@allangibson8494yeah you'd do a muuuuch better job than the KJV translators😂 proud much?
@@EdwinDekker71 Translation is a question of choices. Translators bring their own preconceptions to any text they translate and unfortunately “sanitisation” is very common in modern American translations where the original text was deliberately much cruder.
The KJV had the same issues with sweeping the biblical condemnation of slavery under the carpet, hiding condemnation of tyranny and inserting witchcraft into texts where it wasn’t before (poisoner was translated as witch). All of those changes were directed by the patron of the translation, James I, who found the concepts “uncomfortable”.
The only biblical author who was actually literate in Greek was Paul.
Every other book is a translation from Aramaic or Hebrew which have issues with concepts that simply don’t translate well into Greek. That was one of the problems with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (along with a patron who didn’t want some things included - the earlier version of the King James problem).
The Bible was significantly “massaged” between the first and third centuries with substantial additions and modifications to suit the “orthodoxy” of the time with a strong influence on the content by the Pauline community.
@@EdwinDekker71this shows your spirit. We aren’t saying we would do a better job than the translators. But it doesn’t mean we can’t call out mistakes when we see it.
Explaining the Godhead (Trinity) in basic terms:
God is One. This One God is composed of three co-eternal persons. One God, Three Persons. And each Person is 100% God. Imagine a flower with three petals; imagine that if you remove one petal, that one petal is still fully the entire flower. That is the Trinity. One God, Three Persons. A Triune deity.
The three persons of the Trinity are:
God the Father: Righteous, Powerful, Impersonal. The first in the chain of command within the Trinity. The Abba/Adonai. He made himself understood to man through His Son.
God the Word: The second person of the Trinity. Love, Peace and Reconciliation. He is the spoken Truth of God. The Voice (Memra or Logos) of God. In Genesis 3: 8 it is mentioned that Adam and Eve "...heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day."
Note this. They HEARD the VOICE of God WALKING in the garden. They heard the Word, the second person of the Trinity. The Word appears many times in the Old Testament in the form of christophonies (pre-Christ manifestations of the Word). He appears as Melchizedek/Melchisedec [[ (Hebrew: 'מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶֿק', "Malkī-ṣeḏeq"; Amharic: 'መልከ ጼዴቅ', "Malkīṣeḏeq"; Armenian: 'Մելքիսեդեք', "Melkisetek") the High Priest of God, who has "...no father or mother..." It is interesting to note that Melchizedek/Melchisedec is called the King of Salem. Now, Salem means Peace, "Shalom". So "King of Salem" is literally "King of Shalom/Peace". Jesus Christ is called the Prince of Peace. Also, Melchizedek/Melchisedec broke bread and drank wine with Abram in the OT. Jesus did the same thing in the New Testament. Also, "Melchizedek" means "King of Righteousness" (Hebrew: מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶֿק "Malkī-ṣeḏeq", "King of Righteousness"), a title of Christ ]]. In Genesis 14:18, he appeared as the Captain of the LORD's armies in the book of Joshua 5:13-14, and as the Angel of the LORD who appeared throughout the Bible [NOTE: when the Bible says "AN angel of the LORD", it is referring to a normal angelic being; either a Rav-Malakh (Archangel), Cherubim (a Cherub), Ophanim (Wheel), Chayot-HaKodesh (Living Creature), Erelim (Mighty One/Warrior), Elim (Heroes/Divine Council), Hashmallim (Heavenly Body), Seraphim (also called Ikisat, a Serpent. Satan was of this group), Malakim (Messenger), Bene-Elohim (Sons of God), Grigori (Watcher), Shinnanim (Angel of Mercy/Ministering), Tarshishim (Fiery Angel), Memitim (Destroyer/Angel of Death) or Ishim (a lesser angel akin to a divine human, known as Manlike Beings or Strangers). When it says "THE Angel of the LORD", it is referring to the christophony of the Word.]
Note that the term "angel" can also mean "messenger". The Word also came in the form of the Burning Bush to speak to Moses, and as God Almighty (El-Shaddai) (since our God is "Esh-Okhla-El-Qanna", a "Raging Fire, Jealous God"). So, the Word came in many christophonies. But why did He, the glorious God, choose to come in these lesser lower forms? Simple. If He had come in the force of His true glory, he would have annihilated all living beings in his vicinity by the power of his sinless perfect righteousness; no living being can withstand his righteousness in full force. Hence, he came in lesser christophonies. His final form on the earth was in the form of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. The Word of God has two natures: a divine nature (Son of God/Lion) and a human nature (Son of Man/Lamb). The Four Cherubs (seen in Ezekiel 1: 5-11 and in Revelation 4: 6) that serve God each represent the four directions (North, South, East, West) and the Four Elements (Lion= Fire, Ox= Earth, Man= Water, Eagle= Air). The Four Cherubs also represent the four Spirits of the Spaces: Lamas (the South Wind. The half-man half-lion Guardian of the constellation Leo, associated with the month of August), Sed (the East Wind. Guardian of the constellation Taurus who takes the form of a bull with a man's head, associated with the month of May), Nattig (the West Wind. Guardian of the constellation Scorpio who takes the form of a man with the face, claws and wings of an eagle, associated with the month of November) and Ustur (the North Wind. Guardian of the constellation Aquarius who takes the form of a man, associated with the month of February. He is the oldest of the four). The Four Cherubs are also sometimes used as symbols for the Four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
The Four Cherubs also represent the various Families of the animal kingdom: the Lion (Wild Animals), the Ox/Calf/Cherub (Domesticated Animals), the Eagle (Birds) and the Man (Humans and Angels). One Family of animals (Reptiles, Insects and Aquatic Creatures) is missing. This is because the one that represented that group was cast down (the Covering Cherub/Anointed Cherub who is Satan). This is why Satan/Lucifer/Abaddon/Belial/Apollyon/Nephi/Aiwass/Moroni/Behemoth/Leviathan/Samyaza/Beelzebub/Metatron/Raziel/Mephistopheles is repeatedly called a dragon, serpent of the sea, beast of the land and "Lord of the Flies". The Four Cherubs also represent aspects of their Creator, Jesus Christ: as a King (the Lion, Gospel of Matthew), as a Servant (the Ox/Calf/Cherub, Gospel of Mark), as a Human (the Man, Gospel of Luke) and as a Deity (the Eagle, Gospel of John).
God the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost: the third person of the Trinity. Comfort, Strength and Hope. He is sevenfold, being composed of seven spirits: the Spirit of the LORD, the Spirit of Wisdom, the Spirit of Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel, the Spirit of Might, the Spirit of Knowledge and the Spirit of The Fear of The LORD. (Isaiah 11: 2 and Revelation 3 as well as Revelation 5: 6)
The sevenfold Holy Spirit rested on Jesus Christ (the Word made flesh) and is available to us if we seek God in the name of JESUS CHRIST.
And this is the Trinity. One God, Three Persons. (Also, I find it interesting that the word "Godhead" appears 3 times in the Bible, and there are 3 Persons in the Godhead/Trinity.) The Three are One, and the One is Three. God is Triune, and the One True God. He always has been.
Now, I will only ask you three questions: was Jesus lying when he said "...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" (John 14: 9)? Of course not! Jesus cannot lie! He is God! This statement (that Jesus is the Father) proves the concept of the Trinity (Godhead).
Now, I want to draw your attention to one particular event: Jesus is in the Garden. He is praying to the Father. This moment is so beautiful and intimate, as it gives us a glimpse into the personal life of Jehovah God (the interactions within the Persons of the Godhead) since before time, space, matter or creation itself.
If you are a follower of Oneness (Modalism), this entire event is a joke to you. It is just God changing "modes" or "forms", like a clown or pulcinella switching masks. This scene in the eyes of the Oneness Pentecostalist is a silly puppet-show, with God talking to himself like a madman as if trying to entertain the reader like a circus-bimbo. When you see this through the concept of the Trinity, this beautiful and intimate moment makes so much more sense.
You cannot deny that God is One. But to say he is just "transitioning" to different modes or forms is to limit God into a little box of human understanding.
Oneness doctrine was started because the followers of such doctrine could not understand the concept of One God who is Tripersonal. They could not understand it, so they attacked it and called it "polytheism!!!" And said things like "you're worshipping three gods!!!" Because they could not understand the unique plurality of the One True God (Jesus Christ). Believers in Oneness would rather follow the Monad of Islam than try to understand that "...there are Three that bear witness."
You cannot deny the scriptures that confirm the Trinity:
1 Corinthians 8:6
2 Corinthians 3:17
2 Corinthians 13:14
Colossians 2:9
Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 44:6
John 1:14
John 10:30
Luke 1:35
Matthew 1:23
Matthew 28:19
Matthew 3:16-17
John 14:16-17
Romans 14:17-18
Luke 3:21-22
Genesis 1:1-2
1 John 5:7-8
1 Peter 1:1-2
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
Ephesians 4:4-6
Colossians 1:15-17
John 14:9-11
Philippians 2:5-8
John 10:30-36
Jesus Christ was the Trinity (Godhead) in bodily form. So the third and final question would be: do you believe that God contradicts himself?
"Let Us make Man in Our own image."
May the peace and love of Jesus Christ (the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in bodily form) be with you always.
God bless.
Wat if if i prove u, they r not one? Lets check ur sincerity nd consistency.. do reply me if u want to get schooled nd get refuted on ur hypocrisy
@@kobinhabung5703 LOL - John Chapter 8,especially vs 58 through the end.. Have you read it?
THIS IS A GREAT VIDEO! KEEP IT UP!
It's so clear. I can't believe everyone is so deceived. I don't trust Scibe A at all. I trust the Word of God!
Maybe you shouldn't trust some guy making a video who doesn't know what he's talking about. He apparently doesn't know that the Sinaiticus doesn't contain the full Old Testament
If only Mr Daniels information could be widely published these liars would be left in shame for the big fraud they support.
Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/BurgonAlexandrian
That's one mans opinion
@@MinisterRedPill If they had been used in church services for a thousand years they would have worn out long ago.
@@jamessheffield4173 we assume it was put together for use in church services. This is the "best" explanation that KJVO's have and it's a rather weak argument.
@@MinisterRedPill It can be objectively observed. A book you use every day will fall apart faster than one left on a shelf.
@@jamessheffield4173 Keeping in mind that these codecies survived as long as they did due to environmental factors, not based on usage.
Interesting video. If what you are saying is true, it would make the Codex Sinaiticus questionable. But the question is how questionable? How much does the manuscript alter the life of Jesus Christ to influence what a person would believe about him? In other words, what essential doctrine has been altered by scribe A's work that would change the readers understanding of who Jesus Christ is?
Great video. Now you have confirmed that I should not rust any religious books especially the bible
🤣🤣😂🤣😂😂👍🏽👍🏽 SMART MAN LOL
Such nonsense you come with, which demonstrates where you are coming from, unbelief.
Wow so edgy
This guy won't take into consideration what was in front of the scribes to be translated, or what had possibly been lost from the complete text over the centuries.
Please, watch the video again. It appears you missed the core
I have a question for anyone, who can render an honest, true answer:
Consider hypothetically that the Codex Sinaiticus is genuine, how would we know that the written order of the KJV scripture is not incorrect?
Honestly? Okay here it is: unless you did it yourself , you cannot %100 be sure of or know the truth about anything. Religious materials are in the top ten I think. That's why faith is so important. I two bibles actually but do I believe that it is % 100 accurate, nope. Lukely for me, I have solid 🪨 faith. 🙏
Rationalism leads to skepticism. Can you prove to me your even real?if you lead down that path you will end up like a silly atheist who believes everything came from nothing and evoloution which means things improve better out of nothing. Christians are the only ones who can believe in science or even do science because we believe God gives us laws like induction or the second law of thermodynamics.
Read 1 corinthians 15 : 1-4 if you want to go to heaven after death. Otherwise its eternal hellfire for you.
Simple, there is a lot of evidence from hundreds of manuscripts backing the received text
I think the internal consistency of the TR helps too.
6000+ traditional text manuscripts vs less than 50 alexandrian mss; the main alexandrian ones being Vaticanus and sinaiticus...
Genuine question. Are there other manuscripts with this same phenomena ?
5:12 Could Scribe A even read Greek? Is there enough material on this question to make a video? Thanks from Texas.
"This is not the same as mine, therefore is not true"
The thing about ancient manuscripts is that they help us to understand how religions form and adopt beliefs.
Even if this is Incomplete, it is a good representation of what people in those ages related to when talking about religion.
People looking for ways to reconciliate The Bible with The Codex Sinauticus are ignoring how much we know about the formation of religions, and just throwing aside important insight into their religion just because it makes them doubt what they believe to be the "true word of god"
Nah, it's just a bunch of malarkey. The guy is leaving out the fact that only fragments of some books of the Old Testament were discovered that made up the Sinaiticus
Relying on something faulty at the expense of hundreds of manuscripts agreeing internally, whatever fragment they represent, is voluntary folly.
Is there any particular reason why you never posted the actual errors & transcribed them from the Koine Greek they’re written in to English? I’m supposed to just trust your word??? Nope, sorry, don’t work like that.
Examples, please
I didn't trust Sinaiticus in the first place.
Was scribe A also responsible for 1John 5:7 in the King James?
Why a pyramid on your logo???
@@sylvaindorais-rr1yz Because warning signs use a red triangle. The Global Warning message inside the triangle says "God's wrath ahead, to avoid, follow Jesus.". You asked.
What’s you better source that you trust? Is it perfect?
Over 5000 manuscripts backing the received text
AV/KJV
I dont know how i got here!!! I was searching for Sinusitis in youtube..
But i watch all the vídeo.
I have a question what version of bible more trust?
The KJV
Comes from textus receptus
Hope this helps x
I’d put my money the on the KJV as well, and who knows maybe someone wanted you to end up on this video 😅
Did not know that. Thank you!
How do you not now that what is in the Bible was not added rather then skipped?
I’m just looking for Bible that has ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek with both old and new testament with both Greek and Hebrew ancient texts combined into one initial book untainted by a misinterpretation or anything like that
Why did the protestant 'Bible scholars' put their total faith in this spurious document??????????
WHATS THE POINT HERE ???
hello. can you please share the radiometric dating of pages of sinaiticus and of the books it has copied/shuffled?
Then what version do we read ???
KJV is probably the most accurate :)
AV/KJV
Excellent work 👊👊👊
What says the text you read for luke 2:48 in your Bible because i hear a lot of crap from you on Luke
Surely the Sinaiticus is famous for having only relatively few sheets of a probable 750 sheets as a copy of other very early manuscripts? It is well known that there are only a few pages of the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, and the bifolios are mostly the work of two scribes. Modern translations are not based solely on the Sinaiticus…many other early manuscripts and texts are used, most of which are much older than the dark ages translations, and thus more reliable in determining what was originally written.
Apart from the KJV, I occasionally read the Geneva Bible (on my Android, not a physical copy). It is good for comparative study against the KJV, but I can see some of its flaws (Geneva Bible). The KJV is clearly the winner. There is a good video on UA-cam that explains how the KJV came into being. It was a documentary created by the BBC. Worth watching.
Okay, theres a few issues with your aruments here:
1. Your first point about the scribe missing out 24 chapters. Your assuming that those 24 chapters were present in the first place. What if they were later addtions in later bibles. Or they werent be in the copy he had, they weren't there.
2. Your trying to disprove earlier manuscripts based on later manuscript translations. That makes no sense. If anything the older ones would be more correct. You can't say the laters ones got this so the first one is wrong for not having it.
3. For example, you say Scribe A, is the guy that left out the story of the adultress woman and the guy who took away Joseph and changed it to his father. The only reason you believe it was there in the first place is because of texts much later containing it. Again that backwards. These manuscripts are much closer to the sources, so if they don't have it. It means later scribes added it.
4. You then cast aspersions, could he even read greek etc This is just blantant attempts at character assassination.
Personally, I believe sinaiticus, vaticanus and others have major errors too. But later bibles had even more errors and interpolations. Sinaiticus and vaticanus don't even agree with themselves. We date Mark to around 70 AD but we don't have his text from 70 AD, we have copies of copies, centuries later translated to Greek. We have 50,000 manuscript fragments and no two agree. Its got to the point where i have to ask, just what the fcuik is this religion based on?
SINaiticus. The first 3 letters are enough to describe it's purpose.
Great argument
This is stupid. So Moses who received the Torah on Mt. Sinaiticus was learning to sin from God? Do you people even think?
@@Xristophero Nothing was said about Moses receiving the Tohah on Mt. Sinai. The video is about the corrupted Codex SINaiticus.
Wow!
Funny you say that, the other one codex Vaticanus, look at those last 4 letters 👀
i guess that it goes to show that the Bible was not protected by God and that his so called WORD could be changed (since it obviously was) ..or we have to change the meaning to say that his WORD is what came out of His mouth and that we are left to play the whispering something to somebody in a circle game to end up with something that might be a bit different from what was originally spoken..if so..the the world needs a prophet that is close to God and has contact with Him to clarify the original word..and then lets consider the new testament where the original copiers were probably people that could not read or write (as they didnt have public education then as we know it)..and to take the documents to a government educated scribe meant death in the arena..and when brought to a Jewish scribe was rejected..
sounds like "scribe A" didn't know what he was copying.
He is right. Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus too I might add) are not to be trusted on their own. If you read the writings of Augustine and Jerome who were alive roughly at the time that Sinaiticus is thought to have been produced you will see that they are constantly complaining about all of the bad copies of Scripture floating around in those days. For all we know Saint Jerome held Sinaiticus in his hands and said 'What the h*** is this?!" People need to understand that the main reason this thing probably survived is that no one ever used it because it was so badly done; and it just sat on a shelf for only God knows how long until it found its way to Saint Catherine's monastery where Tischendorf stumbled upon the monks using it for kindling.
Worse than that.
Mr Daniels presents documentation in another video pointing to Sinaiticus being a fraud, written on the eighteenth century.
who made Codex Sinaiticus rome?
So the KJVonliests are going a LITTLE wonky by claiming the Sinaiticus "changed" words from the KJV that was translated 1251 years later.
First KJV 1611 AD. Codex sinaiticus was finished in 360 AD. ... Kinda seems more plausible that LATER versions added words rather than earlier versions like the Sinaiticus and Syrian texts "subtracting words that appeared later."
interesting
I don't really trust most people who teach anything about the Bible because they condone things from what I've seen. Their ears itch like mine have at times in my life, and I know that if I can't trust my flesh, no one else can except for Christ. Why do I believe in Christ? Because I've felt the Holy Ghost.
Which Bible is the best?
The King James Bible is God's Word, the only Bible that has remained in the Public Domain and in the hands of the people.
Interesting points, it's worth noting that the Sinaiticus is used for a broader textual criticism. Not to take that single codex as authoritative. That's what I would think anyway, wonder what scholars say about it
Not really that interesting. The guy is leaving out the fact that Sinaiticus is the largest complete collection of the New Testament, not the Old Testament. Many of the leaves of the OT that Tischendorf (the guy who discovered them) went back for were either thrown out or burnt if memory serves me correct.
@@stylicho Yeah, maybe he's just a King James only guy trying to discredit the earlier manuscripts
@@celestialworshipmx7480 it's possible. It's the ostrich head in the sand kind of thing that bothers me because the narrator didn't even mention that Sinaiticus doesn't claim to contain the entire OT
@@stylichono, this is not the point.
Bro. Daniels shows how the scribe continued writing missing big chunks, not about missing pages.
very interesting.
How do we know the same dude (Scribe A) wrote 1 Chron-ezra and most of Sinaiticus?
+COMB0RICO Great question! I didn't do any of that research. That is the researchers themselves. They use a form of handwriting analysis. They look for the particular ways they make the A (Alpha), D (Delta), L (Lamda), and other letters. They also look at the way they space the letters, the consistency of the size, shape, location, ... maybe size of the columns and how carefully they follow their margins. Handwriting experts today classify writing by the same method. Sometimes it is hard, and there are scholarly discussions of "who wrote what." But when the overall pattern is really consistent, they generally attribute that writing to a single person. Even a counterfeiter has a "signature" way of writing that is different from other people, if we know where to look.
I hope this helps!
+David Daniels Sorry for the typo. I'm glad you could read through it. (I corrected it.) Thanks for your time.
It would be interesting to see a chart outlining and color coding who the "experts" think wrote what. Just to get a visual of how many people worked on the Sinaiticus. Do you know if it is common for multiple scribes to share penmanship of Bibles? or books? or chapters? If so, what is the most common unit of an individual scribe workload, a book?
Me thinks the speaker has an axe to grind.
I thought the adulterous woman was excluded in other manuscripts as well. Of course there are other issues.
Vaticanus you mean?
majority text Bibles only for me please. Critical text Westcott Hort Bibles are garabage. Thanks for your work Mr. Daniels.
I don't trust any copy of the original autographs. And, no, you can not prove your assertion.
Thank you !!!
good job
jhenningkelloggia
You seriously need to study history and follow the behavior of the Bereans in Acts 17:10-11. They would not even accept the word of the Apostle Paul, but they went back and examined the scriptures to see if what he said was true. You should do the same! David Daniels may have sincere intentions, but he is sincerely deceived! Read my most recent post to this video. Chick publications has a track record of warped or embellished history.
ive watched must o your stuff now you really need to watch how you handle the books if you treat them well they will last much longer
What is a Sinaiticus?
+Lorral333 It is a so called "newly discovered" ancient manuscript of the Bible that overturned many scholars across the world to consider alternative readings that were formerly considered fallacious and untrue to the received biblical text.
Because of the "discovery" of the Sinaiticus, newly translated bibles look completely different from older Bibles such as the KJV, the Dutch state translation, Luther's translation and practically anything from the old days.
The reality the world is facing today is the fact that what people are using are not really Bibles. They are based on something completely different from what Christians have used for centuries.
Well I only use the Geneva, or the KJV, because the KJV came off of the Geneva, but I still prefer the KJV.
+Hendrik @ the Dutch state translation. Sir it (Staten-Generaal van de Verenigde Nederlanden) is also a corrupt version (perversion) of Gods pure words.. Many Dutch bible believers (though there are very few to say the least) say it is the same as the KJV and even go further to state that it IS the KJV in Dutch which is a complete lie based on the (everyone Knows game) If you read the Dutch state bible you will clearly see the serious corruption which is why all Dutch speaking churches in our country are now COMPLETELY corrupt!.; Thank you
Yes I agree, what I said in my post was that the new Bibles take on a completely different form because of the Sinaiticus. The Dutch state Bible from the 1600's still avoided some Sinaiticus readings and therefore contained some receptus verses that all modern bibles would throw out today. I know that it changes Lucifer into morning star and a few other mistranslations, but it sounds like you know more than I do: PLESE DO TELL!
I am very interested in this topic!
Isn't it time for a NEW TRANSLATION?
I would rather trust a source closest to Jesus than any Bible today
Jesus never existed lol 😂 your ancestors were given that name by force by their enemies
A believer is closer to Jesus than a Catholic or a Gnostic (almost indistinguishable in early centuries)
I am convinced that codex Cinaiticus is likely to be a forgery .
look at it the other way. some one just add what the kind wanted.
I believe you can only trust the Holy Spirit, coz He has never fail me yet.p
NKJV is the best translation.
if only jesus kept a journal...
I believe you sir
The name jesus appeared in the so-called 1770s, this a fake character lol 😂
If you can't trust your own oldest original sources, then where do you draw your religion from? From your own preconceived idea of it? That's what the video sounded like
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂👀
Sinaiticus is the oldest gospel. It means if it have any differences compare to the new one, it was later added up to the new gospel version. very simple.
+reg reja Sinaiticus is the reason we have that note in almost every Bible about Mark 16:9-20 not belonging in the Bible. You know, the part about Jesus appearing to His disciples, the Great Commission and His ascension into Heaven.
That's 12 whole verses in the Gospel of Mark -the ending.
Sinaiticus is not the "oldest" and it certainly is not the "best" manuscript.
ua-cam.com/video/CInEMRgUcZ8/v-deo.html
Chicktracts what bible can we use
@@mysteryandmeaning297 there is only one Bible. The KJB. Trust no other.
All of the examples given in the video are from the gospels. But Westcott and Hort took the gospels from Vaticanus, not from Siniaticus. The reliability of Vaticanus is confirmed by the Bodmer Papyrus, which was found in 1952. This is a New Testament text consistent with Vaticanus, but written over a century earlier. I assume Daniels knows all of this since I'm getting it from the Metzger book that he claims to have read in Bible college.
You said->"All of the examples given in this video are from the gospels"? What exactly are you taking about? The 1st 3 min example of a teacher & student? Because nether 1.Chro.19:17 Nor Ezra.9:9 to end are Gospels, they aren't even N.T. material! This video was referencing the inattentive & more than likely deliberate negligent behavior of 'Scribe A' who is responsible for the 'vast majority of Sin Manuscript'. Not only "mindless carelessness in skipping" from 1.Chro.19:19 straight to Ezra.9:9 "while he was copying" it, but also negligent in "leaving out verses" like the adulterous woman, 1.Jn.5:7 & "adding" Joseph as the father of Jesus etc. All very important Biblical words & teachings, as "All Scripture is Inspired by God". The multitude of errors are clear proofs that 'Scribe A' was far from a professional, properly educated, & trained scribe, & was most likely a fraudulent scam artist.. Please re•watch & pay attention, or better yet watch the whole of the playlist, especially if your own biblical book is dependant on Sin Manuscript.
By "examples" I mean examples of modern translations corrupted by overreliance on Sinaiticus. The scholars who put together Nestle-Aland are of course aware of the carelessness of Scribe A. For this reason, a reading from Sinaiticus is very much second choice compared to a reading from Vaticanus. Sinaiticus as it exists today is not the work of one man. Over the past 2,000 years, Scribe A was corrected by a series of nine correctors.
Not as clean cut.
Many bladder about both
Scribe b, Tichendorf
Scribe A
A for apprentice. 😅
youre distorting your own mind...if you do noy trust them do it by your self...period
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
.?
Not concrete
There’s a reason you’re on this video, you’re searching right?
@@babycortez4036 yup researching about byzantin and alexandrian facts.
What a load of nonsense
Mr. Daniels you need to be more professional when presenting your case. Amateurish effort detracts from your credibilty. Good example is Chris Pinto's work. And you need not interject your name into every video. Makes you appear narcissistic. Other than that, good work.
All mythology anyway, like q anon, same thing
Like that your other Bibles are trusted!
Lmao can’t trust you. You’re not a reliable source
I always laugh when I see the ridiculous English translation of John 1:1. The "scholar" butchered that verse into an entirely different religion.
What do you mean?
@@gospelslive1280 It doesn't say, "And the word was God."
It's an idiotic translation.
@@ElCineHefe you're correct, in the original Greek, it literally translates word for word to..."God was the word"... because the Greek language is spoken slightly differently oh, and the people who translated it understood., nonetheless, no matter how you read it, it still has the same meaning.....
What translation do you use? If it doesn't say something like that, then it doesn't resemble the original text
@@ElCineHefe how many bibles have you translated?
@@gospelslive1280 The simple, unmistakable ellipsis spans from John 1:1 to 1:2.
The only grammatically correct reading of the third clause of 1:1 is, "And [with] God was the word." by its deliberate correspondence to the second clause immediately before it.
Any other translation clashes with the ellipsis, emphasized within the parallelism formed by the first clause and verse 1:2.
biblesAreONLYbooks
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Codex Sinaiticus predates everything by 1,000 years. That's your real Bible. It was read alongside Codex Sassoon, and Leningrad Codex. These are Greek speaking Jews. You've forgotten your heritage. The Jewish Codexs weren't even put together until late. The scribe was probably still using the Scrolls. Anything that's not included in the new testament onwards. I'm sorry. That's the real new testament. This is your link to Abraham. Least you break your people's covenant with G!d. Islam doesn't have this link. Be bless and praise the G!d of Abraham as he gave you this blessing. Just as he blessed Abraham.
Thank you ❤